US House Resolution 211 & WCAR

[Crzy4Bono]

Following is House Resolution 211 urging the US participation in the UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR). President Bush's stance, as it has been on most multi-lateral issues raised during his presidency, has been to ignore it and adopt an isolationist view. (January - declines to send the treaty establishing an International Criminal Court to the Senate for ratification; March - fails to support the Kyoto Protocol, May - indicates it will cease to support the ABM treaty, July - threatens to withdraw from UN conference to impose limits on illegal trafficking of small arms, July - refuses to spuport the enforcment measures for the Biological Weapons Convention). How can the US as a nation be so out of step with the rest of the world?

******************

July 27, 2001

Dear Colleague:

As you may be aware, the United Nations World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR) is scheduled to begin on August 31, 2001 in Durban, South Africa. Despite the fact that planning for this important conference began over 3 years ago, the United States has not made a firm commitment to participate or support the WCAR. Unfortunately, racism and discrimination continue to exist in the United States, as it does in virtually every nation in the world, and it is essential that the United States, as a global leader in many fields, sustain this position at the WCAR.

In response, I have introduced House Resolution 211, which states the significance and importance of the conference. Further, H. Res. 211 simply urges the following of the Bush Administration:

That Secretary of State Colin Powell lead the United States delegation to the WCAR in Durban, South Africa in order to heighten the delegation's stature and to demonstrate to the world the seriousness with which the U.S. approaches not only the WCAR, but the global situation of racial discrimination.

That the Administration increase support for the WCAR by providing financial assistance in support of the conference, and to insure that such assistance is consistent with previous commitments the U.S. has made to similar fora.

That the Administration adopt policy positions at the WCAR that seek to advance an understanding of current and historic factors contributing to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance.

It is essential that the United States play the same leading role in the World Conference Against Racism that it seeks and maintains in other international organizations and conventions. As I am confident that you share my belief that racism and discrimination is a scourge in our global society, please support H. Res. 211.

Sincerely,
Eddie Bernice Johnson Cynthia McKinney
Member of Congress Member of Congress

********************

US Citizens, if you are so inclined, you can help by callig Minority Speaker Dick Gephardt and House Majority Leader Dick Armey and ask them to push for the inclusion of House Resolution 211 onto the House calendar early next week. The Bush Administration is seeking to block US participation in the UN World Conference on Racism. This is unacceptable, we need calls made TODAY to pressure the leadership to adopt this important Resolution and push for US participation in this historic conference.

DEMOCRATIC LEADER GEPHARDT 202-225-0100
HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER DICK ARMEY 202-225-7772.

You can also call Jon Fremont in Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney's office at 202-225-1605 for more information.




------------------
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono
Visit my web page at www.u2page.com

 

[80sU2isBest]

I would have to know more about the WCAR to make a definitive statement of my opinion, but as a whole, I value nationalism much more than globalism.

 

[U2Bama]

Although I don't think an all-out "boycott" is the right approach, I can understand the reluctance of the U.S. (and it's not just the Bush administration) in championing what is known as the "World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance" (WCAR). There are 2 main issues which The Bush administration is citing for their reluctance to fully endorse the Conference: Zionism and slave reparations.

Zionism deals with the Jewish claim to Israel as their homeland and state, and a view among some of the more extremist Palestinian and Arab groups to equate Israel's acitivites with racism. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one that I have gone back and forth on, and most recently I have been sympathetic to the Palestinians in believing htat Israel needs to give them certain geographical allowances. But condemning Israel as some type of racist empire is inappropriate considering the historical extablishment of Israel.

The issue of slave reparations is not a new one, but has experienced an increasingly visible placement on the international agenda. What I find ironic about the persistence of the issue by representatives of certain African nations is another case of historical ignorance. They have focused on Britain, the U.S., France and Canada as nations who exploited and used slave labor at some point in the course of their histories. No pressure is being applied to the marketers of the slave trade in northern Africa, or to primitive dominant tribes of Sub-Saharan Africa which actually sold their own people to the slave traders from northern Africa. Also, no pressure is being applied to Sudan, a present-day slave nation which is ruled by a dictatorship in the northern city of Khartoum that requires its indigenous population of the south to disavow their Christian or Animist beliefs or become slaves. Yes, that is going on today in a nation that recently got a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, which the U.S. was voted off of.

President Bush is maintaining the position of former President Clinton in agreeing that slavery is wrong, but not apologizing or offering financial reparations. This position is similar to that of most of the European nations who are just as hesitant to even apologize due to the legal and financial liability that would introduce.

Even U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has come to agree with the U.S. on these issues, as have Britain and Spain. The Bush administration, like the Clinton administration before it, wish to focus on race relations of the present and future as opposed to those of the past.

Granted, the U.S. made concessions to survivors of te World War II Japanese internment camps, and Germany and its corporations have paid out billions to Holocaust survivors, but those actions are from events which occurred in modern history and are more easily accountable. What should I get, as a descendant of European and "Native American" ancestry, since "some" of my ancestors had EVERYTHING taken from them by my other ancestors? Should I just write myself a check for $40,000?

An observation I have made in reading up on the Conference is that some of the initiatives on the agenda for the conference come across as urging nations to criminalize certain speech and expression. I am opposed to hate speech and racist rhetoric, but the right of free speech and expression is one that should not be infringed upon. Offensive speech obviously causes disagreement and hurt feelings, but that is subservient to the civil wars that would be caused by criminalizing all speech that certain member nations of the United Nations deem to be offensive. Just think, this would make it illegal for Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton to make anti-semitic and racist comments against other groups, and none of us want this to happen since they are both peacemakers who try to bring diverse groups of people together.

Personally, I think the U.S. SHOULD participate in this convention in order to bring am influence of our Constitution to the table. Our boycott/absence will only serve to allow the other participants to run ramshod over the interests of the U.S. and its citizens.

Addressing some of the other issues addressed in your original post:

My concern with the International Criminal Court is that it would give the U.N. the delusion that they may circumvent our Constitution and the rights it guarantees our citizens. I admit I have not studied it extensively, but that's what comes to mind.

Regarding the Kyoto Protocol, ideally, I wish Bush had gone forward with it. But I remain optimistic that his administration will offer a more reasonable but still effective alternative. The threat of numerous industrial layoffs in the U.S. is not something that should be taken lightly, not to mention the more lenient standards that would be applied to China. I hate to think this, but I wonder if some of the Democrats and pundits who've been in an uproar were not "hoping" for the potential layoffs so that they could point to "high unemployment and layoffs" as a reason not to re-elect GWB in 2004. It would be a strategic plan if that were the case, and I can see why they are so closed-minded toward any alternative plan.

The ABM Treaty deals with outdated aresenals and was primarily designed to keep peace between superpower nations. Now one of those "superpowers" is no longer a threat, but due to economic instability is selling their old (and new) arsenals to "rogue" nations which were not parties to the ABM Treaty. And this view that "the U.S. should not build missile shields because they make it difficult for other nations to bomb the U.S." is really quite sick if you ask me. I wish there were a missile shield that made all missiles obsolete and every nation had one.

The issue I have with the U.N. conference on small arms is that such a treaty would threaten the Second Amendment guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. I'm all for regulation, but I think it should be an internal matter for each nation. I don't hunt, but I think it's a bit out of step for the U.N. to be determining who in country X can buy a hunting rifle, or a handgun for that matter.

New measures do need to be taken in the matter of biological warfare, but in an across-the-board manner. Also, the national security of the U.S., or any other nation, should not be infringed upon in such action.

~U2Alabama

[This message has been edited by U2Bama (edited 08-06-2001).]

 

[Crzy4Bono]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
I would have to know more about the WCAR to make a definitive statement of my opinion, but as a whole, I value nationalism much more than globalism.

Just out of curiosity, why?

I believe we are one world, and as such should work together to have a cohesive world community. Nationalism is fine, as long as it does not put us at odds with everyone else in the world, but unilateralism for unilateralism's sake, particularly when a significant portion fo the population doesn't support it, seems extreme.

I guess it just bothers me that one elected official has the ability to make sweeping positional decisions regarding my country's place in the world.

Just curious on your perspective about this, and why we shouldn't participate in a summit that is designed to discuss discrimination and racism in the world community? I think whether or not we support the final treaty should be determined after the summit and the final treaty is determined, but to refuse to even participate in the meeting? How can we possibly get across the things that we as a nation value if we don't even come to the table?

In response to Bama, I agree that there are some issues in the treaties as presented that need to be worked through (except Kyoto, I really think we should've supported Kyoto) but the US's response has been basically to say no, rather than to whole-heartedly work to find a meaningful compromise. If you read the international press, the view of the US is becoming increasingly isolationist. I just do not think that is a good thing in this day and age.

------------------
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono
Visit my web page at www.u2page.com



[This message has been edited by Crzy4Bono (edited 08-01-2001).]

 

[radiodivision]

The problem I have with the national missile defense system is very simple: it will not work. It is a waste of money and time. I just read that the target used in the recent "successful" missile defense test contained a global positioning satellite beacon to make it easier to detect. It is a shame that the media is not reporting about this.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by Crzy4Bono:
Just out of curiosity, why?

I believe we are one world, and as such should work together to have a cohesive world community. Nationalism is fine, as long as it does not put us at odds with everyone else in the world, but unilateralism for unilateralism's sake, particularly when a significant portion fo the population doesn't support it, seems extreme.

Just curious on your perspective about this, and why we shouldn't participate in a summit that is designed to discuss discrimination and racism in the world community?

Hi,
I'm not sure if we should attend the summit or not. I don't kbnow enough about it. But based on what Bama said, I'm not sure I agree with the resolutions.
However, I can tell you why I am a nationalist rather than a globalist.

1) Theology reasons. I believe the "One World Government", the "New World Order" is coming relatively soon, and I don't want the USA to be any part of it. This race summit may not have anything to do with that, but i believe many of the globalist movements are bring us slowly closer to it. Call me paranoid or whatever, but the Bible prophecies the one world government in some places.

2) Globalism is often used as a disguise for the real purpose: "What can we do to punish the US? How can we bring them and their other powerful allies down a peg or two? How can we level the playing field?"

3) It is quite possible to be a nationalistic president and also not tread on the other nations. He doesn't have to have a globalistic mindset to accomplish this.

 

[radiodivision]

80sU2isBest,

What do you think agreements/organizations like the ones recent US presidents have supported and pushed for (e.g. NAFTA, FTAA, WTO, World Bank, Fast Track, etc.) are trying to achieve? Globalization. That's is exactly what corporations want: less government and civic control and more power for business. The signs are all there. Believe me, Bush and previous presidents are not against globalization...that's exactly what they have been striving for since this is what corporations want.

 

[Crzy4Bono]

We are already one world. When you can get on a plane and be half way across the world by bedtime, and back again the next day, we are all together. We have to deal with issues like disease, poverty, etc. that can be easily spread and impact everyone. To use the nationalist argument and look out for #1: You can't ignore AIDS in Africa when that can impact the United States. You can't ignore poverty in Central America when it may impact our ability to freely trade. To use the religious argument aren't we supposed to love our neighbors? Wash the feet of the poor traveler? Open our doors? How can we ignore suffering and hatred and poverty in our neighbors?

I believe it is the equivalent of stepping over the homeless every day. Just because you ignore a problem doesn't mean it will go away. And the people who are more blessed have a responsibility, in my view, to share their blessings.

The United States, in its position as a world leader, has a responsibility to at least come to the table, and... well... lead.

You can't be a leader if you are always picking up your marbles and going home.

Peace!

------------------
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono
Visit my web page at www.u2page.com

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by radiodivision:
80sU2isBest,

What do you think agreements/organizations like the ones recent US presidents have supported and pushed for (e.g. NAFTA, FTAA, WTO, World Bank, Fast Track, etc.) are trying to achieve? Globalization. That's is exactly what corporations want: less government and civic control and more power for business. The signs are all there. Believe me, Bush and previous presidents are not against globalization...that's exactly what they have been striving for since this is what corporations want.

I wasn't speaking about trade agreements, and that should be obvious from my post (although I definitely have my opinions about China being given most favored trade status). In a world like this, you must have trade organizations. I was talking about things like the Kyoto Protocol (which seeks to excessively punish America while ignoring other countries like China) and things like that. I'm also talking about globalistic attitudes, not just organizations. Take the anti-missile defense system for instance. Almost the entire world (except Japan, Taiwan, and now even Russia) have rallied against America for even thinking about it. And really, most arguments that I have heard against it add up to thinly disguised versions of "We don't have it, so it's not fair that America has it". That kind of sentiment. That's pure hogwash. We became the greta free country we are today because people love dthis country enough to die for it. I think that to sell out our ideals and principles to cater to what the rest of the world wants us to do is a betrayal of those brave soldiers' memory. I'm not saying "we should do what we want, even if it hurts people of another nation". I'm saying that what is best for this country should be decided by the people of this country not by some multi-member panel in another country sitting in judgment of us. And that's what the Kyoto Protocol was all about, my friends. Punishing the USA. Go ahead, call me names, whatever, but I told you all from the beginning that I'm a ntionalist, and now you can see that. By the way, I loved it when Russia's Putin agreed to negotiate with USA on the anti-missile defense system.

[This message has been edited by 80sU2isBest (edited 08-03-2001).]

 

[radiodivision]

Thanks for your reply 80sU2isbest.

Now, you said you weren't talking about trade organization and/or treaties. Yet, here's what NAFTA is allowing corporations to do:

Say you live in a state that has strong environmental regulations and a multinational from another country wants to build a waste treatment facility in your state. The state laws clearly say that they cannot do this but under NAFTA corporations have the "right" to sue the state government because it is infringing on its right to "free-trade." So they go ahead and sue and win thus bypassing the state laws and ignoring your state's sovereignty. That is what is happening now (both US and foreign multinationals are doing this by the way) and what will become more of a problem if larger treaties like FTAA pass. Same thing with fast track: the president will have the power to broker trade deals without congressional oversight. So as you can see, these organizations/treaties have one thing in common: they are giving more power to foreign entities and taking away the right of the people to control their own lives.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by radiodivision:
Say you live in a state that has strong environmental regulations and a multinational from another country wants to build a waste treatment facility in your state. The state laws clearly say that they cannot do this but under NAFTA corporations have the "right" to sue the state government because it is infringing on its right to "free-trade." So they go ahead and sue and win thus bypassing the state laws and ignoring your state's sovereignty. That is what is happening now (both US and foreign multinationals are doing this by the way) and what will become more of a problem if larger treaties like FTAA pass. Same thing with fast track: the president will have the power to broker trade deals without congressional oversight. So as you can see, these organizations/treaties have one thing in common: they are giving more power to foreign entities and taking away the right of the people to control their own lives.

If that's what NAFTA is about, then I am against NAFTA, and if President Bush is for it, we disagree. Same goes for the "fast track" power.