Recent Opposition

• South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint managed to delay the vote on Mr. Koh’s nomination in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  In a post on his website, Sen. DeMint noted that after meeting with Koh privately, he is “particularly concerned about the role he sees for international law when making and interpreting U.S. laws and how they apply to the Department of State.”  He also noted that Koh’s “judicial philosophy suggests that he believes international law supersedes U.S. federal law, and that the Constitution should be just one of many guide posts for the American legal system.  I fear Mr. Koh’s positions could undermine American sovereignty and the unique role the United States plays in the world.”

• A group of conservatives, including former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese, has released a statement announcing their opposition to the Harold Koh nomination for Legal Advisor to the State Department.  The group notes that Koh would favor “an aggressive misuse of treaties to impose social and economic policies on American citizens,” specifically the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).  The treaty has been used to further pro-abortion policies in signatory countries, such as Ireland, and even attempted to legalize prostitution in China.

More on Harold Koh can be read HERE.

As Day Three concluded at the United Nations Durban Review conference, Iran’s representative, Alireza Moaiyeri, formally objected to the diplomatic dissing of his President at the start of the week, when delegates walked out on the Iranian president’s speech. As Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused Israel of being a “cruel and repressive racist regime,” representatives from approximately two dozen European nations marched from the Assembly Hall in protest.

More specifically, Iran’s ire was directed at Jonas Gahr, Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs who spoke immediately after Ahmadinejad and denounced his hateful rant. Gahr said the messages in Ahmadinejad’s speech amounted to “incitement of hatred, spreading politics of fear and promoting an indiscriminate message of intolerance.” He added that Ahmadinejad’s allegations made Iran “the odd man out.”

“We strongly reject [Gahr’s] unwarranted and unsubstantiated references,” said Iran’s Moaiyeri, and we “consider them as without merit, unacceptable and out of order.” Moaiyeri also questioned “the Norwegian Foreign Minister’s sense of hearing to the applause given to the president by some members of the delegations.”

It’s frightening that such an obtuse and thin-skinned regime is about to acquire nuclear weapons.

The Iranian delegate also attacked UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon protesting his “deplorable, irresponsible and unwarranted statements.” Ban issued a statement on Monday after Ahmadinejad spoke which said in part:

“I deplore the use of this platform by the Iranian President to accuse, divide and even incite. This is the opposite of what this Conference seeks to achieve…It is deeply regrettable that my plea to look to the future of unity was not heeded by the Iranian President.”

“Those statements,” said Moaiyeri, “utterly contradict the UN well-established norms and practices to the affect that a civil servant of the United Nations should at all times abide by the principal of impartiality and refrain from making judgmental remarks on the position and statement made the members, let alone a head of state.” He argued that the “dignity of the head of state of a United Nations member should be respected and safeguarded at all times by all member states and in particular by the UN Secretary-General.”

One might argue that Ban did just that. At UN conferences, speakers submit their remarks in advance – as did Ahmadinejad in this case. Delegates, the media, and presumably the Secretary-General – whose response referenced his “earlier meeting” with the Iranian president – had access to the speech before it was delivered. Yet, Ban obediently took his seat in the Assembly Hall right behind Ahmadinejad and listened politely. When the European delegates protested, Ban remained seated and stayed to hear more.

Also on the dais as Ahmadinejad spoke were Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the President of the Conference, Amos Wako, who is Kenya’s Attorney General. According to the Rules of the Conference, “The President…shall have complete control of the proceedings and over the maintenance of order thereat.” Wako, had he chosen, could have insisted on decorum, ruled Ahmadinejad out of order, and prevented him from continuing his speech. A UN official confirmed for me that “it is the prerogative of the chair of any meeting to make a decision to halt a speech.”

Of course, any delegation could have challenged such a decision, but an objection by the chair, or a walkout by Ban, would have been preferable to the stale and dispassionate denunciations routinely issued by UN officials.

Click HERE to listen.

Click HERE to listen.

The diminutive Iranian was sure to cause a spectacle at the UN today, as he is the world’s most controversial leader, and the only head of state to address the conference this week. Following his speech, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the Iranian leader saying, “I deplore the use of this platform by the Iranian President to accuse, divide and even incite.”

These are the kinds of foolish games that are played at the United Nations. If Ban Ki-moon were serious about protecting the “integrity” of his conference, he would have denounced and disinvited Ahmadinejad two weeks ago. Anyone who was surprised, or even mildly taken aback, by Ahmadinejad’s words today is a fool. He has a long history of hatred and has effectively used the United Nations as a megaphone over the past several years to spread hatred.

One person who understands the leverage Ahmadinejad gains from the UN forum is actor Jon Voight. Speaking at a press conference after the Iranian leader spoke, Voight called on “all God-loving people to unite and stop this evil pollution” and to prevent Ahmadinejad from gaining “any platform to spread his lies, and his insanity, and his evil intentions to our new generation.”

After speaking in the Assembly Hall, Ahmadinejad made his way to a press room packed with more than 100 journalists. During his press briefing, Ahmadinejad claimed it was the United States that “unilaterally severed relations” with Iran 29 years ago – failing to mention that at that time Iranian terrorists took the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans as hostages for 444 days. Some of the hostages believe Ahmadinejad was one of the militant students responsible for their captivity. Now he says he “welcomes the basic changes” in the U.S.-Iranian relationship since Barack Obama took the Oval Office.

His press conference was a rambling tirade of conspiracy. During the briefing, Ahmadinejad called for the veto held by the five permanent members of the Security Council to be abolished and for all countries to have a vote in Security Council matters; he denounced the injustice and “undemocratic” process by which questions to him were pre-selected during his speech at Columbia University in New York two years ago; and he said “foreign occupiers” were to blame when asked about Muslims killing Muslims.

Sitting through an Ahmadinejad press conference is like visiting the carnival and riding the roller coaster through the Hall of Mirrors and the Haunted House at the same time. When he was finished, approximately one-third of the press corps applauded his performance.

Afterward, Ahmadinejad’s UN appearance was denounced by Voight, who was joined by Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, Professor Alan Dershowitz, and author Shelby Steele. Dershowitz called the Durban Review Conference a “conference of hate, starring a speaker of hate.” Voight said he was there to be a voice “for the love of freedom, for the love of democracy, for the love of life.”

In his opening statement this morning, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon observed that “some nations, who by rights should be helping to forge a path to a better future, are not here.” He said he “deeply regrets” that the U.S. and others – to include Canada, Italy, Israel, Australia and others – “have chosen to stand aside.”

To emphasize the U.S. absence, Ban invoked the words of a former U.S. President, Teddy Roosevelt. “My allegiance and sympathies,” Ban noted, “have always been with the men and women in the arena, struggling with courage and determination to win the day.” He added that “it may be easier to criticize those efforts from afar, but it does not advance the universal cause.”

For his part, Mr. Obama said that he “would love to be involved in a useful conference,” but U.S. participation “would have involved putting our imprimatur on something we just didn’t believe in.”

Is it possible the President realizes the United Nations isn’t the serving of peaches and cream that he thought it to be? During his campaign for the White House, then Senator Obama habitually criticized the Bush administration for ignoring the United Nations. But when faced with the text agreed to by Durban II delegates, Obama said it “raised a whole set of objectionable provisions,” and was “not something we can sign up for.”

Navi Pillay, the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights was harsh in her criticism of Obama’s absence, saying the U.S. has “permitted one or two issues to dominate their approach to this issue.” Pillay said she was “shocked and deeply disappointed by the United States decision not to attend a conference that aims to combat racism, xenophobia, racial discrimination and other forms of intolerance worldwide.”

The Commissioner suggested that the U.S. should have attended the conference and expressed any objections “in a footnote.” Had the U.S. chosen that route, she explained, “we could have all moved on together, and put the problems of 2001 behind us.”

In the world of the United Nations, resolving deeply held religious and political convictions is as simple as that.

In the case of Durban II, the President calculated his involvement with the United Nations would do him more harm than good. Nonetheless, he held out hope for the global institution. “I believe,” he said, “in the possibility of the United Nations serving as an effective forum to deal with a whole host of transnational conflicts.”

The UN is not the “effective forum” of your aspirations, Mr. President, and it will likely never be. You can hope, but the United Nations is not going to change.

The conference, which claims to address the “contemporary manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,” is just another opportunity for delegates to hurl epithets at the U.S. and Israel. The conference was on the Obama Administration’s wish list from the start. Shortly after winning the election in November, Mr. Obama signaled his desire to make the meeting, and his State Department worked hard to craft an outcome document it could support. At the United Nations, however, “change” does not come easy to those who harbor anti-Semitic views.

Had things gone their way, Team Obama hoped to send the President from the Summit of the Americas to “Durban II,” as it is called here. Meet-ups with Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez in Trinidad could have been followed by a chance encounter in Geneva with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – cementing Obama’s “Axis of Affection.” Oh, what might have been.

Alas, Obama’s much anticipated group hug with the United Nations will have to wait. But it should make you wonder. If Obama – who has bowed to the Saudi king and rubbed elbows with Ortega and Chavez – doesn’t want to be seen in the company of these UN miscreants, what must they be up to?

In two words – bureaucratic terrorism. The conference is dominated by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), and is used largely as a forum to promote hatred of Israel. The gathering in Geneva is a follow-up to the World Conference Against Racism held in Durban, South Africa in 2001 – a conference which found the American and Israeli delegates walking out in protest. It was described by the late Tom Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor to serve in Congress, as “the most sickening and unabashed display of hate for Jews I had seen since the Nazi period.”

This week’s Durban Review Conference reaffirms the discredited text of the 2001 meeting, and adds an element which promotes censorship of speech that is deemed critical of Islam. In the most recent version of this conference’s outcome document, one section states in part:

“…all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts shall be declared offence punishable by law, in accordance with the international obligations of States…”

This text is part of a continuing effort by the OIC and the UN to prevent “the defamation of religions.” The only religious criticism they wish to stop, however, is that of Islam. We’ve all seen the vitriolic and often violent response of Muslims to prominent criticisms, or perceived criticisms, of Islam or Mohammed. The Durban Review Conference aims to codify that attitude into international law.

While a focus on “Islamophobia” is a major part of the conference, there are other troubling aspects. The text of the outcome document also:

“invites governments and their law enforcement agencies to collect reliable information on hate crimes in order to strengthen their efforts to combat racism.”

As we saw last week, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security doesn’t need any more encouragement to collect information on its own citizens.

As in all UN gatherings, the United States is a target of criticism at the Durban Review conference which condemns “colonialism” and “foreign occupation” – diplomatic epithets often hurled America’s way in the General Assembly. In the U.S., anybody expressing concern about our open borders policy has been targeted by the Left as racist and hateful – a charge which the delegates of Durban II are happy to encourage. The UN urges nations to:

“prevent manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance at country border entry areas, in particular vis-à-vis immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers…”

The Durban Review Conference is another example of hypocrisy in action at the United Nations. President Obama was right to stay away from the United Nations this week. I wish that were his instinct toward the institution as a whole. Unfortunately, I suspect that Barack Obama’s absence this week will only make his heart grow fonder of the UN.

Updates will be made if events warrant. A full report, along with supporting documents from the conference, can be seen in the week following.

UPDATE:

U.S. will not attend Durban II

A State Department press release on Saturday dealt the vaunted World Racism Conference a serious blow by announcing the U.S. will not participate. State Department spokesman Robert Wood stated:

“Unfortunately, it now seems certain these remaining concerns will not be addressed in the document to be adopted by the conference next week. Therefore, with regret, the United States will not join the review conference. The United States remains fully committed to upholding the human rights of all individuals and to fighting racial discrimination of every form in every context. We will continue to work assiduously in all United Nations fora and with all nations to combat bigotry and end discrimination.”

The Assessment is troubling because its charges are based on conjecture, with no statistics or research to substantiate its claims. The Assessment warns against conservative thought – specifically beliefs in national sovereignty, border security, 2^nd Amendment rights, and a pro-life advocacy – as a rallying point for the perpetuation of more conservative thought.

What the Report Says:

• “Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures.”

There is nothing “perceived” about the loss of jobs. In discussing the 5.1 million jobs lost since December 2007, Keith Hall, Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, said “These declines have been widespread across industry sectors, but particularly sharp in manufacturing, construction, and temporary help services.” Last month 161,000 jobs in manufacturing and 126,000 jobs in construction were lost.   There have been over 800,000 home foreclosure filings this quarter.

• “Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use.”

Apparently, citizens are no longer allowed to disagree with the administration in power. In the 1990’s Democrats and congressional Republicans worked together to reform welfare. It seems that now, any disagreement with the administration’s “expansion of social programs to minorities,” will be met with intimidation from federal law enforcement.

• “Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages.”

Illegal immigrants were, and still are, taking American jobs. Why is Homeland Security more concerned with the thoughts of American citizens than the crimes of illegal immigrants? The so-called “perception” to which the report refers, was understood by a broad spectrum. A 2006 Time Magazine poll showed that 36 percent of Republicans and 37 percent of Democrats felt that illegal immigrants “take jobs away from Americans.”

• “Rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes could escalate or be magnified in the event of an economic crisis or military confrontation…The dissolution of Communist countries in Eastern Europe and the end of the Soviet Union in the 1990s led some rightwing extremists to believe that a ‘New World Order’ would bring about a world government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution, thus infringing upon their liberty.  The dynamics in 2009 are somewhat similar…”

When the Supreme Court cites laws of other countries and when members of Congress suggest that the UN Security Council should make our national security decisions for us, that is an infringement of American sovereignty.

• “DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat…The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.”

This is perhaps the most disturbing argument being made in this report. To lump our veterans in with terrorists is unconscionable.

“We appreciate that many delegations continue to work hard in good will to improve the current text. We hope that these remaining concerns will be addressed, so that the United States can re-engage the conference process with the hope of arriving at a Conference document that we can support.”

The two stumbling blocks to U.S. participation remain the length of the document (despite being whittled down from 45 pages to 17) and the affirmation of the first Durban document. The State Department also believes that though the defamation of religion sections have been removed, “language related to ‘incitement’ of religious hatred” is a “concept that the United States believes should be narrow and clearly defined and made consistent with human rights obligations ensuring freedom of expression.”

Read the release here.

Earlier this month the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, stated that she was “firmly convinced that the current text contains all the elements that would foster and underpin a consensual outcome of the Durban Review Conference.”

The draft document in its current form can be read here.