Strange Bedfellows
While remarks such as the Pastor Vines’ might put a slight dent in the U.S.
government/Christian-right/Islamic coalition, it is unlikely to undo the
alliance that has been growing over the past few years. According to the
Washington Post, the coalition is concerned with “halt(ing) the expansion of
sexual and political protections and rights for gays and women at United
Nations conferences.”
Austin Ruse, founder and president of the New York-based Catholic Family and
Human Rights Institute, told the Washington Post that “We look at them
[Islamic states] as allies, not necessarily as friends. We have realized that
without countries like Sudan, abortion would have been recognized as a
universal human right in a U.N. document.”
Sudan is one of 53 nations belonging to the Organization of Islamic
Conferences at the United Nations. It has been on the U.S.’s list of
countries supporting terrorism, although since September 11 it has helped the
U.S. in its “war on terrorism.” But Sudan has also been singled out by a
number of Christian organizations for supporting slavery within its borders.
Mokhtar Lamani, a Moroccan diplomat who represents the Organization of
Islamic Conferences at the UN told the Washington Post that U.S. Christian
non-governmental organizations approached him in June 2001 at a special
session of the U.N. General Assembly on AIDS. At the time, “liberal
Western activists” were asking for “explicit” language calling
for the protection of prostitutes, intravenous drug users, and “men who
have sex with men” from contracting AIDS. “It was totally
unacceptable for us,” Lamani said. “The Vatican and so many NGOs came
up to us saying this is exactly the same
position we are defending.”
According to the Washington Post, “The Islamic-Christian alliance
claimed an important victory at the UN children’s meeting [in May].”
Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, executive director and senior fellow at Concerned
Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, provided this report card
on the role of the U.S. delegation at the United Nations Children’s Summit:
• “‘A’ on the abortion issue”: The U.S. delegation was able
to exclude “any language about ‘reproductive health services’ --
which is code for ‘abortion.’” Dr. Crouse describes this issue as
the “Energizer bunny” because it “pops up wherever the UN has a
conference, whatever the topic.”
• “‘B’ on the family
issue”: While the final documents “acknowledge the importance and
centrality of the natural family” the U.S. delegation was forced to
accept the adding of the phrase “various forms of the family.” Dr.
Crouse said the U.S. objected to the phrase because “it opened the door to
homosexual unions.”
• “‘A’ for its abstinence stances”: Despite what Dr. Crouse
calls “fierce opposition” from the press and other countries, the
U.S. delegation held firm in its advocacy of “abstinence as an essential
element of sex education and the most effective means of reducing the
HIV/AIDS epidemic.”
• “‘A’ for strong provisions protecting children from child
pornography, armed conflict, preventable diseases, early death and child
prostitution”: The U.S. delegation “concentrated on a wide range of
issues necessary for protecting the world’s 2 billion children and making
the ‘world fit for children.’”
• “‘A’ for standing up to the world regarding the Convention on
the Rights of the Child (CRC)”: The U.S. continues to remain isolated as
one of the only countries not to ratify the 1989 CRC treaty. According to Dr.
Crouse, the U.S. objects to the treaty because: “It makes children’s
autonomy rights the universal standard by placing the rights of children over
the rights of parents; it allows children to access health services in
general and abortion in particular without the knowledge or consent of their
parents; it outlaws the death penalty for anyone under 18 years of age.”
A Whole New World
Once the UN was hated and feared by Christian-right groups as a weapon of the
New World Order. Now many Christian-right organizations believe that through
their involvement in the Bush administration -- and with support from their
Islamic allies -- they can exercise some modicum of control over social policy
at the UN.
In July 2001, the National Catholic Register’s Joshua Mercer
trumpeted the “whole new world at the United Nations.” It
represented a “sea change now that Bush is in the White House. He has
turned the United States delegation into a staunchly pro-life and pro-family
force,” Mercer wrote.
The “sea change” happened darn quickly. In February 2001, AgapePress, a
Christian news service, reported that the Heritage Foundation had issued a
report “sharply criticiz[ing] United Nations policies which seeks to
undermine the traditional family.”
But later that month in a column in the weekly National Catholic Register,
Austin Ruse pointed out that the changeover at the UN was moving along
nicely. The Clinton years, which was “a breeding ground for family-unfriendly
initiatives masquerading as sound social policy,” had been replaced by a
family-friendly Bush administration. Ruse noted that the changeover was aided
by the inclusion of Christian-right activists in U.S. delegations.
Fast forward to the recently completed UN children’s meeting in May.
The U.S. team, reports the Washington Post, included a number of longtime
anti-abortion and anti-gay advocates -- John Klink, a former adviser to the
Vatican at previous UN conferences; Dr. Janice Crouse; and Paul Bonicelli of
Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Va., a Christian institution
“that requires its professors teach creationism.”
“This alliance
shows the depths of perversity of the [U.S.] position,” Adrienne Germaine,
president of the International Women’s Health Coalition, told the Washington
Post. “On the one hand we’re presumably blaming these countries for
unspeakable acts of terrorism, and at the same time we are allying ourselves
with them in the oppression of women.”
•
June, 2002
