A bitter and divisive farce

  Hussein Solomon

Racism, xenophobia, religious persecution, homophobia and other forms of intolerance continue to plague the human condition in the twenty-first century and it is a positive step when the United Nations takes the lead to curb such intolerance. The first attempt at the UN Anti-Racism conference, however, ended in abject failure in 2001 in Durban when some delegates tried to introduce language defining Zionism as racism. Delegates re-convened in April 2009 in Geneva to reflect on the progress made in countering racism and related intolerance since that Durban conference.

Unfortunately, Geneva failed once again to achieve its own objectives. The first failure was to have this anti-racism conference run by some of the world's worst human rights violators--Libya and Iran--an absurdity that only the UN could achieve. The way was then paved for Israel to once more be the target while the human rights records of the likes of Tripoli and Tehran could escape the glare of public attention. Recognizing the direction the Geneva conference was taking, states like the US, Israel, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada and New Zealand all boycotted. If one adds to these the 30 states that walked out while Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad was on the podium, the conference lost its universality and with it, its credibility.

The second mistake was to have Ahmadinezhad speak. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed regret that the conference had been misused by the Iranian president for political purposes. What did he expect--that Ahmadinezhad was going to make use of the opportunity to speak the message of peace, tolerance, understanding and compassion? In order to save his bacon, the good secretary-general stated that before the speech he met with Ahmadinezhad and urged him to give a balanced and constructive contribution to the conference. If anything, this statement only exposes the secretary-general's naivete and provides a good argument why he should only remain at the helm of the world body for one term.

The Iranian president predictably used this international platform afforded to him to attack Israel, referring to it as racist. He also spoke of a worldwide Zionist conspiracy, thus echoing such anti-Semitic texts as the Twelve Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The fact that those who did not walk out during his tirade cheered him on, proved the hapless Ban Ki-moon correct when he said that the Iranian president's speech was used "to accuse, divide and even incite". Spot on, Mr. Secretary-General, but pity you did not see this coming.

Ahmadinezhad's speech set the tone for the duration of the conference, with the Syrian and Qatari representatives talking about Israeli racism, while other Muslim leaders wanted to criminalize insults to Islam. Politely forgotten in this discourse were two important points. First, that Muslims insult their own religion by morphing their peaceful and beautiful faith into one preaching hatred against the other. Second, that Muslim leaders manipulate the articles of faith in order to cling to power while oppressing their fellow Muslim citizens.

Like Durban, Geneva proved to be a bitter and divisive farce, far from curbing intolerance and acting as a vehicle to bring humanity together. All it did was appeal to the most base and primitive instinct--hatred of the other. Geneva proved that the UN cannot be trusted to promote the cause of tolerance and non-discrimination when it is hijacked by some of the world's most vicious human rights violators. Clearly a new structure is necessary to promote universal human rights norms. - Published 7/5/2009 © bitterlemons-international.org

Professor Hussein Solomon lectures in the Department of Political Sciences at the University of Pretoria, South Africa.