A colleague sent me a link to an article in the Brussels Journal by Dr Axelandra Colen which gives some rare insight into the processes of the UN system and how they are cynically used and abused by ideologues in their social engineering strategies.
Dr Colen who, in her capacity as MP Chair of the Belgian Equal Opportunities Committee of the Belgian Parliament attended This years session of the Commission on the Status of Women at UN headquarters in New York. Writes,
“At the recent conference on the Status of Women at the United Nations I represented Belgium. I observed that with the Obama administration the United States has joined the hardcore Marxist social engineers.”
Dr Colen describes the different stages of the process which actually starts with preliminary preparation sessions in each member state.
My observation, Dr Colen writes,
“started at home, where I attended some of the preparatory meetings to define my government’s position on the main theme of the conference. These meetings were attended by civil servants from the ministries and representatives from a plethora of equal opportunities institutes and NGOs, all lavishly subsidized and accountable to no-one. In the name of “women’s empowerment” they were chiefly concerned with the continuation of attention (and funding), on the part of the government and the UN, for their own activities. Through this system of “consultation” at the preparatory level the NGOs themselves provide the input for the “agreed conclusions”, concrete recommendations of the UN for measures to be implemented by governments and various institutions at all levels, from international to local.
Dr Colen tells us that she followed the informal consultations on a draft resolution entitled “Eliminating Maternal Mortality and Morbidity through the Empowerment of Women”.
“Clearly the problem of maternal mortality was only being used as a peg to (re)iterate positions relating to the “empowerment of women”. The resolution was submitted by the new administration of the United States which wanted to make its mark on the UN conference with a very liberal text that included contraception and abortion as means to be promoted and funded by the UN (and by governments at all levels) in efforts to reduce maternal mortality around the world. The Obama administration wanted to enter the world of “women’s rights” apparatchiks and lobbyists with a flourish and immediately take the lead in the feminist cause. Hillary Clinton was returning to the US specially to be present when the resolution, a top priority for the new administration, was officially tabled and accepted on the last day of the conference. Clearly the mood was to be one of triumph. But before that moment the US had to chair endless “informal consultations” to achieve a text which could be accepted by all the UN members.”
The chair was a hard, impatient woman who led the meetings aggressively and would have rammed her text down the negotiators’ throats if she could. The US strategy was consummate. They had found a cross-regional alliance of co-sponsors to submit the draft resolution along with them. A number of these were countries from sub-Saharan Africa: a clever move, as this way the African countries could not form a bloc to obstruct the resolution. Other co-sponsors were Belarus, Colombia, Thailand and Indonesia, and Israel.
Dr Colen commented on the fact that Ireland Poland and Malta objected to “sexual and reproductive rights.” terminology being inserted into the document but notes that neither Ireland or Poland were sufficiently strong in their objections which is a cause for concern.
The spokesperson for the European Union would have loved to introduce such terminology. However, she had to abide by the consensus which the 27 European Union members negotiated in separate informal consultations, held every morning at the headquarters of the EU Representation to the UN and chaired by a delegate from Spain, which currently chairs the EU. Here a similar battle raged, with the Spanish chair pressing for what she called “strong language.” She had prepared a “package on sexual health and sexual rights” for the EU members to agree on, a text which slyly attempted to introduce references to abortion and to “sexual and reproductive rights.” Malta, especially, was in the defense. Ireland, too, stipulated that it could not accept references to sexual and reproductive “rights” but only “health”. In general, though, the Irish representative seemed quite meek. In one informal moment it was mentioned that Ireland and Poland were “coming round”. The sweetness, which the chair bestowed upon them was telling compared with the undisguised mockery that greeted the representative from Malta whenever he asked to speak. On more than one occasion he was subjected to scathing comments on the part of the chair. Informally Malta was referred to as a “hardliner.” Obviously the pro-abortion majority in the room did not regard themselves as hardliners, and could not imagine that others might not share their “enlightened” views.
The activists according to Dr Colen consistently behave with responsibility not to the taxpayers who fund the systems within which they operate, but to their own agenda. This March in New York, the issue was not the plight of ill and dying mothers,
Link to full article