(no subject)
Britain walks out of conference as Ahmadinejad calls Israel 'racist'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/20/un-conference-boycott-ahmadinejad
I'm really disappointed in the reaction of the western governments whose officials walked out of this meeting. As well as stunting the whole process again and making a mockery of the UN, which is not too difficult, it screams of "lalalala I can't hear you!". Why does there have to be such a melodramatic response to a situation that requires endless discussion, compromise and open-mindedness to arrive at anything?
Of course Israel was going to come up in the conversation. So should many other countries. So why not debate and argue against it rather than childishly stomping out and "waving fists" at Ahmedinejad? The fact that there is a refusal to even accept the possibility, or hear the other side's argument is really worrying coming from the 'democratic' countries in the global community. Freedom of speech and racism are directly related, because it takes responsibility to know how to balance the two, and it takes resilience to overcome the overlaps. All the west succeeded in doing was to prove that they are not capable of either.
So why were the European delegates there in the first place? What points were they hoping to raise? Were they going to unbiasedly delve into the nitty-gritty reality and root out racism world-wide? Were they going to point fingers at their enemy just like Ahmedinejad? Or were they going to spout platitudes that serve no purpose, so that they can have a warm feeling in their hearts while they waste money in ludicrously expensive hotels?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/20/un-conference-boycott-ahmadinejad
I'm really disappointed in the reaction of the western governments whose officials walked out of this meeting. As well as stunting the whole process again and making a mockery of the UN, which is not too difficult, it screams of "lalalala I can't hear you!". Why does there have to be such a melodramatic response to a situation that requires endless discussion, compromise and open-mindedness to arrive at anything?
Of course Israel was going to come up in the conversation. So should many other countries. So why not debate and argue against it rather than childishly stomping out and "waving fists" at Ahmedinejad? The fact that there is a refusal to even accept the possibility, or hear the other side's argument is really worrying coming from the 'democratic' countries in the global community. Freedom of speech and racism are directly related, because it takes responsibility to know how to balance the two, and it takes resilience to overcome the overlaps. All the west succeeded in doing was to prove that they are not capable of either.
So why were the European delegates there in the first place? What points were they hoping to raise? Were they going to unbiasedly delve into the nitty-gritty reality and root out racism world-wide? Were they going to point fingers at their enemy just like Ahmedinejad? Or were they going to spout platitudes that serve no purpose, so that they can have a warm feeling in their hearts while they waste money in ludicrously expensive hotels?