a113n’s daily dose

I was just reading this article about a recent UN-sponsored conference on racism in Geneva, Switzerland. The conference has gotten some media attention due to several nations (US, Canada, Australia to name a few) boycotting the conference altogether. Prior to Iran’s president Ahmadinejad’s (who can type that without copy-and-paste) speech, the boycotting states claimed the basis of the conference (revising a UN document on racism and human rights) was undermined with Israel-Palestinian relations. Now, Ahmad (so much better) caused more states to walk out of the conference due to his overwhelmingly-racist speech, where he purported his same ole routine about Israel oppression. Even Ban Ki-Moon chimed in on the inappropriateness of the comments, going as far as claiming that he instructed Ahmad not to take the route that he did. However, aside from the general drama with the walkout and general racist language from Ahmad (it’s a sad fact when we are simply accustomed to hearing such inappropriate language from him, where you can easily tell he makes the claims he does only to score political points), there are several undertones of this article.

The way I read the article, there appears to be two reactions to Ahmad’s remarks: applause and disgust. Perhaps it’s the author’s style, but I get the sense of two very distinct groups who’s core beliefs and understanding are so widely different that it’s almost oil and water. No matter how much sense I try to fall back on, I can’t shake the feeling that the differences here are prophetic of the subtle differences compounded out into a world war. Given a long enough time line, history is the present. Is there not a fine line between a collection of states coming together and working out their differences with words and policy and a collection of states settling differences in their self-evident, unwavering values through war and terrorism (real terrorism, not the %*@! we are bombarded with by the government)? In the case of the latter, the UN almost seems like a catalyst to catastrophe.

Also, the article (and the other I read prior to the start of the conference regarding the boycott) makes me wonder why Israel is singled out. With racism playing a role in the day-to-day activities of people in all countries, what has put Israel at the top of the list? Sure, it could be the simple answer of the recent wars and skirmishes and claims of human rights abuses abound in these times of war, but given the (relatively) short timeline of these events, I do not see how the claims, even if true, could amount to the devastation laid out by other wars and dictators, much of which racism seeds. Therefore, the set of states that contribute to the document must either have good cause to put Israel at the top of the list, or a conspiracy is afloat. No proof of either, but one quote in particular stands out in this recent article. The organizer of the conference did not directly defend Ahmad, but does believe France, Germany, and the others who walked out were out of line. Given the way the article is written, there does seem to be some non-verbal sign of appeasement with Ahmad versus conflict with the states who are reacting to hypocrisy in spreading racism at an anti-racism conference. The organizer’s tone seems very different of that of the Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. It’s probably just me, but something about the UN involvement here and Ahmad’s prodding seems questionable.

Of course, the US involvement in Iraq is ammunition for Ahmad, just another reason Americans need to understand how Bush’s ill-conceived policies do much more harm than good. The actions of this country need to be justifiable, because that puts justice on our side. And we need justice on our side, especially if the worse case of this blog happened to play out. Iran leading both the states that feel disenfranchised, likening Ahmad to Robin Hood, all the while ignoring how true sovereignty gave way to oppression in the name of Islam, and the states that Israel or the US has, in some way real or imagined, stepped on like the little kid with the biggest walking stick. In the other corner would be what we would call the defenders of freedom and justice, the “Western” democratic states who have supported Israel and thrived economically. However, I hope that we can realize that one country’s patriot is another country’s terrorist; the good news is that I do believe we can realize this–the bad news is that I am not sure about states that would align themselves with Ahmad, and certainly doubtful about Iran itself.

It’s 01:14, and this is my apocalypse. 2012 is supposed to be the year, I definitely see the circumstances unfolding that would make such a deadline possible. But such a dreary, bleak entry should find it’s way to my DeadJournal.

• Current Location: office
  
• Website: http://www.farkie.com/
  
• Website Rating:
  
• Website Description: Download online content (videos, images, HTML components, etc) in a variety of formats, with auto-convert (i.e., YouTube -> local AVI)