Boycott of racism conference an act of cowardice

In April, the United States government officially boycotted the United Nations World Conference Against Racism in Geneva. This was an unfortunate decision, though not unpredictable, as the U.S. had withdrawn from the previous conference that took place in Durban, South Africa in 2001. The State Department announced the government's official position, citing "objectionable language" contained in the initial draft declaration of the conference as the main obstacle to attending the conference. "Since then, substantial improvements have been made," the official statement continued, "including shortening the document, removing all language that singled out any one country or conflict, and removing language that embraced the concept of 'defamation of religion' and that demanded reparations for slavery." The statement concluded, "There remain, however, elements of the current draft text that continue to pose significant concerns."

Despite the U.S. withdrawal from the previous conference, the official U.S. boycott shocked many Americans who saw the election of Barack Obama as not only a referendum on war, health care and other issues, but also a definitive blow to racism and the ushering in of what many called the era of the "post-racial presidency."

In the eyes of most analysts, the U.S. simply boycotted the conference because the previous one had raised the topics of colonialism, slavery and apartheid. It also succeeded in giving new momentum to the struggle for reparations for slavery. But as the State Department itself noted, significant efforts were made to remove language from the declaration that the U.S. found problematic. Despite this, the Obama administration maintained that the draft declaration "reaffirmed in toto the flawed 2001 Durban Declaration."

One of the other main reasons for withdrawal was the issue of Zionism and the condemnation of Israeli policy as being reminiscent of apartheid. For these reasons, the Israeli government also boycotted the conference. In a BBC interview, the Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Yigal Palmor decried the nature of the first conference, in which he claimed Israel was singled out as "the most racist state on earth." However, no such language ever existed in the text, or in the final declaration.

Despite claims by the U.S., Israeli and various Western European governments, there were no such statements in either of the declarations. Israeli policies were criticized, but in good faith. There seemed to be an overriding consensus, even among some Western attendees, that the policies of Israel towards the Palestinians were reminiscent of apartheid in South Africa during the late 20th century. But the questioning of Israeli policies and the possibility of reparations for slavery were too uncomfortable for the U.S. administration.

Naomi Klein, in a recent article in "Harper's Magazine," argued that the issue of reparations had become a hot button issue in 2000 prior to the original Durban conference. In fact, African and Caribbean countries had been holding summits on reparations for a decade with little success. What made this conference special, Klein argued, was that a similar debate had taken off inside the U.S. during that time. In the face of numerous rulings against affirmative action, Klein explained, "a growing number of African-American scholars began to argue that the only way to force the US to make badly needed investments in impoverished neighborhoods and schools was to frame those investments as reparations."

Thus, fervor built around the anti-racism conference in 2001. Activists in countries around the world, from the U.S. to former colonial territories, rallied around the conference in the hope that it would be a historic referendum on racism and the crimes of the slave trade, and that it would re-ignite serious discussion surrounding the issue of reparations. These hopes were soon crushed, as the U.S. used non-existent anti-Semitism as an excuse to withdraw its participation.

It is unfortunate that the U.S. and other countries refused to attend a conference on racism because certain unpleasant, and possibly costly, subjects were to be raised. The boycott of Durban II is one more indication that the idea of a "post-racial" presidency is not only impossible, but is undesirable. By not acknowledging the ongoing perils of racism, we ensure that they will continue. Boycotting a conference about racism just because we don't want to hear what might be said amounts to an act of cowardice.