Skip to comments.

Posted on 09/08/2001 9:54:30 PM PDT by Utah Girl

The United Nations has another September problem now, smaller but in many ways more interesting than the race-conference disaster in Durban, South Africa. At this writing, the U.N. is wondering whether it should tinker with some abortion language to keep President Bush from boycotting the September 19 conference in New York on the rights of children. A roomful of diplomats stayed up half the night last Thursday scratching their heads about whether to fudge or clarify the code phrase "reproductive health services" in the text of the final declaration of the meeting. They did neither, though the Bush administration wants the phrase out. Critics of Bush say he is wrong to inject abortion politics into the meeting by complaining about the term "reproductive health services." It is the announced belief of the U.N. personnel, endlessly repeated, that this phrase has nothing to with guaranteeing access to abortion for children.

This is odd. At the United Nations, "reproductive health services" have long been understood to include abortion. At a late-night session in June, a weary Canadian delegate lapsed into candor and said, "Of course it includes, and I hate to say the word, but it includes abortion." Many at the session gasped at this revelation, or nonrevelation. A Chilean delegate announced: "Never before have we heard that services included abortion."

No spanking. The U.N. often cloaks controversial proposals in innocuous or broad language, luring delegations into voting for ideas they don't approve or even understand. Code words covering abortion include "sexual rights" and "forced childbearing." Seemingly harmless U.N. language on "children's rights" undermines parental authority. Since "physical or mental violence" is forbidden, it may be an international offense to spank and perhaps even to criticize one's children. "Gender mainstreaming" refers to the idea that gender is a "social construct," meaning there are no important sexual differences between males and females. U.N.-speak is also strong on fill-in-the-blank language, such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation's call for the U.N. to remove "obstacles that make young people uncomfortable about themselves." Who knows what that will turn out to mean in 10 or 20 years?

Many at the U.N. are in fact thinking that far ahead. Preposterous as it sounds, activists are trying to create a form of international law that could supersede national law without any government's explicit approval. The attempt is based on the concept of "customary law"–unwritten rules generally accepted as binding as a result of long use. Current theory says a series of international declarations of principle, even if nonbinding, can be taken as evidence of customary law that binds all nations. The more that terms like "reproductive health services" or "gender mainstreaming" appear in international documents, the better the likelihood that international law will take them for granted.

Nobody is supposed to discuss this tactic in public because of those nasty, furtive, and antidemocratic overtones. One abortion lobby, however, referred to the tactic in a suit filed against George W. Bush after his ban on federal aid to family planning groups that promote abortions overseas. The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy wrote: "to prepare for the eventuality that Roe may be overruled by the United States Supreme Court . . . CRLP has worked and will continue to work to guarantee that the right to abortion be protected as an internationally recognized human right by treaties ratified by the United States Senate, international conference documents endorsed by the United States and customary international law." The key phrase is "customary international law." It shows the lobby does not feel bound by U.S. law or democratic procedures.

Activists, including those in nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) accredited to the U.N., now heavily stress "international human-rights standards," a way of putting national governments on notice that they will be judged by mostly unelected actors on the world stage. The NGOs have become immensely powerful. Many, shrouded in secrecy, claim to represent the peoples of the world. When asked which "people" they represent, a common response is that their goals are the ones the people would choose if conservative governments and transnational corporations did not get in the way.

Jeremy Rabkin of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who follows the world-government movement, says the rapid proliferation of NGOs and international agencies and agreements are "mostly just straws in the wind right now. But people in the movement have big plans and have gained a fair amount of momentum. Mostly this has gone unchallenged, but the longer it goes on, the harder it will be to put an end to it later."

Most Americans pay little attention to the U.N. and assume that nothing serious ever happens there. They are wrong.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.