Marc-Antoon21 april 2009 – 18:56

Sommige Westerse diplomaten verwijzen naar het vermeende antisemitisme van bepaalde tussenkomsten op de conferentie. Andere nemen aanstoot aan bepaalde passages in het 'ontwerp voor slotverklaring' (lees het zelf!) die zouden oproepen om de vrijheid van meningsuiting in te perken in naam van respect voor religieuze gevoeligheden. 'Onaanvaardbaar,' klinkt het, en de media praten dat vlotjes na.

Hypocrisie
Maar geen van beide argumenten vindt genade in de ogen van Samir Amin, de directeur van het Third World Forum in Dakar, Senegal.

De hele hetze tegen 'Durban 2' – die hij al in maart voorspelde – is enkel te snappen in het kader van het 'collectieve imperialisme' van de NAVO-landen, aldus Amin. De inzet voor het Westen (i.e. de NAVO-landen) is zo snel mogelijk het internationaal recht te torpederen, zodat het ongehinderd militair kan interveniëren waar en wanneer het maar wil. In naam van de mensenrechten en de democratie, uiteraard. (Zie ook de recente verklaringen van de Belgische minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Karel De Gucht: De Gucht bepleit recht op humanitaire inmenging.)

De werkelijke motieven zijn minder fraai, aldus Samir Amin. We citeren hem uitvoerig: “The real world is divided between dominant powers and dominated countries, and the former, to remain dominant, must preserve access to the natural resources of the entire planet for their exclusive profit, and the military control by the armed forces of the United States and its subaltern NATO allies has become the essential means for that purpose. (...) The real objectives of the new collective imperialism obviously cannot be admitted. To hide them, the powers in question have decided to exploit the discourse of democracy and human rights to their benefit. Therofore, the diplomacy of the Triad (the United States, Europe, Japan) paints a world divided between democratic and undemocratic countries. The democracies (NATO powers) demand a “right to intervene” to promote the progress of democracy and uphold human rights, which are violated here and there by barbaric dictatorships. Some even speak of a “duty to intervene”.”

Doorgeprikt
Voor de meerderheid van de wereldbevolking is dit manoeuver glashelder, aldus Amin. Vandaar de Westerse afkeer voor 'Durban 1' (de eerste conferentie, in Zuid-Afrika in 2001) en de vrees voor 'Durban 2'.

Amin: “Durban 1 was a double defeat for the NATO powers precisely because their maneuver was defeated both by the majority of governments of the South and by the Civil Society Forum” - door zowel de regeringen als de volkeren van het Zuiden dus.

“In the framework of their conference, the governments of most countries defended the principles of international law that prohibit any unilateral foreign intervention under any pretext. History has taught them the real reasons for these interventions and the hypocrisy of the discourse of the “civilizing mission”, now called “defense of human rights”. What has happened since Durban 1 (de aanval op Irak, nvdr) confirms the wisdom of their refusal. (...) The Civil Society Forum held on the occasion of Durban 1 also condemned the principle of foreign intervention in the affairs of the countries of the South. But it by no means renounced the idea of denouncing crimes committed by governments in the South against their peoples. The forum did not contest the legitimacy of campaigns organized to denounce these crimes and never said that the support of the peoples of the North for these common struggles for democracy was undesirable. However, the forum rightly refused to confuse necessary expressions of international solidarity of peoples with unilateraral decisions to intervene made by governments of the North! One cannot blame them. Through their experience of history, the peoples of the South know that imperialist domination has always been a major obstacle to democracy. They know the reason invoked to legitimize interventions – the “defense of democracy” - has never been brought up unless the planned interventions served the real objectives of imperialist domination. The peoples of the South must thelmselves take up their struggle for liberation, democracy, and social progress.”

Uitweg 'vrije meningsuiting'
Vandaar de zoektocht naar excuses om van 'Durban 2' een 'mislukking' te maken en er weg te kunnen blijven.

Voor de VS en Israël volstond het vermeende antisemitisme van elke kritiek op Israël – die onvermijdelijk van de partij zou zijn na de gruwel in Gaza. “But the rest of the European countries no doubt find it difficult to follow them, for doing so risks irritating the sensibilities in the South, especially in Africa and the Arab world,” schreef Amin in maart. “European diplomats, visibly desperate, are therefore looking for a pretext that would enable them, in turn, to withdraw from the conference. And lo and behold, they've got a pretext handed to them! What's at stake in Durban 2 has been obscured by the initiative to condemn “the defamation of religions” - in clear violation of the freedom of expression.”

“There is, alas, a great deal of confusion on this issue, because there is an organized Islamophobic campaign, which rather suits the governments of the NATO countries, implying that all Muslims are terrorists, at least potentially. But (...) the fact remains that (...) this formulation betrays an archaic, even obscurantist spirit.”

Maar Samir Amin merkt fijntjes op: “A curious initiative, whose authors are indeed for the most part the governments that are the faithful allies of Washington! Take, for instance, the Gulf states, whose obscurantist practices are in any case generally condoned by the authorities of the United States. One might add that this obscurantism is not unique to some “Muslims” but undoubtedly shared by “born again” Christians of the United States (including former President George W. Bush) and the Pope of the Catholic Church, who wouldn't see any problem with restoring the crime of blasphemy! The maneuver in any case may revael an interesting convergence between the objectives of the governments that claim to be representative of political Islam and those of the NATO countries on the lookout for excuses to boycott Durban 2.”

Slecht rapport voor het Westen?
Margaret Parsons, directeur van de African Canadian Legal Clinic, ziet nog een andere reden voor de Westerse boycot.

Aan Democracy Now verklaarde ze maandag: “While we're disappointed, we are not surprised, because this is about accountability. These countries have not come to the table with clean hands. They have never really meant to participate and really be held accountable for the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action, a document they all signed onto in 2001, the exception of Israel and the United States. At least the United States and Israel are being consistent in their position. However, these other countries are quite hypocritical in their withdrawal. You know, many here feel that if these countries had come, they would have received a failing grade, because they have done little to nothing to implement the Program of Action.”

Dat contrasteert met de inspanningen van andere delen van de wereld. “Many regions of the world, many countries have taken the Durban Declaration and Program of Action very seriously and have moved it forward, countries such as Brazil. The Afro-Latino and indigenous communities in regions in South America have seen not full and complete progress, but significant progress. We’ve seen the same thing happen in places like South Africa, with the Dalits in India. And so, I think that we are here now to support those countries, to support those regions and those governments, and as they move forward in the implementation.”

“The Durban Declaration and Program of Action is an excellent blueprint,” voegt Parsons er aan toe. “There was nothing in that document that was racist, anti-Semitic. It was an expression of goodwill. It was an expression of encouragement in terms of the peace process in the Middle East. And it is an excellent document and a blueprint that countries should adopt in working to eradicate racism.”

Zelf lezen
Ook volgens Igrid Jaradat van het in Betlehem gevestigde BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights houdt de kritiek op de teksten van Durban 1 en 2 – vermeend antisemitisme, de reden voor Israël en de VS om weg te blijven – geen steek. “Our first response has been the question whether these governments have actually read the original documents and the draft documents, because neither the original Durban Declaration and Program of Action nor current drafts include any inciting language against Israel. In the initial Durban documents of 2001, the only time Israel is mentioned it’s mentioned as a state entitled to security like all other states. So there is no—there has never been any sort of language that could be declared racist. And it makes you really wonder which documents people are referring to when they say they are antagonistic,” aldus Jaradat in dezelfde uitzending van Democracy Now

Haar conclusie: “And so, I would appeal to everybody who has good faith to go back to the documents and read the papers. And especially since we are dealing with a Durban review conference, it would be good to read the papers. So, that would be reaction number one, and—because much of what is now being said by governments and in the media about the debates and about the documents has no factual basis.”

Doen! Klikken op Ontwerp Slottekst Durban 2. En zie bijlage bij dit artikel voor de slotverkalring van Durban 1.

Ook de omstreden toespraak van de Iraanse president Ahmadinedjad, systematisch fout geciteerd, kan u maar beter zelf lezen.

Download:

durban-1.pdf