UN’s Durban Review Soap Opera Continues

Tom Kilgannon reporting from Geneva....

It’s appropriate that the United Nations has a headquarters here in Geneva. The Swiss are know for their cuckoo clocks, and the UN is known for its cuckoos.

As Day Three concluded at the United Nations Durban Review conference, Iran’s representative, Alireza Moaiyeri, formally objected to the diplomatic dissing of his President at the start of the week, when delegates walked out on the Iranian president’s speech. As Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused Israel of being a “cruel and repressive racist regime,” representatives from approximately two dozen European nations marched from the Assembly Hall in protest.

More specifically, Iran’s ire was directed at Jonas Gahr, Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs who spoke immediately after Ahmadinejad and denounced his hateful rant. Gahr said the messages in Ahmadinejad’s speech amounted to “incitement of hatred, spreading politics of fear and promoting an indiscriminate message of intolerance.” He added that Ahmadinejad’s allegations made Iran “the odd man out.”

“We strongly reject [Gahr’s] unwarranted and unsubstantiated references,” said Iran’s Moaiyeri, and we “consider them as without merit, unacceptable and out of order.” Moaiyeri also questioned “the Norwegian Foreign Minister’s sense of hearing to the applause given to the president by some members of the delegations.”

It’s frightening that such an obtuse and thin-skinned regime is about to acquire nuclear weapons.

The Iranian delegate also attacked UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon protesting his “deplorable, irresponsible and unwarranted statements.” Ban issued a statement on Monday after Ahmadinejad spoke which said in part:

“I deplore the use of this platform by the Iranian President to accuse, divide and even incite. This is the opposite of what this Conference seeks to achieve...It is deeply regrettable that my plea to look to the future of unity was not heeded by the Iranian President.”

“Those statements,” said Moaiyeri, “utterly contradict the UN well-established norms and practices to the affect that a civil servant of the United Nations should at all times abide by the principal of impartiality and refrain from making judgmental remarks on the position and statement made the members, let alone a head of state.” He argued that the “dignity of the head of state of a United Nations member should be respected and safeguarded at all times by all member states and in particular by the UN Secretary-General.”

One might argue that Ban did just that. At UN conferences, speakers submit their remarks in advance – as did Ahmadinejad in this case. Delegates, the media, and presumably the Secretary-General – whose response referenced his “earlier meeting” with the Iranian president – had access to the speech before it was delivered. Yet, Ban obediently took his seat in the Assembly Hall right behind Ahmadinejad and listened politely. When the European delegates protested, Ban remained seated and stayed to hear more.

Also on the dais as Ahmadinejad spoke were Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the President of the Conference, Amos Wako, who is Kenya’s Attorney General. According to the Rules of the Conference, “The President...shall have complete control of the proceedings and over the maintenance of order thereat.” Wako, had he chosen, could have insisted on decorum, ruled Ahmadinejad out of order, and prevented him from continuing his speech. A UN official confirmed for me that “it is the prerogative of the chair of any meeting to make a decision to halt a speech.”

Of course, any delegation could have challenged such a decision, but an objection by the chair, or a walkout by Ban, would have been preferably to the stale and dispassionate denunciations routinely issued by UN officials.


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.

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.

Obama Sends Regrets to UN's Durban Review Conference

Here's the latest from Tom Kilgannon who is reporting from Geneva...


Geneva, Switzerland – The UN’s Durban Review Conference opens here on Monday, but it will not have the participation of President Barack Obama – a major disappointment for the United Nations and its admirers who complained of neglect during the Bush years.

The conference, which claims to address the “contemporary manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,” is just another opportunity for delegates to hurl epithets at the U.S. and Israel. The conference was on the Obama administration’s wish list from the start. Shortly after winning the election in November, Mr. Obama signaled his desire to make the meeting, and his State Department worked hard to craft an outcome document it could support. At the United Nations, however, “change” does not come easy to those who harbor anti-Semitic views.

Had things gone their way, Team Obama hoped to send the President from the Summit of the Americas to “Durban II,” as it is called here. Meet-ups with Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez in Trinidad could have been followed by a chance encounter in Geneva with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – cementing Obama’s “Axis of Affection.” Oh, what might have been.

Alas, Obama’s much anticipated group hug with the United Nations will have to wait. But it should make you wonder. If Obama – who has bowed to the Saudi king and rubbed elbows with Ortega and Chavez – doesn’t want to be seen in the company of these UN miscreants, what must they be up to?

In two words – bureaucratic terrorism. The conference is dominated by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), and is used largely as a forum to promote hatred of Israel. The gathering in Geneva is a follow-on to the World Conference Against Racism held in Durban, South Africa in 2001 – a conference which found the American and Israeli delegates walking out in protest. It was described by the late Tom Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor to serve in Congress, as “the most sickening and unabashed display of hate for Jews I had seen since the Nazi period.”

This week’s Durban Review Conference reaffirms the discredited text of the 2001 meeting, and adds an element which promotes censorship of speech that is deemed critical of Islam. In the most recent version of this conference’s outcome document, one section states in part:

“...all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts shall be declared offence punishable by law, in accordance with the international obligations of States...”

This text is part of a continuing effort by the OIC and the UN to prevent “the defamation of religions.” The only religious criticism they wish to stop, however, is that of Islam. We’ve all seen the vitriolic and often violent response of Muslims to prominent criticisms, or perceived criticisms, of Islam or Mohammed. The Durban Review Conference aims to codify that attitude into international law.

While a focus on “Islamophobia” is a major part of the conference, there are other troubling aspects. The text of the outcome document also:

“invites governments and their law enforcement agencies to collect reliable information on hate crimes in order to strengthen their efforts to combat racism.”

As we saw last week, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security doesn’t need any more encouragement to collect information on its own citizens.

As in all UN gatherings, the United States is a target of criticism at the Durban Review conference which condemns “colonialism” and “foreign occupation” – diplomatic epithets often hurled America’s way in the General Assembly. In the U.S., anybody expressing concern about our open borders policy has been targeted by the Left as racist and hateful – a charge which the delegates of Durban II are happy to encourage. The UN urges nations to:

“prevent manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance at country border entry areas, in particular vis-à-vis immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers...”

The Durban Review Conference is another example of hypocrisy in action at the United Nations. President Obama was right to stay away from the United Nations this week. I wish that were his instinct toward the institution as a whole. Unfortunately, I suspect that Barack Obama’s absence this week will only make his heart grow fonder of the UN.


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.

Hillary's Lawyer

Excellent piece from Tom Kilgannon, President of the Freedom Alliance....

Hillary’s Lawyer
by Thomas P. Kilgannon

In this brief, but dramatic reign of Barack Obama, America is, regrettably, entering a post-Constitution phase of our Republic. Four years hence, will “We the People” have the influence in our government that we once did? It’s not looking good. Congress – playing with things such as taxing bonuses paid to bankers – is so unconcerned with the Constitution one wonders if they’ve read the prohibition of Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws. Obama’s Solicitor General and Attorney General are trying to limit Americans’ rights under the First and Second Amendments, respectively. Private industry has been dramatically redefined. Domestically, the people have little say.

In foreign policy however, President Obama welcomes the input of citizens – foreign citizens, that is. This is where the real danger to our Constitution lies – with globalists who will place America’s fate in foreign hands. It’s the outsourcing of our independence – and it’s about to get worse.

Enter Harold Koh, Dean of Yale Law School, until he was recently nominated by the President to be the State Department’s Legal Advisor. Those who thought they knew all the reasons to detest lawyers haven’t met Harold Koh.

Professor Koh is a legal warrior of the far left and a cancer on American sovereignty. He is a committed transnationalist who, in his own words, “believe[s] in and promote[s] the blending of international and domestic law.” It is the responsibility of American courts, Koh maintains, to “promote the development of a global legal system.”

In Mr. Koh’s mind, our Constitution is but a footnote in a larger, more relevant body of law established and adjudicated by foreign governments, international institutions, the United Nations, and the World Court. This professor, who is about to become America’s lawyer, places more trust in legal theories created in cafe conversations than in the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. Koh’s international outlook mirrors Obama’s domestic philosophy – create equality by limiting and punishing the best and the brightest. His writings outline his belief that America can only be as good as other nations allow us to be.

For example, in a 2002 essay, Koh expressed his opposition to America’s involvement in Iraq by stating that the U.S. should not get involved “without explicit United Nations authorization.” Such notions are limited in their impact when expressed by an Ivory Tower academic. When advocated by the top legal advisor at the State Department, however, they become American policy and have real and dangerous consequences for our national security.

Not only does Koh want the Oil-for-Food Gang determining America’s national security interests, he urges “constructive engagement” with the International Criminal Court (ICC), an unaccountable body that he views as a vital component of a “post-Cold War global justice system.” Toward that end, he advocates sharing information and U.S. intelligence with the ICC; appointing a special envoy to the Court; participating in ICC review conferences; and repealing provisions of the American Servicemembers Protection Act, which was adopted to defend U.S. troops from ICC indictment and prosecution.

Last year Koh argued that the new Secretary of State – the person he might soon be advising – “should withdraw the Bush Administration’s May 2002 letter to the United Nations” which removed Bill Clinton’s signature from the ICC treaty. Each of these steps, Koh argues, “pave the way for eventual U.S. ratification of the Rome Treaty” for the International Criminal Court.

As the Court was created to hear cases involving war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, Americans who are most vulnerable to the ICC’s political whims and show trials are high ranking government officials and our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. Were legitimate charges ever to surface against U.S. troops, ICC adherents would find the Uniform Code of Military Justice lacking. They believe America’s system of jurisprudence is unable to properly dispose of such cases. They would find it helpful to appeal Supreme Court decisions with which they disagree to a “higher authority.”

Don’t think it won’t happen. Recently, the hostility of international ambulance chasers resulted in a Spanish court entertaining a complaint against six Bush administration officials for the advice they provided the President on matters related to Guantanamo Bay detainees. The Spanish court claims “universal jurisdiction,” meaning its authority knows no bounds. The ICC operates in a similar capacity. Recently, the ICC issued, and is considering, indictments on individuals of nations which are not a party to the Court.

This is the international law to which Professor Koh subscribes – an adherence to multiple and changing standards in an effort to criminalize conservatism. Koh’s views are ruinous to American sovereignty and a danger to U.S. service members. His nomination as State Department Legal Advisor must be defeated before he can put his words into action.


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.