Dear Secretary Hillary Clinton:

We write to urge you, as President-elect Obama's nominee for Secretary of State, to act as soon as possible following your confirmation to announce formally that the United States will not participate in the forthcoming UN Durban Review Conference (Durban II).  This continuation of American policy since September 2001, in defense of the state of Israel and fundamental American values, is crucial both for Israel's welfare and to the successful protection of international rights and freedoms for all.

We were deeply disturbed by the hateful, antisemitic atmosphere that plagued the 2001 UN Racism Conference.  Congressman Tom Lantos, a Holocaust survivor, led the United States out of the conference along with the representatives of the state of Israel and every major Jewish non-governmental organization in attendance from around the world.  The UN's antiracism movement was hijacked by forces which do not have the best interest of human rights victims at heart and Congressman Lantos spoke for them and our great nation. 

Since leaving the Durban Conference, the United States has consistently voted against every resolution on Durban "follow-up" along with the State of Israel, refused to fund Durban II planning and preparatory events, and refused to participate in all planning activities associated with Durban II.  It has been a clear, consistent and principled position, based on a refusal to lend any credibility to a mechanism which contains the demonization of the state of Israel as part of its fixed agenda.  Maintaining that position cannot be construed as American disinterest in combating racism.  On the contrary, it is a strong consistent refusal to build a regime of equality for some on a foundation which sacrifices the equality of others.

Years ago, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan told the United Nations, in the wake of its adoption of the infamous Zionism is racism resolution, that "The United States...does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act."  Although the resolution was eventually rescinded after 17 years, the Durban process (which includes the first conference, the follow-up and the review conference) has taken up that insidious and antisemitic call.  As Martin Luther King said in a 1968 appearance at Harvard:  "when people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews."  The Obama administration should and must honor King's profound understanding of what remains very much a current threat.

Contrary to appeals for American attendance by some, it is unassailable that the Durban II conference agenda has already been set and it begins with the implementation of Durban I's Declaration.  U.S.participation will not and cannot change that fact.  Instead, what participation will do is lend credibility and breathe new life into an act which the U.S. has already rejected, forcefully and unequivocally.

Furthermore, every indication of the planning process proves that Durban II will be worse than the original conference - in addition to affirming the Durban I result.  The current draft of the so-called outcome document (December 26, 2008) has an entire section called the "Middle East" which includes such defamatory language against Israel as:  "Expresses deep concern at the practices of racial discrimination against the Palestinian people as well as other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories."  "... the Palestinian people ... have been subjected to ... torture."  "[A]foreign occupation founded on settlements, was based on racial discrimination ... contradicts the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

The chair of the preparatory committee of Durban II is Libya, who has been exercising an extremely negative role in the planning process and whose influence will continue.  On the executive of the preparatory committee, or bureau, sits Iran who has also been influential in sculpting events.  Iran and the Libyan Chair were instrumental in scuttling the application to participate in the conference of Canada's primary pro-Israel and Jewish advocacy umbrella group.  The Libyan Chair, along with UN members from Egypt, Syria and Algeria among others, has constantly interrupted non-governmental organizations that have attempted to make contributions on the subject of antisemitism in all of the planning sessions.  This dynamic is entrenched in the Durban process.  The one saving grace has been the absence of the United States, whose absence has denied moral authority to this forum.

While it is true that the negotiating strategy of hardliners to date may be to include sections in the drafting documents which are more extreme than participants will ultimately accept, participation necessitates lending legitimacy to a discussion for and against a Jewish state, for and against drawing analogies between Israel and apartheid South Africa, for and against freedom of expression, for and against protection from antisemitism, for and against even a definition of antisemitism to mean the hatred of Jews (which many participants reject.)

There are some who suggest that a decision to leave the conference can be taken at a later date.  This suggestion is disingenuous.  Planning and preparation for Durban II are now in their final phases.  An American absence has been the rule on Durban I "follow-up" for seven and a half years.  Entering the process for the first time less than 3 months before the conference itself would initiate a dynamic that would carry a much higher diplomatic price if subsequently reversed.  

In addition, attendance would drag America into a divisive and early confrontation with the 56 UN member states from the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and other developing nations, that can and should be avoided.  Religion and religious themes are mentioned in the Durban II draft 62 different times.  This extraordinary attention paid to religion in an anti-racism context paves the way for an ugly confrontation at the conference itself.   Among other things, the proceedings will constitute an assault on freedom of expression.  Draft provisions include an attack on alleged defamation against religious personalities and holy books, as well as a call for a code of conduct for journalists.  

Most importantly, the terms, conditions and composition of this conference will not permit America and like-minded democratic allies to prevail on the merits.  The organization, planning and outcomes to date make it clear that compromises which jeopardize American values will be necessary to achieve a consensus outcome.  This means that enormous pressure will be brought to bear on the United States not to be the "spoiler".  Instead, we can and should refuse to sit down to play with a stacked deck.  American leadership in the important field of combating racism should be carefully planned to ensure that protection moves forward and not backward.

The United States will not be alone in taking this position of principle.

Likewise, Canada's Foreign Minister and Secretary of State for Multiculturalism stated on January 23, 2008 that Canada will not participate and added:  "Our considered judgment, having participated in the preparatory meetings, was that we were set for a replay of Durban I.  And Canada has no intention of lending its good name and resources to such a systematic promotion of hatred and bigotry." 

The United States can and should be a world leader in combating racism wherever it is found.    But the Durban Review Conference is a forum which has been irrevocably tarnished.  Participation would seriously undercut the ability of the United States to play a constructive role in combating racism, now and in the future.  We, therefore, call on you to announce that the United States will not participate.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

cc. Susan Rice, UN Ambassador

 "iPetition" is a product of RemoteIT.com