Durban II and Obama’s Foreign Policy Mantra
Here is the transcript (prepared unofficially) of the conference call between the acting assistant secretary of state and this powerful constituency that the Obama administration wants to please. As Durban II and the Human Rights Council elections fast approach, the question remains: will the administration cater to them?
———————–
On the conference call, February 27, 2009:
- Karen Stewart, Acting Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
- Peter Timko, The Arab-American Institute
- [T.] Kumar, Amnesty International
- Paula Schriefer, Freedom House
- Peggy Hicks, Human Rights Watch
- [Jamil Dakwar], American Civil Liberties Union
- William H. Luers, United Nations Association -USA
- Steve Dimoff, United Nations Association – USA
- Susan Myers, UN Foundation
- Eric [Tars], National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty
- L. Bennett Graham, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
- Ken [Wollack], National Democratic Institute
- AFL-CIO Solidarity Center
- Democracy Coalition Project
and a handful of others.
Ambassador Karen Stewart
I am the Acting Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. I’m very glad we managed to get you all on the phone. I have been asked to give you the latest in the administration’s thinking on the Human Rights Council and on the Durban Review Conference. Let me make some points and then I would be happy for comments and questions.
With regard to Durban — consistent with President Obama’s commitment to change direction — the US sent a strong and credible delegation to negotiate in good faith on the “Outcome Document” [ed. draft of Durban II declaration]. As part of the mission — there to assess state of play — we met with over 30 delegations and the High Commissioner for Human Rights and other interested parties. Our engagement was warmly welcomed, and we appreciated that welcome, and we also consulted with many governments and capitals on their efforts. The delegation came back and we have been discussing the process to date with them, and considering what has gone on there, and concluded that the current text is not salvageable and consequently we will not participate on further negotiations and further not participate in conference on that text. We would be prepared for an Outcome Document that was much shortened, with a constructive affirmative approach to race, tackling the challenges of racism, and not unequivocally reaffirming the Durban program of action, no references to one country or a single conflict, defamation of religions, and does not go further than Durban [ed. Declaration] on reparations for slavery. We will observe developments and in capitals to see if such a document emerges and we will reengage if such a document does emerge. I know that many of you may have favored our engagement. Understand our principled stand, key reason why we had such thorough and deliberative discussions. This was not a lightly-taken decision, but as we were closely following the negotiations, we concluded that there were far too many obstacles to overcome with several key issues — biased treatment of Israel and freedom of religions to erode freedom of expression. So we couldn’t continue negotiations with this document. But we are strongly committed to fighting racism and intolerance and we are also committed to working in international fora and we welcome your input as we proceed.
Taking from that point — the Human Rights Council. After considerable deliberation the administration has decided to participate as an active observer starting Monday. We are impressed by countries that asked us to reengage, and are advocating for that position. President Obama is committed to an active and effective engagement with institutions — to play a vital role in challenges — so we look forward to building a more secure and peaceful world with our partners around the world. We share concerns that the trajectory is disturbing, and it needs to do more to help people around the world and end unbalanced criticism of Israel. We need your help on issues of freedom of expression and defamation of religions. We will do more to achieve these ends if we are part of the conversation and we participate fully at the negotiating table so we will be participating in Human Rights Council sessions. We will use this opportunity to strengthen old and forge new alliances, to engage in active participation as an observer to advance human rights in multilateral arenas. We look forward to your cooperation to make sure it is focused on the human rights concerns of our time. You heard President Obama speak on February 24 — “In words and deeds, we are showing the world that a new era of engagement has begun. We know that America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America.” We can’t shun the negotiating table. We must fulfill our engagement now.
Those were lot of talking points to lay out for you. I welcome any comments.
Kumar from Amnesty International
Thank you for the briefing. Did you make any decision about running for the Human Rights Council?
Ambassador Karen Stewart
Not yet — it is still under review. So no decision yet.
William H. Luers — UNA — USA
The initial statement on Durban strikes me as being more or less sensible — if you have in it the possibility to come back with a revised statement. Are you in the business of trying to encourage a statement closer to what the US thinks appropriate or is this a final declaration?
Ambassador Karen Stewart
The message we put out there — not engaging with this text and the list. Our final message is that if a new document emerges that meets our concerns than we would reengage.
William H. Luers — UNA — USA
Do you think they will work toward a new document?
Ambassador Karen Stewart
I would say we have just been making these calls to both capitals and in Geneva and on the Hill and you and other NGO communities all through the last 24 hours and we got a variety of reactions, some who I think will be trying to see if they can change, others who think it is not possible. There is no conclusive view yet. We are sorting.
William H. Luers — UNA — USA
If you could give us encouragement to see whether the NGO community and governments could get the document closer to what we want and then have negotiations rather than saying it has to be this or nothing. The outline of things you feel are necessary. You don’t require everything? Negotiating on what would help the US change its mind?
Ambassador Karen Stewart
I have to say, I hear your tone on what we are laying down — preconditions, and I’m not authorized to say we would negotiate it any way. We laid out what we are prepared to see in a new document.
Peggy Hicks, Human Rights Watch
We followed this closely and are concerned about the turn the administration is now taking on Durban. The talking points you have on the table blur for us two issues. It is going to be a different document — which is not on its face unachievable — but of course this is coming very late in the process and will be quite difficult and put unnecessary burdens on the process. But our biggest concern is the blending together of the problem areas that are new to this document — defamation of religions — which we agree entirely has to come out — with the US new position here, which is that we need something better than Durban and we can’t have unequivocal support for Durban itself. That it cannot contain any reference to a single country or conflict, referring to the Middle East peace process and conflict is very problematic. And basically my understanding is that a group of moderate states would work with the US to draft a simpler document, but if the US is going on record saying that any reference to the Middle East conflict is unacceptable, then we’re setting a standard that is unachievable. And we will give cover to governments to back out now, and that would be destructive to the Durban Review process, but even more to the Human Rights Council itself where the dynamics are obstacles, to committed administration too, and if the Durban process falls apart it will make our work at the Human Rights Council more difficult.
Ambassador Karen Stewart
I’m trying to make a note of it so we can tell the senior levels the reactions we’re getting.
William H. Luers — UNA — USA
I agree with Peggy. From our standpoint a spoken willingness to negotiate and discuss how this can be improved and even — as has been suggested by Human Rights Watch — indicating the directions in which the document can be changed so that the US would be more prepared to consider participation, this is the ideal moment to change the pattern of the past, “either our road or the highway” and we shouldn’t do that — we now must show a different pattern of US response to such controversial issues. If we’re prepared to participate under better conditions than we see today it could be an excellent way to get countries to come together and reshape the declaration. If it’s a declaration of “this way or no way” then it becomes very problematic. And could even be that we could help if we thought there is a chance that the US government would respond to a more reasonable document.
Susan Myers — UN Foundation
Following onto Ambassador Luers’ remarks, I’m just curious if there is some sort of statement going out because what is in that statement could essentially box in the administration and if there is some effort to create a document more agreeable to the administration then whatever is said in coming days, it could undercut the ability of the US to reengage should there be something we could agree to.
Ambassador Karen Stewart
We are planning on making a public statement on our decisions in this area over the weekend. We wanted time to inform and consult with other countries and the Hill. I haven’t seen the text of the statement, so yes we would be saying something before Monday when we turn up in Geneva.
William H. Luers — UNA — USA
Could you add that the US government is interested in discussing further the changes we think are essential? Saying that you’re open to discussion is extremely important.
Ambassador Karen Stewart
I’m not making any promises. I will take that comment back but can’t promise that that is going to happen.
Paula Schriefer, Freedom House
We’re very encouraged that the US will participate in the upcoming session. We do think it’s important to go beyond acting as an observer and seek a seat in the upcoming elections. They are typically held in May so there is not much time. It would be automatic that the US would be elected, which may not be the case at the same time next year. In 2011 there will be an official review of the Council and as you noted, for the US to be part of a credible group shaping changes to the Council, it will be important to have been on the Council for a period of time. We agree there are some real problems, but they are not problems that cannot still be fixed and the US should play an important role and increase the chances of doing so.
Ambassador Karen Stewart
Those factors are going into our review of that decision. Likelihood of successful elections.
Eric [Tars], National Law Center of Homelessness and Poverty
Do you have any information about reinvigorating the inter-agency working group for facilitating the reporting process and bringing the results from the review into the US?
Ambassador Karen Stewart
I don’t. The inter-agency working group on human rights — I don’t specifically, we’re still organizing under the new administration on how to do inter-agency groups and although I’ve been here for 6-7 months, I’m not always sure of the institutions set up beforehand so have to take that question.
Democracy Coalition Project
I wanted to echo what Paula was saying and encourage the US to run. We are very concerned that regions of the world are slipping back into clean slates — even in WEOG [ed. Western European and Others regional group, one of five regional groups in the UN] there are only three candidates running for three seats. It could be they’re waiting for the US to run. Many have been encouraging the US to run. It’s a procedural issue — to encourage competition in each region. In several regions there has been regression over the years and it is important that the US support competition and weigh in on this.
L. Bennett Graham, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
We’re paying closest attention to the defamation of religions issue, and I want to be sure — and we were encouraged in the past on this issue — that you are preparing for what seems to be a major push to relook at Article 20 [ed. of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] and the fears we have about lowering the threshold on what Article 20 looks at. The US has a reservation on it, but we hope you are looking for creative solutions to making sure that the defamation issue is not entrenched into a binding covenant.
Ambassador Karen Stewart
We made sure to get ideas from you on the next session of the Human Rights Council. We ensure … defamation of religions has been a big issue for some time and so that is of great concern to us and we will be working on all ways to try and fend that off. I hope we can be creative. Any ideas you have later on we would welcome.
Peggy Hicks, Human Rights Watch
On defamation of religions, I didn’t mention it on the Durban side but we feel strongly that there is a contradiction in the US position on the Durban Review. The key way to make sure that the current Durban text doesn’t include defamation of religions is that the original Declaration didn’t have that issue in it. Pakistan acknowledges this and knows they will have to give up because of that. The problem is that the US position would reopen the terms of the Durban document and once you reopen it to take out references to the Middle East then you open the door to say new things have to be put into it. To follow up on Susan Myers, while I understand the negotiated position is that you want bottom lines to have, if we expect moderate states to work on a new document then to go on record saying “those are the red lines and it is only an acceptable document that meets all those conditions” is very difficult to achieve and will put states in an unworkable position and take us off track in a way that I hope your office doesn’t do.
———————–
The following table summarizes the organizations’ responses to the U.S. State Department’s stated conditions for participating in Durban II.
| U.S. State Department stated conditions for participating in Durban II | Human Rights Watch response to U.S. conditions for participating in Durban II | UN Association – USA response to U.S. conditions for participating in Durban II | UN Foundation response to U.S. conditions for participating in Durban II | What this cabal will devise in negotiations now underway in Geneva |
| (1) not unequivocally reaffirming the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action | Don’t like any firm American bottom lines.a declaration of “this way or no way” becomes very problematic | Don’t like any firm American bottom lines.could essentially box in the administration …it could undercut the ability of the US to reengage. | ? | |
| (2) no references to one country or a single conflict [ed. - Israel, Middle East] | DisagreeThat it [ed. the final outcome of Durban II] cannot contain any reference to a single country or conflict, referring to the Middle East peace process and conflict is very problematic. And basically my understanding is that a group of moderate states would work with the US to draft a simpler document, but if the US is going on record saying that any reference to the Middle East conflict is unacceptable, then we’re setting a standard that is unachievable. The problem is that the US position would reopen the terms of the Durban document and once you reopen it to take out references to the Middle East…[it] is very difficult to achieve and will put states in an unworkable position. | DisagreeI agree with Peggy [ed. Human Rights Watch]… We now must show a different pattern of U.S. response to such controversial issues.Don’t like any firm American bottom lines.a declaration of “this way or no way” becomes very problematic. | Don’t like any firm American bottom lines.could essentially box in the administration …it could undercut the ability of the US to reengage. | ? |
| (3) “defamation of religions” – [ed. concept must be taken out] | Agreetake out | Don’t like any firm American bottom lines.a declaration of “this way or no way” becomes very problematic. | Don’t like any firm American bottom lines.could essentially box in the administration …it could undercut the ability of the US to reengage. | ? |
| (4) not go further than the Durban Declaration on reparations for slavery | Don’t like any firm American bottom lines.a declaration of “this way or no way” becomes very problematic. | Don’t like any firm American bottom lines.could essentially box in the administration …it could undercut the ability of the US to reengage. | ? |
Essentially, the so-called “human rights” organizations are telling the U.S. that it has to accept the very same statements which caused it to walk out of the first conference seven and a half years ago. In exchange or which, they will… remain conspicuously silent on the real human rights abuses of several of the states sitting on the governmental side of the panel, continue to abuse and excoriate Israel for existing, and oh yes, make it an international crime against multiculturalism and political correctness to criticise any Islamic state, in any way, ever.
This goes beyond “P.C. run amok”. This is a crime against humanity in the making.
The only thing more bizarre than calling Durban II a “human rights” conference is the idea that the Obama administration is actually considering participation. Quite aside from the principles involved, under the Constitution it is illegal for the U.S. government to openly or tacitly support groups which engage in religious discrimination (1st Amendment). The Durban II position paper does precisely that.
If the Obama Administration were to support this document, it would (under their own “understanding” of international law) be compelled to enforce its provisions within the United States, and against American citizens. Which would, strictly speaking, violate the 1st, 5th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. This would in fact be an impeachable offense for the President and/or any official attempting to enforce said provisions.
I could figure that out with a couple of minutes’ reference to a copy of the Constitution in an almanac. It amazes me that these supposed “experts” from the State Department, etc., seem incapable of grasping the concept.
You do realize that, in previous administrations, of either party, such demonstrable incompetence and incapacity to properly fulfill the duties and functions of their posts would have been grounds for immediate firing for cause?
They still should be. The fact that they aren’t tells us all we need to know about the “competence” of our new “ruling class”. And how little they care about our opinion of same.
clear ether
eon
Does this really shock anyone?
If Democracy is tyranny of the masses
And most nation states in the world are brutal dictatorships
And the U.N. is a democracy of massed nation states.
Then the U.N. is a tyranny of brutal dictatorships
So what else could we expect from its NGOs?
Of course it is much too early to say with certainty just where these events are leading us, but as more time passes I think it will become crystal clear that most of the International Community, including a large portion of the new American government and Obama himself, is adopting an eliminationist attitude towards Israel.
Not too long ago, that International Community believed that they could impose sanctions, express exaggerated and entirely unjust condemnations, organize conferences and demonstrations, and use the International Court of Justice to force Israel to accept the fact that she was an international criminal and thus reform herself. This of course would include bowing to every Arab and Palestinian demand no matter how ridiculous or dangerous to Israel, up to and including flooding Israel with millions of so called Palestinian refugees and quickly bringing an end to the Jewish State. Thus far Israel has for some strange reason refused this fair offer to commit national suicide and continues to demand that she be allowed to exist in peace and security like every other nation in the world.
Well, the UN and the International Community have just about had enough of Israeli intransigence and have just about concluded that the world would be better off without the Jewish State. The demonstrators against Israel now publicly call for the destruction of Israel as well as the genocide of the Jewish People, and very few world leaders protest these utterly abominable expressions of hatred towards Jews.
Indeed, Barack Obama with the help of his Jewish Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, actually nominated a fellow named Charles Freeman, an unabashed anti Semite in the financial pocket of the Saudi Arabians, to an important security post knowing full well the animosity of Freeman towards Israel and the Jews. I could name others just as antagonistic towards Israel, like Samantha Powers, that Obama has come to rely on for his Israel policies.
This is the real and growing problem, not Durban, the Europeans, or even the UN, the problem now is that there is an American President, Barack Obama, who believes that he must diminish Jewish and Israeli influence over American government Middle East policy, in the sense that doing away with Israel would solve a pretty good portion of the world’s problems.
Ken:
There is an upside to the abandonment of Israel. It is one of those fortunate unintended consequences. When the Israelis realize that the world wants their destruction they will be free to deal with their adversaries. I expect that Israel will launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran if they continue on their path to nuclear capability. The Israelis know that Europe will shout loudly and do nothing; Putin’s Russia will jump for joy at higher oil prices; the Sunnis will smile as their Shia adversary disappears; and China will send political prisoners to clean up the place and then grab the oil. Meanwhile Hezbollah will suddenly become more internally focused and as usual the Palestinians will be left holding the bag. Only the Obama administration will want to take some meaningless action against Israel but will be thoroughly ignored.
I don’t know where to place Rahm. Is he a Mossad agent in place or is America’s Lazar Kaganovich, Stalin’s Jewish buddy, who survived until shortly before the Soviet Union collapsed.
Didn’t the Obama Adminstration annouce they are boycotting the Conference on the 27th? So basically, they heard out the UN and Human Rights Watch, and turned around and said ‘No Thank You’.
What’s the issue?
Please take the UN and all its members and decamp from the USA. Go anywhere you choose but begone from us.
It’s an outrage to single out one country, especially when countries other than Israel are guilty of severe human rights violations. Does Durban address the violation of women’s (we’re human too) rights in the Arab nations?
This brings to mind Israel’s Samson Doctrine. When the world has turned on Israel and there is no future, Israel will make sure its enemies will never have a future. It will lay waste all her enemies.
Durban I is the infamous racist anti-racism conference that took place in South Africa and ended three days before 9/11. good
israeli s still haven t been able to understand that the world has changed and the special position that allows them to possess nuclear weapons and indulge in cruel, reprisal raids is over. they will have to obey international law like any other country. cry, cry, cry you bastards you ve had your way too long.
Ah Brian, so cerebral…
Americans still havent been able to understand that the world has changed and the special position that allows them to possess nuclear weapons and indulge in cruel, invasions is over. they will have to obey international law like any other country. cry, cry, cry you bastards you’ve had your way too long.
The OIC has put forth a resolution to criminalize the blasphemy of religions (specifically Islam). Along with the racism inherent in this conference is the intent to silence human rights advocates in the Muslim countries and the Western democracies. Freedom of Speech would be quashed and references to Islam and terrorism would be a prosecutable offense. It would define Islam as the superior religion and individual rights as non-existent. I’m not buying into that part of the Conference statement either.
Watch Fitna. Review the UN reports from Gaza – Hamas guilty of war crimes because they used civilians and civilian areas to hide and fire against the Israelis. That Hamas store supplies earmarked for certain neighborhoods in Gaza – the inhabitants went without. That Hamas was caught with suitcases of money at the border – leaving Gaza. That Hamas lied about the number of civilians killed. That no one took time to investigate the firing of rockets into Israel – into areas that are civilian. One sided.?
I am someone who was radicalized, I guess you coul say, by what I learned in the aftermath of 9-11. My view of the UN was really set when I learned that at the Durban COnference they were voting on a resoluion to declare the North American slave, which ended 90 years before the UN was founded, a crime against humanity. And a bunch of the North African countries voting on it practice slave trade today. The UN is a poseur ogranization,
#10
Israel makes reprisal raids because Israel’s enemies atack her. If there were no attacks the surrounding countries would have nothing to fear from Israel. This is shown clearly by Egypt and Jordan, which need have no fear of Israel attacks because they do not allow or mount attacks on Israel from their soil. You seem to have the asinine notion that Israel’s enemies have the right to attack Israel and kill Israelis but the latter have no right to defend themselves. Nope, that is not true and is actually 180 degrees away from what international law and the UN Charter actually say. For what that is worth.
If the US abandons Israel and worse, helps to destroy that country, we will not reap any friendship and respect from the Muslims for it. We will only earn their justified contempt for stabbing a friend in the back. We did that once already under the command of the Democrats, with South Vietnam. When are liberals and “realists” going to learn that if you continually screw your allies over, pretty soon you’ll have no allies?
the u.n. is comprised of members whose dictatorial regimes withhold water, food, protection from any group of their own citizens they deem unworthy. these are dumb, viscious brutal shrunken brained tribal “lords”, who still make their money from bribery and slave trade.
it is putrid to have that building and those people here in the united states. get thehell out of here and demolish the place that houses them, so we never have to think of them again.
Anti-Semitism is inherent in Islam, so it is not surprising that all 57 Moslem countries are trying to demonize Israel wherever they can, especially at the United Nations where they have such influence. The Koran and the Hadith (sayings of Muhammad) are full of Jew-hatred. Perhaps the most infamous of the anti-Semitic passages from the Islamic sacred books is this:
– Allah’s Apostle said, “You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, ‘O ‘Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.’ ”
This genocidally anti-Semitic passage is also part of the Hamas Charter. Because Muhammad is considered to have said it, Moslems are required to believe and to follow it.
Its all going according to the plan of God, We are in the end times for Israels Messiah to return. The times of the gentiles is about to come to an end. God loves Israel as do biblical Christians. False Christiandom and the evils of the world are being brought to a head where the God of the bible will have His Way and Day. America is doomed if and when she aborts Israel.
#15 Well said Michael. Indeed Muslims have nothing but contempt for anybody but a Muslim, whether you side with them or not. The world and its leaders will learn the hard way that the Muslim mind is truly not understood by the West, for if it was, terrorism and anti-semitism would have been something of the past long ago. If world leaders and the United Nations specifically, went to the trouble of doing proper research into statements coming from Hamas and the other Islamic organisations they would recognise the lies and deception that they so readily swallow. What fools, what absolute fools these people are!
Durban I was a disgrace to South Africa, Durban II will be worse because world leaders are in the pockets of Islam. The world cannot expect to hear anything positive from Durban II, But God is not asleep or caught off guard. He will have the last say. He is the God of Israel and His justice will in the end prevail.