Hungary and Poland Should Stand Against the EU’s Sexual Imperialism

Hungary and Poland are Europe's last, best hope of not falling into the maelstrom of the Culture of Death. May the Hungarians and the Poles stand firm!

From The European Conservative

By Austin Ruse & Stefano Gennarini

While Hungary’s family laws at home may be trending in a conservative direction, the Hungarian government continues to align with the EU in social policy debates at the UN

Conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic look to Poland and Hungary with great hope as examples of countries that are defending sovereignty and fighting anti-family forces in Europe. Their clashes with the European Commission over national laws reflecting Judeo-Christian values are well known and admired. What isn’t widely known, however, is how Hungary and Poland are unwilling to challenge the monolithic, radical position of the European Union at the UN on what writer John O’Sullivan calls “the moral issues.” 

Indeed, Poland and Hungary’s positions on such issues at the UN, including on abortion and gender ideology, are indistinguishable from those of Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the other 23 EU member states. This is particularly confusing in the case of Hungary, as Victor Orbán’s government has spent a great deal of time and treasure to court American conservatives and to project a pro-family and pro-Christian image abroad. Hungary has organized conferences and briefings in Washington D.C. and hosts international pro-family conferences in Budapest annually. But while Hungary’s family laws at home may be trending in a conservative direction, the Hungarian government continues to align with the EU in social policy debates at the UN. This not only conflicts with the image projected by Hungary to conservatives around the world, but it also conflicts with Hungary’s arguments in favor of national sovereignty. The EU, for instance, uses UN documents to impose the ‘sexual revolution’ on countries that are not sufficiently able to defend themselves. 

Consider just some examples of the positions the EU has adopted in UN social debates over the past year, that Hungary and Poland have supported. 

Poland and Hungary support EU policies on the moral issues

Last summer, the UN General Assembly held a historic debate about abortion and LGBT issues. The debate was over an EU-backed resolution concerning access to justice for victims of sexual violence. At first blush, this seemed noncontroversial, until the EU’s priorities became clear: connecting abortion to human rights, a position the UN has never agreed to. In this debate, both Poland and Hungary were fully aligned with the EU. Not only did Poland and Hungary sponsor the resolutions along with other EU member states, they also joined EU statements berating and even threatening developing countries that opposed this notion of abortion as a human right. 

This was not the only controversy that arose during the abortion debate. There was also language about “multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination.” Informed readers will readily recognize this phrase as a term of art to promote an expansive view of the left-wing agenda, including the entire panoply of gender ideology. Poland and Hungary supported this language, which is now routinely inserted into UN resolutions by the EU.

A similar scenario played out at the General Assembly last fall. Over two dozen resolutions were proposed, containing ambiguous language such as “sexual and reproductive health” and “intersecting forms of discrimination.” Sadly, both Poland and Hungary supported the EU’s position in every instance. It is common for governments to add comments and reservations making clear their interpretation of a resolution, as a means of protecting their domestic laws and the national laws of other countries. Yet, neither Poland nor Hungary took this opportunity, though such clarifications would have been legally significant.

While non-binding UN resolutions may seem harmless, they are, in fact, problematic for two reasons. First, such language is used to promote customary international law, especially when such language appears without objection. Second, this language is potent in the UN system itself. It is used by UN agencies as a mandate to promote abortion, homosexual, and trans issues, and the entire left-wing agenda on social issues.

Then there is the controversial topic of sexual orientation and gender identity. A longstanding project of the Left at the UN has been to insert sexual orientation and gender identity into human rights law as a new category of ‘nondiscrimination.’ These attempts usually come in the form of resolutions that are difficult for governments to oppose—for instance, resolutions on extrajudicial killings. It should be noted that the Holy See opposed this maneuver 15 years ago—not because the Holy See supports the killing of LGBT individuals, but precisely because the Holy See sees the danger of establishing a new special category based on sexual conduct or expression. That did not stop opponents from suggesting the Holy See supported the killing of homosexuals, however.

This strategy was again used last fall at the General Assembly in a resolution on national elections. The classification of sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected category in national voting was proposed, despite no known instances of countries restricting voting rights to heterosexuals. Again, Polish and Hungarian diplomats aligned their governments with the EU’s statement, offering unwavering support for this language and for the potential introduction of a new protected class based on sexual expression. Once more, neither government sought to effectively clarify their position when the resolution was adopted.

In another instance, at the UN Commission on Social Development in February, the European Union fought against the established human right that parents have the “primary responsibility” for the upbringing of their children. The EU took the position that it is the State, and not the family, that has the primary responsibility to protect children. Again, Poland and Hungary supported and defended this EU position. 

The EU has also insisted that wherever ‘family’ is mentioned in a UN resolution, the phrase “various forms of family exist” must be added. This, of course, is intended to dilute the ancient understanding of the family, and the understanding of the family in international human rights. EU delegates argue that the definition of the family found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in binding human rights treaties, as the “natural and fundamental group unit of society,” is a harmful Western construct that discriminates against LGBT families. Neither Poland nor Hungary objected to this position. Indeed, Poland and Hungary have never broken with the EU over family language in UN agreements. They have always followed a common EU position.

During negotiations at the Commission on the Status of Women in March, the EU campaigned to delete any positive reference to women as mothers. The EU delegates offered their usual pre-textual arguments. They said that positive language about motherhood relegates women to being mothers, and that speaking about motherhood in a positive light discriminates against women who are not mothers. Poland and Hungary once again went along with these positions.

In April, at the Commission on Population and Development, Hungary and Poland stood with the EU in promoting “comprehensive sexuality education.” This kind of education is widely understood to promote the most brutal, even pornographic kind of sex-ed. Comprehensive sexuality education teaches even the youngest children about homosexuality, transgenderism, and sexual autonomy. The manuals for this kind of education, which is pushed by Western countries and UN agencies, are readily available online. They are pornographic and morally repugnant. They may even be illegal in Poland and Hungary. But Poland and Hungary steadfastly stand by the EU’s efforts to export this kind of sexuality education to other countries under the EU flag.

Most disappointing perhaps, EU delegates firmly oppose language affirming national sovereignty in all these agreements. Even if Hungary and Poland believed in these nostrums of the sexual Left, they might believe these issues ought to be decided at the national level and not through imposition at the international level. But, the EU, with the support of Hungary and Poland, now routinely opposes any mention of sovereignty in any agreements about human rights or women’s issues. 

These are just some of the more blatant examples of harmful norms that the EU promotes internationally and that Poland and Hungary have supported. There are many less obvious examples that are equally or more insidious. 

Many ask why Poland and Hungary are not willing to confront this EU overreach. Whether this is the result of diplomatic inertia, democratic realities, lack of capacity, or a combination of these, is a question European conservatives must ask their leaders. As American conservatives and recipients of the Hungary charm offensive, we ask the same questions. However, some of the answers may lie in the common misconception among conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic: the idea that international policy does not really matter. 

Why UN policy matters

Conservatives often say that UN resolutions are non-binding, that there is no way to enforce them, among other theoretical tropes. They are wrong both from a legal perspective as well as from a practical one. Western donor countries spend billions of dollars every year to lobby and negotiate international policies regarding moral issues. They wouldn’t invest so much time and effort in international policy if it wasn’t an effective way to advance their sexual agenda.

UN resolutions, sometimes referred to as ‘soft law,’ are in fact binding on the international agencies they govern, even if they are not binding on states. The language of UN agreements is the boiler plate that billions of dollars of international programs are based on. If UN agreements contain ambiguous language related to “sexual and reproductive health,” for example, this provides UN agencies with the marching orders to promote abortion. If the agreement includes vague language related to ‘diversity,’ it provides the agencies and programs a mandate to promote homosexual and trans policies.

In addition, international agreements and their implementation by international agencies can, over time, give rise to new legal obligations under customary international law. Indeed, this is the claim of many UN committees and experts, some of which have already been validated in national courts. UN human rights officials routinely interfere in national judicial proceedings and legislative debates to argue that the gradual adoption of UN agreements with language related to reproductive health and diversity has resulted in the formation of new obligations under customary international law.

Recent examples of UN policies that have had a significant effect on national policies everywhere without ever being binding or democratically enacted include the Paris Agreement and COVID-19 policies. The world’s economy is in the midst of a ‘green’ overhaul, despite many parliaments or legislatures never having cast a vote. When it comes to the COVID-19 pandemic, international guidance devolved into authoritarian health policies, as well as censorship and content moderation on traditional and social media.

Perhaps the best example of the very real impact that international policies can have on domestic laws and regulations is gender ideology. Feminists succeeded in replacing sex with ‘gender’ in UN documents at the 1995 International Conference on Women in Beijing, helping to create the false notion that gender is just a social construct. That conference set in motion the policies and institutions that have since made transgender issues a reality in every country. Thirty years later, almost every government in the world has a gender ministry—or, in UN parlance, ‘gender machinery,’ that acts as a conduit for every aspect of gender ideology. And the United Nations has a permanent super-agency for women’s issues, with a $1 billion annual budget, that opportunistically lobbies countries on gender policies, including the promotion of abortion, abolition of the ‘patriarchy,’ and promotion of the concept of gender ‘beyond the binary.’

But even without these considerations, EU bureaucratic overreach through a common foreign policy is still an existential threat to the sovereignty of nation states that make up the European Union.

The EU’s ‘woke’ foreign policy threatens sovereignty

The very definition of sovereignty in international law is predicated on the recognition of sovereignty by other sovereign states. But the formerly sovereign states of Europe are gradually disappearing from the global stage altogether, as there is a default EU common policy for every international engagement. Indeed, other countries no longer view European states as independent sovereign nations. By adopting a common EU foreign policy in every international forum, these nations are effectively abdicating their sovereignty. 

Fortunately, there is good legal ground for conservative EU politicians and diplomats to stand against EU overreach on social issues in foreign policy. Family policy, abortion policies, and other controversial moral issues are beyond the scope of EU rule making. European nations retain their sovereign prerogative on all such matters under the Lisbon Treaty. To counter EU overreach, Poland and Hungary must insist on these formal limits to EU power.

Practically speaking, this means that Poland and Hungary must develop their own foreign policy on controversial social issues and systematically advance it in international for a separately from the EU. Poland and Hungary already do this, quite effectively, on the topic of migration, through the Visegrád Four. Whenever a UN resolution contains vague or ambiguous language about immigration, for example, Hungary and Poland could block EU positions, call for votes, and make reservations that are sophisticated and legally astute. Social conservatives should expect no less when it comes to the moral issues of life, family, and gender ideology.

At the UN, Poland and Hungary must first break the EU consensus on social policy to prevent the EU from adopting radical social positions. Secondly, they must disrupt sexually leftist EU diplomacy by taking separate positions in negotiations and by making use of their rights as UN Member States to call for votes and to make reservations and statements to further clarify what their positions are, or that are attached to any resolution containing controversial language. 

Signs of hope

For thirty years, the EU bureaucracy has been one of the main drivers of the sexually leftist agenda globally, via the promotion of homosexuality, transgenderism, and sexual indoctrination of children. All this has occurred with the tacit consent of Poland and Hungary. Even so, there are signs of hope. 

Hungary has resisted ratification of the Istanbul Convention on Violence Against Women, citing problematic definitions of gender. Poland and Hungary have excellent domestic laws and policies. And recently, in preliminary negotiations of a new treaty on crimes against humanity, Hungary and Poland broke ranks with the EU on how to define the term ‘gender.’ Perhaps, the seriousness of the threat of redefining gender in a binding treaty on crimes against humanity—including the prospect of being labelled international criminals for not allowing transgender identity change or homosexual marriage—has finally alerted Warsaw and Budapest of the very real threat that sexually leftist international policies pose to their countries and peoples. 

The leading conservative governments of the Western hemisphere should get into the habit of breaking the EU consensus on foreign policy more often. These American eyes turn to our friends in Hungary and Poland to stand with us against the ‘woke’ sexual agenda at the UN.