The original Durban Conference discussed race relations, equality and human rights around the world. Unfortunately, shortly following it the Sept. 11 attacks occured and all of its promising results were all but forgotten in the face of US nationalism and our jingoistic media.
It was promsing to see that the US took part in the intitial review process back in Febrauary, something George Bush certainlly would not have done.
But even after revisions to the conferences charter we are maintaining our stance of non-engagement:
The United States welcomes the recent progress that has been made through the efforts of many delegations, governments and officials in the formulation of the draft outcome document for the Durban Review Conference on April 20. As the United States noted on February 27, the previous draft text contained objectionable language in several areas. Since then, substantial improvements have been made, including shortening the document, removing all language that singled out any one country or conflict, and removing language that embraced the concept of "defamation of religion" and that demanded reparations for slavery. We commend those who have worked to effect these changes.
There remain, however, elements of the current draft text that continue to pose significant concerns. The U.S. believes any viable text for the Review Conference must be shortened and not reaffirm in toto the flawed 2001 Durban Declaration and Program of Action (DDPA). In addition, while references to "defamation of religion" have been removed from the current draft text, we cannot support restrictions on freedom of expression that could result from some of the document's language related to "incitement" to religious hatred -- a concept that the United States believes should be narrow and clearly defined and made consistent with human rights obligations ensuring freedom of expression.
We appreciate that many delegations continue to work hard in good will to improve the current text. We hope that these remaining concerns will be addressed, so that the United States can re-engage the conference process with the hope of arriving at a Conference document that we can support.
Israel, of course, was the first country to announce a boycott. No surprise, given their ongoing human rights problems. But by refusing to attend the conference we are essentially insuring the results of the conference will not be agreeable. This is doubly a shame since the febrauary review process has now prevented the conference from making a meaningful decleration regarding Israel's actions and the arguably racist ideology which underlies their state. I'm not endorsing the view that zionism is racist, but clearly many people believe it is, so this viewpoint should be discussed!
US State Department Stance
EDIT: Thanks for all the responses! I have a much better feel for the reasons behind this decision now, I still don't totally agree with not attending, but the reasons given by everyone make a lot of sense.
EDIT AGAIN: I understand the presence of disagreeable language is the stated problem. I should have phrased my question better: How does not attending further human rights and our foreign policy goals more than attending would?