United Nations

Uganda Holding Firm to Biblical Values

By | Beverly LaHaye Institute, Commentary, United Nations | No Comments

Uganda, the nation that has led the world in the fight against AIDS and HIV infections with its abstinence-based program, is taking on a new challenge. The predominantly Christian nation is taking a biblical and cultural stand against the radical homosexual agenda. Dr. Janice Crouse, Senior Fellow and Director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, shares more on this courageous action and the impact it will likely have on the sensibilities of some liberal westerners.

View The Full Article Here

The Irony of Socially Constructing Gender

By | Beverly LaHaye Institute, Commentary, United Nations | No Comments


Ironically, on International Women’s Day at the United Nations, so-called “experts” from around the world were arguing that any differences between men and women were “socially constructed.” While celebrating the idea of “woman,” those same ideologues were saying there were really no differences between men and women except for those imposed by their culture and upbringing.

Gary Lundberg from the World Family Policy Center at Brigham Young University begs to differ. “From the beginning of time, there have always been differences between males and females. These differences need to be recognized and worked with instead of denied. There is no excuse for abuse, domination or violence from one sex to the other. We must

make sure that there is equal protection and equal opportunity for both. At the same time, we must take care that in raising up one sex we not devalue the other.”

Lundberg’s remarks point up another irony. While lamenting the way women have been devalued over the years, these ideologues are expressing a virulent hatred for men. The pendulum has swung so far, in fact, that Joy Lundberg from the World Family Policy Center at Brigham Young University cautioned, “We need to value and preserve men’s masculinity.”

Even more ironic, these are the same folks who are saying that homosexuality is innate and thus a human right. There was also, ironically, considerable discussion about the gender differences in HIV/AIDS susceptibility and transmission.

Douglas Sylva, Ph.D., vice president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, a full-time pro-family non-governmental organization (NGO) presence at the United Nations, said, “The themes of this Commission highlight the problems of instituting a social construct theory of gender. This Commission should not be attempting to impose on the world the view that men and women are identical and that the family should be redesigned to reflect this.”

Standing nearby, Peter Smith, though head of an international NGO headquartered in England thought it was more important to identify himself as both a husband and father, shook his head and added, “This is nonsense; this is lunacy. They can’t just impose these ideas on everybody around the world! Many women don’t even want 50-50. My wife is a professional woman and she chooses to work part time. Like lots of other women, she wants to be able to do what she wants to do. She would have no interest in doing what I do. This is nothing but dictatorship.”

Of course, another irony is that the United Nations cannot force anything; it does not have lawmaking authority. What it has is the ability to “socially construct” culture through their international influence and power – especially among rogue nations and Third World countries.

That power is substantial when poor nations are dependent upon the U.N. and their leaders are beholden to the U.N.

That power is significant when powerful NGOs from the United States use corporate and foundation largess to train law enforcement, military, educators, legislators and opinion leaders.

That power is crucial and timely when it comes just after a war when a nation is rebuilding and, as most recently in Afghanistan and Iraq, when it is writing new constitutions and choosing new leaders and establishing new governments.

The power that is flowing into those vacuums right now – in innumerable countries — is largely underwritten by the United Nations and its powerful and wealthy – and ideologically FAR, FAR LEFT – NGOs.

A few examples from remarks made at the United Nations podium will illustrate how widespread is the ideology.

  • Njoki Wainaina, a panelist from Kenya, spoke about how “running through the evaluations from hundreds of gender sensitization workshops” revealed how eye-opening it was to understand “the concept of gender socialization.”
  • R.W. Connell from the University of Sydney, Australia, discussed the consequences of “rigid gender divisions.” Jorge Lyra from Papai Institute in Brazil railed against “hegemonic masculinity: white, heterosexual and dominant.”
  • A representative from Japan, Dr. Yoriko Meguro, sketched out Japan’s “Next Generation” plan (already passed into law), which mandates percentages of child-care leave, and talked about the “peaceful place” of a “gender-equal society” and declared, in an astounding statement, that Japan was reforming its entire education system “in order to promote gender equality in every sphere of society, in schools, home and in the community.”

Clearly, the hundreds of such workshops sponsored by the U.N. have tremendous influence worldwide on people’s understanding of so-called gender identity and socialization.

The U.N. debates, while sometimes seemingly endless, have long-range implications for the future and for many nations. CWA’s commitment to send a team, to participate, to lobby, to report, to analyze and provide commentary is an essential counterbalance to the activities of the well-funded, well-entrenched NGOs, and is a vital alternative voice to the huge, high-priced staffs that provide volumes of research and glossy public relations publications and campaigns.

The Scripture is filled with God’s taking small things and limited resources – and then using them far beyond what those involved ever could have imagined. From Gideon faithfully reducing his army at God’s command to Daniel trusting God in the lion’s den to David’s five small stones to Paul’s influential missionary journeys, we have example after example of God’s using simple people who “just show up” and trust Him for the resources in powerful, unexpected ways. That’s what happens when CWA and our friends go to the U.N. and raise our voices for eternal principles. And, that’s why your support of CWA and your prayers for our team on-site at the U.N. are so powerful, lasting and influential.

Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse and Wendy Wright are non-government organization (NGO) representatives to the United Nations from Concerned Women for America. Dr. Crouse is Senior Fellow of the Beverly LaHaye Institute. Miss Wright is Senior Policy Director responsible for international and life issues. They are in New York attending the 2004 sessions of the Commission on the Status of Women.

NGO Expectations Exalt Women Above Common Sense

By | Beverly LaHaye Institute, Commentary, United Nations | No Comments


“Gender equality is all a cover for matriarchy,” remarked an observer at this week’s United Nations (U.N.) Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). The desire to transfer power to oneself is as old as Eve. Today’s “Eves” band together in organizations that latch onto the U.N., demanding international recognition, authority and funding for women – not based on merit, but on God’s gift of X chromosomes.

Created as a forum for governments to dialogue, debate and work out agreements, the United Nations tempts those seeking worldwide compliance to their ideology. Over the past two decades, nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and academics have become more active in the U.N. system. Unlike democracies, however, these unelected and unaccountable NGO representatives demand, more and more, to have near-equal authority to governments.

NGOs gather in parallel meetings to the United Nations, simulating the procedures and producing documents to be presented to delegates as language to incorporate into U.N. documents.

This year’s NGO expectations for the Commission on the Status of Women include:

  • “We recommend a change in language for programs emphasizing prevention for maternal-to-child-transmission to emphasize parental-to-child-transmission language. This language transformation would help to take the blame away from women. This should not however, take support away from programs specifically addressing the needs of women in regard to maternal transmission and post-natal/HIV/AIDS care.” [Euphemisms may alleviate hurting women’s feelings, but disguise the true nature of innocent forms of HIV/AIDS transmission that can only occur through women-childbirth and breastfeeding.]
  • Requiring faith-based groups to create comprehensive education targeting “young people at as early an age as possible … that stress the sexual responsibility of men and boys.” [No mention is made of the sexual responsibility of women and girls, or of respect for faith-based groups’ own beliefs.]
  • To address HIV/AIDS, “change male sexual behavior to not use coercion, violence, or exchange of money to obtain sexual services.” [This neglects the primary problem of multiple sex partners.]
  • Calls for balancing power by moving “beyond binary understanding of gender to include transgender.”
  • Calls for funding to “advance the Convention on the Rights of the Child to also achieve a family-friendly society.” [Pro-family advocates have deep concerns over the Convention on the Rights of the Child’s treatment of children as autonomous decision-makers and lack of respect for parents, the providers and nurturers of healthy families.]
  • Requires quotas from 40 to 50% of women in (1) all decision-making processes in (2) post-conflict settings as special representatives to the Secretary General, and (3) in peace negotiations and agreements, “or the U.N. should not participate.” [While none of these settings can endure unqualified participants, the last puts gender ideology above peace. It does not consider the years of utter turmoil and upheaval some countries have undergone prior to negotiations, resulting in some cases in a lack of qualified women to fill a 50% quota. The struggling nation would be disqualified from receiving help at a time it is most desperate.]

This year’s CSW theme acknowledges the role men and boys can play in improving women’s lives and implies a respect that men have value. But a closer look at the NGOs expectations reveals a view that men are mere instruments to hand over power to women.

Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse and Wendy Wright are non-government organization (NGO) representatives to the United Nations from Concerned Women for America. Dr. Crouse is Senior Fellow of the Beverly LaHaye Institute. Miss Wright is Senior Policy Director responsible for international and life issues. They are in New York attending the 2004 sessions of the Commission on the Status of Women.

U.S. Proposes Adding ‘Fathers’ to U.N. Document

By | Beverly LaHaye Institute, DataDigest, United Nations | No Comments


The United States submitted positive language on fatherhood this week to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) document on the role of men and boys in achieving gender equality, raising an outcry from some nongovernment organizations (NGOs). Concurrently, delegates at the conference appear unified in calling for an overhaul of the committee’s approach, to focus on implementing past documents rather than creating new ones.

British delegates confided to radical feminist NGOs that they don’t want to open the door to new initiatives, such as celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Beijing Women’s Conference, until they see “what happens in American politics.” The outcome of this year’s presidential elections dramatically impacts U.S. positions at the United Nations.

The CSW bureau produced for this year’s conference a draft of the document Agreed Conclusions, which contained no reference to fathers. This surely deliberate oversight appears despite numerous studies, U.N. presentations, and thousands of years of experience that identify fatherhood, along with motherhood, as the most influential relationship impacting girls’ and women’s lives.

The United States seeks to correct this omission by adding passages such as:

  • “Promote understanding of the importance of both fathers and mothers to the well-being of women and girls, and of the need to develop policies that maximize the positive involvement of both parents in achieving good outcomes for women, children, and communities”;
  • “Promote textbooks that portray fathers, mothers, and legal guardians as active and equally responsible participants in children’s lives, and encourage the sharing of work and child-rearing responsibilities”;
  • “Include new fathers, as well as mothers, in programs that teach infant and child care and development”;
  • “Review the effects of government social and economic policies and programs to ensure that they have a positive impact on the involvement of both fathers and mothers with their children”;
  • “Encourage an increased understanding among men of how violence, including commercial sexual exploitation and human trafficking, injures women, men and children, undermining gender equality and weakening families and societies”;
  • “Supporting women’s political involvement and economic independence, and support measures to ensure that women enjoy an equal right to own and inherit property, establish credit, and access income-producing opportunities.”
  • “Promote programs that encourage job training and job creation in order to stimulate a growing economy that raises incomes and increases the opportunity for women in both the home and the workplace to achieve true equality.”

The United States also responded to the CSW bureau draft’s use of the phrase “reproductive and sexual health services,” which includes abortion. The U.S. advised that “services” should be changed to “programs,” thereby excluding the use of this phrase to force abortion on demand.

A coalition of European NGOs, calling itself the European Women’s Lobby, is demanding that the CSW document add, “Put in place campaigns and laws breaking with patriarchal ideologies to ensure that men fully recognize and respect women’s rights to decide if and when to have children, and that women have access to the contraception of their choice, and access to safe and legal abortion.”

NGO representatives reacted harshly to a positive portrayal of fatherhood. At a U.S. briefing to NGOs, one exclaimed to Ambassador Ellen Sauerbrey that if the document mentions fathers, it should address fathers who abuse children, because “it’s fathers who are raping girls.” This met with applause from others NGOs. Ambassador Sauerbrey responded that “responsibility” goes with everything, including fatherhood.

Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse and Wendy Wright are non-government organization (NGO) representatives to the United Nations from Concerned Women for America. Dr. Crouse is Senior Fellow of the Beverly LaHaye Institute. Miss Wright is Senior Policy Director responsible for international and life issues. They are in New York attending the 2004 sessions of the Commission on the Status of Women.

Women: Essential in Peace Processes

By | Beverly LaHaye Institute, Commentary, United Nations | No Comments


The United Nations is convinced that if women were included in the peace process there would be no conflicts. The linkages between gender equality and permanent peace are obvious to those inside the U.N. The other side of the coin is when women are in the middle of the conflict; when that is the case, then the U.N. is equally convinced that women living in war zones are especially vulnerable. So, there is a whole movement built around the dual concepts of women’s role in peace building and the impact of armed conflict on women.

These are both serious business at the U.N. United Nations peacekeeping missions now have “gender advisors” or “gender units” and, currently, the U.N. is seeking a gender advisor for the Department of Peacekeeping Operations at United Nations Headquarters. Regional workshops are being conducted around the world in such topics as conflict management for women, women in peacemaking, and gender mainstreaming for disarmament.

Amazingly, the U.N. commissioned a gender analysis of 264 reports to the Security Council covering a two-year period. The analysis revealed that “the majority of the reports made no or little mention of women or gender issues” and that was interpreted as “indicative of the need for practical tools to enhance the capacity of all actors to ensure systematic attention to the participation of women and the promotion of gender equality in all aspects of peace processes.”

The nongovernmental organizations (NGO) stress the fact that women have always played a major role in peace processes, but more often in informal initiatives, like capacity building and mobilizations for peace rather than in the official, formal peace negotiations (that are often conducted by military leaders and political decision-makers).

Ironically, those complaining most loudly about the absence of women in the peace process recognize that women in general lack the basic qualifications and experience at this point — negotiation requires specific skills and an effective mandate to speak on behalf of those doing the negotiating and the necessity for expertise, membership in the group, mediation and international experience. The recommended solution? Put more women on key delegations and mediation teams anyway.

Ultimately, claims the United Nations, any peace process that leaves women out will fail: “A peace process that fails to include women in agenda-setting, substantive talks and implementation raises questions about the democratic legitimacy of the process and lacks the inclusiveness to generate any sense of ownership among women. This can undermine the prospect for the durability of the agreement and sustainable peace.”

So, the United Nations is calling for whole reams of new actions — special task forces to compile data on gender composition of mediation teams, training workshops and briefings for those who work in negotiations, special efforts to ensure gender balance and gender equity, funding for positions in peace processes and to create networks and associations.

Henceforth, all peace agreements must be examined to ensure gender parity – including international and regional peacekeeping forces. They also must include a gender unit report on the code of conduct and compliance with gender issues for all military operations and public spaces where military forces have been or are currently occupying.

In all their dozens of recommendations and proposals regarding women and combat, by the way, they add that all countries ought to ratify CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women) and the ICC (International Criminal Court).

Not only is the U.N. spending millions of dollars on foolish schemes to get women included in peacekeeping processes – that is just the latest iteration! The elites continue to promote dangerous ideas to countries that are dependent upon the largess of the U.N.

And, the far-left NGOs continue to write materials that form the basis of proposals that spread their ideologies around the globe.

Do you get the picture? The U.N. is “using” women to argue for every flawed cause the far-left has advocated over the years. And, they are using every cause they have advocated over the years to promote their flawed version of the advancement of women. It is hard to take it all seriously when their arguments are themselves so logically flawed – and sometimes so contradictory – and when those promoting the ideas are so self-important.

Yet, far too often, their impact is serious indeed.

Jessica Lynch became part of the new breed of woman motivated by such lofty-sounding ideas. She joined the Services to become a mundane supply clerk behind the lines in the hope of returning to her home state of West Virginia to teach school and live a quiet life. But, things didn’t quite turn out that way for Jessica (or for several of her female friends, either). She is back home. Her rehabilitation is ongoing and some of her injuries can’t be fixed. But, at least, she did return home.

Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse and Wendy Wright are non-government organization (NGO) representatives to the United Nations from Concerned Women for America. Dr. Crouse is Senior Fellow of the Beverly LaHaye Institute. Miss Wright is Senior Policy Director responsible for international and life issues. They are in New York attending the 2004 sessions of the Commission on the Status of Women.