UN thrust for control.

The Myrdals

Before giving a few examples of how this revered body actually functions, I would like to recall for you the words of Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, so important to the founding of the UN, and particularly to setting up the social policies which continue to this day. The Myrdals were Swedish socialists of the 30's and 40's and 50's, and the champions and organizers of the "Swedish model" of free love and sex education. This model was exported very successfully in many ways, but particularly enshrined as the social spirit of the UN where Alva Myrdal reigned over social policy for many years. Just two quotes from these living-room socialists: On Population Control, economist Gunnar Myrdal stated:

"the population question can be transformed into the most effective argument for a thorough and radical socialist remodeling of society."

On the Family, of most interest to us today, in the aftermath of Beijing and as we prepare for Habitat II, was Alva Myrdal's argument that the achievement of gender equality requires the conscious dismantling of remaining traditional homes, through law and policy, and even coercion, to "eliminate" women's traditional roles.

The UN agenda for this reconstruction of world society is plain to see. Michael Schwartz has correctly summarized it: "The third Conference on Population and Development (Cairo) would set the targets of birth rate reduction and legalized abortion for the whole world. The world Summit in Copenhagen on Social Development would build the funding mechanism for carrying out the plan. And the Fourth International Conference on the Status of Women in Beijing would be the great triumph of world feminism that would overturn established customs and institutions" (Human Life Review, Spring 1995).

The ideologues vs. the Vatican

Fortunately some of those goals were frustrated at Cairo and Copenhagen. Unfortunately, others made important gains in Beijing. In my limited time I would like to concentrate on the practices I have witnessed at the UN these past eleven years that I have been there as NGO or as a member of the Holy See delegation. At all these conferences the iron hand of the UN ideologues has been more and more apparent.

The only resistance, and of course it gave a feeling of legitimacy and democracy to the whole thing, was the dissent of the Holy See. For years it made a point of not joining the consensus at these meetings. The UN began to make it plain, however, that the opinion of a state that never joined any of the Consensus documents could not continue to be making itself troublesome. It was a strong message in that diplomatic world. Come in or stay out! Never was there any intention of actually trying to find out what the hundreds of millions of people represented by this "troublesome state" truly required.

Then, in Cairo (Sept. '94) and at the Prepcom before it (March 1994) a nasty problem arose for the UN. Some Catholic countries with feisty presidents sent delegations prepared to stand up for the families, cultures and religions of their people. They did not like what they saw, particularly the aid coming from UNFPA through IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Fed).

The combination of Latin American countries, mainly Hounduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Ecuador, Peru, and Argentina with the Holy See, Malta and Benin was able to derail a number of points which were of basic importance to the successors of the Swedish socialists. These related to the destruction of the family, which is so vital for a total reorganization of society.

Rights and responsibilities of parents, the respect for cultural, ethical and religious values of nations, the family as the basic unit of society. . . were successfully defended in battles which raged into the nights. Strange language about sex and a universal right to abortion were defeated, amid the howls, literally, of the lesbian caucus--there at all times in great numbers.

Revenge was swift. Pressures were applied to gut these delegations so that they could not prevent these measures being passed at the next conference. And this is important: conferences can be endlessly convened to make another try for anything on the UN agenda which was not successfully pushed through. Timothy Wirth (former U.S. Senator) and Chairman Bierman (Dutch delegation, member of IPPF) make trips to those unruly countries, and bit by bit most of them were dissuaded from continuing to oppose. The radical feminists put enormous political pressure on their presidents including a magazine cover in Guatemala headlining, "The man most hated by women--President Leon Carpio!"

And in this divided condition they arrived in Beijing, to discuss a document that no one knew even why it was needed.

The nightmare of Beijing

There is no time to tell all the unbelievable and nightmarish things that occurred at Beijing and at its Preparatory Conference. But I will just mention the most important points. Gender, sexual unions of all kinds, confidentiality and privacy for children over and above the rights and responsibilities of the parents, abortion as a right, all made huge headway. The family as the basic unit of society was kept, thanks to the strong stand of the Holy See, but in effect, because of so many other elements in the document, it is seriously debilitated. The drafters of the next document, of Habitat II, are already announcing that all social policies must be drawn up and evaluated on the basis of gender and the individual as the basic unit of society, not the family.

The fierce resistance to all mention of religion in the document and the insistence on "gender" betray the dream of these would-be rulers of the world. Gender is their new ideology: the class struggle between men and women; the oppression of woman by man, by family, by motherhood. Thus the Marxist-Leninist theory of the need to replace the structures in order to rebuild society takes on a new life.

The system of consensus

This ideology was defended with a war-like spirit and with a total lack of respect for the so-called "member states." On arrival in Beijing, the document had 30% of the text "bracketed," or in dispute. The chapter on "Health" had close to 80%, I understand. This is not what you would call a document close to "consensus."

A word of explanation here. The system used by the UN is what they call "the system of consensus." This means that any word, phrase or terminology which is not satisfactory to one of the member states is placed in brackets, and later, negotiations are held until an alternative is found which suits everyone. It is not a majority rule, but one which is supposed to respect the sovereignty of every country.

At the Earth summit (Rio de Janeiro), when the Holy See and a few other countries, notably Argentina, blocked some of the phrasing that the Europeans wanted to push through, the Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brundtland, said ominously something like: "The UN will have to abandon the system of consensus, as the slower countries are impeding the advance of all the rest." And they have changed it. But they never took a vote on that decision and never announced it. We have simply seen it in action at Beijing.

One European Union delegate described it perfectly when she said: "Last year at Cairo we took a back seat, but this year we are advancing with our knives out." The imagery was perfect. What with separating the delegates into smaller and smaller working groups, where they were rushed through the paragraphs, with no translation, and then taking up the points again in other groups if they didn't succeed in getting them through, the chairwomen were inexorable.

Parental rights

In this way, for example, parental rights, which had qualified 17 paragraphs on children's health in the Cairo document, was battled over for four days, and in the end pushed through with wording which left the actual words in, but overshadowed them by the "confidentiality and privacy" of the children. Forty-six countries made "reservations" to this and other paragraphs on the closing day, so it was a far cry from "consensus." But the document is what counts; the reservations have no binding status. The work of the international agencies and the financial aid will be given in accordance with the "guidelines" which the "whole world" supposedly agreed to.

Other terrible battles which were lost were over the religious and cultural factors which had qualified many of the more controversial issues through Cairo and up until Beijing; and sovereignty in the Health Chapter. In Cairo, every time conflictive language was inserted in the document, it was qualified by wording which said that it was subject to the local laws, and cultural and ethical values of each country. These were firmly rooted out of the Beijing Document, in favor of a benign and ineffectual mention, all by itself, of the benefits of religion to many women. This paragraph is as favorable to Wicca as to Christianity. This is what they call "building on Cairo."

On the other hand, to undo wording which has caused difficulties and which delegates want to reject, that is called "reopening Cairo," and is not allowed. The process of "building on," and never "opening up" is all in one direction: ever more progressive and ever more antifamily.

NGOs

One last factor must be mentioned, the privileged status of "Non Governmental Organizations." This is a shameless way to bypass the democratic governments when they begin to make trouble for the UN. The UN argues outrageously against the democratic process when it says, as it repeatedly has, that NGOs must be included so as to represent the grass roots!

Of course the NGOs are not elected, and are seldom grass roots. The largest of them and the most represented at the UN is International Planned Parenthood Federation; others are the different lesbian groups, Catholics for Free Choice (which has admitted having no members), and so on. They are often government funded. At Cairo, at Beijing and at the various Prepcoms, the real grass roots NGOs such as those represented here had no access at all to the funding or the privileges and perks given to the government-funded NGO's, which represent the "correct" ideological currents.

"Rights" which threaten society

The most terrifying of all the UN plans, in my opinion, is slated for 1998. In that year the UN will draw up a New Declaration of Human Rights. We already know their powerful ways of getting their documents through, and we already know what the new plans will include. The Right to Sexual Orientation and the Right to Abortion are just two of them. Half way through the Beijing conference, the Holy See publicly protested five important aspects of the negotiations in which "a minority coalition was vigorously undermining the pillars of the human rights tradition": marriage and family as fundamental rights; the right to freedom of thought and religion; motherhood; and the rights and responsibilities of parents. And even national sovereignty.

As Michael Schooyans, professor at Louvain University, puts it: "Convergent lines indicate the imminence of an unprecedented religious persecution.

Solution: defund the U.N.

The last step for the United Nations is to become economically independent. This they propose to do by a tax on international currency transactions and communications to be collected directly by the UN. It would provide $1.5 trillion per year.

It is now evident to me that we cannot stop this juggernaut by going and lobbying at these meetings, which are completely planned and controlled by Scandinavian liberals, International Planned Parenthood people, and their African and other third world puppets, like Mrs. Sadik, Mrs. Mongella, Fred Sai, and Ambassadress Tallawi. It is only by drastically defunding the UN that they can be stopped from ultimately gaining the economic control they have been driving at.