With an estimated seven million Afghan civilians facing
starvation this winter, humanitarian organizations are poised to
point fingers of blame. But some of these organizations must
themselves share responsibility for the global plight of
refugees.
The United Nations, in particular, often seems more
interested in imposing social reform than in providing food,
clothing and medicine. Its focus on social policy not only
diverts resources away from genuine relief efforts, it also
causes needless rifts.
For example, the Vatican and the U.N. are currently in bitter
conflict. The proximate cause is a 141-page field manual
published by the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, the
U.N.'s relief agency. At issue is the controversial
morning-after pill that the Catholic Church considers to be a
form of chemical abortion. In September, the Vatican's
objections were embodied in a document entitled "The
Reproductive Health of Refugees" which was sent to bishops
conferences around the world.
The U.N. manual opens with the sentence, "Reproductive health
is a right," thus making the denial of such health care a
violation of human rights. This is a non-trivial statement.
Various international agencies and governments have justified
their use of force against regimes on the grounds that human
rights, as defined by the U.N., were being violated.
The manual then seemingly proceeds to reject abortion. For
example, among the health care services it lists in the foreword
are the "prevention of abortion and the management of the
consequences of abortion."
Yet, the manual also calls for the provision of emergency
contraception (the morning after pill), as deemed appropriate,
to victims of sexual violence. The manual acknowledges how
controversial the treatment is when it notes that some women and
health workers may "be precluded" from using the pill by their
beliefs.
Speaking for the UNHCR, however, spokesperson Kris Janowski
has denied that the U.N. advocates using the pill. Nevertheless,
page 40 of the manual describes the treatment for a possible
rape-pregnancy as "provide emergency conception, if appropriate,
along with comprehensive counseling."
The question is not so much whether the morning-after pill
constitutes abortion. The real question is why the tax-supported
U.N. is taking a stand on controversial issues of social reform.
The U.N. has drifted far from the peacekeeping, humanitarian
function for which it was created in 1942. It has become a
global agent of social policy, much of it influenced by radical
feminism.
How has this occurred? In 1979, the General Assembly of the
United Nations passed the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which the United States
has yet to ratify. This was a modest step toward feminist social
policy.
The Fourth U.N. World Conference on Women in 1995 was
pivotal. Feminist organizations drafted a Platform for Action
that the U.N. basically endorsed. The platform called itself "an
agenda for women's empowerment" and demanded the establishment,
by government, "of the principle of shared power and
responsibility between women and men at home, in the workplace
and in the wider national and international communities."
The platform went so far as to intrude into the division of
housework in families. The section entitled "Women in Power and
Decision-Making" reads, in part, "the unequal division of labour
and responsibilities within households based on unequal power
relations also limits women's potential ..."
Such declarations may seem harmless since U.N. resolutions do
not have the power of law. But nations who wish to receive aid
or other benefits are pressured to comply. Moreover, in signing
conventions such as CEDAW, the signatory nations have agreed to
abide by its provisions.
Regularly scheduled follow-up conferences have been broadly
interpreting such provisions to include politically correct
goals. Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family & Human
Rights Institute, offers these specific criticisms:
"The CEDAW committee has ordered the government of China to
legalize prostitution even though the Convention expressly
forbids the trafficing [sic] and prostitution of women. ... the
Committee has ordered the government of Libya to reinterpret the
Koran so that it falls within Committee guidelines."
A U.N. committee also recommended that Catholic hospitals,
such as those in Italy, offer abortion services even if medical
personnel have religious objections.
Fortunately, backlash is growing. The Family Research Council
recently published Fifty Years After the Declaration: The United
Nations' Record on Human Rights.
In the book, nearly two dozen experts roundly criticize
recent social policies of the U.N. as they relate to women,
abortion and children's rights.
The backlash is greeted with ad hominem attacks. Radical
feminists have responded to the latest conflict between the U.N.
and the Vatican with typical hyperbole. The Feminist Daily News
Wire of Nov. 9 declared, "Vatican Denounces U.N. Effort to Save
Refugees." The article claimed that the Catholic Church is
criticizing efforts to provide "sound health care information
and services" at a time when a "refugee health crisis ...
threatens the lives of millions."
This is disingenuous. The Vatican has been a consistent
champion of refugees. Along with other critics, it is merely
insisting that "humanitarian relief" live up to its label.
The U.N. has a social agenda supported by tax dollars and
backed by both military and financial clout. Refugees and the
world's impoverished need food, clothing, medicine, and
education — not feminist policy on sexual matters.
