If the UN really wanted this Summit to be a model of what the organisation is all about, that is, bringing the world community together to take a stand against all forms of injustices related to racial discrimination, I cannot understand why the president of Iran was allowed to address the gathering. I must confess that I am ignorant of the politics at work here and how it is decided who should be the speaker(s). However the process by which he came to address the Summit, it is in my view, an unfortunate misjudgement that will do no good to the cause of eliminating racial discrimination. Not that his speech should take away from the good initiatives and recommendations that will come out from the UN Summit.
I have not read the full translated speech of the Iranian President and I am aware of some of the complexities of the politics surrounding Israel/Palestine (more than often used conveniently by one and many while innocent people continue to suffer). Controversy was certainly in the air as was evident from the boycotts and then the walkouts. To suggest that “they [Europe/West] sent migrants from Europe, the United States...in order to establish a racist government in occupied Palestine” is neither tactful nor conducive, especially in the light of President Ahmadinejad’s view on Israel.
He played right into the hands of folks who may be looking for a reason not to engage with their nation’s complicity in racist practices. Talking about racial discrimination is always uncomfortable. And, I wonder when we shall reach the point where we can all stop behaving like bigots, exercise some serious self-critique in order to establish a sound moral platform to confront the real structural issues that perpetuate racial discrimination.
Upon closer scrutiny of the excerpted comments by the Iranian President one can reasonably ask whether the Iranian leader is keen to open his country’s borders to migrants and whether at work here is also an internalised form xenophobia that sees only a particular group of people occupying lands in his part of the world. He could have used his speech to show what policies there are in place against racial discrimination in his own country, practices of tolerance, and how the rest of the world can learn from Iran. Instead, he reflected an intransigent position and contributed to the polarising of conversations on what is already “hot” and “hard” talk. Those of us who are involved in antiracist work on grassroots level will know how this works.
This incident is an unfortunate setback for the cause to eradicate racism. And, it is not that there are no other world leaders who could have come forward to give the necessary leadership and move the Summit on in helpful ways. We could have had Lula of Brazil who is not afraid to open his mouth about the “blue-eyed boys” who have messed up our economies or Evo Morales, the indigenous leader of Bolivia having his say on the struggles in his own country. These are just two examples of voices that would have placed significant perspectives on racial discrimination. I even wonder what difference Obama would have made had he been the speaker!
It is quite easy to nail the blistering rhetoric of the Iranian leader. There is little integrity to it. On the other hand it becomes more difficult to get Israel to do some serious self-interrogation on its treatment of Palestinians. And, for all those decent liberal nations that fly the flag of democracy and boast of their tolerance, the challenge is how to be tolerant in the face of what may be intolerance. That is a real test for our commitment to tolerance and democracy. And at what point are we going to be democratic and just in our response to racial discrimination? The journey ahead is a challenging one and we desperately need visionaries to lead us out of our impasse.
copyright © April 2009
