The 10th-anniversary commemoration of the UN’s “Durban I” conference on racism will apparently face opposition from the United States. It was announced earlier this month that the conference, billed as Durban III, will be held in conjunction with the UN General Assembly session in September 2011. That would make New York City host to the third in a series of conferences that have twice served as forums for vociferous anti-Semitism and invective against Israel.
The Jerusalem Post reports today, however, that the U.S. opposes holding Durban III at the proposed time. This was to be expected, considering that the U.S. delegation walked out of the first Durban conference and pulled out of the second one in advance. But the proposal to hold Durban III in New York raises a deeper issue. Will the U.S. merely oppose holding Durban III on our soil, or will we prohibit it? We may have to do the latter if we want to prevent an episode of unseemly triumphalism in our most iconic metropolis. But doing so would not be without hazards. The choice of the UN headquarters in New York sets up the potential for a confrontation. It’s an ambiguous venue from the standpoint of sovereignty: on American soil, but in theory dedicated to multilateral UN purposes.
The traditional U.S. reluctance to exercise force majeure over the UN’s political activities has good arguments behind it. In the case of Durban III, however, American national sentiment is unlikely to tolerate the principle of host-nation quiescence regarding UN activism. The New York Daily News captured it crudely but accurately with its assessment of the Durban III planners: “Clearly, they intend to stick it in America’s eye.”
President Obama’s speech of national self-abnegation to the General Assembly in September 2009, delivered on America’s behalf, opened the door to attempts of this kind. I have no doubt that his representatives in the UN honestly oppose the current plan for Durban III, but it’s a natural consequence of the president’s rhetoric and policies. This is what the UN’s anti-liberal factions do: take miles when inches are given. In terms of posturing and rhetoric, there is no meeting them halfway.
If American diplomats can induce our fellows on the UN Human Rights Council to think better of their Durban III plan, that will be a satisfactory outcome. If the Durban III proponents force the issue, the U.S. will have some choices to make. I’m optimistic that the American people will oppose a Durban III in New York with vigor; if it ends up being held here, it will galvanize and focus domestic political opposition to the Durban process in a way neither previous conference has. Unfortunately, it will also increase public alienation from the Obama presidency. Americans are accustomed — and properly so — to presidents keeping our nation’s name out of the foreign political movements we find vile and distasteful.
Well, when you try to explain this to Obama supporters that the reason Joe is so important is not because of what he asked, but what he represents about America in general, they scoff at you. When you try to tell them that the demonization of a private citizen for questioning those who seek the reigns of power will have a chilling effect for all citizens they mock you as a right-wing zealot. Indeed, if this is the new face of the Democratic Party we should all be afraid for one side of America sees itself in sync with the Founding Father’s vision and the other side sees itself in sync with the form Soviet Union.
Joe the Plumber is the gift that keeps on giving. And thankfully his first name is Joe. The only good thing about Biden is his first name is Joe.
Ha! Isn’t it ironic that the Republican base supposedly includes more people without college degrees than with?
I think that speaks more to the status of higher education than of the intelligence of the Repbulican base.
Having said that, I don’t actually believe Yglesias’ thesis without supporting evidence. A very high percentage of the people I know consider themselves part of the Republican base. Virtually all of them have degrees or advanced degrees. Of course most of them obtained those degrees in earlier times before higher education became an anti-American propaganda mill.
Who is the “young hip lesbian” supposed to be? Obama would qualify if he were a little more masculine and a little less passive aggresive.
Yglesias’ bigotry against White males is as predictible as it is contemptible, but his assertion that College educated Americans tend to be Democrats is as false as it is risible. Maybe in the liberal arts, but most collegians choose other majors. Anybody who quotes the fraudulent figures promulgated by university faculty and the DNC is a lying rat bastard by definition.
Do you read me. Matt? You’re a capering little buffoon.