Posted on 06/19/2002 10:05:02 AM PDT by Jean S
(AgapePress) - In almost stark contrast to a report indicating the White House has written off conservative issues on the domestic front, Associated Press is reporting the Bush Administration is working with the Vatican and Muslim nations to reverse many of President Clinton’s policies at the United Nations.
“It is truly a new day at the U.N.,” White House spokesman Tim Goeglein tells AP. “The Bush Administration has a very important and a different policy position [than the previous administration] -- whether it’s family, whether it’s life, whether it is the centrality of marriage and children. In fact, it is the difference between night and day.”
And promoters of abortion and homosexual rights are expressing alarm at their loss of influence over the American agenda at the United Nations.
“On many of the social-policy questions,” Goeglein says, “that is to say, the questions of family and children and life and marriage, we tend to be in concert with some of the Muslim countries.” He said the U.S. tends to be in concert with the Vatican, and the important thing now is to move the right policy initiatives ahead in the U.N.
For instance, last month, the U.S. delegation worked with nations like Iran and Sudan to block a United Nations declaration that would have said children are entitled to “reproductive health services,” which could have been interpreted to include abortion.
“Where we can find commonality with, perhaps, unconventional allies, we will do so," Goeglein says. "The president has been very clear about his policies of family, marriage, children, and the centrality of the family -- and where we can find commonality, we intend to move ahead.”
The Bush Administration’s U.N. policy team includes former Vatican advisor John Klink, Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America and Paul Bonicelli of Patrick Henry College.
Associated Press contributed to this story.
All three are Bush bashers, trashers and haters, one and all, and in good company too boot!
As to the subject at hand, I have a tiny bit of insight. This was job #1 when the Bush administration came in. (Recall how early in the game Negroponte was nominated, though the foot-dragging by liberals slowed that down a bit.) In part, because it was immediately faced with the Durbin conference that was designed to be an Israel-bash-fest. Immediately after that we would have to deal with the "rights of the child" issues and so much more. The new administration first cleaned out old Clinton staff holdovers here AND they began developing policy groups of conservative scholars and experts to send to conferences. Those libs they couldn't get rid of fast enough were simply left out of the loop and neutralized. (It's a bit easier to rearrange things in this area because you aren't dealing with as many career government workers, unlike over at DOJ and the Pentagon.)
The U.N. situation is a vital part of U.S. foreign policy and the President wants his people there to influence the process, though (unlike his father) he is an isolationist at heart. It's tough to be the latter in a world where acting on those inclinations would be unrealistic and have tragic results on all fronts.
As to the earlier question of what is the U.S. policy? Pro-life, pro-traditional-family, pro-sovereignty. Anti-redefining family, anti-exporting abortion around the world, and anti-international courts/jurisdictions/investigations/intrusions/etc. None of this will be easy to accomplish, but we have the right man in office to hold the U.N. at bay. After all, when was the last time we had a president completely withdraw from a U.N. convention when the tone was unacceptable going in? Never.
Yep. While I can't agree with everything W has done (noone can), politics have to be played as they have since the dawn of time. November is so important as the "incrementals" will leap tenfold if we get the Senate back, IMHO...
Kudos to you,
MJY
BTTT!!!!
Please deifine that beyond a cute buzz word.
"Cute buzz word"? Thanks a lot, Tex.
As a Fundamental Constitutionalist, I believe the Constitution says what it means, and means what it says. Take the First Amendment, for example. It specifically says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Those who interpret the Constitution unreasonably liberally (including the SCOTUS) apply it to any and all situations, such as to a manger scene in a city park or, a prayer at a public school graduation ceremony. Neither case has anything to do with the U.S. Congress having made a law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.