Janet Albrechtsen

"SOME stellar phrases dominated the election campaign last year. Australia faced a “fork in the road”, said Kevin Rudd. As Prime Minister, he faces his own fork in the road. Rudd announced he was Multilateral Man, a modern social democrat leader who would forge a new foreign policy for Australia. Eschewing the Howard years, Rudd would apparently take us down a new, more inclusive road. He would fully embrace multilateralism as the best way to achieve global peace. But here’s the thing. Multilateralism is not an inherent good. Sometimes its very inclusiveness ensures a rotten result.

That much was obvious at the confab in Durban in 2001 when a conference aimed at combating racism degenerated into a bigoted hate-fest against the US and Israel. Non-government organisations in Durban handed out pamphlets depicting Israelis as modern-day Nazis and free T-shirts demanding the dismantling of Israel. Even former US secretary of state Colin Powell - a good friend of the UN - walked out, declaring that “you do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language”.

Such was the moral bankruptcy at the Durban festival of hate, the then UN high commissioner for human rights, Mary Robinson, refused to be part of the ceremony that tabled the forum’s documents. Multilateralism, Durban-style, provided a platform, under the auspices of the international community, for anti-West Westerners and the most egregious abusers of human rights to rail against the West.

The Durban I debacle means that if Rudd really is a sensible fusion between hardheaded realism and liberal idealism, as some have claimed, he will need to show that he can be choosy about multilateralism. And the measure of his commitment to multilateralism ought to go something like this. Meaningful multilateralism that actually achieves a common good is the aim. Harmless multilateralism is understandable. Nothing gained, nothing lost. But oppressive multilateralism that allows repressive regimes to hijack agendas for their own cause to thwart real progress is unforgivable.

Rudd’s test will be the next UN conference on racism. Dubbed Durban II - as a follow-up to Durban I - the meeting next year in Geneva looks set to become a multilateral platform aimed at suppressing free speech in the name of preventing Islamaphobia.

How do we know? Let’s start with who’s in charge. That would be the UN’s premier Human Rights Council which, as the preparatory committee for Durban II, elected Libya as its chair and includes Cuba, Pakistan and Iran. In multilateral land at the UN, Iran - a country whose leadership is openly committed to the destruction of Israel - will be involved in setting the agenda for the next global conference on racism. The HRC was meant to be the answer to the UN’s discredited former Human Rights Commission. Nothing has changed.

Next consider what’s being said in the lead-up to Durban II. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference represents the most powerful voting bloc at the UN and many of its members happily sit on the Human Rights Council. In June, OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said “mere condemnation or distancing from the acts of the perpetrators of Islamophobia” is not enough. He wants Western nations to tighten basic freedoms of speech so there are no more cartoons or documentaries critical of Islam. Other OIC members such as Pakistan and Indonesia, and of course Iran, also have free speech squarely within their sights.

Reasonable people agree that hate speech is abhorrent. But if hate speech were the real target of DurbanII, we should expect to hear denunciations of Holocaust inversion, where Israelis are treated as the new Nazis. Instead, under the cloak of hate speech and Islamophobia, the real agenda of many of the countries responsible for Durban II is stomping on criticism of Islam.

As hard-nosed realists, the OIC bloc knows how to exploit the multilateral idealists in the West. Through sheer numbers they can and do throw around their weight to hijack agendas. One need only track the anti-Israel bias at Turtle Bay headquarters and the UN’s other multilateral minions. At the HRC each year, special agenda item No8 is devoted to scrutinising one country: Israel. No other country. Just Israel. Australia’s former ambassador to the UN, Mike Smith, has denounced the “singling out of one country for criticism under a unique agenda item”. But with other democracies silent on the issue, the unequal targeting of Israel prevails.

Gritty realism explains why OIC members adore UN conferences. It provides them with the perfect platform to invite anti-West Westerners to help promote their cause, ensuring worldwide media coverage on the evils of Islamophobia. For them, multilateralism is a highly effective way to do business. And why wouldn’t they rail against free speech?"

jordan484 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 3:57pm:


Yep, their version of combating racism is via invasion instead.

Good ol Janet. I take her opinions with a grain of salt (as I do Andrew Bolt). At least with Bolt, we agree on a few points - but Janet? Never.

There are some who challenge Islam's aggressive behaviour without resorting to blatant prejudice, and having a goal to undermine liberal hopes of peaceful diaslogue, but I seriously doubt if the more extreme right wing propagandists like Albrechtsen would be included in that group.

Her position is the absolute zenith of prejudicial language, where she has denounced our PM, before hearing what he says, she has denounced the upcoming UN conference by dint of who is included, not because of what they have or haven't done, and already declared it is going to be a vehicle to stifle free speech, in favour of pro Islamist propaganda.

While all, or some of what she says may come to pass, we should give people the chance to at least attempt to do the right thing, before condemning them as frauds and failures.

jordan484 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 4:23pm:


If you collected all her articles and op-ed and put them side-by-side you'll see only one picture. You only need to see her name to know that article is going to be one of the following:

- Liberal = good
- Labor = bad
- JWH = good.
- Kevin Rudd = evil

She is quite boring to me, same o, same o, usual vitriol, nothing new.


jordan484 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 4:23pm:


Lol. I doubt it. If they were then they should look in their backyard first - in their southern states.