Netherland NGO Representative Reveals How He Manipulated Ugandan UN Delegation

http://www.rutgerswpf.org/news-opinion/blog-archive/blog-rush-hour-srhr-advocates

Note: The blog post below was written by the Ugandan representative, Anslem Wandega, of Rutgers WPF, an organization based in the Netherlands. In his post, he boasts about how he got himself on the Ugandan delegation for the UN Commission on Population and Development (CPD) to promote his agenda.  

Wandega explains that he learned how to do this from other activists at a Rutgers WPF conference in Ghana. These NGO activists (likely also employees of Rutgers WPF) got on African government delegations in their respective African countries to also influence UN negotiations on controversial sexual issues.

In a previous interview, when asked what the main challenge is in Uganda, Anslem responded,

We need to show how comprehensive sexuality education can be an effective instrument to improve sexual and reproductive health and rights.”

This is just another way that western governments and UN agencies (most of them are funded by and thus controlled by Western governments) manipulate governments in developing countries to advance their controversial sexual rights/LGBT/abortion agenda. And (comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) is their main tool to advance their sexual agenda. In other words, Wandega is simply a paid lobbyist for the Netherlands.

Sexual rights activists claim the only way to save lives and prevent serious health problems in Africa is to advance sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR), and the only way to advance such rights is to implement comprehensive sexuality education in all of the schools.  [See SRHR comment below in blue highlights to see why this is a deceptive and dangerous term.]

This sounds really great until you understand that SRHR is the main banner under which controversial sexual rights for children and LGBT and abortion right are advanced. This is why Anslem Wandega asserts that CSE is the banner for advancing SRHR. However, tragically, many of the alleged sexual rights that are advanced under the banner of SRHR actually cause many of the health problems SRHR is claimed to prevent.

The SRHR agenda is a very deceptive agenda that is sister to the CSE agenda, and many governments have been deceived by it, especially in Africa.

Click here to learn more about the deceptive SRHR agenda.

A Description of Rutgers WPF from their website: [Highlights added.]

“Rutgers WPF is an international centre of expertise on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) founded and based in the Netherlands. Our research and many of our projects are carried out in the Netherlands and most primary and secondary schools here use our sexuality education packages. Our expertise is also applied worldwide. We support our partners internationally(across Europe, and inAfrica, and Asia)to improve sexual and reproductive health and the acceptance of sexual rights and gender equality [COMMENT: abortion and LGBT rights] in their countries.”

Anslem Wandega’s Revealing Blogpost on How He is Manipulating the Ugandan UN Delegation:

10 April: Rutgers WPF representative in the Uganda delegation [Highlights added.]

Anslem Wandega, Rutgers WPF representative in Uganda, will attend the CPD as a civil society representative in the Ugandan official government delegation. In his blog, Anslem tells how he advocated with his government to get into the delegation and how he prepared himself for the CPD.

One in Four

In Uganda, people are faced with several challenges related to their sexual and reproductive health and rights. For instance, the teenage pregnancy rate is 25%, meaning that one in four girls under 19 has a baby or is pregnant. With 57% of the country’s population being under 18 years old, Uganda has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the world! It is therefore of paramount importance the Ugandan government changes laws, policies and programs to ensure young people have access to sexuality education, health services and contraceptives. Strong commitments at the United Nations, at the Commission on Population and Development, help to push the Ugandan government towards this direction.

UN Meeting

A strong outcome of the CPD does not happen by itself. Civil society needs to advocate with their governments to ensure their support for SRHR. To influence the negotiation process, it is important for me personally to be close to the Ugandan government delegation. What can be closer than to be part of the official government delegation attending the meeting? This became my ultimate goal in the run up to the actual conference.

Advocating the Ugandan government

The preparations started at the beginning of March when I took part in a workshop with civil society from six African countries, organized by Rutgers WPF in Accra, Ghana. The meeting was a great catalyst as I picked lessons from the other participants on how they had successfully worked with their government delegation during last year’s CPD. The advice and technical support from the advocacy team at Rutgers WPF also formed a major fillip in the process.

Upon return, I did not sit on my laurels. Through my contacts with UNFPA and UNDP, I was able to join the CPD48 Uganda National Organising Committee. The committee, which met several times in the past weeks, was so open to my proposals to support SRHR that they included it in the official country statement [COMMENT: REMEMBER HE IS REPRESENTING A NETHERANDS ORGANIZATION AND SRHR IS ALWAYS OPPOSED BY THE AFRICAN GROUP UN EXPERTS. Why? Because “sexual and reproductive health rights” = “sexual rights” (since “sexual” modifies “rights”). This is highly controversial at the UN because “sexual rights” has never been defined, and therefore, can mean anything, and so it is used to deceptively promote LGBT, abortion and prostitution rights as well as CSE rights, etc. SRHR for children is even worse.  The more accepted phrase at the UN is SRH and RR which = “sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights” because in this phrase, “sexual” does not modify “rights.” SRHR is NEVER accepted in any binding UN document for good reason—it is very dangerous.] and their position regarding the outcome document. Key issues which were included are among others: improving maternal health, ensuring access to sexual and reproductive health information and services, [THIS IS DEFINED BY CSE ADVOCATES TO INCLUDE CSE] empowerment of adolescents and young people, addressing all forms of inequalities, ensuring autonomy and empowerment of girls and women, strengthening health systems, addressing HIV/AIDS, realising human rights of all, recognising the link between the ICPD and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and financing for ICPD Program of Action as well as the post 2015 development framework.

Ready to go

While packing my bags to finally travel to New York, I feel excited. As a member of the official government delegation, I will be able to enter the negotiation room. This puts me in the ultimate position to influence my government’s position, and therefore the overall negotiation process. I am looking forward to a fruitful CPD and get those strong commitments that will help and push my country to reduce its teenage pregnancy rate and improve SRHR for all.

8 April: Preparations

This year advocate Merel Heilmann will be part of the Dutch government delegation, Yvonne Bogaarts and advocate Rineke van Dam are supporting more than 15 partners from Africa, Asia and the Arab region to influence the outcome of the conference. To follow the activities of Merel, Yvonne, Rineke and all the partners in the coming week, you better know what’s at stake…

What is the CPD about again…?

During a landmark event in 1994 in Cairo, 179 governments agreed on the International Commission on Population and Development (ICPD)Programme of Action(PoA). For the first time, governments looked at population issues and sustainable development from a human rights perspective. Key is the connotation of sexual and reproductive health and rights [SEE EXPLANATION ABOVE ON SRHR] as an indispensable factor for sustainable development.

For instance, the PoA stipulates that government should ensure access to modern contraceptives; sexuality education; prevention, testing and treatment of sexually transmitted infections (including HIV/AIDS), and maternal health services, including safe abortion for all, without any form of discrimination.

What’s at stake?

This year’s CPD takes place in a period that the world stands at a cross-roads. The Millennium Development Goals are expiring in 2015, and as we speak negotiations are taking place at the United Nations on what should come after (also called the Post-2015 development agenda). Rutgers WPF, together with a great number of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) around the world, wants SRHR to be firmly embedded in the Post-2015 development agenda. Moreover, it should be aligned with the ICPD commitments made in the PoA, to avoid parallel or conflicting processes.

Luckily, this year’s topic for the CPD focuses on the connection between the two agenda’s. It is therefore a great avenue to advocate for strong references in the discussions and the final outcome Resolution to sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Advocates from Africa, Asia and Arab countries

Sexual and reproductive health and rights is a hot topic at the United Nations, always causing heated discussions between member states.  [COMMENT: This shows that ANSLEM understands the controversy. He knows what he is doing.] It is therefore crucial that civil society organizations work with their governments to make sure they support SRHR as a key factor in sustainable development. Rutgers WPF capacitates and supports CSOs from African, Asian and Arab countries to do that. After intense strategy meetings with the advocates earlier in the year, they are well positioned to influence their government’s position. Some have already been accepted to join their official government delegation as a civil society representatives!

*  *  *

Click here to read an interview with Anslem Wandega showing he supports homosexual rights, sexual diversity, and works to combat homophobia.

What isthe main challenge in Uganda?

Introducing comprehensive sexuality education at a young age will prevent many sexual and reproductive health and rights challenges. In Uganda many parents and professionals do not feel free to talk about sex or think their children are not of such age yet. However, police statistics show that adolescents as young as 14 years are having sex, some are in marriages while others are having children. They need to be well informed before they are faced with life changing events such as body changes during adolescence, an unwanted pregnancy or becoming HIV-positive . . . Education will help to reduce discrimination around sexual diversity. It will be very phased and we cannot change attitudes in a year or 2, but with the right message and the way it is delivered we will be able to make changes.

A base line of prejudice

A study in Kenya showed that staff working in our local sexual and reproductive health and rights partner organisations regarded homosexuality as sinful, un-African and not natural. Homosexuality is also illegal in Kenya, as it is in nearly eighty other countries. But after seven months of sensitisation training, entering into discussions with local gay organisations, examing the science and the personal impact of homophobia, things started to change.

Learning to unlearn

Thanks to the programme, staff and management in these partner organisations have changed their attitudes to sexual diversity, recognising and accepting it as part of their work. They were able to unlearn much of what they thought they knew about LGBT people. And at the end of the programme they were able to share their experience with their regional partners from Tanzania, Malawi, Ethiopia and Uganda.

Accepting inclusivity

The training ran differently in Indonesia, where the need to integrate the needs and rights of LGBT people was included in policy and programming sessions. Here the emphasis was on human rights. Indonesian culture is permeated by sexual diversity, but religion is a barrier to its discussion and acceptance. Both of these programmes have shown that personal and cultural prejudices as barriers to the inclusion of LGBT people in services can be successfully overcome.

Info about the Rutgers WPF found at www.rutgerswpf.org:

The Netherlands

“Rutgers WPF is a leader in comprehensive sexuality education in the Netherlands, where sex education is now part of the compulsory curriculum. Our materials are used in primary and secondary schools across the country. We also address the needs of the pupils of special schools or in vocational education and vulnerable groups like migrants and refugees. And we work with qualified and trainee teachers.”