Secretary-General "Regrets" Obama's Absence from Durban II

More from Tom Kilgannon reporting from Geneva...

Geneva, Switzerland – The absence of President Barack Obama from the United Nations’ Durban Review Conference is not appreciated by the UN hierarchy and was noted at the outset of the meeting this morning. While a handful of nations are boycotting the conference because of it’s bias toward Israel, it is the U.S. President who UN officials had most hoped to see here. The presence of America’s first black President would lend some desperately needed credibility to the summit, they believe.

In his opening statement this morning, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon observed that “some nations, who by rights should be helping to forge a path to a better future, are not here.” He said he “deeply regrets” that the U.S. and others – to include Canada, Italy, Israel, Australia and others – “have chosen to stand aside.”

To emphasize the U.S. absence, Ban invoked the words of a former U.S. President, Teddy Roosevelt. “My allegiance and sympathies,” Ban noted, “have always been with the men and women in the arena, struggling with courage and determination to win the day.” He added that “it may be easier to criticize those efforts from afar, but it does not advance the universal cause.”

For his part, Mr. Obama said that he “would love to be involved in a useful conference,” but U.S. participation “would have involved putting our imprimatur on something we just didn't believe in.”

Is it possible the President realizes the United Nations isn’t the serving of peaches and cream that he thought it to be? During his campaign for the White House, then Senator Obama habitually criticized the Bush administration for ignoring the United Nations. But when faced with the text agreed to by Durban II delegates, Obama said it “raised a whole set of objectionable provisions,” and was “not something we can sign up for.”

Navi Pillay, the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights was harsh in her criticism of Obama’s absence, saying the U.S. has “permitted one or two issues to dominate their approach to this issue.” Pillay said she was “shocked and deeply disappointed by the United States decision not to attend a conference that aims to combat racism, xenophobia, racial discrimination and other forms of intolerance worldwide.”

The Commissioner suggested that the U.S. should have attended the conference and expressed any objections “in a footnote.” Had the U.S. chosen that route, she explained, “we could have all moved on together, and put the problems of 2001 behind us.”

In the world of the United Nations, resolving deeply held religious and political convictions is as simple as that.

In the case of Durban II, the President calculated his involvement with the United Nations would do him more harm than good. Nonetheless, he held out hope for the global institution. “I believe,” he said, “in the possibility of the United Nations serving as an effective forum to deal with a whole host of transnational conflicts.”

The UN is not the “effective forum” of your aspirations, Mr. President, and it will likely never be. You can hope, but the United Nations is not going to change.

Thomas P. Kilgannon is the President of Freedom Alliance and the author of Diplomatic Divorce: Why America Should End Its Love Affair with the United Nations. He is reporting from the Durban Review Conference in Geneva as a correspondent for Radio America.

We Are All Extremists Now

The latest from R.C. Blogger Christian Stockel...

Mental Thoughts from the Right Side
We Are All Extremists Now
April 18, 2009

April 15th has come and gone. A day where the productive members of society were busy sending in their tax returns to the government and in many cities there were tea parties being held protesting the unprecedented economic power grab by the Obama administration through higher taxes, unprecedented borrowing, government confiscation of companies and property, and the reckless creation of new government mandates. This infamous day was preceded by the release of a Department of Homeland Security report outlining what they perceive as threats to American security against which Secretary Napolitano and the DHS will be applying considerable resources. It appears that the DHS is less concerned with terrorists captured on the battlefield and more concerned with the legitimate activities of American citizens, specifically people who fit the profile of a "domestic right wing extremist". Many Americans will be surprised to learn that "right wing extremists" are people who hold mainstream political views at odds with Obama's vision for America. This report should not be seen as a simple security assessment by the DHS. Instead it is a political expression - made by the Obama administration - and an opening shot in an attempt to isolate political opponents and competing viewpoints that don't fit into his grand design, and broadly indict conservatives as a whole. It should also serve as a chilling sign as to how far this administration is willing go to isolate political groups or political views that run contrary to their design. There were many stories about President Clinton using the IRS as a tool to silence uncomfortable critics. It appears the Obama administration is prepared to go further.

The DHS report clearly identifies the threats the agency deems as a threat. Interestingly enough, before it goes into any detail it states the following:

"The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic right wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but right wing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for right wing radicalization and recruitment."

So right before it indicts political opponents, the DHS states it makes such allegations based on no objective or specific data, information, or proof. It is identifying these domestic threats using assumptions and supposition. On a side note - it is also interesting to note that Secretary Napolitano has lost her distaste for using the word "terrorist" - I guess she only likes this word when referring to her fellow Americans. Let's take a look at what the DHS considers domestic right-wing extremists:

"Right wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

The bulk of the document references right wing extremists and hate groups, etc - but as seen by the excerpt above that broad term includes anyone who may be pro-life, anti-illegal immigration (not immigration as they assert) or disagree with a reckless expansion of the federal government. When read carefully, this report justifies scrutiny and tracking of individuals who hold legitimate and mainstream political positions that contradict those of the Obama administration. This report uses terms that Secretary Napolitano deemed "unpleasant" when referring to terrorists and terrorist attacks. It seems she has a lower regard for American citizens who disagree with her than illegal combatants capture by our military forces on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, the DHS report goes further and indicts all US veterans returning from the Iraq and Afghan wars as extremists who pose a threat to the nation's security.

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right wing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that right wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities."

This is a shameless charge and is supported by Secretary Napolitano through her reference to Timothy McVeigh and the attack in Oklahoma City. Secretary Napolitano, in her stumbling explanations in response to harsh questions after the report’s release – gives the impression that Timothy McVeigh is the only soldier she really knows and forms her judgments accordingly. Only the most cynical and hateful of people could look upon the best this country produces and label them a threat. However, I am not surprised, these are the same people, the same party that called our volunteer Army and Marines murderers, Nazis, and terrorists at the start of the Iraq War. Their inclusion in this report is a reflection of the latent hostility liberals and Democrats have for the armed forces and this country. Is anyone really surprised by this?

One also has to wonder why only “right wing” extremists are included in this report. Is the Secretary's hidden message that only conservatives are a threat? I guess Sec. Napolitano has never heard of leftist groups like The Earth Liberation Front. This group has burned down homes (felony arson) to 'protest' in addition to a ski resort and a Bureau of Land Management horse corral in Oregon. The founder of this organization has actually issued a field manual guiding members on how to sabotage property to reach their radical environmental goals. You can add groups like Mecha that want Latinos to take back the American Southwest or organizations like the Weatherm... oops – can't go there can we?

In addition to targeting conservatives, this report demonstrates how language and terminology can be used to isolate and demonize political adversaries and delegitimize their viewpoints through the organs of the federal bureaucracy. The fact this report was released a day before the planned "Tea Party" protests - protests by people who would be considered "right wing extremists" by Secretary Napolitano - is chilling. Even more shocking is that this administration spends great effort to accommodate terrorists, give them civil trials within US territory and even offer them welfare benefits and government assistance while they are here. Meanwhile, American citizens are targeted for scrutiny or if they dare protest against policies that they believe will harm this country's future. This unbelievable policy position combined with Obama rhetorically throwing his own country under the bus during the G20 Summit and his meetings in Mexico and Latin America would make most reasonable people wonder where Obama's favor lies. Obama sat and listened to dictators like Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez publicly chastise and insult the United States with absolutely no defense or retort offered by President Obama. He showed no emotion or even responded with any visible body language. He sat, nodded, and took notes while these thugs painted the United States as the world’s devil. His lack of words or response speaks volumes about the President.

In the end, the specifics of this report are really the side show and are not the main issue. Conservatives are not really surprised by the DHS report and have grown to expect such treatment from liberals/leftists in power. Aside from demonstrating an inherent disdain of conservative viewpoints this report serves as a reflection of the sensibilities of President Obama. He is a man who clearly is uncomfortable with the very nation that put him in its highest office and to a certain degree a man who dislikes the traditional aspects of the United States. Everything this President does overseas from his 'Apology Tour 2009' and accepting America's fault for all the world's woes confirms his disdain for the United States. His warm handshakes with Hugo Chavez and his outreach to Castro to change the “errors of the past” demonstrate his reflexive understanding and sympathy with the viewpoints of our enemies. He reinforces this notion by constantly repeating his goal of “remaking America” or “remaking the foundation of our economy”.

The nation-wide series of Tax Day Tea Parties demonstrate that the American people are waking up to the fact that Obama is not what the change for which they bargained on Election Day. How long can Obama's popularity last as people begin to realize they have President that doesn't like them very much and is willing to say so in public, overseas, and in front of cameras? How long will his magic last as his administration explicitly demonizes American citizens who hold pro-life views, believe in limited government, might support a third party candidate, or who might have just stepped off a plane after serving their country in multiple tours in Iraq? How long will the American people accept a president who sacrifices chunks of American sovereignty to international institutions in an effort to pay for “past sins”?

Americans deserve better from their President.