[Swiftwater Gazette] Foreign Policy and The One

[Brad Haslett]

It is no small secret that most conservatives (of which I am one) and
most Christian conservatives (which I make no claim to be other than
family tradition) are hard core supporters of Israel.  Neither is it a
secret that the hard core left is very anti-Israel, especially on
college campuses.  For that reason alone, it caught the attention of
many of us this week that Samantha Power was "drug out from beneath
the bus" and given a position in the Obama administration. I found it
a bit curious that yesterday, President Obama thanked the UN for their
efforts overseeing a peaceful election in Iraq, but failed to mention
the 130,000 US soldiers still serving there, the hundreds of thousands
of others who have served there, and the 4000+ who made the ultimate
sacrifice so this election, the second in the young democracy's
history, could take place.  Obama only recognized the UN.  Exactly
what did the UN contribute to democratic Iraq? Ms. Power is on record
for supporting the US occupation of Israel. No one bothered to pin
down The One during the campaign on any specific issue relating to the
Middle East (he was here, he was there, he was for everyone and no one
in particular) so now might be a good time for HIM to give us some
better insight into his "vision". BTW, Iraq officially recognizes
Israel's right to exist and Christmas is an official Iraqi holiday -
for what it's worth.

Posted below is an article about the UN and Israel.  I'm assuming that
once Obama is finished writing his Valentine's Day card to
"Imadinnerjacket" he'll address Durban II.

Brad

---------------

The UN's insanity continues

By Anne Bayefsky

Friday, January 30th 2009, 4:00 AM

The United Nations "anti-racism" forum, known as Durban II, is
becoming a more important test for President Obama's multilateralist
ambitions with each passing day. Durban I was the anti-Semitic
hatefest that ended three days before 9/11. Durban II - the UN
equivalent of the Son of Sam - will take place in April in Geneva.
Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has called on Obama not to
legitimize the meeting, or its message, and not to attend. Canada has
decided to stay away. But Obama has still not decided whether the
United States will go. This Wednesday, however, the stakes got a lot
higher with the UN's release of the latest negotiating text.

Negotiators have now put on the table claims that (1) a homeland for
the Jewish people is racism - a "racially based law of return," (2)
Israel is guilty of "apartheid" and (3) the veracity of the murder of
one-third of the Jewish people during the Holocaust is subject to
question. A reference to Holocaust facts has now been
"square-bracketed" because Iran and Syria have questioned the numbers
of Jews that died and consensus is the only guiding principle
governing the decision-making process.

In total, six provisions are dedicated to demonizing Israel as racist.
Not one of the other 191 UN states is mentioned. The intention is
clear: the political defeat of Israel in the same vein as apartheid
South Africa, because repeated attempts at a military defeat of Israel
have failed.

But Israel is not the only target of Islamic and Arab states and their
developing world partners. The draft takes straight aim at freedom of
expression and counterterrorism. Free speech should supposedly be
curtailed by new laws against "projecting negative, insulting and
derogatory images of religions and religious personalities" and the
introduction of "a code of ethical conduct" for the media.
Counterterrorism activities are "obstacles hampering progress in the
collective struggle against racism."

At the top of the agenda is the creation of a hierarchy of human
rights victims with "Muslim minorities" topping matters of concern.
"The intellectual and ideological validation of Islamophobia" is a
"most disturbing phenomenon," the agenda says. "Anti-Arabism" is
introduced as intolerance of a religious minority. Religions, instead
of individuals, can be defamed. Calls are made to preserve "religious
and cultural identities" without reference to universal rights and
freedoms. Broad condemnation of "any advocacy of racial or religious
hatred which constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or
violence" is coupled with a refusal to require any finding by a
competent, independent and impartial tribunal and a fair and public
hearing.

In other words, Durban II is a frontal assault on universal human
rights and freedoms by religious fundamentalists.

The European Union members have consistently participated in the
Durban process from 2001 until today, approving the conference and its
agenda. Although some EU states have vigorously protested the
offensive draft provisions, they have been totally unable to prevail
at each step of the way. Because full democracies are a minority in
the UN, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference dominates the
developing world, they stand no chance of winning on the numbers
alone. Western diplomats, therefore, encourage the operating principle
of consensus.

The consensus requirement leaves the radicals with a controlling
interest. As a result, Iran is a vice president of the executive
committee of the Durban II drafting group and took the floor to voice
its "human rights" preferences more often than any other state during
last week's negotiating session. The chairman of the drafting
committee repeatedly asked Iran if it agreed with proposals, or
suggested to the EU that it negotiate agreed language with Iran. When
the meeting ended last Friday, the very first state to express its
satisfaction with the preparations for this conference was Iran.
Though the Iranian president openly advocates genocide and denies the
Holocaust, his representative cooed, "We hope we will continue in the
same spirit with our work. Thank you, Mr. Chairman."

Most important for the new Obama administration, this is not a
dialogue from which democratic states or values can emerge triumphant.
The multilateral reality is that without the numbers to prevail, the
EU will agree on an outcome regardless of the sacrifices required to
achieve consensus. The first lamb to be sacrificed will be "racist
Israel," just as the EU allowed in Durban I. In fact, the first Durban
conference - where the United States and Israel walked out - is a good
indicator of EU strategy at the United Nations: It is not prepared to
walk away. This outlook, of course, is well-known to the
anti-human-rights crowd. Consequently, they hold out until the end,
throw the EU a bone as a "compromise" and watch them hold news
conferences for the hometown crowds feigning success.

Durban II, therefore, presents a major test of Obama's multilateral
prowess. If he decides to go, he will legitimize a human rights fraud.
American values and interests will be pushed to the fringes while the
Europeans hang onto center stage - negotiating with anti-human-rights
extremists. In the end, Obama will either have to abandon human rights
victims, including Jews, or be forced to walk out and denounce the
"consensus" - leaving him marginalized early in his administration.

The obvious solution is both to maintain the status quo for the last
71/2 years - U.S. nonparticipation in the Durban forum - and launch
energetic efforts to fashion a more advantageous playing field for
multilateral engagement. Skillfully addressed, this is an opportunity
to encourage multilateralism that promotes, rather than defeats,
universal rights and freedoms.

Bayefsky is a professor at Touro College New York and a senior fellow
at the Hudson Institute.