Which UN idiot invited Ahmadinejad to a racism conference?

What was the United Nations thinking inviting a well-known holocaust denier to a racism conference?

FIRST POSTED APRIL 21, 2009

What on earth got into the heads of United Nations officialdom when they decided it would be a good idea to hold a conference on racism in Geneva? I shouldn't imagine that Ban Ki-moon had much input, because like most UN Secretary Generals, he's nothing much besides a superannuated politician and placeman.

In Britain we bump our duds 'upstairs' to the European Commission - globally they get bumped up to the UN. If Ban had any opinions worth holding, beyond a flabby attachment to multilateralism, he wouldn't be in the job.

So, this conference was naught but a policy wonks' plan that reeks of an attempt to safely swat such buzz-concepts as 'relevance' and 'inclusion'. You can see their thinking: we'll hold a conference on racism and all the delegates will say they're against it, and then ordinary folk everywhere will realise what a jolly good thing the UN is, and impress upon their leaders that they should give us their undivided respect - and money.

This strategy: to stretch over the heads of the nasty states and reach the fundamentally decent citizens might just - and I say 'just' - have had some traction; after all, the signal feature of racism is that it's lots of little individual fears bundled together and sold as a collective prejudice - or policy.

But to imagine for one millisecond that it would be a good idea to invite a controversial head of state to address the conference blows a colossal hole in the whole idea. Then to be surprised for a further millisecond when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran uses the podium to accuse Israel of racism is utterly fatuous.

Accusing Israel of being racist - plus the odd soupcon of Holocaust denial - is what Ahmadinejad does, just as light switches produce illumination. C'mon! He isn't going to renounce such attitudes purely because he's on a junket to the placid land of horded Nazi gold, nor does he give a Lindt-coated fig for relevance or inclusion.

Iran may not be a complete hate-fuelled theocracy, but Ahmadinejad's powerbase thrives on such bigotry, quite as much as he does on defying international bodies, whether they be designed to prevent the spread of racism or radioactive materials.

I'm not opposed to the UN on principle - indeed, on the sound basis that Dubya's enemy is my friend, I've always had more time for the institution than it obviously merits. But the contrast between this waste of its resources and travesty of its remit, with the difficult and compellingly humane work that Unicef are trying to do in the remaining portion of northern Sri Lanka held by the Tamil Tigers, is stark. The UN should stick to doing this kind of relief work, putting pressure on individual governments and brokering bilateral peace arrangements - all the rest is celluloid badges and expenses claims.

But if the UN's original motives were suspect, how much more tacky are those of the US and European governments, who bleat on about Ahmadinejad's dreadful racism mostly because they are fervent supporters of Israel.

I don't believe Israel to be wholly racist - but large parts of it are, and the N-words of the piece are indisputably the Palestinians. Indeed, I'd go further: almost all states have a racist component, because - rather like Ahmadinejad - that's what states do, they exclude or repress one group/people at the behest of another, it's bound into their DNA.

On second thoughts perhaps that's why the wonks decided to hold their conference in Geneva; after all, Switzerland isn't a country conspicuous for its open-doors immigration policy, or deep tolerance for others with differently coloured skins.

FIRST POSTED APRIL 21, 2009

Add to:

Comments

Hide comments

Most of what Ahmadinejad said was indisputable except by those who are controlled one way or another by Israel, who then all walked out led, of course, by Poodle UK, surprise surprise. Perhaps his aim was to flush out the Israel apologists who are part of the problem; they will not tolerate any criticism of Israel, full stop, so Israel behaves like a nazi bully, and they just say tut tut, but very quietly. This European guilt over the holocaust which Israel exploits unscrupulously to literally get away with murder has to stop some day. But Ahmadinejad is a joker, he loves to wind stuffed shirts up, which is why, I suspect, he denies the holocaust, which is now an industry for excusing Israelis of anything.

Posted by Peter Simmons at 10:33am on April 22, 2009

You said it yourself: "...after all, the signal feature of racism is that it's lots of little individual fears bundled together and sold as a collective prejudice - or policy." For the past 75 years, that is exactly what the West & Europe has been feeding the masses, via the media, about Arabs and Islam. World leaders don't care about world peace; they are doing business... it is all about wealth and power. Gee, I thought everybody knew that by now. To quote Albert Einstein~ "All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field."

Posted by Dean Morgan at 11:50am on April 22, 2009

As it started in Munich in the early twenties with a little guy with a funny mustache, who grew to be the colossal giant that spiraled the world into war, calamity and finally the holocaust, so is it with this ludicrous guy who resembles more of an upright walking primate who is being fueled up by the people who denounced modernizations in the late 70th to fundamentalism who suffer from excessive amount of joy and happiness towards fellow human beings in general and women in particular.

Posted by Avi-Hecht at 11:53am on April 22, 2009

But ISN"T Israel racist? So there was a Holocaust. Frightening, evil and racist. Does this make the descendants of the Holocaust victims incapable of racism? I have to admit, I had hoped that at least THAT good would have been the result of the hurt that Israelis suffered. BUT FRANKLY, they are no better themselves than the Germans of Hitlers day. So, what DID the President of Iran say that was untrue? Why don't I just trot out slavery every time I want to prove that black people are the best in the world and do not deserve censure for any bad behavior? After all, the Israelis pull the Holocaust card at every turn, for any reason.

Posted by Faith Blackwood at 12:47pm on April 22, 2009

"You can see their thinking: we'll hold a conference on racism and all the delegates will say they're against it, and then ordinary folk everywhere will realise what a jolly good thing the UN is, and impress upon their leaders that they should give us their undivided respect - and money." Huh?! In a severe global recession that threatens to become a depression? Yeah, Will, real bright thought, that. Show ordinary folk everywhere (sic) images of starving, dying kids and just maybe it might still have some resonance. But spewing out absurdly generalised abstract tropes like "racism", a term utterly exhausted of whatever meaning it might once have had by overuse? Yawn. If Ki-moon is such a dud, maybe he did produce this idiocy.

Posted by Harlan Leyside at 6:15pm on April 22, 2009

Has amadinejad, who by the way believes in the imminent arrival of the hidden imam, said he is going to stand in the forthcoming elections? If not, what does it matter what he, or the rest of his followers might say, or even sincerely believe for that matter.

Posted by geoff campbell at 4:53pm on April 23, 2009

People are well advised to take a look of the transcripts of what Ahmedinejad actually said. He called Israel a ``racist'' and ``cruel'' regime. Anyone with an even rudimentary understanding of the way that country treats Palestinians - putting them under military occupation, demolishing their homes, shooting their children at point blank range, humiliating them at checkpoints etc etc will understand there is everything factual and nothing racist about calling a brutal occupying power racist. Besides, I am curious that Israel's apologists felt the need to walk out of the conference. If they felt the criticism of Israel was unfair, they should have responded to it by refuting what Ahmedinejad had to say. But the fact that they chose to boycott the conference does not exactly disprove what Ahmedinejad had to say about Israel. By the way, were the countries that chose to walk out of the UN racism conference not the very same ones that keep preaching in high tunes about freedom of expression ? Could it be that the Western powers are willing to tolerate this freedom as long as it does not lead to criticism of Israel ? Or do Westerners believe in free speech only for themselves ?

Posted by SAS at 5:37pm on May 10, 2009

Avi-Hecht: '...this ludicrous guy who resembles more of an upright walking primate.' Israel racist? No, surely not.

Posted by Peter Simmons at 12:17pm on May 12, 2009