Traditional Countries Reject Biden Push for LGBT at UN
NEW YORK, November 17 (C-Fam) Traditional countries fought back against a U.S. attempt to impose homosexual and transgender policies in a UN resolution last week.
Countries accused the Biden administration of being “divisive” and “confrontational” and ignoring their views after U.S. diplomats added “sexual orientation and gender identity” as human rights categories in a resolution on free and fair elections.
The resolution was challenged twice. First, Egypt presented an amendment on behalf of the 54 countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to remove the controversial language altogether.
The amendment failed despite receiving 63 votes. The failed vote, however, demonstrates there is no consensus on this controversial issue at the UN.
The delegate from Egypt said the strong showing of support for the amendment proved the “persistent objection to the imposition of undefined terms, against democratic values.”
“We appeal to the penholder to reconsider their position and exercise due diligence towards respecting cultural diversity and national contexts and leading us in the future towards consensus on this important resolution,” she pleaded.
After the OIC Amendment failed, the Russian Federation called for a vote protesting the entire resolution saying that that concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity were not “internationally agreed”. Despite voting to remove the controversial terms, most delegations ultimately voted to adopt the resolution, though twenty-five countries followed Russia’s lead and abstained from the vote.
After adoption, several countries expressed their frustration and disappointment with the U.S. delegation.
A delegate from Indonesia emphasized the “debate was not about democracy but about the divisive elements” in the resolution, blaming U.S. diplomats for failing to listen.
Uganda’s representative said that the categories of sexual orientation and gender identity were not internationally defined and that they are unsuitable for policymaking because they have a “subjective and fluid character.”
A delegate of Malaysia insisted that the amendments proposed by Egypt were not “hostile” to the U.S. resolution because the U.S. delegation had never entertained the proposals of traditional countries.
Similar statements were offered by China, Senegal, Oman on behalf of Gulf countries, Singapore, Belarus, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Yemen, Iran, Niger, Algeria, Uganda, Sudan, Pakistan, Lybia, Syria, and the Holy See.
Delegations of countries that are often perceived in favor of traditional family norms, such as Hungary and Guatemala, inexplicably did not support the amendments to remove the controversial language. Nor did they offer statements to clarify what human rights obligations the categories of “sexual orientation and gender identity” would impose on their countries.
This is only one of two General Assembly resolutions that contain language about “sexual orientation and gender identity.” The other resolution, about extrajudicial killings, is also regularly voted, indicating that these notions continue to be contested internationally.
The fact that the U.S. did not acquiesce to requests to remove the offensive terms indicates that homosexual/trans issues are a high priority for the Biden administration. The preferred method for adopting UN resolutions is by consensus, that is, without anyone calling for a vote. U.S. diplomats preferred to have their resolution voted rather than adopted by consensus.
The worry of various countries and human rights experts is that the repeated use of the language will embolden the left to claim there is a new human right based on sexual orientation and gender identity.