FOR THOSE seeking further evidence that the United States' United Nations dues could be better spent subsidizing Midwest production of the Flo-Bee, look to the recently adjourned U.N. Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance held in Durban, South Africa. The delegates emerged Saturday with a rather long resolution generally condemning slavery, parts of the slave trade and oppression by occupying powers. They didn't, however, emerge with any greater consensus about how to combat racism or how to get the nations of the world to work together.
This lack of productivity reflects two major difficulties with this conference and why most individuals rightly viewed it as a long, expensive joke: The Conference suffered from ridiculously vague ambitions and from ridiculously poor motivations.
First, there was a problem in trying to tackle too much. The conference had a stated goal: "to identify the sources and victims of racism and discrimination in contemporary life and to recommend ways for governments, civic groups and international organizations to prevent and combat them" ("U.N. Conference on Racism Opens," The Washington Post, Aug. 1). They also hoped to locate a way to fight gravity.
While the general goal sounds laudable and supportable by 99.98 percent of Americans, considering who was to decide what comprised racism and how it could be stopped made the process rather futile. One starts with the initial problem of tying racism with nationalism. Obviously, one country's racism may be another country's attempts at foreign policy.
At the conference, 166 nations were represented. Each one has a different view of the way the world operates. One nation-group may believe itself the general victim of systematic racist practices. The other country may believe it is justified in being less than friendly, as the primary nation-group with whom it has less-than-kind relations is made up of one nationality and one race.
Not limiting the scope of the conference didn't lead to a substantial resolution. The above-mentioned links between nationality and racism led the Palestinian-friendly delegations to support the use of strong language that referenced Israel as an example of a racist nation. Although used to acting as the unifying force at most U.N. gatherings - much as Spain was a unifying force for America in the 1890s - Israel felt particularly aggrieved and left. The U.S., looking for the chance to blow its diplomacy budget by protesting in Rio De Janeiro, left as well.
Given the vagueness of the conference, the resolution that came out of it is reflective of the bureaucracy one normally attaches to overly aggrandized and ambitious endeavors.
Yes, before the world can get to more controversial issues, delegates have to acknowledge the existence of racism, much like somebody wanting to hang glide has to acknowledge wind. Had the conference begun with such a limited goal and stayed with that goal, major countries probably wouldn't have left. Consequently, the resolution would have had greater legitimacy.
The overly ambitious nature of the conference should cause some to question the motives of those who attended it. In addition to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, some nations wished to promote reparations - typically cash damages - for countries victimized by certain forms of past racism. At one point, Fidel Castro and Jesse Jackson, showing the relevance typically accorded to a Poison reunion, made the case for this monetary-based way to make the world right and happy.
This may be the greatest frustration and failure of the conference. Rather than state that they wished to discuss something like financial disparities among nations, a number of conference members tried to clothe such controversies in the appealing ideas of acknowledging and combating racism.
Hiding complex issues of foreign policy in a topic - anti-racism - that should receive general support should make one wonder whether the delegates wanted to accomplish anything or rather hoped to turn the process into a substantial money-grab.
Simply stated, the conference attempted to accomplish too much. Its decision to have such ambitious goals certainly could be questioned. As a result, one wonders if anyone will care if another similar conference appears on the horizon.
(Seth Wood's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at swood@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 17 hours agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
