The UNFPA Hague Forum Adds to Growing Assault on National Sovereignty
Free eBook:
|
| Free eBook: Liturgical Year 2023-2024, Vol. 4 |
Flawed Hague Forum Attempts to Conceal National Sovereignty Threat
The recently drafted document forwarded by the Hague Forum to the United Nations Secretariat attempts to trump national sovereignty, which could force unsuspecting nations to implement laws contrary to national interest, cultural values or religious belief. The Hague Forum is the latest in a decade long procession of conferences endeavoring to circumscribe an ever tighter noose around the principle of national sovereignty. En route to global conformity, parental rights, bereft of national protection, are a casualty. Once families and national cultures are denuded, a "planetary consciousness" becomes the primary reference for all peoples.
Many view an overarching global body as the preeminent means of achieving a peaceful world. Time Magazine recorded this comment by Strobe Talbot, US Deputy Secretary of State:
"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."
Successive United Nations conferences have all sought to construct the legal framework from which to launch a powerful global machinery, beginning in 1968 with the creation of UNESCO, United Nations Economic, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
The Hague Report, together with the report of the Commission on Population Development, will serve as background papers for a negotiated document which is to be hammered out in March by country delegates. That final negotiated document will be presented in June to the special session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York City.
The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the Government of the Netherlands hosted the Hague Forum, at The Hague, February 8-12. Ministers and delegates of 177 countries, Hillary Clinton, representatives of intergovernmental associations, Non Government Organization (NGOs) youth and UN agencies gathered to appraise the world’s progress toward implementing the Cairo Programme of Action (POA). The forum was a preliminary review session leading to ICPD+5 (reference to the five years since the International Conference on Population and Development, better known as the Cairo Conference)scheduled for June.
The Forum workshops and concourses buzzed with UN-speak: "women’s empowerment," "sustainable development," "civil society," "reproductive health," "equality of access to the political process," "right to sexual pleasure," "political will, "gender equity," "migratory tensions" "unmet needs for contraception," "freedom of sexual expression and orientation," "donor nation," and most insidious of all, "rights-based approach." Obscured in the banter and mounds of glossy brochures was a slick attempt to trounce national sovereignty in order to force the nations of the world to conform to the globalist POA.
During the press briefing of the first day, UNFPA personnel admitted their biggest obstacle to full implementation of the Cairo Progamme of Action was failure of certain nations to meet their funding quotas (including the US) and the opposition of the Catholic Church and other religious traditions opposed to abortion and the preempting of parental rights by the state.
"The Holy See…rejects the individuality of women and insists that family is the most important social unit of society in which reproduction decisions are made," criticized an unsigned editorial in the ICPD+5 Watch, a daily conference newspaper. "The insistence that abortion is against life in no way helps women come to terms with their sexuality and deal with it… at the Hague Forum the Holy See continues to say that in matters of sexuality and reproduction, rights of the parents are supreme and the state should encourage this and not override it," concludes the editorial. The commentary ends with this observation, "We look forward to the day the Holy See comes into the twentieth century," where presumably an enlightened government will take over parenthood because "…evidence suggests parents may have rights, but have trouble carrying out their responsibilities in sexual matters with their children. Who then should take care of this. And why should the state not be responsible as was agreed at Cairo?"
The Cairo conference of September, 1994, stalled when Islamic delegates, Central African and Latin American delegates, and the Vatican delegates objected to language which imperiled religious practice. Their interventions preserved national sovereignty which was at risk in the implementation procedures of the proposed document, the Programme of Action (POA). To end the stalemate and conclude the conference, a compromise chapter was added which made mandatory this provision:
"The implementation of the recommendations contained in the Programme of Action is the sovereign right of each country, consistent with the national laws and development priorities, with full respect for the various religious and ethical values and cultural backgrounds of its people, and in conformity with universally recognized human rights." Yet, that chapter provision –known as the Cairo Chapeau—was buried beneath a glitteringly redefined millennial population agenda during the Hague Forum.
The operative tactic was to distract participants with polished presentations and an orchestrated "consensus" of concern for "human rights." The focus was the terror of humanity, a global crush of bodies: youth bodies—one billion strong— entering their reproductive years, bodies with Aids, bodies having babies, bodies demanding "sexual rights," bodies in need of abortion, bodies abused by female genital mutilation(FGM) bodies endangering "sustainable development" and bodies migrating from the South to the North.
Cleverly concealed in all the rhetoric was a new language smuggled into the draft document: "Women’s rights are human rights," drummed workshop after workshop.
Innocuous as that slogan appears, it was crafted specifically to slide undetected into the already ratified Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Hague draft reads:
"The ICPD and the subsequent Fourth World Conference on Women have enhanced national attention and debate on the centrality of gender equity, equality and the empowerment of women in sustainable development. Governments have made important strides toward implementing international conventions…many countries have enacted gender action plans aimed at promoting and protecting the rights of women as fundamental rights…[and]the primacy of gender issues. The heightened public awareness of women’s rights issues is increasing pressure to convert policy statements and legislation into effective action."
The phrases "international conventions " and "rights of women as fundamental rights," give their game away.
In short, if "women’s rights" which are defined to include "reproductive health and rights" (a euphemism which encompasses abortion) and "gender equity" can be declared as Human Rights, then nations failing to provide women and girl children with ready access to abortion, education and political processes will be in violation of the Human Rights Declaration. A measure of the intent of "gender" and "women’s rights" language in the draft is clear from the lack of definitions which renders the terms elastic for future manipulation.
An instructive example of this technique appeared in drafts of yet another United Nations initiative, the International Criminal Court. Consider this report of the negotiations which began in June and failed to win the support of the world’s most populous nations, China, India and the US.
"… the ‘gender agenda’ being advanced by the feminist Women's Caucus is one of the key issues confronting the delegates meeting here to negotiate an International Criminal Court (ICC). Throughout the week, pressure has mounted for explicit definition of key feminist catch phrases like ‘enforced pregnancy’ and ‘gender persecution’…Delegates have expressed concern that "enforced pregnancy," if included in a final ICC treaty document, could make any country's refusal to provide on-demand access to abortion a crime under international law. Similarly, the term "gender," which appears in other international documents but has never been defined, could be interpreted as criminalizing any national laws or policies that favor heterosexual marriage over homosexual couplings, on the grounds that homosexuality is a recognized "gender."
For many nations such proposed "violations" of rights would sever economic aid which is tied to Human Rights compliance and subject them to possible sanctions.
A World Bank representative boasted during a Hague press briefing that "reproductive health" was an issue which the Bank addressed when development loans were negotiated.
Socialists who never tire of excoriating the United States for its "imperialism" exhibit little embarrassment when engineering contraceptive imperialism. Developing nations in need of dams, roads, schools and telecommunications are pressured to comply with globalist directives, regardless of culture or national sovereignty. When questioned further about the actual mechanics tying such "reproductive health" requirements to loan packages designated for building infrastructure, the World Bank’s representative explained that often the pressure was applied in the terms for debt forgiveness: a portion of the loan was forgiven only if that same portion was spent on contraceptives and abortion access, reproductive education and "gender equity" education.
At immediate risk are those nations where religious traditions consider life to be inviolable at conception. While some nations may have scant discomfort about a universal right to abortion, those countries will find that other provisions fall within the range of the new "rights-based perspective." An example is a right demanded in the Youth Draft—coming from the Youth Forum which preceded and fed into the Hague Forum. The right to freedom of "sexual expression" which does not exclude any proclivity: incest, homosexuality and pedophilia—even necrophilia. Social and economic rights for all is a women’s empowerment and "gender equity" demand— which means full social and economic protection by law for homosexual marriages. The five primary provisions of the Hague Draft Report were: 1)Gender equity (all forms of sexual expression)and women’s empowerment, 2) enforcing an "enabling environment" for ICPD’s Progamme of Action, 3) reproductive health and education, 4) building partnerships(collaboration among governments, NGOs, inter-governmental agencies and the UN) and 5) financing of ICPD programs.
If "rights-based language" is the successful lever lifting the UN above national sovereignty on these issues, the precedent is then set for other issues as well. Similar strategies were used following the 1992 Rio Conference (UNCED)which adopted Agenda 21, a list of world wide environmental proposals. UNCED blamed the bulk of environmental disasters on a planet overrun with humans. Notwithstanding the demographic reports that over 60 nations now have growth rates below replacement rates—indeed Europe is dying—-the radical agenda is zealously promoted.
The Wall Street Journal observed:
"Not the least of the ironies here is that the call for redoubling of efforts to control population at the Hague comes at the very moment that governments which once do worried about having too many children are beginning to feel the consequences of not having enough. Already we see this in Italy, Japan and China, whose societies are graying at an unprecedented rate… .[the]Cairo and Hague documents makes clear that though the talk may be of empowering women or families, what they really empower are bureaucrats."
Rio is widely recognized as the first transparent initiative to grant supra-national powers to the UN which is a non elected, non accountable body. Next came Beijing, then Habitat II, with its chilling call for "environmental governance" which is inimical to private ownership of property. A pincer move against national sovereignty is thus effectively launched: On one side, the environmental crisis, requiring an Earth Charter and universal compliance with various environmental and habitation provisions which ignore national sovereignty. From the other side, the population crisis, requiring universal measures to implement newly redefined "human rights" irrespective of the culture or religious values of nations.
What is really at issue isn’t human rights, but power. Power over anything which is opposed to the radical agenda
Careful examination of the "rights-based language" of the Hague Forum sheds light on the world elitist strategy. The crucial question is: Why aren’t the human rights of the 1948 Declaration sufficient for all humans? Do women require a special category of rights over and beyond men? Doesn’t that idea create a privileged class of humans based on biology? What is really at issue isn’t human rights, but power. Power over anything which is opposed to the radical agenda :Populations, constitutions, cultures and religious traditions—and the "women’s rights"issue is the tool to achieve that power.
Paragraph 12 of the Hague Draft Report attempts a coup: "In the past five years there has been a growing acceptance of a human rights based perspective." In point of fact, the rights based language was not accepted at Cairo. On the contrary, abortion was specifically rejected –twice—as a method of family planning. Most critically, Cairo’s Principle One is "the right to life." As the Hague Forum is part of a five year assessment of Cairo, many delegates and some NGOs recalled the Forum to the lesson of Cairo; that such rights based language was unacceptable. The Austrian delegate reminded the president of the Hague Forum that the Hague draft document was not a consensus and not binding. The drama continued into final plenary session as various nations rose to reiterate objections made during the week. Yet, the staged and pre-planned maneuvers led by Forum president, Nicholaas Biegman, rebuffed the minority reports. At one point a delegate aggravated with the phrasing of key paragraphs which did not accurately reflect the intentions of participants stood and said, "Mr. President, you were there during the negotiations." Delegates and lobbyists alike realized that the orchestrated agenda would be rammed through despite interventions which demanded that the Cairo Programme of Action not be expanded via the Hague Forum’s "technical review of progress since Cairo."
The Hague draft calls for nations to provide an "enabling environment" which is to be established for the "further implementation of the ICPD Programme of Action." No provision is made for economic conditions in countries where such an enabling environment would be fiscally imprudent if not impossible to establish on the UN timetable. No provision is made for those nations where such an enabling environment is culturally shocking. Developed nations were also forcefully reminded that they must live up to an assessment of 0.7 per cent of gross national product (GNP) for development assistance to developing nations, as stated at the Copenhagen World Summit for Social Development in March of 1995.
In addition to "rights" and "conventions" which lead to enforcement by a supra-national United Nations, the Hague Forum promoted "partnerships" among NGOs, governments and intergovernmental agencies. NGOs are advanced as the participation of "civil society," that is, agrassroots "democratic" participation in UN initiatives. In reality, few regular citizens belong to any NGO or are even aware of the multiple United Nations treaties, conventions, or conferences.
Furthermore, the NGOs are staffed by ideologues who are paid to promote the stated NGO goals, while the rest of us coach Little League or chair the PTA.
The massive funding from foundations which pours into the coffers of powerful NGOs enables these organizations to pretend that "civil society" has endorsed -voluntarily-the growing hegemony of the UN. The "empowerment" these partnerships demand "equal" [read, coercive] access to government "entitlements," grants and largesse and unearned or un-elected access to political power rather than equal rights to opportunities and the fair use of one’s own labor. Lastly, such groups have the resources and the clout to educate clients for "world citizenship;" the UN as parent and grantor of assorted rights— not God, family or nation. This education is seen most clearly in the International Planned Parenthood Federation’s work to insure that "all women of reproductive age" have universal access to abortion "guaranteed by the United Nations." Similarly, the background paper of the Youth Forum states:
"Sexual and reproductive rights provides a framework and legal foundation to meet the sexual and reproductive health needs of young people….Adoption of a Rights-based framework demands that reproductive health is viewed from the perspective of young people…and that the undesirable sexual and reproductive health consequences are viewed as violations of these rights. (Emphasis added)
Who is going to enforce such rights for children should they be granted by the United Nations? What "legal foundation" will such "rights" have in those countries where such demands are not recognized as moral or ethical?
Despite claims of consensus, the Forum suffered from an artificial atmosphere of forced civility.
The open discourtesy toward Evangelicals, Muslims, Mormons and Catholics marred genuine diplomacy. Many lobbyists and delegates grumbled openly about "stacking the deck" tactics employed during the Hague Forum. Even abortion advocates such as the director of Pro Familia, a West German NGO, decried the unfair advantage which the larger NGOs enjoyed. "It’s a scandal, really," reported Elke Thoss of Frankfurt, "because the grassroots NGOs like us must raise our own funds. But the UN funds their NGOs –really, they’re just a mouthpiece for the UN. Soon we’ll have to take a look at what’s happening internally," she predicted. When pressed Ms. Thoss explained that the UN funneled the big foundation’s dollars into the UN preferred NGOs. Rachel Kyte of International Union for the Conservation of Nature(IUCN) echoed Thoss’ sentiments, remarking on competition among NGOs.
Angry that women in her country had 90% access to contraception devices, but less than 50% of the women had access to clean water, the delegate observed, "There is no real concern for maternal health. Only that we have no more babies. In our villages you can find boxes of condoms, but you cannot find bandages or soap. Do you think they care about health? No. Only ‘reproductive health’ for women—if women die of cholera it is no matter.
"New York will be different," confided one frustrated Latin American delegate. "This is only a preliminary session with no binding power. The document we’ll negotiate in March will reflect the nations, not these functionaries," she promised. Angry that women in her country had 90% access to contraception devices, but less than 50% of the women had access to clean water, the delegate observed, "There is no real concern for maternal health. Only that we have no more babies. In our villages you can find boxes of condoms, but you cannot find bandages or soap. Do you think they care about health? No. Only ‘reproductive health’ for women—if women die of cholera it is no matter.
Population control remains a primary thrust of the United Nations. Excess humans are seen as a threat to peace and prosperity. Americans of various degrees of political awareness may agree or disagree with specific line items of the population platform. Nonetheless, most agree that use of the population issue as a screen behind which a supra-national governing body is created represents a grave threat to our constitution. Are our lawmakers conversant with this assault on our freedoms? A wary vigilance is called for by Americans who expect to preserve freedom and national sovereignty as an inheritance for their posterity.
© MJ Anderson, 1999, All rights reserved.
The United Nations was established with fifty-one nations, June 26, 1945. Today,185 countries are member nations. The United Nations is made up of six primary bodies: the Secretariat, the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the International Court of Justice, and the Trusteeship Council The United States, with only one vote, is the largest contributor to the United Nations, paying 25 percent of the U.N.'s budget.
Mary Jo Anderson is a contributing editor of Crisis magazine, for who she covered the Hague cnference. She has been a long-time obseerver and chronicler of the globalist assault on U.S. national sovreignty.
This item 869 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
