On February 21 and 22, U.S. State Department and Department of Justice are going to Geneva to defend George Bush’s record on human rights and racial discrimination. But what does one say about a record that cannot be defended?

Specifically, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination will take a look at United States compliance - or rather, noncompliance - with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, also known as the Race Convention or ICERD.

The Race Convention defines racial discrimination as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.” Notice the emphasis on purpose or effect.

Ratified by the U.S. in 1994, the Race Convention is one of those international treaties that have become part of U.S. law. However, this and other international conventions pose an inconvenience because they are more progressive and inclusive than the Constitution, based on universal standards and are free from the baggage and hangups of America’s sordid and tortured history. And some American politicians and jurists prefer to ignore America’s international obligations and dispose of these conventions like discarded junk mail or yesterday’s newspaper.

In a recent Color of Law commentary, I discussed a shadow report by the over 250-member US Human Rights Network (USHRN), which claims that America is failing to comply with its obligations under the Race Convention. The shadow report was a response to an April 2007 report submitted by the U.S. government on its compliance with ICERD, a report that all signatory nations are required to submit every two years. The U.S. report angered the human rights community, and according to critics it represented a whitewashing of America’s racial problems.

“Our analysis reveals that the Bush Administration is utterly out of touch with the reality of racial discrimination in America,” said Ajamu Baraka, the Executive Director of the USHRN. “From failing to address the chronic persistence of structural racism to even acknowledging the disparate racial impact on people of color of Hurricane Katrina, the State Department reports reads like a fantasy; unfortunately a fantasy that is to often experienced as a nightmare for Americans of color,” Baraka added.

So, exactly how will the Bush administration defend their atrocious record on racial discrimination?

Will they say that the victims of Hurricane Katrina were already poor and had nothing to lose, and that Brownie did a heck of a job?

Will Bush’s yes men and women sugarcoat the problem of race-based police brutality and pretend it doesn’t exist?

What of the school-to-prison pipeline that criminalizes youth, and condemns poor children and children of color to underperforming schools, few opportunities and a life behind bars? Certainly, the Bush regime will claim that these children need to buckle down, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, study hard and play by the rules.

Blacks and Latinos make up 60 percent of the 2.5 million Americans behind bars in the United States. But what will the U.S. government say about the alarming disparities in the criminal justice system? “These people commit more crime,” they will respond.

What of the continued colonialism and racial oppression experienced by America’s indigenous population? “What indigenous population?,” Bush will ask.

And what about the post-9/11 epidemic of hate crimes against Muslims, Arabs and South Asians, perpetrated by law enforcement agencies in the form of round-ups, interrogations and registration programs? “These people are Islamofascist terrorists who hate us for our freedom,” the government will likely say.

So, how do you defend the indefensible? The Bush administration pretends the problem doesn’t exist, and tells the victim to stop playing the victim and show some personal responsibility. On the issue of human rights, this administration never fails to disappoint.

BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board member David A. Love, JD is a lawyer and prisoners’ rights advocate based in Philadelphia, and a contributor to the Progressive Media Project, McClatchy-Tribune News Service, In These Times and Philadelphia Independent Media Center. He contributed to the book, States of Confinement: Policing, Detention, and Prisons (St. Martin's Press, 2000). Love is a former Amnesty International UK spokesperson, organized the first national police brutality conference as a staff member with the Center for Constitutional Rights, and served as a law clerk to two Black federal judges. His blog is davidalove.com. Click here to contact Mr. Love.