US boycotting UN racism conference

[Jack]

GENEVA – The United Nations opens its first global racism conference in eight years on Monday with the U.S. and at least five other countries boycotting the event out of concern that Islamic countries will demand that it denounce Israel and ban criticism of Islam.
The administration of President Barack Obama, America's first black head of state, announced Saturday that it would boycott "with regret" the weeklong meeting in Geneva, which already is experiencing much of the bickering and political infighting that marred the 2001 conference in Durban, South Africa.
The Netherlands declared its boycott Sunday, while Australia, Canada, Israel and Italy already have said they would not attend.
"I would love to be involved in a useful conference that addressed continuing issues of racism and discrimination around the globe," Obama said in Trinidad on Sunday after attending the Summit of the Americas.
But he said the language of the U.N.'s draft declaration risked a reprise of Durban, during which "folks expressed antagonism toward Israel in ways that were often times completely hypocritical and counterproductive."
"We expressed in the run-up to this conference our concerns that if you adopted all of the language from 2001, that's not something we can sign up for," Obama said.
"Hopefully some concrete steps come out of the conference that we can partner with other countries on to actually reduce discrimination around the globe, but this wasn't an opportunity to do it," he said.
Some European countries are still deciding whether to attend the U.N. conference.
U.N. spokesman Rupert Colville said Germany informed the global body on Sunday that it would boycott it. In Berlin, the German Foreign Ministry refused to confirm that, but said the government would announce its final decision on Sunday night.
Britain said it will send diplomats, despite concerns the meeting could become a forum for Holocaust denial or anti-Semitic attacks.
At the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI said the conference is needed to eliminate racial intolerance around the world. Asia News, a Catholic news agency that is part of the missionary arm of the Vatican, said of the pope's comment: "The Holy See is distancing itself from the criticisms of some Western countries."
"I am shocked and deeply disappointed by the United States' decision not to attend," said U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay, who is hosting the conference.
She conceded some countries were focusing solely on one or two issues to the detriment of the fight against intolerance, but said it is essential that the issue of racism be tackled globally.
The major sticking points regarding the proposed final U.N. declaration are its implied criticism of Israel and an attempt by Muslim governments to ban all criticism of Islam, Sharia law, the prophet Muhammad and other tenets of their faith.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — who repeatedly has called for the destruction of Israel and denied the Holocaust — is slated to speak on the first day.
He arrived in Geneva on Sunday evening and was meeting President Hans-Rudolf Merz of Switzerland, the country which represents the diplomatic interests of the United States in the Islamic republic.
The pullout of Germany would be significant as it has played a leading role in U.N. anti-racism efforts as a result of its troubled historical legacy. In recent meetings, it has expressed dismay about some governments' attempts to downplay the significance of the Holocaust.

The bland U.N. draft statement does not mention Israel by name, but it reaffirms the Durban statement and its reference to the plight of Palestinians. That document was agreed after the United States and Israel had walked out over attempts to liken Zionism — the movement to establish a Jewish state in the Holy Land — to racism.
Israel and Jewish groups have lobbied hard against Western participation in the meeting, arguing that the presence alone of American and European negotiators would give legitimacy to what they fear could become an anti-Semitic gathering.
Still, after years of contentious preparations there appears little evidence to validate these fears. The statement of 2001 that is so contentious now was cheered in Israel at the time, as it recognized the Jewish state's right to security.
Regarding its boycott, the Obama administration said it could not endorse any statement that singled out Israel or included passages demanding a ban on language considered an "incitement" of religious hatred. Such calls "run counter to the U.S. commitment to unfettered free speech," said State Department spokesman Robert Wood.
Many Muslim nations want curbs to free speech to prevent insults to Islam they claim have proliferated since the terrorist attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. They cite the 2005 cartoons of Muhammad published by a Danish newspaper that sparked riots in the Muslim world. European countries also have criticized the meeting for focusing heavily on the West and ignoring problems of racism and intolerance in the developing world.

[Dimentio]

I think this is yet another nail in the UN coffin.

[Hoxhaist]

The US shows its true colors and the UN is just as weak as the League of Nations

[Bitter Ashes]

The UK are attending. I was quite suprised by that. I thought our "leaders" were supposed to just be the US' parrots.

[Hoxhaist]

the zionist-imperialist lobby and corporate exploiters have the US govt in a stranglehold so no change, hope, or progress will come from the US govt

[Dimentio]

To not attend is childish, but what is this fuss about making criticism of religion illegal really?

[Dust Bunnies]

I believe they aren't attending due to the criticism of their allies such as Israel. Well atleast they're loyal allies to their puppets. With any luck we can have a new world war, one that can bring revolution eventually.

[Dimentio]

I believe they aren't attending due to the criticism of their allies such as Israel. Well atleast they're loyal allies to their puppets. With any luck we can have a new world war, one that can bring revolution eventually.

No, not for this. People don't go to war because they get angry with what someone thinks.

Ruling classes go to war to get new areas to exploit, or to crush possible external threats, as well as to curb internal dissent.

[OneNamedNameLess]

Good.

So the US bourgeoisie can maintain their hostility towards Islamic nations and continue in pursuit of their natural resources via illegal wars.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I would like to see USA dying of starvation. Can't take it anymore.

[Kassad]

I frankly don't give two shits who attends this conference because capitalism is rooted in racism and the exploitation of minorities in the interest of increasing profit margins. A capitalist country attending a conference on racism is like Boy George visiting a Klu Klux Klan meeting.

[GPDP]

Not surprised in the slightest.

Yet ANOTHER example of Obama's complete disconnect on issues of racism, if anything. Anyone who expected any better from him because of his skin color should look at this and re-evaluate their expectations from this system and the people appointed to head it.

[Dimentio]

I frankly don't give two shits who attends this conference because capitalism is rooted in racism and the exploitation of minorities in the interest of increasing profit margins. A capitalist country attending a conference on racism is like Boy George visiting a Klu Klux Klan meeting.

Capitalism could be blamed for much, but it is not inherently racist. Capitalism could approach racist groups when it feels threatened, but the general tendency under the history of capitalism has been the gradual erosion of all forms of discrimination which are based on factors like race, gender or caste.

White males has dominated within capitalism for historical, not ideological reasons. Marx acknowledged this process and could begin to see it already in the 19th century. Hardt and Negri have described it quite good.

That does'nt make capitalism less abhorrent.

[Kassad]

Capitalism could be blamed for much, but it is not inherently racist. Capitalism could approach racist groups when it feels threatened, but the general tendency under the history of capitalism has been the gradual erosion of all forms of discrimination which are based on factors like race, gender or caste.

White males has dominated within capitalism for historical, not ideological reasons. Marx acknowledged this process and could begin to see it already in the 19th century. Hardt and Negri have described it quite good.

That does'nt make capitalism less abhorrent.

Um, bullshit? Naturally, it appears that every racial group, or for that matter, social group that takes power after the fall of feudalism becomes a ruling class elite in some form. Countries in the Middle East are not totally feudalistic anymore. Some form of primitive and developing capitalism is in existence in all of these nations, for the most part and look who's in power in many of these states. Fundamentalist Muslims. These fundamentalist Muslims oppress women and promote the religious feuds between the Sunni and Shiite Muslims. This was the ruling class that emerged after the collapse of feudalism. Look at the United States. Whites took over the New World and left a wake of destruction in their path. Whites became the ruling class elite and established themselves far before any other racial groups arrived, such as African Americans through slavery or the migration of Latinos in the present day. These types are discriminated against because there is a white ruling class.

As we can see, capitalism promotes prejudice inherently. Discrimination is an innate part of the capitalist system and the exploitative hegemony it spawns.

[Revy]

Iran is a racist state - against Arabs.

[Kassad]

Iran is a racist state - against Arabs.


Um, bullshit? Naturally, it appears that every racial group, or for that matter, social group that takes power after the fall of feudalism becomes a ruling class elite in some form.

Good morning, sunshine.

[Hoxhaist]

we all ought to be keenly aware that although whiteness is a good indicator of wealth there are also poor whites (Appalachia in the US) and wealthy miniorities who exploit other miniorities including their own people (in Africa, in Latin America, in Asia, and in the Middle East)

[Sam_b]

I'm kind of taking Kassad's view on this, in that we shouldn't look into this facade too much. The US's supposed 'boycott' is disappointing, but not that disappointing: it is not the only state that has a monopoly on racism.

Although I agree with Kassad's point that capitalism inherantly breeds racism as a way of divide-and-rule, that does not mean we shouldn't support progressive steps to reduce it (although as a comrade in the ANSWER coalition he will agree with this). But then the point is: will a UN conference where the capitalist and imperialist classes fail to reach a consensus, and will inevitably result in either hollow non-binding declarations or propoganda concerning 'the international community' actually solve anything, do anything? Of course not.

The UN is nothing more than a bureaucratic talking shop and it always will be.

[Kassad]

I'm kind of taking Kassad's view on this, in that we shouldn't look into this facade too much. The US's supposed 'boycott' is disappointing, but not that disappointing: it is not the only state that has a monopoly on racism.

Although I agree with Kassad's point that capitalism inherantly breeds racism as a way of divide-and-rule, that does not mean we shouldn't support progressive steps to reduce it (although as a comrade in the ANSWER coalition he will agree with this). But then the point is: will a UN conference where the capitalist and imperialist classes fail to reach a consensus, and will inevitably result in either hollow non-binding declarations or propoganda concerning 'the international community' actually solve anything, do anything? Of course not.

The UN is nothing more than a bureaucratic talking shop and it always will be.

I really don't know much about socialist parties and groups in the United Kingdom, but I'm told that the Party for Socialism and Liberation is basically the equivalent of the Socialist Workers Party (UK), with a few differences on Trotsky, along with the ANSWER Coalition being the same as the Stop the War Coalition. I've heard we both share a lot of the same ideology and perform some of the same general activist actions.

There is no United Nations. Without the United States' consent, the United Nations does not take an action. When a vote was brought up regarding the blockade on Cuba, the United States blockade on Cuba was repudiated by over 100 countries, with only two others in support of it. Yet, no action was taken. It speaks incredible lengths.

[Elway]

The US shows its true colors and the UN is just as weak as the League of Nations

I mean seriously, though. Why would ANYONE show up to something that was going to be an event where they were just gonna get shot at.

Would you?

This is all gamesmanship and b.s. You know that. Does anyone really believe the U.N. event on ANYTHING is nothing more than dog and pony?!?

[Revy]

The UN's name itself is a joke. "United Nations":lol:

Yet has it "united nations"? No!

Like Kassad said, it serves imperialism and participates even, but under the facade of "peacekeeping".

[Small Geezer]

The UN is just a forum. It's its member states that are imperialist.

[Hoxhaist]

the UN has failed in just about every peacekeeping operation (multiple times in the Congo, Lebanon, Egypt, and Somalia)

[Rebel_Serigan]

Racism is a tool of those who need a method of control, just like organized religieon. Racism can not be stopped at some useless BS confrence filled with greedy gold lined delegates. We should not be that turned off by this, are we supprised? The US loves racism, it lets the higher ups keep a firm grip on the working class. As for the Vatican the pope is just hysterical, after all he was in the Hitler Youth. In the end the only thing that will ever stop racism is the abolishen of race. The US should take a stance like france. In France your race is either French or Not French. In the end I see a race choice with: Human or Not Hu8man, and one UN conference is not going to get that in deapth.

[( R )evolution]

Fuck the USA, this is just another example that the UN is a piece of shit organization that cant ever get shit done. Just as another comrade said, over 100 nations within the UN have advocated the end of the blockade for I think 15 years in a row but yet because of the agenda of the US, nothing has been done or said. And now when something comes up that may criticize their lapdog Israel, they decide to boycott it.

Barrack Obama, who is suppose to usher the world into a new anti-racist era has decided to not attend a conference about the problems of racism. Shows the true face of Obama and of this government and capitalist society. Just another puppet. Hope under this system is an illusion. I can only hope the true colors of this situation will be as apparent to the people as it is to us. Comrades knowing the true reality is useless but the masses knowing is power.

[Dimentio]

Um, bullshit? Naturally, it appears that every racial group, or for that matter, social group that takes power after the fall of feudalism becomes a ruling class elite in some form. Countries in the Middle East are not totally feudalistic anymore. Some form of primitive and developing capitalism is in existence in all of these nations, for the most part and look who's in power in many of these states. Fundamentalist Muslims. These fundamentalist Muslims oppress women and promote the religious feuds between the Sunni and Shiite Muslims. This was the ruling class that emerged after the collapse of feudalism. Look at the United States. Whites took over the New World and left a wake of destruction in their path. Whites became the ruling class elite and established themselves far before any other racial groups arrived, such as African Americans through slavery or the migration of Latinos in the present day. These types are discriminated against because there is a white ruling class.

As we can see, capitalism promotes prejudice inherently. Discrimination is an innate part of the capitalist system and the exploitative hegemony it spawns.

If that was the case, why have capitalism allowed for the abolishment of official slavery, of discriminatory laws against women, of discriminatory laws against sexual minorities?

Identity politics has been a great success, but it has not changed the fundamental characteristics of capitalism.

As for the middle eastern nations, I believe that they are moving in a similar
direction with urbanisation.

[Kassad]

If that was the case, why have capitalism allowed for the abolishment of official slavery, of discriminatory laws against women, of discriminatory laws against sexual minorities?

Identity politics has been a great success, but it has not changed the fundamental characteristics of capitalism.

As for the middle eastern nations, I believe that they are moving in a similar
direction with urbanisation.

Because there's something we socialists like to call 'class consciousness' that takes effect. Usually, some form of moral consciousness develops in a nation and the feudalistic system is abolished. You could say that the Abolitionists in the pre-Civil War era were consciouss of the suffering of others to an extent. Thus, the ruling class needs to find a new means of exploitation. Instead of the peasant or the slave, the bourgeoisie exploit the worker.

I mean, you're almost presenting a reformist argument for me; suggesting that things under capitalism are getting better, so maybe we should just let them be. The bourgeois ruling class consistently attempts to appease the working class with minor reforms. An example of this would be The New Deal. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination are ruling class tools to keep the working class divided, but at times, some form of consciousness will rise and the ruling elite must work around this; altering the system with a petty reform that still allows them to maintain power.

[Dimentio]

Because there's something we socialists like to call 'class consciousness' that takes effect. Usually, some form of moral consciousness develops in a nation and the feudalistic system is abolished. You could say that the Abolitionists in the pre-Civil War era were consciouss of the suffering of others to an extent. Thus, the ruling class needs to find a new means of exploitation. Instead of the peasant or the slave, the bourgeoisie exploit the worker.

I mean, you're almost presenting a reformist argument for me; suggesting that things under capitalism are getting better, so maybe we should just let them be. The bourgeois ruling class consistently attempts to appease the working class with minor reforms. An example of this would be The New Deal. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination are ruling class tools to keep the working class divided, but at times, some form of consciousness will rise and the ruling elite must work around this; altering the system with a petty reform that still allows them to maintain power.

My resistance against capitalism is not based around that there are customs which are patriarchal and racist (which has been reduced in most of the capitalist countries) but that capitalism per definition is inherently unsustainable.

I am very much for social rights, but I do not pretend that capitalism in some way is inherently against women, ethnic minorities and gays. The only kind of discrimination which capitalism cannot exist without, is the sacredness of property rights over human life.

[Kassad]

My resistance against capitalism is not based around that there are customs which are patriarchal and racist (which has been reduced in most of the capitalist countries) but that capitalism per definition is inherently unsustainable.

I am very much for social rights, but I do not pretend that capitalism in some way is inherently against women, ethnic minorities and gays. The only kind of discrimination which capitalism cannot exist without, is the sacredness of property rights over human life.

Where do you get this stuff from? Things like homophobia, racism, xenophobia and sexism keep the working class divided. Instead of uniting with working class comrades, people subscribe to petty and divisive ideologies that separate people. The ruling class exploits this and uses it to maintain control. If the working class was not divided in such a manner, there would be no impediment to socialist revolution. Capitalism also relies on manipulation of ideology, as the workers must be convinced of different facades that support the ruling class, as opposed to their true motives and necessities.

[Dimentio]

Where do you get this stuff from? Things like homophobia, racism, xenophobia and sexism keep the working class divided. Instead of uniting with working class comrades, people subscribe to petty and divisive ideologies that separate people. The ruling class exploits this and uses it to maintain control. If the working class was not divided in such a manner, there would be no impediment to socialist revolution. Capitalism also relies on manipulation of ideology, as the workers must be convinced of different facades that support the ruling class, as opposed to their true motives and necessities.

That was so in the 1930;s, but since the 1970;s, with increasingly diverse societies, the main question has rather been to try to paint the establishment as anti-racist and supporting diversity. If your assertion was correct, we would have seen official scaremongering, anti-feminism, racism against people of different colours in commercial television and so on.

While homophobia, racism and sexism still are existing, they do not have the support from the establishment. In some countries, there are even serious discussions whether or not women and minorities should be appointed to capitalist boards through affirmative action! I would say that capitalism is colour-neutral, and only employs racism when it is pragmatic to do so (and anti-racism when it is pragmatic to do so as well).

Some groups are still used as scapegoats though, but I will claim that the capitalist establishment today rather than attacking women, gays and minorities, are attacking external threats, which sometimes could coincide with popular prejudices.