Former US UN Ambassador John Bolton considers the upcoming Durban II conference in April 2009 at the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) in Geneva the first test of the Obama Administration foreign policy. This is a matter that Secretary of State designee, Sen. Hillary Clinton will have on her desk soon after Senate Confirmation.  Bolton noted that Israel and Canada have rejected attending Durban II and that European countries were deliberating as to whether they should attend.  This is because of the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic diatribes from UN General Assembly President Brockman of Nicaragua and the 57 nation Organization of the Islamic Conference.

As reported by the Jerusalem Post today, Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen told Dutch radio he "will not be involved in anti-Semitism" at the April meeting in Geneva.

"It seems like the sole intention is to criticize Israel and condemn the West for slavery and its colonial history", he said.

In another dramatic move, newly appointed Special Rapporteur for Palestinian Affairs at the UNCHR, Princeton University Emeritus Professor Richard Falk was detained at BenGurionAirport and ejected from the country following his remarks last week accusing Israel of ‘war crimes.’

Bolton’s comments were part of a news conference arranged by the Israel project and moderated by executive director, Jennifer Lazlo Mizrahi.

Ambassador Bolton gave some salient background going back to the “Zionism=Racism” resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly following a speech by the late PLO-Fatah Chairman Arafat in 1975 and the  repeal of that resolution in 1991.  He noted that the theory behind the 1975 resolution, the 2001 Durban I World Conference Against Racism and the upcoming Durban II gathering in Geneva in April, 2009 was delegitimizing Israel by putting it in the same position as the Apartheid regime in South Africa. He noted that this would be the basis for destroying Israel and building a justification for a Palestinian state to supplant it.  Effectively, the Durban I Declaration in 2001 tried to put back the Zionism=Racism resolution of 1975.  Bolton noted that early in the first Bush term, then Secretary of State, Colin Powell chose not to attend and effectively walked out of the proceedings. 

Bolton indicated that the supporters of Durban II purposely chose the April 2009 date to ensure that the incoming Obama Administration consider attending as part of its expressed views about engaging in multilateral discussions on human rights issues. Outgoing Secretary Rice has been unwilling to say whether the US would definitely participate in Durban II leaving it for the incoming Obama Administration to make the decision. 

Bolton noted that the decision to attend or boycott Durban II would be among the new Administration’s first foreign policy challenges.  Both the New York Times and the Washington Post have written editorials opposing Durban II.  The Obama administration might engage with European countries attending Durban II to develop a problematic compromise-endeavoring to make the outcome acceptable. Bolton suggested that this would put the US on “the slippery slope” of compromise or be forced to walk out. Instead, he believes that the Obama Administration and especially Secretary of State designee, Hillary Clinton, should make a statement up front rejecting Durban II. The Canadians Bolton noted, usually supportive of multilateral UN activities, have already announced that they will not go to Geneva.

Bolton, in a response to a question from a journalist at the news conference, noted that UN General Assembly President Brockman, a former Sandinista leader in Nicaragua and anti-Semitic Leftist who  calls Israel  “an Apartheid state” is just conducting “business as usual” at the UN. What Brockman and Palestinian Special Rapporteur for the UNCHR  Professor Falk are doing  according to Bolton,  is trying to create ‘facts on the ground’ to force concessions. Concessions that would put the Israeli-Palestinian solution as the first item to be addressed on the Middle East agenda of the UN.  Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post columnist in a recent opinion piece, “Netanyahu’s Grand Coalition,” accused the incoming Obama Administration of doing the same vis a vis “scope locking” the Palestinian Israel ‘peace’ issue.  This includes possible use of NATO and US troops as ‘peacekeepers’ in Judea and Samaria, suggested by Gen. James Jones, NSC designee.   According to Glick this would jeopardize IDF security in the disputed territories to protect the State of Israel.

When asked about whether the US should remain in the UN under such circumstances, Bolton referred to a comment from former US UN Ambassador, Jeane Kirkpatrick who said that “withdrawal would be more trouble that it is worth.”

In a response to a question from Israel project moderator Mizrahi on alternatives to UN multilateralism, Bolton noted the NATO proliferation and Security Initiative. He cited independent efforts at coordination of the War on Terror, Narco trafficking, and Nuclear weapons proliferation as demonstrative of alternative structures that could compete with the UN.

When pressed to predict what the incoming Obama Administration might do given its multilateralism predilections, he noted the difficult position that Secretary designee Clinton would face from internal State department elements. The ‘careerist’ diplomatic human rights advocates will push for attendance at Durban II. There is, according to Bolton a ‘strong culture’ within the State department that would push the Obama Administration to engage in multilateralism and foolishly attempt to “ride to the rescue” at Durban II.  Bolton feels that Clinton would be well advised to override these internal elements at State and follow the example set by former Secretary Powell who walked out of Durban I.

On an issue that Bolton has fearlessly commented on, Iran’s nuclear program, he gave his current views.  He noted that five years of negotiations by the Europeans has failed. Iran has complete control over the nuclear fuel cycle and it will likely have nuclear grade materials for bomb making in 2009. The Bush Administration, he commented, “passed” on a targeted military option.  Bolton said there were “zero odds” of US military actions against Iranian nuclear facilities and Israeli actions may not be feasible. As he put it, “there are few attractive options.”  He contended that the so-called nuclear security shield was “thin consolation” for Israel to retaliate after an Iranian first strike. Unlike the Soviet Era, Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine, the Mullahs in Iran “prize the next life” over this one in their theology.  Bolton raised concerns that nuclear proliferation in the region, with Saudi Arabia and Turkey demanding nukes, increases the risk of ‘first use’ dramatically.   To say that “Iran is a small threat to the World” doesn’t recognize that Iran’s nuclear capabilities are an existential threat to nations like Israel. 

Bolton’s comments at this Israel Project news conference constitute a bow shot against the possible decision concerning Durban II by the in-coming Obama Administration. The decision on attendance at Durban II will be a major test of Obama’s foreign policy pronouncements against the realities of hate mongering at the UN under the Orwellian guise of fighting ‘racism’.