DISTURBING TREND

Posted at 11:12 a.m. ET

Why would the United States Government make an important announcement late on a Saturday night?  The reason, of course, is to make sure it doesn't get too much attention.

On Saturday night the Obama administration announced it is sending a delegation to assist in the planning of Durban II, a UN project known formally as the World Conference Against Racism.  Sounds innocent enough, but recall that Durban I was held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001, a few days before the 9-11 attacks, and descended into an orgy of hatred, blatant anti-Semitism, and open season on Israel.  The Bush administration boycotted that conference, refusing to lend it the dignity of America's name.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, before she took her new office, that the U.S. should boycott Durban II as well.  And, indeed, planning for the conference signals a meeting even more degenerate, anti-freedom and bigoted than Durban I.

But there are apparently other voices in the administration.  From the AP:

The State Department said it would send diplomats next week to participate in preparatory meetings for the World Conference Against Racism, which is set to be held in Geneva, Switzerland in April and which some countries including Israel have already decided to boycott.

In a statement released late Saturday, the State Department said the U.S. delegation to the planning discussions would review current direction of conference preparations and whether U.S. participation in the conference itself is warranted.  

One of the boycotting countries is Canada.  President Obama visits Canada late this week, so the decision to send diplomats to those planning meetings undercuts Ottawa.  Of course, undercutting allies has been a hallmark of this new administration since the moment it took office.  Obama has already insulted President Karzai of Afghanistan, has undercut our East European allies on missile defense, has shown indifference to Iraqi democracy, has insulted Britain by returning a bust of Winston Churchill that sat in the Oval Office, has interfered in internal Israeli politics, and has generally signaled that allies have no greater standing than some enemies.  Great stuff.

One of the leading officials pressuring Clinton on "Durban 2" is the new U.S. ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, who was Obama's close campaign adviser.

Rice is also pushing for the U.S. to join the UN Human Rights Council, which is based in Geneva.

This doesn't surprise me.  It's Rice's reputation.  We'll be given the argument that by "participating" in these bodies, we can change them.  That's absurd.  It's never happened.  By participating we simply lend them legitimacy and prestige.  They will do what they wish to do.  The U.S. has one vote.  Once again we are sending a message of weakness, of accommodation to some of the worst governments in the world.

The other official pushing for American participation in "Durban 2" is Samantha Power, another Obama adviser at the National Security Council.

Power participated in the initial Durban conference as the representative of a non-government organization and is known for her strong criticism of Israel.

This is disgraceful.  Apparently, the secretary of state has been cut out of the loop.  The hard leftists are getting their way.  True, the U.S. statement said that Washington would decide at a later date whether to participate in Durban II, based on what direction the planning took, but that looks like window dressing.  If we did pull out on principle, it would be great.  But I have the uneasy feeling that this initial step will simply lead to our participation.  And that would be a slap at the very "American ideals" President Obama loves to talk about.

The AP story contains this intriguing line:

Senior State Department officials contacted Israeli diplomats and asked them to take swift action to block the Durban initiative.

The term "senior" is used carefully by experienced journalists.  In this case it would apply either to the secretary of state or to those just below her, who would act only with her approval.  One gets the sense of growing conflict in the administration, something that could flare up.  I've said before in this space that Hillary Clinton might be forced out of the administration, or could even feel the need to resign in protest over policies she opposes, setting up a new battle within the Democratic Party.

Things are getting sticky.

February 16, 2009.