Reply #8: Do UN conferences always negotiate the final document before the conference starts?

[pampango]

"Last week, the State Department sent two U.S. representatives to Geneva, where the final document to be issued by conference participants at the end of the conference is being negotiated, the U.S. officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because an official announcement has not yet been made."

It would make sense to go to a conference with the intention of discussing racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance. But what's with a conference that has already determined its final agreement before it starts?

I thought the idea of the UN was to give countries a forum to get together and talk to resolve differences in a peaceful manner, not hold a conference with a predetermined outcome. That should be true no matter what the topic: immigration, trade, HIV-AIDS, women's issues. Get together and discuss them. If after the discussion and negotiation, some country doesn't want to sign the final document, they have that right. It would be kind of funny to have a conference on immigration and tell countries, "We've already written the final document with the conference's position on immigration. Now you are welcome to attend the conference to "discuss" what to do about immigration."

"European nations have expressed hope that the conference can go ahead with a final text that is acceptable. But they have also drawn lines they say may not be crossed."

Seems that Canada and the US aren't the only ones possibly not showing up. I believe Australia is also still deciding whether to go.

"French diplomat Daniel Vosgien said in December that his country was firmly opposed to the idea of banning criticism of religion. Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen said at the time that the Netherlands would walk out unless anti-Israel statements were scrapped."

Who would sign a document that bans criticism of religion? There's one Jewish country, several Islamic countries, some Catholic countries. Discuss them all and criticize those that deserve it. No way should religion be banned from criticism. (That's something Bush would have liked.)