RIGHTS: U.N. Chief Deplores Iranian Statement on Racism

• by Thalif Deen (united nations)
• Monday, April 20, 2009
• Inter Press Service

Nor do world leaders lambaste the Secretariat or its chief administrative officer. They are both known to pull their punches.

But in recent times, both protocol and caution have been thrown to the winds, as ground rules are apparently changing.

First, it was Robert Mugabe, the beleaguered president of Zimbabwe, who implicitly accused Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of playing politics.

'We are of the view that international civil servants should discharge their noble duties with sensitivity and neutrality,' he told the 192-member General Assembly in late September.

At no time, Mugabe said, 'should they seek to pander to the whims of the mighty against the weak.'

'It is our firm belief that the secretary-general and his staff should be allowed to serve all member states without fear or favour,' he added.

And now, at the opening of an anti-racism conference in Geneva on Monday, it was the secretary-general's turn to openly criticise a world leader: this time, the controversial Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who equated Zionism and Israel as embodiments of racism.

The weeklong meeting in Geneva - which is being boycotted by the United States and several other countries over the Israel controversy - is an international conference to follow up on the 2001 Durban conference on racism.

In his statement, described as 'hate-filled' by human rights groups, Ahmadinejad said that 'following World War II, they [powerful countries] resorted to military aggressions to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering and the ambiguous and dubious question of holocaust.'

In a stinging attack on Ahmadinejad, Ban said he 'deplored' the use of the Geneva meeting as a platform by the Iranian president 'to accuse, divide and even incite'.

'This is the opposite of what this conference seeks to achieve,' he said.

Furthermore, he said, 'this makes it significantly more difficult to build constructive solutions to the very real problem of racism.'

'It is deeply regrettable that my plea to look to the future of unity was not heeded by the Iranian president,' Ban continued.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, an Asian diplomat told IPS: 'I suppose the secretary-general did not have much of a choice - if he did not say anything, he might be perceived as being weak and agreeing with the Iranian president's statement, especially since he is also attending the same conference.'

And the secretary-general's sentiments are likely to be shared by a large number of countries.

'The Iranian president has, as usual, gone over the top. Not quite sure what he is trying to prove. It only undermines the goals of the conference,' the diplomat added.

An Arab diplomat had a different political perspective: 'Ban Ki-moon is perhaps trying to bend over backwards to please the United States and Israel - particularly after his criticism of Israel over the killings in Gaza last year.'

According to published reports, about 15 to 20 countries, including delegates from Britain, France and Finland, staged a walkout to protest the Iranian's president's statement.

But Human Rights Watch (HRW) was critical of the walkout. Ahmadinejad's speech contradicted the spirit and purpose of the conference, which is to defeat the scourge of racism, said Juliette de Rivero, HRW's Geneva advocacy director.

'The best response to Ahmadinejad's inflammatory rhetoric is to stay in Geneva and rebut it,' she said.

She said HRW has urged the European Union member states and other delegations that walked out during the Ahmadinejad speech to return to the chamber and work together to adopt the draft declaration against racism.

Despite this ugly speech, de Rivero said, governments can still rescue the conference and ensure that the world agrees to a strong mandate for the U.N. to tackle racism.

'Racism does real damage to real people and it shouldn't be manipulated for political ends,' she declared.

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay was equally critical of Ahmadinejad's speech.

'I condemn the use of a U.N. forum for political grandstanding. I find this totally objectionable,' she said.

She also pointed out that much of his speech was beyond the scope of the conference. 'It also clearly went against the longstanding U.N. position adopted by the General Assembly with respect to equating Zionism with racism.'

Pillay said the best riposte for this type of event is to reply and correct, not to withdraw and boycott the conference.

© Inter Press Service (2009) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

Where next?

Advertisement