CULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnTHE ICC, the International CriminalrnCourt—the proposed judicial arm of thernNew World Order—is one step closer tornbecoming a reality. For five weeks thisrnsummer, the United Nations engagedrnin a protracted, angry, and dangerous debaternon the establishment of the ICC. Inrnthe mainstream Western media, thernICC was portrayed as a permanent warrncrimes tribunal, a perpetual Nurembergrncourt. But in the plenary assemblies andrnconference rooms, a debate raged overrnthe anti-family “social engineering”rnagenda which a few developed countriesrn(notably Canada) were trying to foist onrnthe rest of the world.rnThe discussion in Rome focused notrnon war criminals like Cambodia’s PolrnPot but on the inclusion of “enforcedrnpregnancy” as a war crime and on thernICC’s commitment to a “gender perspective”rnin its deliberations. Both arerncode phrases, like those promoted by therninfluential Women’s Caucus at earlierrnU.N. conferences in Beijing, Istanbul,rnand Cairo. The first means “denyingrnpregnant woman an abortion,” and thernsecond means prosecuting “genderrncrimes” like discrimination againstrnhomosexuals. In addition, the U.N.rnglobalists wanted complete prosecutorialrnindependence for the ICC, somethingrnrelatively useless in an active war zone,rnbut just the thing for muscling small,rntraditional countries that still have legalrnrestraints on “reproductive freedom”rn(more U.N.-speak for abortion).rnOn the one side of the debate were thernso-called “soft-power” countries likernCanada, Britain, and Holland, togetherrnwith the U.N. “apparatchiks” and virtuallyrnall of the world media. On the otherrnside, largely unreported, were the HolyrnSee, most of the Catholic and Muslimrncountries of the Southern Hemisphere,rnand the United States. The maneuveringsrnwere often dishonest, with Canadarnin particular scheduling meetings thatrndeliberately excluded Muslim countries,rnand interpreters were frequently excludedrnfrom the English-language deliberations.rnBy the time the final documentrncame up for a vote, however, the definitionrnof “enforced pregnancy” was tightenedrnup to condemn only the “forciblernconfinement” of a pregnant woman, previouslyrnraped in order to alter the ethnicrncomposition of a territory.rnGiven the “global juggernaut,” somern100-plus countries voted for the agreement,rnonly eight voted against it (thernUnited States, Israel, China, Costa Rica,rnIraq, Libya, Qatar, and Yemen), and 60-rnplus countries abstained (mostly fromrnthe Southern Hemisphere). SecretaryrnGeneral Kofi Annan boasted that thernU.N. had taken the first step toward arn”global human rights tribunal”—whichrnis to say, something more than the advertisedrnwar crimes court.rnBefore the Rome agreement becomesrninternational law, however, it must bernratified by the governments of at leastrn60 countries. The “Law of the Sea” convention,rna generation ago, took 12 yearsrnto get 60 countries signed on. In the casernof the far more contentious ICC, somerncountries (like the Russian Federation)rnclearly agreed to it with no intentionrnwhatsoever of ratifying it. So it may endrnup simply lingering, like an unwantedrnhouseguest.rnDoes this mean that the ICC agreementrnis toothless? No. For years, the Canadianrngovernment (for one) has tried tornuse international agreements to advancerndomestic agendas it could never get pastrnits own parhament. At the 1994 BeijingrnConference on Women, for example,rnthe Canadian delegation was at the forefrontrnof the attempt to enshrine “fiverngenders” in international law; and somernof the more notable Canadian “antispanking”rncourt cases refer to the (antiparental)rnU.N. Convention on thernRights of the Child, a document thatrnhas no binding legal force. CanadianrnSupreme Court Chief Justice AntoniornLamer has said that the court has a dutyrnto enforce international agreements,rn”even if they have not yet been ratified.”rnFor those countries lucky enough tornenjoy the rule of law, “customar)’ internafionalrnlaw” has always been incorporatedrninto their domestic codes. Butrnthese days, thanks to the U.N. and itsrn”soft-power” puppet masters, “customaryrnlaw” is changing almost weekly. There isrnnothing to stop the existing ad hoc warrncrimes tribunals from using Rome’srnincomplete “gender crimes” agreementrnto enforce gay “refugee reunification”rnrights. And with that international precedent,rnthere would be nothing to stop anrnimmigration court judge, even in thernUnited States, from ordering gay “familyrnreunification” rights. Perhaps the judgesrnmight restrain themselves.rn—Joseph K. WoodardrnB I L L CLINTON may be the most dishonoredrnPresident in American history,rnbut who is to blame for his ascension tornthe White House? George Bush, whornwaged an incompetent campaign for reelection?rnBob Dole, tongue-tied and incomprehensible,rnunburdened by principle?rnYes—but the fullest answer is morernsimple.rnAt the heart of it. Bill Clinton wasrnelected because he’s us. Sadly, as his skyhighrnjob approval numbers show, he isrnthe cultural distillation of what we havernbecome, the microcosm of our nation.rnHe was elected because he embodiesrnthe decadence of American society sincernthe 1960’s, a decadence of leisure andrnconsumption rather than work, of sexrnfreed from procreation, of the yearningrnfor recreation and visual pleasure. In earlierrntimes, commerce served as a ballast.rnBefore the 1960’s, business was squarernand seemingly getting more so. But thenrncame the upheaval in the “knowledgernsector,” the marketing of new ideas andrninformation which has as its goal the unmooringrnof convention.rnIt is not coincidental that this sector,rnfueled by Hollywood, has heavily fundedrnBill Clinton. He owes his election notrnjust to its money but to the adulation ofrnthose subtie and highly dexterous profiteeringrnentrepreneurs whose adoption ofrnthe trademark “cool” has given us the situationalrnethics we admire . . . and in returnrnfor which Clinton, the ex-pro-lifer,rnbecame the morally neutered abortionrnand gay rights President.rnSince the post-industrial culture we sornpassionately admire produced Bill Clinton,rnit is understandable that, in his disgrace,rnwe take the hit for him now. If hernlied to us, we yearned to be lied to. Wernhave adopted the shrug as the symbol ofrnour nation. When he came to us as arndraft dodger, we shrugged; as an all-butconfirmedrnuncontrite adulterer, wernshrugged. When he rented our nationalrntreasure for fundraisers, we shrugged.rnWhen he made a fool of his wife andrn6/CHRONICLESrnrnrn