White House boycott talk of the U.N. conference began July 27, with spokesman Ari Fleischer saying the president was unhappy with calls for discussion of Zionism and reparations for the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and colonialism in Africa. Some U.S. congressmen supported the Bush administration, but vocal critics condemned the White House. The U.S. did not attend two previous UN racism conferences, in 1978 and 1983, because equating Zionism with racism was an issue for discussion. The issue has resurfaced and is one excuse President Bush is using to justify not attending this year�s conference.

In Geneva, Switzerland, a Preparatory Committee working on a 30-page document that will serve as the "program of action" for the racism conference was scheduled to finish its work by Aug. 10.

Mary Robinson, the UN high commissioner for human rights, warned Arab delegates to back off of discussions of Zionism during her July 30 opening day address in Geneva. If the Arabs persist, it would "derail the conference," Ms. Robinson warned. Common ground is needed, the UN official said. She did concede that discussions of slavery were necessary.

Common ground was also UN Secretary General Kofi Annan�s buzz word as he addressed the 2001 National Urban League annual convention July 30 in Washington, D.C. "We need to acknowledge the tragedies and the wounds of the past, but not become captive to them," Mr. Annan said.

In Geneva, Arab delegations insisted that the document should at least articulate something of Israel�s treatment of Palestinians.

But July 31 the House, supported by the Bush administration, overwhelmingly passed a non-binding resolution sponsored by Rep. Tom Lantos, a California Democrat and a Holocaust survivor. It said the U.S. should not attend the conference unless the agenda was changed to drop discussions of Zionism.

Senators Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) wrote the White House urging that the U.S. insist on having language about Israel changed.

The White House kept the pressure on by sending William B. Wood, acting assistant secretary of state for international organizations, to testify before the House International Affairs Committee. While no one should doubt profound regret the U.S. feels over the "abomination of slavery," the administration still opposes the idea of reparations, said Mr. Wood.

Rep. Cynthia McKinney, a Georgia Democrat, and member of the House committee, released a scathing rebuke of the president�s position Aug. 1. "Now we know that they don�t want to talk about slavery and reparations because they have already made up their minds. George W. Bush doesn�t have room to dismiss Black issues so cavalierly," she said.

The world press and some American newspapers had a field day with the U.S. boycott threat.

In South Africa, newspapers urged countries to ignore U.S. demands and seek proper debate, particularly on issues of slavery and the effects of white colonialism across Africa. "The UN is under no obligation to pander to the whims of Americans," stated The Star in an editorial. The Sowetan, a Black-owned daily with the largest readership in the country, said: "The West cannot simply walk away from economic and social consequences of colonial domination. It must acknowledge responsibility."

On the Arab side editorialists pulled no punches. Al Akhbar, a major Egyptian daily, said the "U.S. position comes as no surprise to Arabs who accuse Washington of being prejudiced against them."

A Detroit Free Press editorial July 31 called the U.S. boycott threat "absurd." "Unless we make the rules we don�t play. That�s arrogant, offensive and self defeating," the editorial argued.

The Boston Globe Aug. 1 called the U.S. threat a continuation of President Bush�s disdain for international treaties. "This is another effort by the Bush administration to dilute, undermine, or ignore international treaties on a broad range of topics�from global warming to small arms to anti-ballistic missiles to a world criminal court," the editorial said.

Even Human Rights Watch urged Mr. Bush to support the anti-racism conference, though agreeing Zionism was a mute issue. "The U.S. must attend and confront the reparations issue head on," Kenneth Roth, of the Human Rights Watch New York office, told The Final Call.

Spokesman Ari Fleischer reiterated the president�s position at the White House on Aug. 1. "The president believes that the conference can be an historic opportunity for nations to discuss combating racism," he said. But, he warned that the U.S. would not attend if the agenda included the two contentious issues.

"We understand that Arab delegates will support African demands for compensation from the West for slavery and colonialism in exchange for African support for Arab positions," said high ranking diplomats, inside the UN Secretariat building in New York, speaking on condition of anonymity July 30. A ranking member of the Palestinian Authority explained that while Palestinians aren�t discussing the Geneva debate publically, they are watching closely. "It is very important to us," he said.

The Final Call learned Aug. 2 that things were moving slowly in Geneva. A public information official, speaking by telephone from Geneva and on the condition of anonymity, said delegates were going through the document "paragraph by paragraph." It takes them 10 to 20 minutes to discuss each line, he said. According to the official, the committee had completed the part of the document dealing with migrants. It seems likely that they will leave the Middle East and the legacy of the past issues until last," he said.

David Commingson, a member of the Barbados delegation, said that the mood in Geneva was that the U.S. should go to Durban and confront the issues. "In the meantime, the African delegations are holding their ground. I believe that the issues of reparation and colonialism will stay on the agenda," he said.

U.S. activists say go or stay the Bush administration can no longer dominate reparations discussions. Some, like Viola Plummer of the New York-based December 12th Movement, believe the White House is using the Zionism issue as a smoke screen to mask the real reason for not wanting to go to Durban. "The U.S. does not want to face the world community on the issue of slavery as a crime," she said. "We must mobilize people to go to Durban to confront the colonial powers, and if the U.S. stays home we must confront them when we return."