A proxy war over racism

A UNILATERALIST TREND in the United States foreign policy has been disturbingly noticeable in recent months. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration seems to be gaining the dubious distinction of excelling its own record by resorting to a cynical proxy war over Israel's identity in regard to the ongoing World Conference against Racism in Durban. Without much finesse Washington has exploited the efforts by the Arab delegates to portray Israel as a racist incarnate. Exuding a sense of outrage at this move by the Arabs and other friends of the Palestinians, the U.S. has now pulled out of the Durban conference after sending a low-level delegation for trouble-shooting on the Israeli issue behind the scenes. Yet, there are no two opinions about the salutary importance of an international conference to address the horrific practices of racism as also xenophobia and other related forms of intolerance within and across societies in today's increasingly interdependent world. Of direct interest to the participants gathered under the auspices of the United Nations is a vast array of issues in societal and individual justice. These range from the changing patterns of a more familiar divide between the Whites and the non-Whites to some arguably novel notions about the need for human rights-related apologies or reparations by the `civilised' West which had historically fattened itself on slavery in the not-so-distant past. There are also questions whether the Dalits of India should qualify for international patronage despite their constitutional safeguards and whether the Jewish state of Israel, founded by the motive force of Western-backed Zionism, is waging a racist war against the Palestinians and other Arabs.

While the anti-Israel lobbies were ostensibly the prime target of Washington's ire, hardly concealed is the Bush administration's determination to strike out a unilateral path over conspicuously multilateral matters. This certainly is in sync with the American President's go-it-alone preferences. Just two examples are his cavalier disdain for an arms control accord like the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, which had facilitated a global strategic stability for decades, and his expressed doubts over the wisdom of the international community, which included the U.S. under his predecessor, in having crafted the Kyoto protocol on urgent global climate issues. The question is whether America's pride and prejudices constitute the real problem.

On paper, the official and non-governmental discourse at Durban should impose no moral or material burden on the U.S. except for the controversial notion of reparations for the injustice of operating a system of slavery in the past. Yet, if the U.S. has now chosen to play the card of Israeli innocence after vaguely indicating a certain willingness to evaluate medieval slave- control policies as a possible subject for some form of apology, the reason can only reinforce the impression that Washington wants to demonstrate its ability to chart out its own global agenda for tomorrow. In contrast, the U.N. Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, opened the Durban conference with a balanced call for fair play in treating not only the past crimes against humanity such as the anti-Jewish holocaust but also the present plight of Palestinians under Israeli occupation. Both he and the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Mary Robinson, have rightly cautioned against allowing the Durban exercise to fail despite the immense challenges.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : Quotas as incentives