CONFERENCE ON WOMEN: STAY AT HOME

What's wrong with the U.N. Conference on Women? I approach this subject with trepidation. I cannot really know how women feel on this issue, and I must share my concerns from a Christian male perspective. Why am I addressing this issues from an agricultural viewpoint? And since the U.S. delegation to Beijing next month will be headed by Hillary Clinton and two cabinet members, my addressing this issue could easily be construed as political on my part. It is not.

I confess my deficits on the first concern. Regarding the agricultural issue, however, as a marketer of farm products I see the current and future value of China as a major purchaser of U.S. agricultural commodities and believe we should have open trade with China. Exported farm commodities add considerably to the farm gate price of all our major farm products and, therefore, new farm income. My personal experiences with the Chinese people as well as their agricultural officials is that they are kind, hard-working and intelligent folks. We should continue to develop our relationships with China.

The Chinese government is wrong in its imposition of population control by abortion as well as the forced sterilization of women who become pregnant in defiance of the government's one-child edict. By holding this conference in Beijing and by the United States' attending it (especially with a high-ranking delegation) we are sending a signal that we as a nation condone China's population control methods.

Maybe I should ask what's right with the U.N. Conference on Women. The answer: very little. Human rights activists initially cry out that the conference is being held in a country that has one of the most radically anti-woman regimes in the world. Members of radical women's rights movements or population control groups would counter by insisting that we should support the Chinese government's position on population control and abortion.

If your are a committed Christian, you voice legitimate concerns about China's human rights record and the conference, although from different perspectives, some of which I will share.

The draft agenda for the conference contains ideas about sexual freedom and the right to abortion. In addition, western delegations led by North Americans and Scandinavians have insisted on using the word "gender" (which is socially constructed) instead of "sex" (which is biologically fixed) as they prepare the draft document. There are, so far as their thinking is concerned, five legitimate genders: male and female heterosexuals, male and female homosexuals and bisexuals. This type of thinking doesn't reflect the thoughts of the majority of Americans, yet it will be espoused by our delegation to the conference and will be construed by delegates from other nations as U.S. thinking and policy.

The draft also suggests a right to sexual freedom for adolescents. A proposed counterpoint by a Guatemalan delegate to teach children self-control instead of birth control was met with derision.

Receiving little mention in the draft document are the subjects of parental authority and rights and the ideas that marriage and family for women are vocations. Is it any wonder that many are concerned about the direction and results of this conference?

Women in many parts of the world are oppressed. Will a U.N. conference really do more than talk about the problem? Wouldn't it be more effective if our government would openly support the many Christian ministries that are working in the countries where women are treated as second-class citizens? It is a proven fact that food distribution in third-world countries is much more effective when done through Christian groups than through government or U.N. agencies.

This appears to be a case of the wrong conference in the wrong country. Our country should have no part in it.

Peter C. Myers Sr. of Sikeston is a former deputy secretary of agriculture and currently is president of Adopt A Farm Family of America, which is a Christian outreach to farm and ranch families.