I'm sure you've heard by now about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at the United Nations World Conference Against Racism. (Full text here.) It's not really what I want to talk about here - there's much to be said about his remarks on Israel, which went far beyond criticism of its policies and into full-on anti-Semitism, but instead I'd like to discuss the role of the U.S. in this conference, or rather the lack of a U.S. role in this conference.
The United States, along with Israel and eight other countries, boycotted the conference, which took place earlier this week, because of statements in the draft resolution regarding Israel's treatment of Palestinians1 and because of the hostile atmosphere of the last UN racism conference in Durban, South Africa in 2001, which singled out Israel for criticism and described Zionism as racism. (Delegates from 23 other countries later walked out during Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech.) According to President Obama, "our participation would have involved putting our imprimatur on something that we just don’t believe."
The United States, along with Israel and eight other countries, boycotted the conference, which took place earlier this week, because of statements in the draft resolution regarding Israel's treatment of Palestinians1 and because of the hostile atmosphere of the last UN racism conference in Durban, South Africa in 2001, which singled out Israel for criticism and described Zionism as racism. (Delegates from 23 other countries later walked out during Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech.) According to President Obama, "our participation would have involved putting our imprimatur on something that we just don’t believe."
There are two ways to interpret this statement. One, the one he meant: we do not wish to lend legitimacy to the statements of people like Mr. Ahmadinejad. The other: we do not believe in the legitimacy of such conferences.
I honestly believe that he intended the first. As a candidate and as president, he's already shown more willingness to resolve things by diplomacy than by war. But there's a subtext that I don't like that's closer to the second. American opinion of the UN is very, very mixed, and particularly among conservatives, one common opinion holds that we should not participate at all. (Most recently, this attitude has manifested in the opposition to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child - lovely irony when these are the same people going on about protecting unborn children. See also: War in Iraq, to say nothing of the Convention Against Torture.)
It's not an exaggeration to say that America is by far the most powerful country in the world. Doesn't it seem reasonable to suggest that instead of boycotting an important UN conference, we attend and support Israel? Isn't it at least plausible that if the U.S. attended, American diplomats could, you know, exert pressure on the other members to treat Israel even-handedly?
Because really, how does boycotting help? The Soviet Union boycotted the Security Council in 1950 and lost their chance to dissent from the unanimous vote condemning Communist aggression. The United States boycotts in 2009 and makes the consensus for Israel and against anti-Semitism that much weaker. It doesn't change anyone's opinion or anyone's policy because it's not a contribution to the discussion - it's a lack of one. It just shows an unwillingness to carry on a dialogue with other countries. And that's a conservative position that I don't think the president wants to or ought to take.
I honestly believe that he intended the first. As a candidate and as president, he's already shown more willingness to resolve things by diplomacy than by war. But there's a subtext that I don't like that's closer to the second. American opinion of the UN is very, very mixed, and particularly among conservatives, one common opinion holds that we should not participate at all. (Most recently, this attitude has manifested in the opposition to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child - lovely irony when these are the same people going on about protecting unborn children. See also: War in Iraq, to say nothing of the Convention Against Torture.)
It's not an exaggeration to say that America is by far the most powerful country in the world. Doesn't it seem reasonable to suggest that instead of boycotting an important UN conference, we attend and support Israel? Isn't it at least plausible that if the U.S. attended, American diplomats could, you know, exert pressure on the other members to treat Israel even-handedly?
Because really, how does boycotting help? The Soviet Union boycotted the Security Council in 1950 and lost their chance to dissent from the unanimous vote condemning Communist aggression. The United States boycotts in 2009 and makes the consensus for Israel and against anti-Semitism that much weaker. It doesn't change anyone's opinion or anyone's policy because it's not a contribution to the discussion - it's a lack of one. It just shows an unwillingness to carry on a dialogue with other countries. And that's a conservative position that I don't think the president wants to or ought to take.
1. Brian has already written about another troubling aspect of the draft. Also note that neither of these statements made the final resolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We welcome your comments. Differing opinions are great, but please be intelligent. Snark is great, but please be respectful.