13 - 19 September 2001
Issue No.551
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 13 - 19 September 2001 Issue No.551 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Notes on the margins
As the dust settles, Gamil Mattar foresees heated controversy -- and words of warning to the wise
Did the Arabs and Muslims score a victory in Durban, or suffer a defeat? I believe they neither won nor lost, but rather stood steadfast against change -- especially changes to their own way of thinking and behaving.
Some emerged from the conference proclaiming that the Arabs had succeeded in reaffirming the Palestinians' right to self- determination and securing an admission that Palestine is under foreign occupation. But did we need a conference against racism to reiterate the conclusions reached and reaffirmed by the UN, the EU and the Arab League?
Others suggested that the conference, for the Arabs, was no less catastrophic than the 1967 defeat. Yet others will charge that Durban was just another chapter in the ongoing Western conspiracy, which strikes us dumb every time we rediscover it, as though we were determined to be stunned by every successive disappointment delivered by the West, and the US in particular.
What is clear is that the aftermath of Durban will witness heated controversy, which will inevitable raise more questions than answers. The questions both reaffirm the importance of the event and suggest that it achieved something. In this sense at least, an unanticipated accomplishment was that Durban raised (and will continue to raise) questions that seemed to have lost not only their value, but also their voice.
Two sorts of questions emanate from the conference. One set pertains to relations between the Arabs and the rest of the world, the other, more generally, to relations between North and South -- between white peoples and peoples of colour, rich and poor, the healthy and those who remain vulnerable to disease and epidemics, democracy and human rights as valued principles and as forms of coercion, between governments and NGOs, controlled NGOs and those with the freedom to act, and, finally, among the latter, between institutionalised NGOs and those whose existence is tied to a specific issue or to their financial circumstances.
Before the dust settles over Durban, I expect the conference results will bring to the fore, again, the question of the clash of civilisations and whether the conference was an arena for that clash. The forces of Western colonialism once seemed to have packed up their heavy artillery and departed, never to return. But can rational observers today still cling to this belief? Not if they read some of the research produced by prominent political economists in Republican-funded think tanks in the US. One study calls for explicit recognition of the US's status as an imperial power, and insists this should not be construed as pejorative, or even as conflicting with the principles for which it stands.
Indeed, US diplomatic and military policy, particularly under Bush, is imperialist, so why deny the self-evident? The US stance in Durban was certainly imperialist in every sense of the word. Its withdrawal from the conference was entirely consistent with the vetoes and objections it has voiced during the past three months whenever it found that diplomatic principles and norms and the international community's wishes with regard to specific cases did not conform with its interests and imperial status. The official US delegation's behaviour in Durban will ensure that questions concerning international relations under US imperial supremacy remain germane.
Durban also raised many questions over future relations between the US and international, regional and domestic civil society institutions, as well as the relationship between the US and various movements advocating democracy and dialogue at international forums. The reputation the US had acquired over many years as a proponent of democracy is now severely tarnished, most notably by the staggering blow it has dealt the process of joint international decision-making that Kofi Annan hoped to launch last year. Mary Robinson and Kofi Annan could have met this shock in an appropriate and honourable way; instead, they disappointed many in Durban, and raised doubts as to the UN's future under US neo- imperialism.
The white world, spearheaded by its imperialist centre, exerted extreme pressure on both official and non-governmental delegations to compel them to yield to the West's will. The US's commitment to the institutions of civil society, particularly those advocating human rights and democracy, can only seem deeply suspect at this point. Events in Durban, furthermore, irreparably damaged the reputation of many of these organisations, which, through years of assiduous efforts, had succeeded in gaining the confidence of public opinion and the respect of many governments. Delegates returning from Durban have expressed grave misgivings over some of the most internationally respected human rights organisations. At the crucial moment, it was felt, these organisations failed to draw the line between the dictates of the dominant party and the principles they are mandated to defend, with regard to the rights of the Palestinian people or those of the descendants of African slaves.
Many have yet to perceive the imperialist logic behind the neglect of those who have inherited the legacy of slavery in America and some European countries, and the simultaneous glorification of the rights and feelings of white European Jews. Nothing could be worse for the Jews, or the world, than a campaign to elevate them above the many other victims of injustice, thereby creating for them natural enemies among the poor and marginalised, and generating a ferocious tide of anti-Jewish feeling. The US, Europe and the Jews may believe such a campaign will serve Israel's interests by endowing it with a sanctity the US and its allies have vowed to defend. If they do, they have failed to learn that all empires seeking to enshrine the special privileges of a class or a people have invariably found themselves embroiled in endless efforts to suppress the uprisings of the oppressed.
One observer who mixed with delegates of all colours in Durban took particular note of people of colour present in an official capacity to undermine the aspirations of the descendants of slaves and their right to a sincere apology. He was particularly struck by the statement one African American official made, to the effect that he did not know whether, as a descendant of a slave in a high government position, he should be paying reparations or receiving them. This is how serious issues are belittled, and how people set themselves against their own race. Nothing is worse than dictatorship, if not life on the margins of democracy; nothing is more pernicious than enslavement, if not false emancipation.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page