Some people insist that America has lost all moral credibility. In my view, those who judge America (and Israel) by higher and different standards are the ones whose credibility and perhaps sanity remain highly questionable. Yes, I am talking about the western intelligentsia, international human rights organizations, Islamic world despots, Islamist terrorists, the United Nations, and the non-governmental organizations which have attached themselves to the allegedly crumbling edifice on the East River of Manhattan known as the United Nations. All these groups view “the international community,” as a sacred deity whose wisdom and benevolence is merciful and all-encompassing.
I kid you not. Yes, the same “international community” which refuses to stop the genocide and mass gang-rapes in Sudan is still viewed as humanity’s Savior. Only America and Israel are singled out for condemnation. PRESS HERE.
Look: neither America nor Israel are perfect and although I disagree with 50%-80% of the decisions made by their leaders, I would never negatively compare them with most Third World countries which openly practice ethnic cleansing, gender and religious apartheid, and slavery.
The same United Nations which hosted a well choreographed program against Jews at a conference ostensibly to end racism (in the year 2001, in Durban, South Africa) is now up to its old tricks. One day this week, (I am told this vote is imminent), the UN General Assembly will vote to fund or not to fund the preparation of Durban ll.
Under Ambassador John Bolton’s watchful eye, America held tough for a short while on the uses of the UN regular budget (22% of which comes from American taxpayers.) Under Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, who knows? He may wish to please and appease the very state sponsors of terrorism who routinely persecute their own people and blame the Zionists for it–and he may wish to do so on America’s behalf. Actually, the same State and Intelligence Departments which have sprung a thousand leaks and defections, and which have endangered us all with questionable judgments about the Iranian danger may now be preparing to pay for another UN-sponsored path of dhimmitude and appeasement.
Please recall: The United Nations held a World Conference on racism in Durban, South Africa in August/September 2001. The Conference became a global platform for egregious forms of Anti-Semitism and discrimination against Israel. It was so bad that the United States Government walked out of the conference in disgust. Ever since, the US has opposed a resolution on follow-up to the Durban Conference outcome-document (which singles out Israel) in the General Assembly.
Last year the General Assembly decided to hold a Durban II conference – formally a “Durban Review Conference” – to take place in the first half of 2009. (The actual venue is as yet undetermined.) It has become clear that the conference will again be appropriated by those promising to turn an anti-racism conference into a platform for racism. If anything, Durban II will be worse because it promises to deliver both Israel-bashing and hysterical allegations of Western “Islamophobia” with the U.S. cast as the primary perpetrator of anti-Muslim discrimination resulting from a phony war to combat terrorism.
In this year’s Third Committee of the General Assembly, the United States Government voted against the resolutions on “Durban follow-up” and the preparation of the Durban Review Conference. This year, for the first time, the U.S. was joined not only by Israel but by the European Union, other European states, Canada and Australia.
All these Western states were outvoted, however, and the resolution was adopted. Having been adopted on the merits, the budgetary consequences of the resolution or the actual funding of the preparation of Durban II now moves inexorably on to another set of UN Committees.
It is crucial that the U.S. now follow through with its opposition to the Durban Review Conference and vote NO on funding it. This will require three steps:
1) Signaling American opposition to the program budget implications of the funding resolution in an executive UN budget committee known as the ACABQ,
2) Calling for a vote on those budget implications in the next stage UN Committee – the Fifth or Budget Committee, and
3) Voting against that funding resolution in the Fifth/Budget Committee.
UN etiquette dictates that the Fifth/Budget Committee operates by consensus. It, therefore, requires a degree of fortitude to maintain strong opposition to funding any part of Durban II.
Nonetheless, such a statement of principle is extremely important. The message must be sent that the UN was founded on equality of peoples and of nations and anti-racism, and our country will not tolerate the abuse of the UN as a platform for undermining those goals via anti-semitism and discrimination against Israel.
Americans said no to Durban I. Consistently, Americans must not agree that the regular budget of the UN (and hence U.S. tax dollars) are to be spent on a conference intended to “implement” Durban I.
Anne Bayefsky, of the Hudson Institute asks: “Are these states now going to approve the costs of Durban II from the regular budget of the UN – a cost which rebounds directly onto the backs of their own taxpayers? In Bayefsky’s opinion, the United States should “object to the funding of Durban II from the UN’s regular budget. Doing so will “send a clear and consistent message about the pernicious nature of Durban, its aftermath and its reincarnation. It would also set the stage for a concerted effort to resist the hijacking of the anti-racism agenda of the UN by the least tolerant members of the human family.”
Americans: Contact your congresspeople and senators. SECRETARY RICE AND AMBASSADOR KHALILZAD: America will not fund a racist conference under the Orwellian guise of its being “anti-racist.”