Muslim Allies at the U.N. Fight for the `Right Stuff'

0 Comments | Insight on the News, Sept 17, 2001 | by Douglas A. Sylva

Many American conservatives believe that whatever happens at the United Nations can be ignored -- at least until the black helicopters start flying. But there is a culture war raging at the United Nations, and the winners get to write the laws that will be enforced throughout the world by the new International Criminal Court (ICC). Who needs black helicopters for world domination when lawyers are handy?

Conservatives also may be surprised to learn that, at the United Nations at least, the most reliable soldiers in this culture war, the most steadfast supporters of traditional morality and family values, have names such as Abdullah and Mohammed and Sulaiman. Islamic countries that conservatives rightly criticize for their persecution of Christians -- even some countries considered "rogue states" such as as Libya, Iran and Sudan, the kind of countries the U.S. bombs occasionally -- are American conservatives' best hope of blocking an astoundingly ambitious cultural and legal revolution at the United Nations.

A conservative's first lesson at the United Nations is a startling one: When it comes to family values and protecting life, Europe is a post-Christian continent advocating a post-Christian world. The European Union (EU) will not rest until the whole world mirrors the lifestyles and values found on the streets of Amsterdam. The EU, with the aid of Canada (and, during the Clinton years, the United States), has fought to establish abortion as an international human right, to abolish parents' rights to guide their children's upbringing, to create school-based clinics for contraceptives and abortions, to broaden the definition of family to include homosexual relationships and to recognize five human genders -- male, female, homosexual, bisexual and transgendered.

But for every strategy the Europeans devise to impose these views on a largely reluctant developing world, the Muslims have a response to counter them. The EU tries to place vague phrases such as "reproductive services" and "family planning" into as many U.N. treaties and conventions as possible. This strategy is called the customary law creep: When the phrases have become so common that the international community considers them customary law, the EU will claim that they included things such as abortion and adolescent sexual rights all along. In this way, abortion could become an international human right without the word being mentioned, or without the morality of the practice being debated.

But the Muslims know the Europeans do this. So at the Habitat II housing conference held in Istanbul in 1996, the Islamic countries were prepared when the EU sought six separate references to "reproductive health" in the final U.N. declaration on housing. The Islamic countries pared this down to a single mention and made sure that this definition of reproductive health did not include abortion.

The Islamic countries also have learned to protect themselves from the strong-arm tactics the EU uses to pressure poor countries. In March, for instance, a Nicaraguan diplomat refused to change his government's definition of gender to reflect the EU belief that all distinctions based on sex are "social constructs" -- roles invented by men to oppress women. In response, the EU and the U.N. Population Fund threatened to pull millions of dollars of aid from Nicaragua, and the diplomat was fired. To avoid this same sort of pressure, the 60 Islamic countries -- oil-rich and poor alike -- speak with one voice at all U.N. conferences.

Perhaps most importantly, the Islamic countries have grown strong in their resolve. They frequently ally themselves with the Vatican and are willing to absorb a great deal of ridicule for doing so. At a conference in 1999, the director of the U.N. Population Fund, the agency trying to spread the European population implosion worldwide, ordered Muslim diplomats to a late-night meeting to castigate them for working with Christians -- the Crusaders who had once invaded their lands.

But an American conservative might still wonder why this Islamic heroism matters. After all, the United States receives no aid money from U.N. agencies, and the U.S representative rarely signs, let alone ratifies, U.N. treaties or conventions. All of this matters because of the ICC.

The ICC claims the power to prosecute anyone, including U.S. citizens. It claims jurisdiction over poorly defined violations such as "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity." If the EU wins the U.N. culture war, the U.S. government could be found guilty of crimes against humanity if it outlaws abortion or if it refuses to recognize gay marriage. U.S. generals could be arrested and imprisoned for "war crimes" if they engage in military actions not endorsed by the United Nations. No one knows for sure what effects the ICC will have on U.S. sovereignty. This is only complicated by the fact that, although former president Bill Clinton was busy with many other things during his last days in office, he still found time to sign the treaty establishing the ICC. Good thing the Libyans and Iranians are working hard at the United Nations protecting American interests.