Printer Friendly

UN takes aim at children: the UN Children's Summit feigned compassion, but its true agenda was to bypass national sovereignty, usurp parental authority, and make all children subject to the state. (Child Grab).

Hold on to your children: The global child grabbers are back, with a vengeance. From May 8th-11th, representatives from 187 nations -- including 250 child delegates -- met in New York for the United Nations Special Session on Children, otherwise known as the Children's Summit. The purpose of the event was to create a new 10-year plan intended to give UN institutions vast new powers to save the world's children from various scourges and crises.

Make no mistake about it: From the UN's point of view, children are not a gift of God to specific parents and families, but rather a resource to be managed by the "world community" for the collective good. The slogan of UNICEF, the UN's Children's Fund, puts the matter quite plainly: "Every child is our child." Media coverage depicted the summit as part of a noble crusade to build (in the words of the event's plan of action) "A World Fit for Children." Presidents, prime ministers, ambassadors, and parliamentarians joined Nobel laureates, Hollywood celebrities, and hundreds of children in what we are told was a great outpouring of humanitarian concern for mistreated children around the globe.

But beneath this veneer of compassion is a stealthy revolutionary, collectivist agenda, which includes:

* Creating precedents in "international law" to override national sovereignty, and overturning state laws that conflict with international "norms";

* Establishing a legal basis for government officials, international bureaucrats, and representatives of radical organizations to usurp parental authority and take over the upbringing and custody of children;

* Vastly increasing U.S. foreign aid and U.S. outlays to UN agencies and their socialist programs;

* Greatly expanding socialist welfare programs here at home under the banner of promoting the health, education, and welfare of children;

* Increasing the death toll of unborn children by guaranteeing access of abortionists and pro-abortion propagandists to children;

* Promoting homosexuality and lesbianism under the guise of programs allegedly aimed at fighting the spread of AIDS;

* Sexually "emancipating" children and wiping out "age of consent" laws that protect children against adult predators;

* Securing support for other UN power grabs, in the form of treaties and conventions on "women's rights." the environment, foreign aid, and firearms confiscation.

Building on Failure

This year's Children's Summit was a follow-up to the UN's 1990 World Summit for Children, which launched the Convention on the Rights of the Child -- one of several UN instruments being used as battering rams against our Constitution and national sovereignty. President George Bush (the elder), in the midst of the military buildup for the Persian Gulf War, flew to New York to lend the power and prestige of the White House to the event.

The elder President Bush was among 71 heads of state and 88 other senior national delegates to proclaim at that summit that "there can be no task nobler than giving every child a better future" -- and to promise to protect children, diminish their suffering, and promote the fullest development of their human potential. The assembled leaders committed their countries to a UN-created Plan of Action including 27 specific goals relating to children's survival, health, nutrition, education, and physical protection. The agenda called for specific, concrete results in all of these areas by the year 2000, with each country producing a National Program of Action (NPA) and submitting an extensive progress report to the UN.

Indeed, as Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated in We the Children, his report to this year's Children's Summit, "countries that have ratified [the Convention on the Rights of the Child] are required to report on their progress in realizing these rights." (Emphasis added.) The strident and imperious tone of Annan's statement reflects the increasing brazenness with which the UN and its claque of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) demand that sovereign nations obey the mandates of the "world community."

Significantly, even though the U.S. Senate has not ratified the children's Convention, George Bush's administration prepared and presented to the Children's Summit a detailed report entitled America's Children: Our Challenge, Our Future -- USA Report on Progress Toward the Goals of the 1990 World Summit for Children. That document -- produced by a "conservative" Republican administration, no less -- declared that "our children deserve nothing less than a global strategy" to protect their health and provide for their development.

Throughout history, grandiose plans created by central governments have uniformly met with failure, and this is true of the UN's last 10-year plan for children. And in the style of commissars throughout history, Secretary-General Annan laid the blame for failing at the feet of others -- namely, the national governments that had been insufficiently zealous in giving money to the UN and creating socialist welfare states at home.

Speaking to an audience of 250 handpicked "children's delegates" at the opening of the summit, Annan insisted that they had the "right" to education, health, a clean environment, and to live free from the fear of war, poverty, and abuse. "These rights are obvious," insisted Annan. "Yet we, the grown-ups, have failed you deplorably in upholding many of them.... We the grownups must reverse this list of failures. And we are pledged to do so." Addressing the political leaders and policymakers in his audience, Annan continued: "To the adults in this room, I would say: let us not make children pay for our failures any more."

Socialism and Sanctimony

Annan's sanctimonious words camouflaged the socialist nature of the UN's "children's rights" agenda, which assumes that only an all-encompassing collectivist state can provide for the health and wellbeing of children.

For example: A World Fit for Children calls for "primary education that is free, compulsory, and of good quality." This closely parallels the language of the Communist Manifesto, which mandates "free education for all children in public schools." "Free" in this context means state-provided, and therefore state-controlled. The creation of "free" schools means that parents must be heavily taxed; to make them "compulsory" requires forcing parents to send their children to be educated by agents of the state, despite political, ethical, or religious convictions to the contrary.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is replete with other open-ended socialist obligations. Article 4 of that treaty, for instance, requires that national governments provide free child care, health care services, prenatal and postnatal care for mothers, and nutrition and housing "to the maximum extent of their available resources."

The Convention is nothing less than a socialist manifesto for America. Not only would it provide politicians and judges unprecedented opportunity to reach into the taxpayers' pockets for all "available resources," but the Convention would fundamentally alter the function of government -- from a protector of rights to a provider of services. But in this role, government becomes the most powerful and dangerous violator of rights, since government has no wealth of its own and must first take from one segment of society to give to another. And the ability of government to commit such abuses grows exponentially when done by supposedly compassionate people tremulously invoking "the children."

A World Fit for Children, the final document produced by this year's Children's Summit, expands on the Convention's socialist premises, calling for vast enrichment of the UN's powers as a global government. The document's Declaration affirms the commitment of signatories "to the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations," a commitment reiterated throughout the document. Yes, this is the same "sacred" Charter devised by the traitor and Soviet spy Alger Hiss, along with Stalin's diplomatic henchman, Vyacheslav Molotov.

The Declaration goes on to "reaffirm our commitment to complete the unfinished agenda of the World Summit for Children and to address other emerging issues vital to the achievement of the longer-term goals and objectives endorsed at recent major United Nations summits and conferences, in particular the United Nations Millennium Declaration...." Among the "commitments" listed are the population control goals established at the 1994 UN population control conference in Cairo, the global taxation and foreign aid objectives laid out at the 1995 UN social development summit in Copenhagen, and the radical feminist agenda approved at the 1995 UN women's conference in Beijing. Only by enacting every element of this subversive, anti-family, anti-sovereignty program can we build a world "fit for children," according to the UN.

Like all other UN "rights" treaties, the Convention on the Rights of the Child is based on a conception of rights totally alien to that embodied in our constitutional system. In the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers asserted the "self-evident" truth that "men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." They further asserted that, "to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men." Note the logical sequence: 1) There is a God; 2) God has created man and endowed him with rights; and 3) Man establishes government to protect those rights. The Individual precedes the state, and his rights are superior to the claims of the state. Our Constitution is not a body of law to govern the people; it was formulated to govern the government, to carefully limit government so that it would be the servant and not the master of the people.

The Convention springs from a statist foundation completely antithetical to our Constitution. Like the UN Charter and the Soviet Constitution, the Convention holds rights not to be God-given and unalienable, but government-given and conditional. From this dangerous premise -- that rights come from government -- flows the inescapable corollary that government is acting within its legitimate bounds when it restricts, suspends, or even abolishes those rights. Take, for example, Article 14, Section 3 of the Convention, which states: "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law...."

NGOs Mobilize Discontent

Only two nations have refused to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child: The United States and Somalia. That the U.S. has not ratified the Convention is testimony to the broad, grassroots opposition that has developed as millions of Americans have awakened to the threats contained in the Convention. THE NEW AMERICAN sounded the alarm over the Convention more than a decade ago, and in the intervening years scores of patriotic, profamily, pro-life, and Christian organizations have rallied in opposition to this deadly assault on children, parents, family, and society.

It is because of this widespread, principled opposition that the Senate has refused to ratify the Convention; that opposition also accounts for the Bush administration's unwillingness to endorse the most subversive language in the draft plan of action presented at this year's summit. Thus it was not surprising to see the United States come under constant attack at the Children's Summit, as we have at many previous UN conferences. While official delegates from other countries did not hesitate to criticize the U.S., they allowed radical leaders of militant non-governmental organizations to take the point and launch the most vociferous assaults against the "irresponsible" and "obstructionist" American positions.

During the UN's June 2000 Millennium Forum, Kofi Annan welcomed NGOs and the "global civil society" they supposedly represent as "the new superpower." At the Children's Summit the NGOs flexed their muscles and reveled in their "superpower" status. Representatives from Human Rights Watch, Save the Children Alliance, the Transnational Radical Party, and hundreds of other NGOs held a "Children's Forum" in the days leading up to the official summit. Spokesmen from these unaccountable radical groups were accorded privileges to attend and participate in the summit itself, along with official representatives of national governments. This arrangement provided the NGOs and their UN handlers the opportunity to prepare a formidable lobbying force to propel the summit along predetermined lines.

The NGOs have become an indispensable arm of the UN one-worlders in the global pincer attack against the United States. Posing as the legitimate representatives of "global civil society," the NGO lobby pretends to be the voice of universal consensus on all major issues. In truth, the noisy NGO network is a motley rent-a-mob of radical activists in the pay of big tax-exempt foundations and the very UN agencies standing to benefit directly from the empowerment that the NGO network advocates. The NGO network is not the popularly supported grassroots movement it claims to be, but a well-funded "astroturf' pressure group of professional activists financed by grants from the Turner, Gates, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations, along with massive outlays from UNICEF, the World Bank, the European Union and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

Several of the most prominent NGOs at the Children's Summit deserve elaboration:

The Hague Appeal for Peace (HAP) is among the half dozen or so NGOs accorded special status at UN summits. HAP is headed by Cora Weiss, daughter of millionaire Samuel Rubin, a longtime member of the Communist Party and a major underwriter of ultra-left causes. Weiss is also a member of the elite Council on Foreign Relations, and a veteran activist with, and funder of, the Institute for Policy Studies, a subversive think-tank connected to the Soviet KGB and Cuban DGI intelligence agencies, as well as numerous terrorist groups. Weiss and the HAP are major players in the UN's campaign for global civilian disarmament. At the Children's Summit, HAP literature was distributed along with a UNICEF pamphlet entitled "No Guns, Please," which states that small arms and light weapons cause profound physical and emotional damage, particularly to children." The pamphlet also insisted that "regulations are needed to ensure that small arms and light weapons ... are never accessible to children." Since the UN and UNICEF defi ne anyone below age 18 as a child, implementing this directive would disarm millions of responsible American teenage firearms owners and users.

Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC), another official NGO at the summit, poses as an authentic Catholic organization. In fact, it is composed of a small group of radical feminists, lesbians, Marxists, and nature worshippers who reject virtually all Catholic teachings. CFFC is headed by Frances Kissling, who formerly operated two abortion clinics, and who continues as a militant spokesperson for the childkilling industry. Groups like CFFC are highly valued at UN events because they attack the Vatican's prolife and pro-family positions, giving the impression that there are equally valid "Catholic" pro-abortion views.

The World Conference on Religion and Peace (WCRP), funded by the Ford, Rockefeller, Mott, and Hewlett Foundations, as well as Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates and UNICEF, convened "a Multi-religious Ceremony of Commitment of the World's Religions to Children" on May 7th at Holy Family Catholic Church, across from UN headquarters. Event headliners included UNICEF head Carol Bellamy and UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador Roger Moore, better known as James Bond, Agent 007. The WCRP works closely with UN agencies and the notorious World Council of Churches to cloak globalism in the robes of religious righteousness.

The American Psychological Association (APA), a major force in legitimizing homosexuality and advancing the normalization and decriminalization of pedophilia, was also given an honored place at the Children's Summit. In 1999 the APA came under severe criticism for publishing an article in The Psychological Bulletin promoting the pedophile cause. This "scholarly" article was praised by the militant pedophile perverts at the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). One of the authors of the APA's pro-pedophile story, Robert Bauserman, also wrote an article on "Man-Boy Sexual Relationships" for one of the most depraved sexology publications, Paidika: The Journal of Pedophilia.

Many other NGOs represented the extremes of the disarmament, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, Marxist, feminist, and environmentalist movements: Planned Parenthood, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the Margaret S anger Center, the Population Council, Global Education Associates, the Gray Panthers, Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Temple of Understanding, and Mikhail Gorbachev's State of the World Forum. One unsettling innovation at this meeting was the emphasis placed on mobilizing youngsters recruited to serve as "children's delegates."

"Emancipated" Children

During the summit, a number of children's marches took place around New York City. One of the official program events was a May 8th March for Children's Rights from Union Square to Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, near the UN. Around 300 children, roughly ages 8 to 17, many of whom were delegates to the summit, were shepherded along the march route by adult activists, many of whom were militants from Peace Action, the Hague Appeal for Peace, and other radical disarmament groups. Mimicking their elder mentors, the youngsters aggressively chanted: "We demand our rights! We demand our rights!" Then, megaphones and young voices blaring, they took up the yell: "What do we want? Children's rights! When do we want them? Now!"

Even more alarming is the effort of UNICEF and its affiliated NGOs to exploit children as foot soldiers in the sexual revolution. On the first day of the summit, Jo Becker, spokeswoman of the Child Rights Caucus, denounced the U.S. for its "negative, obstructionist role" in trying to block UN support for radical abortion and sex education programs. Becker was joined by Bene Madanagu from the Girls Power Initiative, a Nigerian NGO that says it "lobbies for international sexual education and reproductive rights services" and is engaged in "facilitating skills in communicating about sexuality and gender consciousness" -- whatever that means.

"It is appalling that the US is advancing retrogressive and conservative ideology that is deliberately creating ignorance and confusion by suggesting that abstinence could control HIV/AIDS," fumed Madanagu. "By deliberately pushing the language of abstinence, these countries will have to answer for more HIV/AIDS and for early pregnancies." This set the tone for the remainder of the week, with NGOs and child delegates decrying and condemning any and all efforts to restrict the UNICEF/Planned Parenthood "sexuality" agenda. The youngsters parroted the UN line. In an exchange typical of many that took place during the summit, a German girl about 15 years old exclaimed in exasperation to several of her girl friends standing near me: "I can't believe the U.S.; it's so retrogressive! I can't believe they can seriously push this abstinence stuff! Do they think we're going to stop having sex?"

Upon hearing this outburst, one's first reaction is to ask: "Where is that girl's father? Does he know what she's doing?" These questions throw into sharp relief the malevolent vision behind the UN's "children's rights" campaign. In the world envisioned by the world body and its radical allies, children would be emancipated from parental authority, free to pursue every variety of sexual promiscuity and cultural degeneracy. But once they are "liberated" from the sheltering bonds of parental care, they will be immediately taken into the suffocating embrace of the total state.

That is the vision of a world the UN calls "fit for children." But it doesn't have to be. While the final outcome of the Children's Summit was not an unalloyed victory for the UN, it was -- at very best -- a dangerous charade rigged to advance the steady, stealthy creation of a UN-dominated world government. The only course for true patriots is to expose and oppose the complete UN program and build support for H.R. 1146, Texas Representative Ron Paul's American Sovereignty Restoration Act -- which would cut off all U.S. funding for the United Nations and Get US out! of the UN.

RELATED ARTICLE: Cultivating Youth

Nelson Mandela and Graca Machel were far and away the most honored and celebrated couple at the Children's Summit. Wed in 1998, the two aging revolutionaries have both served in high-profile posts for UNICEF. Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed Machel to chair the UN's Study on the Impact of Armed Conflict on Children. She does know something about that subject: She is the widow of Samora Machel, the infamous Communist dictator of Mozambique. Along with her late husband, Graca took to heart Lenin's dictum that "it is the youth that will be faced with the actual task of creating a Communist society." Samora Machel declared that "young people represent the greenhouse, the nursery, out of which will emerge the cadres of all kinds that are needed to build an advanced socialist society." Graca was his comrade and helpmate in building these youth "greenhouses," producing the violence she now says the UN must solve with global education and gun control programs. Her new husband, Nelson Mandela, was also a comrade of Samora Machel and applied the same Leninist greenhouse formula to South Africa. His African National Congress, in an effort to radicalize and recruit black children, burned down over 2,800 black schools. The ANC's slogan was "First the revolution, then education' Neither Machel nor Mandela have recanted or apologized for their leading roles in bringing about the plague of violence and suffering ravaging southern Africa.
COPYRIGHT 2002 American Opinion Publishing, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2002, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:United Nations Special Session on Children
Author:Jasper, William F.
Publication:The New American
Article Type:Cover Story
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jun 3, 2002
Words:3420
Previous Article:Bush's ICC two-step. (The Right Perspective).
Next Article:The "emancipated" child: the UN aims to free children from parental authority and make them wards of the state, a move that will abolish the family...
Topics:


Related Articles
Advocacy in Action: Perspectives From UNICEF.
Special Session on Children.
The "emancipated" child: the UN aims to free children from parental authority and make them wards of the state, a move that will abolish the family...
Holding the hierarchy accountable. (CFFC Notebook).
Vatican intervenes during UN Special Session on Children. (The Church at the UN).
"A World Fit for Children". (Perspectives From The United Nations).
Literacy: the keys of success. (From The United Nations).
Summit for the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Mobilizing Communities for Ratification.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters