Pro-Family Success at the UN

The UN General Assembly Meeting to review the implementation of the Beijing Platform of Action on Women (which had been negotiated five years previously) met in New York in June, 2000. In the spring, the pro-family non-government organizations (NGOs) had been extremely successful in defeating much of the abortion, anti-family and sexual orientation language the western nations (led by the Canadian delegation) had tried to introduce into the document at the Preparatory Committee meetings (See Reality, "Canadian Delegates' Disgraceful Actions at the UN Beijing +5 in New York," March/April, 2000, p. 14).

Because of this success, UN officials did everything within their power to exclude pro-family NGOs from the June Special Session of the General Assembly on Beijing +5. They restricted each NGO to only three representatives. Out of some 1600, there are only 15 pro-life/family NGOs with Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the UN. Numerically, we were hardly a threat.

Nonetheless, the UN Security officials and feminist Director of the Division for the Advancement of Women, attempted to deny passes to pro-family NGOs. Only under intense pressure did they relent and give them passes so that they could listen to the actual negotiations. Even so, it took a further agonizing 8 hours before all the passes were released to the pro-family groups and there were only 40 pro-family NGOs who managed to get through these barriers. On the other hand, there were an amazing 10,000 other NGOs happily present, seemingly without any difficulties.

During the conference, the feminist NGOs held a press conference criticizing some of the nations for their pro-life/family, allegedly "anti-woman" positions. This prompted the pro-family NGOs to hold their own press conference a few days later criticizing the western countries, especially Canada, the US and the European Union for holding up the conference with their insistence on introducing unacceptable anti-family policies. Leafleting was also carried out by our NGOs. UN Security shut this down, and also closed down the pro-family information table. However, we had enough time to expose the problems with the western nations' agenda to the delegates.

Pro-family NGOs also sought and obtained a letter from supportive US Congressmen, the European Union and Canadian MPs who objected to both the behaviour and position of their countries' delegations at this conference. These letters had a sobering effect on the Canadian, US and European delegations, who had thought their behaviour and positions at the conference would not become public knowledge.

In order to chip away at the willpower and resistance of the small delegations from the developing world, the meetings lasted all day, until midnight or 1:00 a.m. The western nations who had sent large delegations to the conference (Canada, for example, sent a highly unnecessary 46-member delegation) were able to spell each other off during the heavy negotiating sessions, whereas members of the smaller delegations had to endure the process, hour after hour, without any relief. On the last official day of negotiations, there was an all-night session, ending at 5 a.m. This was followed by a later session that day from 3 until 8:00 p.m. Pro-family NGOs stayed put during this marathon, ready to assist the delegations in agreement with us, who resisted the pressure from the western delegations. For example, Poland was warned by the EU that if it didn't bend to its wishes, it would be denied entry into the EU. In spite of this threat, Poland stood firm and continued to insist on the pro-life/family agenda throughout both the PrepCom and General Assembly.

In addition to these efforts, there were two other major factors in our favour at this conference. One was that the 10-member Bureau (administrators) for the meeting (two people selected from each continent) decided that the UN requirement of consensus be reinstated, i.e., if three nations object, there will be no consensus and the contentious paragraphs must be deleted. Since the Cairo Conference on Population and Development in 1994, UN Chairpersons have ignored this major UN rule and have pushed their agenda by declaring a consensus, even when a large number of delegations have raised objections to contentious paragraphs. At this General Assembly on Beijing +5, however, the consensus rule was reinstated and enforced, so that the West's proposals in support of sexual orientation, sexual rights (abortion and adolescent access to reproductive services without parental knowledge and consent) were not accepted.

The other factor assisting our efforts was prayer. Two evangelical prayer intercessors were faithful to their calling, as were people around the world who prayed for our efforts at Beijing +5. Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Evangelicals and Muslims each in his/her own way prayed and, against serious odds, their prayers were heard.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS