Obama’s First Anti-Racism Test as President [UPDATE]
By LisaB on December 11, 2008 at 12:25 AM in Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud, Barack Obama, Iran, Islam, Israel, Jews, UN Human Rights Council
(Originally printed December 5, 2008)
UPDATE: The Chicago Tribune (understandably busy with the Blagojevich blow-up) has the “first ever” newspaper interview with the official PEBO. As we said several days ago, PEBO has stated he wants to make a major speech from a muslim capital. Fine.
Barack Obama says his presidency is an opportunity for the U.S. to renovate its relations with the Muslim world, starting the day of his inauguration and continuing with a speech he plans to deliver in an Islamic capital.
And when he takes the oath of office Jan. 20, he plans to be sworn in like every other president, using his full name: Barack Hussein Obama.
Read the rest ->
“I think we’ve got a unique opportunity to reboot America’s image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular,” Obama said Tuesday, promising an “unrelenting” desire to “create a relationship of mutual respect and partnership in countries and with peoples of good will who want their citizens and ours to prosper together.”
The world, he said, “is ready for that message.”
BO seems to think the world is breathlessly anticipating his speech on the matter. Somehow I doubt it will have THAT big an impact, but it’s worth a try. Meanwhile, the UN is planning an “anti-racism” conference in February, 2009. Earlier this month, Forbes magazine did some research on the 2009 conference and the 2001 that spawned it.
From the original NQ post:
Forbes has an interesting article about a new UN “anti-racism” conference. This new conference will be held in Geneva, April 2009, hard on the heels of the last “anti-racism” conference, held in 2001.
The writer says she studied the now notorious 2001 conference while doing background on the upcoming one.
. . . a notoriously anti-Semitic United Nations conference held in 2001 in Durban, South Africa. Billed as an effort to fight racism, that Durban conclave focused instead on vilifying Israel–whipping up hatred to such an extreme that then- Secretary of State Colin Powell ordered the U.S. delegation to walk out.
The new “anti-racism” conference, called Durban Review Conference, is being organized by some people with serious anti-racism chops. Or not.
The 20-member preparatory committee, operating out of Geneva, is chaired by a Libyan ambassador, Najat Al-Hajjaji. Back in 2003, she chaired the U.N.’s former Human Rights Commission, which discredited itself not only by picking Al-Hajjaji, envoy of Libya’s despotic regime, to run the show, but also by slamming Israel 27 times from 2001 to 2006. As the State Department anti-Semitism report notes, this was more than twice the number of UNHRC criticisms leveled during that same period at North Korea, Burma and Sudan combined.
In 2006, as part of a package of U.N. “reforms,” that farce of a Human Rights Commission was dissolved. It was replaced by the current sham of a Human Rights Council, which in its first 16 months spent most of its time issuing 15 criticisms of Israel, and then singled out Israel to become a permanent item on its agenda.
This same Human Rights Council is now providing the official umbrella and support staff for the Durban Review Conference. Among the vice-chairs of the preparatory committee are emissaries of such unfree countries as Iran, Russia, Pakistan and Cameroon (which, according to New York-based Freedom House, still tolerates slavery in its northern reaches). Cuba–where wholesale repression includes the additional frill of job discrimination against Afro-Cubans–fills two seats at this Durban II table, which features both a Cuban vice-chair and Cuba as Rapporteur.
——————-
As for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, he was quick to express horror over the hate that fueled the terrorist assault on Mumbai. But he has done nothing to defuse the ticking bomb of Durban II. Instead, Ban’s office has been dutifully processing the multi-million dollar funding requests of the Durban organizers. The U.S., which contributes an out-sized 22% to Ban’s budget, is planning to withhold a small portion of that money in hope of pressuring the U.N. into better behavior. Good luck. The U.N. dodge has been to re-frame the total conference tab, now estimated at about $5.1 million, as coming mainly from resources already available, plus donations. China has committed $20,000, Russia $600,000 and a number of as-yet-unnamed member states are expected to pony up.
All of which begs the larger point, that U.S. taxpayers are the chief sugar daddies for the entire U.N. system, which–with its logo, premises and diplomatic perquisites–will give this conference a world stage and stamp of authority it would not otherwise enjoy.
The author ends with this.
Among the U.N.’s 192 member states, only two have had the backbone to announce that they will boycott the Durban Review: Canada, and for obvious reasons, Israel. In the U.S., President Bush has deferred any final decision to the next administration. President-elect Obama, what will you do about Durban II?
She asks a veeerrrrryyy interesting question. What will Obama do? He spent lots of campaign time race-baiting and allowed campaign operatives to use sexism and gender attacks. The LGBT and Hispanic communities are now finding BO’s implied anti-discrimination promise somewhat underwhelming. (Not that this should have come as any surprise to anyone paying the smallest amount of attention to the campaign, but I digress.)
Here’s the thing though. Early in his administration, BO will have to contend with organized anti-Semitism from an institution funded largely by the US. He’ll have to take a stand on racism – something he says is deeply important in his life. The idea of racism is so important to Obama he wrote books about it, centered his religious life around it, selected his home community because of it and built his Presidential campaign around it. Now he’ll have to take a stand when the issue does not directly address only himself or AAs. Given the players in this conference, I don’t see how BO can “finesse” this situation. He will either be against what Forbes called “a mob move against Israel,” or he will permit it. He may try to say the issues are complicated and complex, but the last “anti-racism” conference and the players in this one don’t deserve such hair-splitting from the “post-racial” US President who is, after all, supposed to heal the world.
Making this a little more interesting is the fact that Obama has already said as US President he wants to make a major speech from an Islamic country. The NYT thinks BO will go to Egypt.
President-elect Barack Obama’s aides say he is considering making a major foreign policy speech from an Islamic capital during his first 100 days in office.
————
It’s got to be Cairo. Egypt is perfect. It’s certainly Muslim enough, populous enough and relevant enough. It’s an American ally, but there are enough tensions in the relationship that the choice will feel bold. The country has plenty of democracy problems, so Mr. Obama can speak directly to the need for a better democratic model there. It has got the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist organization that has been embraced by a wide spectrum of the Islamic world, including the disenfranchised and the disaffected.
Politico seems to think it will be Jakarta.
The Obama donor, Los Angeles real estate executive Ted Leary, recalled that Obama spoke of his plan to donors at a February 20, 2007 breakfast fundraiser at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel, soon after announcing his run for president.
“Obama told the 20 or so of us at breakfast that ‘his first trip as President would be to Indonesia – the world’s most populous Muslim country,’” Leary recalled.
Commentary weighed in, not with a pick for the site, but with a comment on the potential speech itself.
The global problems generating from within the Muslim world today are so odious and so obviously self-inflicted that any honest speech on the matter would offend and enrage Muslims the world over. At the same time, because of these very problems, a softball speech about Islam’s current role in global affairs would look like cowardly capitulation. If Obama splits the difference and mixes lukewarm praise with lukewarm condemnation, the stunt will be seen rightly as meaningless.
Obama clearly wants closer ties to Islamic countries, for both foreign policy reasons and personal ones. But how will he handle further Islamic extremism? Does he think once he’s sworn in and speechifies from a carefully chosen Muslim capital that all will be sweetness and light? What, exactly, will it accomplish? But then, what will he do about the rampant anti-Semitism so clearly visible and so acceptable that the UN will sponsor another “notorious” anti-racism event like Durban? This isn’t “genteel” racism, done in code words or through suggestion. This is the real deal, where people regularly say in “polite society” that others do not have a right to live and are the source of all a region’s ills.
What will this post-racial President do? According to the writer at Forbes, another AA had a few words about this. Maybe he should lead the way.
When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism. –The Rev. Martin Luther King, 1968
, the basis for the Best Motion Picture Nominee (Golden Globes) starring Brad Pitt.
, the novel by John Le Carre, a new motion picture starring Gary Oldman and Colin Firth.
by 
* (Included in the 
* 
.by David Fredosso who wrote 2008's 
- You'll have access to 18 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, and books, as well as ultra-fast Web browsing with Amazon Silk -- faster than iPad. Full e-mail and document access and a keyboard. Fire can transmit what is on your screen onto a connected TV or monitor without an accessory. It runs Flash (iPad doesn't). 
