The US State Department was expected to announce this week whether the US would send a representative to the controversial UN Conference Against Racism in South Africa, which begins on August 31st. But the announcement has been delayed as behind- the-scenes negotiations continue and several US newspapers are now calling for a boycott or at least a limited role.
In a lead editorial calling the conference "mean-spirited", the New York Times said the meeting, which will be chaired by the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs Mary Robinson, "is one of those meetings that make people wonder about the usefulness of the UN. Originally conceived as a forum to on how to combat contemporary forms of racism, the meeting now threatens to dissolve into an unproductive debate about reparation payments for slavery, condemnation of Israel and such topics as whether the word 'holocaust' should be capitalised."
While criticising the conference, the Times nonetheless concludes that the US should send a representative. "Were the conference more promising, Secretary of State Colin Powell might consider leading the American delegation. At this point, however, his presence would lend the gathering a distinction it has not earned. But America should be represented."
An even more strident position was adopted by the New York Daily News, which called for an all-out boycott. The paper's lead editorial says the US has only one principled option: "Boycott the conference."
It says that "even before its start, this conference has done more to promote bigotry than challenge it. First, Arab delegates revived the vicious 'Zionism as racism' canard of the 1970s. It was a naked but unsurprising attempt to delegitimise Israel as that nation battles the forces intent on its destruction. Admirably, the Bush administration threatened to skip Durban unless the fabricated allegations of Israeli racist practices were dropped from the agenda - along with demands by African states for US slavery reparations."
Although it says Mrs Robinson, has appealed to delegates to keep negotiating on the language, "it has become obvious that ... references to Israel's 'racist policies' and nauseating comparisons of the Holocaust with 'ethnic cleansing of the Arab population in historic Palestine and the Golan'," the Daily News says.
"The conference is degenerating into vehicle for seething bigotry against the Jewish state and, potentially, the US. Some Jewish groups that had planned anti-racism workshops centred around the meeting are shifting gears. They are preparing instead to stand by as monitors of the proceedings and defenders of Israel.
"The credibility of the conference is rapidly deteriorating. Something might still be salvaged if the planners can divest the agenda of lies and re-infuse it with purpose. Miracles do happen. But if, as seems more likely, they insist on perpetuating intolerance and hate, the US must refuse to attend," the paper concluded.
The matter of Israel, and a major Jewish voting block in the US, is seen as the most difficult one for the Bush administration. On the other hand, Amnesty International, citing pervasive examples of racism and bias in the US, has urged the US to attend.
In a letter to President Bush, Amnesty International urged him "not to allow current controversies over draft language to serve as a pretext for non-participation."