An Unacceptable Bargain. The preliminary document drafted by the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations “Durban II” Conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and intolerance does not honor the countries that have agreed to participate. This is despite their pretext of negotiating a “softened” version.
Chaired by Libya, with Iran assisting in the vice-presidency, the work of this Committee has resulted in a revised text whose main orientations are still radically opposed to many essential Western values. To the extent that it has led the United States, Canada, Israel, and Italy to boycott this meeting scheduled for April 20-24 in Geneva. The European Union, meanwhile, maintains its participation in anticipation of the final session of the Preparatory Committee, announced for the week of April 15.
In this context, should we really celebrate the fact that the discussions have led to the removal of the reference to the “defamation” of religions, a notion replaced after tough negotiations by the Europeans, with the one that penalizes “only” “incitement to religious hatred”? By diverting the fundamental principle of freedom to believe, the initial text sought to formalize a crime of blasphemy in total contradiction with the freedom of conscience contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which we have just celebrated the sixtieth anniversary of. However, the new formula is hardly better and leaves the door open to all sorts of freedom-killing interpretations. How can one conceive and accept afterward, the very idea that it was necessary to “fight hard”, again according to Western diplomats, to remove several paragraphs that systematically stigmatized Israel and institutionalized de facto anti-Semitism under the guise of a critical examination of its foreign policy? How can one ultimately justify the Western concession to abandon the mention of “discrimination related to sexual orientation” or certain “women’s rights” in exchange for the guarantee of obtaining the assent of countries that reject the universality of human rights in favor of exacerbated communitarianism, in the name of “cultural specificities” that allow them to better discriminate among categories of citizens?
In these times of crisis that legitimately agitate human sensitivity about ethical values – we see it daily with the issue of bonuses and stock options – the intangible respect and relentless promotion of these values should instead serve, if not, accompany the advent of a new international society advocated by the world’s leaders. Unfortunately, human rights, a symbolic bastion of the UN and an inalienable beacon for the citizen, risk becoming an instrument in the hands of states imbued with an outdated and manipulated anti-colonialism for the purposes of politically controlling popular frustrations. It is in this light that the president of the United Nations General Assembly, the Sandinista priest and former Nicaraguan foreign minister, has both accused the International Criminal Court of “racism” for demanding the arrest of the Sudanese president and defended the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose denialist ideas and the veracity of his words on his desire to “wipe Israel off the map” he has questioned. Western representatives are betting on the appointment of Miguel d’Escoto’s successor, who will probably be Libyan. Not exactly reassuring.
And since one must always sweep in front of one’s door: the “permanent contradiction between human rights and the foreign policy of a state, even in France” recently stated by a French foreign minister, who additionally acknowledged the “mistake” of appointing a Secretary of State for Human Rights, does not represent a message full of hope in this matter.
