Un Stages Another Racism Conference, Which Could Be An Embarrassment

Written by Laina Farhat-Holzman

September 22, 2008
Laina Farhat-Holzman
...understatement of the week in the title of this article..."could be"
On Sept. 8, 2001, three days before the Sept. 11 attack, the U.N. held a "World Conference against Racism" in Durban, South Africa. This disgraceful conference had been taken over by Muslims and their European and American leftist colleagues who professed that only Israel was racist.
Nobody mentioned Zimbabwe's persecution of white farmers, nor Saudi Arabia's blatant bigotry. Some, who mistakenly expected a real exploration of racism, misogyny and religious bigotry, could only choose to leave. Colin Powell, then our secretary of state, walked out.

Because of the 9/11 attack, the press coverage of this nasty conference melted away. But not to be deterred, the U.N. is putting on a second conference - this time in Geneva, because Durban was too embarrassed to permit a sequel. Columnist Joel Brinkley San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 10, foresees this conference as a major embarrassment to the U.N. and that it will widen the rift between the West and the Muslim world.

As Brinkley notes, the U.N. Planning Committee chairman is Libya; the rapporteur is Cuba; and the new vice chair is Iran - all of these poster children for abuse of human rights. The European Union wanted to discuss freedom of expression, but this subject was found "not acceptable" by Egypt. There is no freedom of expression in Muslim countries for any but official spokesmen, and their populations know this.

The U.N.'s Human Rights Council is organizing this conference, which is monstrous and offensive. The conference will go on, but it is evident that nobody from the West will be there, except for the same radical leftists who think that the only villains in the world are American or Israeli.

This sort of thing will convince conservatives, who already detest the United Nations, that the U.S. should withdraw from it and kick them out of New York. I think it is important for us to know what the U.N. is, what it can do, and what it cannot do. This will prevent us from expecting what is unrealistic - and from throwing out the baby with the bath water.

It would be too bad if we unwisely removed ourselves from the U.N., depriving ourselves of its more useful features and having no clout to affect it.

Laina Farhat-Holzman is a historian, lecturer, and author. Contact her at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or http://www.globalthink.net/.

Agree or disagree with the authors view on staying in the U.N., but she is spot on regarding the travesty of the "conference" and the tyrannical hijacked U.N. Human Rights Council. Here's an idea - cut U.N. spending in half in 2009, by 3/4 in 2010, and require oil-rich Muslim nations who are taking control of the U.N. to pony up petrol-dollars. When they balk it might indicate leaving the U.N. ain't such a bad idea.

You are now being logged in using your Facebook credentials