By Elizabeth B. Luric, 1995
China’s inexcusable and unexplained seizure and detention of human rights activist and US citizen Harry Wu is reason enough to withdraw US participation from the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, scheduled to begin in Beijing on September 4, 1995.
But it remains the case that US participation is a disgrace under any circumstances. Even if the administration succeeds in securing Mr. Wu’s release – or sidesteps China’s egregious violation of consular agreements by proposing moving the conference to another venue — the United States has no business participating in an endeavor designed to permit the UN to dictate domestic policy in this country.
Unable to market their spurious agenda at home, the extremist anti-womanhood “gender” Feminists have been busy planning to peddle their wares abroad. Though not yet in final form, the conference’s 121-page draft Platform for Action, allegedly concerned with “women’s rights” – as if these are somehow different from universal human rights – is clear enough. The United States is being invited to endorse — and pay for – what amounts to UN implementation of a global policy regarding the United States’ and every other member country’s domestic affairs.
Relevant is the matter of how and in what context the United States wishes to or should present itself to other nations. Does the United States have no more pressing international business than the promotion of “gender equality?”
Not spelled out in the Platform for Action itself, but much talked about behind the scenes, is the notion that the world must come to understand an “equality” of “five genders” as this nation’s and others’ ideal. The “Five genders” comprise female heterosexuals, male heterosexuals, female homosexuals, male homosexuals – and trans/bisexuals. The “equality” involved is an identity of legitimacy regarding normative sexual behavior – why the document refers almost exclusively to “gender” rather then “sex.” One clear implication is that our common understanding of marriage and the particular legitimacy accorded to children born in marriage is to be overturned by radical Feminist moral dictate. One can well imagine the nature of “cultural exchanges” with other countries under this rubric. The United States should have nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Consider the mission: “The Platform for Action is an agenda for women’s empowerment. It aims to accelerate…the removal of all obstacles to women’s active participation in all spheres of public and private life through a full and equal [identical] share in economic, social, cultural and political decision-making….(W)omen share common concerns that can only [sic] be addressed by working…towards the common goal of gender equality around the world [Para 3]….The success of the Platform for Action will require a strong commitment on the part of Governments, international organizations and institutions at all levels as well as resources for the implementation of the agreements made;…and the establishment or strengthening of mechanisms at all levels for accountability to the world’s women” (emphases added). (the bracketed word is not part of the mission statement; it conveys a meaning made clear in the full text.)
All of the foregoing language appears in the most recent version of the draft (May 15, 1995). It has already been adopted and will not be debated at the conference.
Whether this “mission” is ludicrous on its face is a fair question. Surely its presumption to remove “all” obstacles in “all” spheres at “all” levels (twice!) invites the kind of chuckle generally elicited by snake-ail salesmen (excuse me, salespersons). So too does the notion that the world, or at least some 150 nations in it, will readily embrace accountability to the world’s women, to the exclusion of men. I am not so sure that the exclusion of men deserves a laugh – I like men, equal or unequal, and I’d miss them terribly if I had to go about my economic, social, cultural and political decision-making without them!
In truth, the mission statement is not entirely laughable. The source of its seriousness is its arrogance, flavored by the friendship of a companion we had thought retired from the world’s stage at the end of the Cold War – totalitarianism. There is no question that the fevered language of the statement asserts its authors’ contention that we require “re-education” at their hands. There is no question of the authors’ intention to assure that we receive such “re-education” through whatever “mechanisms” prove necessary, even those extending to “private life.” That the writers of this document see little distinction between that which is public and that which is private – and worse, that they see the hand of coercion as an instrument of good – is Orwellian.
The United States’ delegation to this conference should be withdrawn as a matter of national sovereignty. The United States’ delegation should also be withdrawn because a representative democratic Government has no business lending credence to an agenda that does not reflect the views of the vast majority of the nation’s citizens. To endorse abroad, an agenda that has failed at home – and via a body that can be said to have “back-door” influence – is fraud, pure and simple.
This is a position paper authored by Elizabeth B. Luric, President of Independent Women’s Forum and Vice-Chairman of NET – the Political NewsTalk Television Network.
Copyright © 2008 SUANews
All Rights Reserved