An yearly UN resolution on strengthening the coordination of humanitarian aid in emergency situations, adopted by consensus for 33 years, has been withdrawn from the General Assembly's deliberations due to opposition to the US delegation. Trump's camp argued that any of the records introduce ideological elements, including references to the alleged "sexual health", climateism and ideology of sex neolysence, which distract attention from real problems in mediocre parts of the world.
The US has blocked the UN resolution. The withdrawal of the Humanitarian Relief Resolution shows increasing tensions among associate States as to the function of the United Nations and its priorities in supporting the world's poverty-stricken regions and protecting susceptible groups.
During 59. and 60. the General Assembly gathering held on 10 December, the delegates discussed a broad package of humanitarian resolutions under the point 72 Agendas (order of business). Amongst others, the issues of coordination of humanitarian aid and disaster response, economical support for individual countries and regions, as well as assistance for the Palestinian people and actions related to minimising the effects of Chernobyl disaster were discussed.
Numerous motions for resolutions and amendments tabled to them were besides examined during the debate. Due to many amendments, the UN resolution on strengthening the coordination of humanitarian aid in emergency situations was withdrawn from the vote.
The situation concerning Proposal for a resolution A/80/L.25 - Strengthening the coordination of UN emergency humanitarian aid (point 72A of the Agenda) by 33 years was adopted annually by consensus. This year, the paper was withdrawn by Sweden, the main negotiator of the text, in consequence to many amendments to the controversial provisions made by associate States' delegations, which argue the far-left climate and sex agenda.
In his speech The Paraguayan typical stressed the importance of state sovereignty in the implementation of humanitarian measures and the protection of life from conception in the Constitution of Paraguay. She refused to let the United Nations to impose a suspicious climate agenda and elements affecting children's rights. The resolution raised abortion to the rank of "the rights of women".
– Under item 72A, the agenda, referring to the mention of Agenda 2030 and Sustainable improvement Goals, points out that paragraph 74 of Resolution 70/1, establishing Agenda 2030 and Sustainable improvement Goals, underlines the voluntary nature of the monitoring and review processes of Agenda 2030. This should be aligned with the legal framework and priorities of all countries. The national government so implements improvement plans to the full sovereignty of the Paraguayan State, with due respect for constitutional principles.
Moreover, it should be stressed that the Constitution of Paraguay protects the right to life from conception, so that the implementation of agreed provisions on women's wellness in the papers on which action is taken present will take into account the fact that national standards do not let abortion – she said.
The position of the United States was more developed and included detailed criticism of the resolutions introducing ideological elements. The United States proposed 4 amendments (A/80/L.30, L.31, L.32, L.33), arguing that they are intended to "protect the first intent of the resolution from ideological agendas".
In particular, they opposed references to "reproductive and sexual rights", which, as indicated, acquired in practice controversial meanings linked to abortion, the demands of the LGBT deviant movement and the "sexual rights" of children. The US besides opposed the provisions on climate change, calling them "unproportional" and "contrary to pragmatic policy" of the US administration and defined the text of the resolution as "globalistic want list".
The U.S. typical said consecutive ahead: "Unfortunately, this resolution is another example of a façade document, which improves the lives of citizens of associate States to a tiny extent, while wasting resources from the UN and associate States. Furthermore, the Trump administration has clearly pointed out that efforts to advance extremist sex ideology in the UN will not be supported and even distracting from the real protection and promotion of women's and girls' rights in the world.
This body continues to advance divisions and a senseless language that does not support global peace and security. In contrast, the United States is simply a strong supporter of actions to defend women's and girls' rights and safety in order to advance real equality between biological men and women. Therefore, the United States is asking for a vote and will vote against this resolution.
Washington typical besides criticized the neo-communist language utilized in UN documents, paying attention to its polarizing character.
– Turning to the resolution on global cooperation in humanitarian aid in disaster situations, from ad hoc aid to development, we see that this is another example of a façade resolution that draws attention from the UN's basic power to keep global peace and security. UN resolutions should be short, feasible and forward-looking.
However, many of these documents, including those discussed, contain a problematic language which undermines associate States' assurance in the crucial work of this institution. This text is nothing more than a globalistic want list containing cultural differences, including climate, sexual and reproductive health, gender, and a warped donor-beneficiary interest system. This is in complete contradiction with the courageous and pragmatic abroad policy of the Trump administration.
The United States is afraid about the many controversial meanings that the terminology for "sexual wellness and reproductive health" has acquired in any UN policies and programmes, including the "right to abortion", transgender ideology and the "sexual autonomy of children". We want to make certain that the resolution does not supply general support for these fresh meanings – noted the U.S. delegate.
He besides pointed to the UN's overfocus on climate issues.
– Many countries, including sponsors of this resolution, focus on ideological issues specified as the Green fresh Deal, sex madness and another specified ideas. There is simply a false belief that a tiny regulation on the usage of this language will suffice. That's not true. We must remove this ideological content from all our work. The United States has clearly stressed that Agenda 2030 and Sustainable improvement Goals interfere with the sovereignty of states as a soft form of global governance and will no longer be automatically confirmed.
President Trump made a very clear announcement. The UN and many countries of the planet have gone off course, exaggerating climate change to the top threat. This practice will no longer be tolerated. The resolution is simply a fake action that does not in any way improve the lives of citizens. In order to strengthen coordination in responding to natural disasters, the primary work lies with the associate States and not with UN resolutions. Therefore, the United States is asking for a vote and will vote against this resolution He said.
After proposing these amendments Swedish delegation withdrew the documentto ‘protect the interests of hundreds of millions of people for whom it has been submitted". No amendments were allowed at all. The Swedish delegation stated that a affirmative vote on the text could be achieved if the delegates agreed to a comprehensive fresh text. In response, the typical of the United States stressed that his delegation would proceed to argue this task if it were re-submitted to the same or akin form and with the same elements.
The Polish delegation was silent, although common sense ordered to support the voice of Paraguay and the US. This shows that the Tusk government quietly supports a deviant agenda and green communists, babbling about a burning planet.
We besides recommend: Unemployment is rising again in Poland. Is it just the winter effect?
