Population Imperialism
The Growing Backlash Against U.S. Policy
In the slums of Dhaka, Bangladesh, many women were suffering. But their suffering was not due to the difficulties of daily life in Bangladesh.
They were suffering from side effects due to Norplant, a new and unproven birth control device, which had been implanted in their arms. Blurred vision, loss of eyesight, unbearable exhaustion, severe headaches, and constant bleeding drove these women back to their local family planning clinics, where they pleaded with staffers there to remove the devices. They were scolded and turned away. Some persistent women, even in their weakened condition, trekked back to the clinic once a week, twice a week, more than a dozen times, to have the Norplant removed, but each time, clinic workers refused to help or would tell the women to pay them prohibitive sums of money.1
The Bangladeshi women did not know that Norplant was an experimental device, nor did they ever consent to be involved in a clinical trial. Yet in 1983, the "official" report on the first phase of Norplant trials boasted, "Norplant is a highly effective, safe, and acceptable method [of birth control] among Bangladeshi women."
Furthermore, the report made no mention at all of eyesight disorders or of women being refused removal of the devices.2
American taxpayers routinely fund
population control projects that
coerce foreign governments, communities,
and individuals to 'accept' draconian
population control measures, all under
the rubic of protecting against over-
population and promoting humanitarian aid.
These inhumane trials in Bangladesh were conducted by an American family planning organization, with funding provided by American taxpayers through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the best-known conduit for U.S. overseas development assistance.
Unfortunately, this is hardly an isolated incident. Whether through USAID or by congressional appropriations to multinational corporations such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the World Bank, or the International Monetary Fund, American taxpayers routinely fund population control projects that coerce foreign governments, communities, and individuals to "accept" draconian population control measures, all under the rubic of protecting against overpopulation and promoting humanitarian aid.
In fact, a sum of $410 million was allocated for international population control for fiscal year 1997 by the United States.3 This is particularly significant given the current climate of budget cuts in federal expenditures.
'National Self-Interest' and 'A Common Humanity'
The U.S. government justifies its promotion of international population control by citing rapid growth as the root cause of other problems found in developing countries. According to official USAID strategy, "Rapid population growth renders inadequate any investment in schools, housing, food production capacity, and infrastructure. It challenges the ability of governments to provide even the most basic health and social services. ... As expanding populations demand an ever greater number of jobs, a climate is created where workers, especially women and minorities, are oppressed."4
Thus, USAID's "solution" to this core problem has not been to provide basic health care or education, but rather to provide "expanded access to, increased use of, and improved quality of family planning and reproductive health services; increased contraceptive prevalence and continuation; [and] improved women's reproductive health."5
In practical terms, this means creating "self-sustaining family planning systems," ensuring that adolescents and young adults have access to contraception, and that all women have access to reproductive health services, including "safe" abortion.6
The Rockefeller Foundation, a private foundation which has long donated great sums of money to international population control programs, says that such "reproductive health and family planning programs" reap "large humanitarian and practical rewards" and will result in the "prosperity and stability of our shared world."7
Such claims regarding the grandiose benefits of international population control programs are not new. In 1969, President Nixon told Congress that investing in international population assistance was important to the United States whether "moved by the narrowest perception of national self-interest or by the widest vision of a common humanity."8
But on both fronts, the conclusions of President Nixon and The Rockefeller Foundation are wrong.
Clearly, the Bangladesh experience with Norplant provides strong evidence that population "assistance" has not at all benefited "a common humanity."
In addition, far from advancing America's "national self-interest," the current U.S. population program has served to antagonize foreign nations and mark the United States as "a ruthless population controller, unashamed of coercive measures and disrespectful" of the human rights of people, particularly women, in developing countries. Indeed, these were the words Christine de Vollmer, president of the Latin America Alliance for the Family, used in her testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June 1996 to describe how Latin America perceives U.S. population control policy.9
America's role as the first and largest
supporter of international population
control is not serving our national interests
and is inviting a backlash from foreign
countries whose cultural, religious, and
human rights have been violated.
Moreover, America's heavy-handed involvement in the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo prompted one observer to warn that U.S. population policy is "a kind of moral imperialism that will disfigure America's reputation in the Catholic countries of Latin America and the traditional societies of Africa, and play perfectly into the hands of the Islamic extremists already making strides vilifying America as the Great Satan of the Muslim world."10
Indeed, there is ample evidence that America's role as the first and largest supporter of international population control around the world is not serving our national interests and is inviting a backlash from foreign countries whose cultural, religious, and human rights are being violated.
Emphasizing Population Control Over Development
One of the first signs of backlash against the U.S. population policy stems from its emphasis on contraception to the neglect of basic health care needs. For example, Leanardo Casco, a member of the Honduran delegation to the Cairo conference, expressed his dismay that, out of 89 pages within the 1994 U.N. document on population and development, "only six pages deal[t] with development."11
The delegation from Iran also objected to the Cairo event's contraceptive emphasis, saying, "Since the title of the conference is population and development and since the interrelatedness of these two concepts cannot be denied, it should focus more on development and the means for removing the obstacles for attaining development goals in the final document."12
Furthermore, since 1969, USAID has spent more money on population control programs than its total worldwide health-related expenditures. In some years, spending on contraceptive "re-education" has been almost three times the expenditures on health assistance.13
In 1980, the World Bank estimated that government expenditure per current contraceptive user was $68 in Ghana and $69 in Nepal. These figures compare with World Bank numbers suggesting that the total governmental expenditure on all other health programs worked out to be about $20 per family in Ghana and $8 in Nepal. As a matter of fact, in Nepal, the country was so inundated with condoms that it cost the government $50,000 to dispose of them.14
Nepal was so inundated with condoms
that it cost the government $50,000 to
dispose of them.
In Indonesia, population growth has been reduced substantially over the past three decades of family planning programs. The enthusiastic program in Indonesia has made that country "a textbook illustration of what can be done through enlightened and vigorous government programs," according to John J. Gilligan, then-administrator of USAID.15 However, despite the 15 percent fertility drop in Indonesia during the 1965-1976 period, the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Population reported with unconscious irony that "these improvements occurred in the absence of significant gains in the social and economic conditions of the vast majority of Indonesians."16 Furthermore, despite Indonesia's "success" in lowering the fertility rate, in March 1994, USAID still agreed to provide $50 million in population grants over five years to that country.17
Withholding Real Care
At the same time that USAID and the World Bank were pouring more money into population control, agronomist Norman Borlaug, winner of the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in reversing the food shortages that haunted India and Pakistan in the 1960s, was being cut off by his funding sources. The Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and the World Bank -- all large contributors to the international population control effort -- refused to fund Borlaug's attempt to bring high-yield agriculture to Africa, citing environmental concerns. Although Borlaug argues that producing more food from less land will actually preserve Africa's wild habitats (which are now being depleted by slash-and-burn subsistence agriculture), other commentators were suggesting that it would be wrong to increase the food supply in the developing world: Better to let nature do the dirty work of restraining human population. In other words, better to starve Africans than supply them with food because we don't want too many people.18
Beyond funding levels, the way that everyday people are affected by this disproportionate emphasis on contraception is even more startling.
"In our hospitals and in our health care system, we have a lot of problems getting basic medicines -- things like penicillin and antibiotics," says Leanardo Casco of Honduras. "There is a terrible shortage of basic medicines, but you can find the cabinets full of condoms, pills and [intrauterine devices]."19
Honduras is not the only place with such problems. A physician from Malawi recently told about having to do abdominal surgery without surgical gloves, yet there were great quantities of latex condoms in the same hospital.20
Dr. Stephen K. Karanja, an obstetrician/gynecologist from Kenya, writes that "thousands of the Kenyan people will die of malaria whose treatment costs a few cents, in health facilities whose stores are stalked (sic) to the roof with millions of dollars worth of pills, IUDs, Norplant, Depo-provera, most of which are supplied with American money."21
Dr. Margaret Ogola, another physician from Kenya and a representative to the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing concurs. "More people die of malaria, pneumonia and tuberculosis," but "the emphasis on pelvic medicine has ignored other concerns," said Ogola in 1995. "I would lose babies in the pediatric ward due to the lack of the most simple drugs. Clinics are loaded with contraceptives but no needed medicines. I thought that was an extreme injustice."22
A physician from Malawi recently told about
having to do abdominal surgery without surgical
gloves, yet there were great quantities of latex
condoms in the same hospital.
Similarly, in a 1995 news conference delegates from African, Latin American and Muslim countries complained that the document being promoted at the U.N. Women's Conference in Beijing, China as a "consensus document" among all participating world nations had such a large emphasis on sexual matters that it ignored the life-threatening health and nutrition needs of poverty-stricken areas of the world.23
The fact that disproportionate emphasis is given to contraceptives over basic health care seems bad enough. But even worse is the reality that some contraceptives have caused serious harm to women, which, when coupled with the lack of adequate health care, is doubly disastrous.
Dr. Karanja writes, "[Kenyan women] have been injured by Depo-provera, birth control pills, and Norplant. I look at them and I am filled with sadness. They have been coerced into using these drugs. Nobody tells them about the side effects, and there are no drugs to treat their complications. In Kenya, if you injure [the woman], you injure the whole family. ... Many are maimed for life. The hypertension, blood clots, heart failure, liver pathology and menstrual disorders cannot be treated due to poor health services."24
Catherine Maternowska, a medical anthropologist, also recounts a similar experience among Haitian women. During Norplant's clinical trials in Cite Soleil, some women endured continuous bleeding for as long as 18 months. In Haiti, because women "don't have Kotex or tampons," they must use rags which they have to wash every day. This is no simple task. The women have to buy soap which cuts into their family budgets, and they also have to buy water with which to wash. If they can't afford to buy water, they must go down to the stream to wash, but the streams are extremely filthy because, among other things, they are used for defecation.25
Holding Development Hostage to Population Control
Not only has the U.S. emphasized population control to the neglect of other development projects, but the U.S. population control program has often held development projects hostage to population control. That is, the U.S. has withheld aid for development projects unless a country agreed to adopt certain population control policies.
The U.S. has had to place these conditions upon governments because population control activities are usually met with great resistance. According to the Report of the House Select Committee on Population in 1978, U.S. birth-controllers lamented that they had encountered a disappointing "absence of widespread public demand" and a lack of "clear and vigorous support" by foreign governments for population control, and an "under-utilization of ... outreach." They also said that efforts would need to be stepped up because the attitudes of men were "still anti-vasectory."26
Villagers in India were offered cash payments
on the condition that 75 percent of all men
in the village submit to a vasectomy. In another
Indian village '100 percent of the eligible
couples' were reported to have accepted family
planning in exchange for a new village well.
Thus, USAID officials initiated and Congress enacted Section 104(d) of the International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1978, which provided that American foreign aid "shall be administered so as to give particular attention to ... the impact of all programs, projects, and activities on population growth. All ... activities proposed for financing ... shall be designed to build motivation for smaller families."
Furthermore, USAID's official view was that the United States government has the right and the duty to set a worldwide target of two children per family on the average and, in the words of U.S. law, to administer its aid to foreign countries so as to "build motivation for smaller families through modification of economic and social conditions supportive of the desire for large families."27
The U.S. population control activists rightly predicted that such incentives could be successful in motivating countries to comply.
For example, in 1992, the World Bank's Operations Evaluation Department published a report called Population and the World Bank: Implications from Eight Case Studies. According to de Vollmer, the publication describes quite openly the way in which the Bank forced one West African country to reverse its position on family planning. "[W]hen considerable external finance for population activities failed to enlist the cooperation of important ministries, a review was done to propose ways in which the [b]ank could influence the government. In the document's own words, that study, a population sector review done during 1985 and 1986, recommended that the [b]ank ... concentrate ... on helping the [g]overnment develop a comprehensive population policy. This recommendation was accepted and eventually implemented by making the development of such a policy statement a condition for release of the second [installment] of the third structural adjustment loan."28
Similarly, a 1992 report prepared for USAID by a contractor, the Futures Group, illustrates how the United States has infiltrated the African Development Bank's operations and used its financial leverage to make the institution an instrument of population control. By exercising "conditional lending" -- that is, by holding loans for highways, hospitals, communications, or energy hostage to population policies -- the Bank is able to compel borrowers to "request unwanted birth control funding."29 Commitments may also be extracted from borrowers by setting aside portions of other budgets, such as health and nutrition projects, for birth control activities. In either case, debtor nations have little choice but to accept the population control money, but Western donors can claim that the population program was voluntarily endorsed by the borrower.
More recently, the U.S. government has placed this same type of pressure on the Asian Development Bank to earmark funds for population control and to condition lending in other sectors on a country's willingness to borrow for population activities.30
To modify a community's collective behavior, USAID favors so-called "group incentives" because they avoid the appearance of paying individuals to use birth control or having themselves sterilized and because the strong incentive of group pressure makes this approach highly effective. For example, in Indonesia, a woman who "volunteers" for IUD insertion will not only enjoy a share in the village food's bonus, but will earn the gratitude of her neighbors for enabling them to share also. Conversely, those who refuse this "service" will be depriving their neighbors as well as themselves of food.31
The message to developing nations was
unambiguous: If you don't back the U.S.
abortion position in Cairo, don't be suprised
if money for development suddenly dries up.
In the 1970s, villagers in India were offered cash payments on the condition that 75 percent of all men in the village submit to a vasectomy. In another Indian village "100 percent of the eligible couples" were reported to have accepted family planning, mostly by means of vasectomy, in exchange for a new village well.32
In Thailand, a number of innovative methods have been used to popularize birth control, including "special motivational and educational efforts" in the labor rooms of hospitals where women were giving birth, "with all hospital staff taking part in these efforts." According to the Population Council, the results have been remarkable: A whopping 43 percent of all obstetrical patients at one hospital "accepted" sterilization, and between 1965 and 1975 the crude birth rate in Thailand fell 23 percent.33
In Taiwan, families having no more than two or three children have been given annual bank deposits, redeemable to pay educational expenses.34
In Singapore, families having more than two children pay higher medical fees, lose maternity leave, lose priority for subsidized housing and school admission, and receive no income tax deductions for additional children.35
Cairo and Beijing
The most widely-publicized account of this subtle form of coercion occurred just prior to the 1994 United Nations International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, Egypt, when the Clinton administration lobbied "foreign governments for more liberal abortion language in a draft United Nations plan aimed at stabilizing the world's population."36
According to news reports, "In March 1994, all U.S. diplomatic and consular posts received an unusually emphatic cable from their State Department superiors. Marked 'immediate action,' it instructed them to inform their host governments of the Clinton administration's priorities for the Cairo conference."
The cable made it clear that the U.S. would exert its influence through "senior level diplomatic interventions" with international assistance agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to "advance U.S. population policy interests," including the belief that "access to safe, legal and voluntary abortion is a fundamental right of all women." The message to developing nations was unambiguous: If you don't back the U.S. position on abortion in Cairo, don't be surprised if money for development suddenly dries up.37
The abortion language was offensive not only to many American citizens, but especially to the more than 50 nations that have laws protecting unborn children from abortion unless it is necessary to save the mother's life, and the nearly 50 more countries which ban abortion as a means of birth control.38
President Clinton later tried to smooth over the foreign policy imbroglio created by the March cable by saying, "Contrary to some assertions, we do not support abortion as a method of family planning. We respect, however, the diversity of national laws, except we do oppose coercion wherever it exists. Our own policy in the United States is that this should be a matter of personal choice, not public dictation and, as I have said many times, that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."39
Especially among developing nations, there
has been a considerable backlash against
population control efforts, with widespread
resentment against what is seen as an attempt
to pressure less-developed countries into adopting
social policies that are the subject of controversy
in the United States.
Despite Clinton's rhetoric, his administration proceeded to employ other strong-arm tactics to get its way in Cairo. According to several sources, Vice President Al Gore, who was the official head of the U.S. delegation in Cairo, successfully lobbied Honduran President Carlos Reina during a trip to Latin America in May, 1994. Reina reportedly agreed to remove members of his country's delegation before the September conference because of their opposition to U.S. positions, then reinstate them soon after.40
While in Cairo, several delegates, including the young woman who led the Honduras delegation, were called away a number of times to be grilled by the U.S. delegation.41
Besides intimidation and threats, the Clinton administration also engaged in "stacking the deck" of the Cairo conference to ensure that its population policies were upheld. For example, Undersecretary of State Timothy Wirth chose no less than 22 members of the largest abortion provider in the nation, Planned Parenthood (including its president), to be part of the U.S. delegation.42
To these women, American-style population
control was synonymous with 'coercion,
forced sterilization and ... First World
fears of a dark-skinned planet.'
The organization of the Cairo preparatory committee (Prep Com) meetings in New York were also orchestrated to produce a result that would please the Clinton administration. Running the show in New York were Cairo Conference secretary-general Nafis Sadik of Pakistan, who is also executive director of the UNFPA, and conference Chairman Fred Sai of Ghana, president of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). Both are highly sympathetic to the U.S. goals for Cairo.43 Indeed, IPPF, a major abortion provider and lobbyist in foreign countries, received $75 million from USAID in 1994.44
Furthermore, the U.S. would use the cover of like-minded non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to suit its own purposes. As de Vollmer testified before a Senate subcommittee, "Many times the U.S. government planning documents will use a phrase like 'Brazil has requested funds for...,' when in fact close examination shows that 'Brazil,' or whatever country, does not refer to any official of that country, but rather to the USAID mission staff in that country."45
Further, de Vollmer continues, "It is disturbing to think that the decisions made by non-elected bureaucrats could be interpreted as the will of an entire people. Furthermore, the programs called for will be put into effect not only by national governments but by a combination of U.N. agencies and NGOs whose membership has been approved of, chosen, or elected by the self-same U.N. bureaucracy who developed the documents. The entire process has proven to be far less representative of and accountable to those it claims to serve than the national governments which make up the U.N. Some of the NGOs are taking on the character of shadow governments, with annual budgets greater than that available to entire countries. [NGOs are a] shameless way to bypass the democratic governments which now begin to make trouble for the U.N. The NGOs are not elected and are seldom grass-roots. The largest of them, and the most represented at the U.N., is IPPF."46
Because of the stacked deck against them, many poorer countries banded together to raise their voices in opposition to the developed countries' hijacking of the Cairo document.
Education Minister Humberto Belli, head of the Nicaraguan delegation, wrote in the 1994 July-August issue of Social Justice Review, "I knew what the original consensus of Latin America had been in regard to all of these issues. ... I was surprised that none of those views were reflected in the document."47
In June 1994, leaders from 15 Latin American countries reaffirmed their pro-life beliefs. Speaking for the group, Argentine President Carlos Menem said, "We renew our commitment to defend human life, in any of its expressions, from the moment of conception and until death."48
At the conclusion of the Cairo conference, dozens of nations made formal reservations to the final document, especially African, Muslim, and Latin American countries. Nearly all of the reservations were based on the strong moral beliefs of the country, rejecting abortion and upholding the ideals of marriage, family life, religious beliefs, and national sovereignty.
Much of the same subtle coercion which the United States wielded at the Cairo conference also occurred at the 1995 United Nations Fourth World Conference for Women in Beijing. Ogola said that Third World delegates to the Beijing Conference had been "afraid to speak out" at the conference because delegates from richer, developed countries had threatened their nations with foreign aid reductions.49
Brazilian Rosiska Darcy de Olivera also
condemned the United States, 'To say that
women from the South who have many babies
are responsible for the environmental crisis --
it's a scandal.'
Annetta Moran, a New Zealand teacher, called the conference "nondemocratic" and "stacked" by delegates who wanted to impose their own cultural and political agenda on the Third World.50
Backlash
While it is true that some countries have accepted America's population imperialism without much objection, there are still many countries that have been seriously provoked by the U.S. government's heavy-handed tactics. Especially among developing nations, there has been a considerable backlash against population control regimes, with widespread resentment against what is seen as an attempt to pressure less-developed countries into adopting social policies that are the subject of controversy in the United States.
For example, on August 14, 1994, Cardinal Jaime Sin of Manila, Philippines, called a rally to protest the Cairo conference. An estimated 200,000 people attended. Sin called on Filipinos to "expel from our midst a new type of cultural dictatorship" that would "have us ape the degenerate sexual mores prevalent in so-called developed countries."51
Muslim intellectuals also launched a campaign against the U.N. population conference in Cairo, charging that abortion and birth control violate Islamic teaching. Fahmy Howeidy, one of Egypt's leading Muslim intellectuals, published an article in a newspaper circulated across the Middle East in which he accused the West of conspiring to limit populations in Islamic countries.52 Indeed, many Islamic newspaper reports have accused the U.S. of advocating a "strategy of genocide" by insisting that abortion should be acceptable.53
Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Lebanon boycotted the Cairo conference because it would undermine Islamic views of morality. Turkey and Bangladesh decided to send lower-ranking emissaries than originally intended.54
Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Peru, Ecuador, Dominican Republic, Argentina, Slovakia, and Poland all filed minority reports in defense of family, traditional morality, and the right to life at Cairo, fighting what they saw as cultural imperialism.55
But perhaps the most outspoken critic of U.S. population control policy has been Pope John Paul II. Numerous news reports followed the exchange between the pontiff and President Clinton, especially in the days leading up to the Cairo conference. In defense of his unwavering stand, the Pope asked, "Are countries more sensitive to the values of nature, morality and religion going to accept such a vision of man and society without protest?"56
President Clinton also received a letter, signed by all six U.S. cardinals, protesting "with great urgency ... your [a]dministration's promotion of abortion, contraception, sterilization, and the redefinition of the family." The cardinals admonished Clinton "to shun the advice of those who would apply pressure on developing nations to mandate abortion as a condition for receiving aid ... Do not allow our country to participate in trampling the rights and religious values of people around the world."57
America's population imperialism has abused
and harmed people worldwide, it has trampled
on the religious and cultural values of other
nations, and it has placed America at risk
for retaliation by foreign countries.
Americans of faith have also objected to U.S. involvement in population control overseas. Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Dr. Edwin Young, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, along with several other national Christian leaders, sent President Clinton a letter condemning the State Department cable which pressures Third World governments to support greater abortion availability, as "an unprecedented misuse of our diplomatic corps for political ends."58
Finally, the antagonism toward the U.S. concept of population control which has been expressed in numerous countries may well be illustrated best by a Washington Post news report. The reporter recounts that during the 1992 official Earth Summit, a women's tent was set up at the "Global Forum" alternative summit on Flamengo Beach. Inside the tent was a gathering of women who comprised the Campaign Against Population Control. To these women, American-style population control was synonymous with "coercion, forced sterilization and ... First World fears of a dark-skinned planet." A nearby poster proclaimed that "population control" is "a phrase reminiscent of 'pest control.'"59
During this meeting, a Brazilian senator said that population programs have resulted in the involuntary sterilization of Brazilian women. Rosiska Darcy de Olivera, co-chair of the Brazilian Women's Coalition, also condemned the United States, saying, "To say that women from the South who have many babies are responsible for the environmental crisis -- it's a scandal."
Conclusion
When President Nixon appealed to Congress to fund population control policies out of a desire to advance "national self-interest" and benefit "a common humanity," he had only half the equation right. In reality, America's population imperialism has abused and harmed people worldwide, trampled on the religious and cultural values of other nations, and placed America at risk for retaliation by foreign countries. Muslim terrorism is already a threat to American foreign policy, and the official U.S. zeal for population control only increases those threats. Furthermore, the U.S. government is straining relations with the Catholic Latin American countries as well as many African countries because of its contemptuous actions against their moral beliefs and cultural traditions. Thus, America ought to properly act on behalf of its "national self-interest" and "a common humanity" and immediately abandon its population imperialism.
-- Gracie S. Hsu, FRC Policy Analyst
Family Policy is published six times a year by the Family Research Council. Annual subscriptions are available for $15. Contact: Family Research Council, 801 G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. Phone: 202-393-2100. President: Gary L. Bauer; Editor: William R. Mattox, Jr.; Editorial and Production Support: Rosanne Dupras; Distribution: Kevin Gilliam, Steve McIntyre. Volume 10, Number 4. © Copyright July, 1997 by the Family Research Council. All rights reserved. FP97GLF.
ENDNOTES
"The Human Laboratory," video documentary by the British Broadcasting Company, November 6, 1995, as broadcast on the Canadian television program Horizon.
Ibid.
Taken from a congressional fact sheet obtained through the office of Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), member of the Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives. Figure includes $385 million appropriated through USAID and an additional $25 million allotted to UNFPA.
"Stabilizing World Population Growth and Protecting Human Health: USAID's Strategy," from Web Site: http://web.fie.com/htdoc/fed/aid/any/anytext/any/aidtoi07.htm.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Laurie Ann Mazur, High Stakes: The United States, Global Population and Our Common Future, The Rockefeller Foundation, 1997, p. 12.
Susan A. Cohen, "A Response to Concerns About Population Assistance," Issues in Brief, Alan Guttmacher Institute, January 1997.
Testimony of Christine de Marcellus de Vollmer Herrera, President of Alianza Latinoamericana para la Familia (ALAFA), Caracas, Venezuela, before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Regarding U.S. Influence at United Nations World Conferences, Washington, D.C., June 4, 1996.
Patrick J. Buchanan, "Clinton's Religious Wars: Intolerance Drives His Administration's Christian Bashing and Abortion Extremism," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 6, 1994, p. B3.
Brian Robertson, "Uncle Sam, the Population-Control Bully? U.S. Agenda at Cairo Questioned," The Washington Times, August 26, 1994, p. A8.
Baobab Press, Volume 4, Number 9, Copyright 1994 U.S.A. / I.P.F.A. Taken from web site: http://www.africa2000.com/BNDX/bao409.htm.
Mercedes Arzu Wilson, Love & Family: Raising a Traditional Family in a Secular World. Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1996, p. 170.
Ibid.
Hearings before the Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives, on foreign assistance legislation for fiscal year 1979, Part 1, p. 238. Quoted in Jacqueline Kasun, "The International Politics of Contraception," Policy Review, The Heritage Foundation, Winter 1981.
Ibid, p. 135.
William Branigin, "Indonesia, Philippines Differ Sharply in Population Dynamics," The Washington Post, September 5, 1994, p. A20.
Gregg Easterbrook, "Forgotten Benefactor of Humanity; Agronomist Norman Borlaug," The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 279, No. 1, January 1997.
Brian Robertson, op cit.
Testimony of Christine de Marcellus de Vollmer Herrera, op. cit.
Dr. Stephen K. Karanja, M.B.CH.B.M.Med O/G, Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist, "Population Control -- The Kenyan Perspective," From Web Site: http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c1/i/clio2.html.
George Archibald, "Diverse factions of women pleased by deal in Beijing." The Washington Times, September 12, 1995, p. A1.
Ibid.
Dr. Stephen K. Karanja, op. cit.
"The Human Laboratory," op. cit.
Report of the House Select Committee on Population on "Population and Development Assistance," December 1978, pp. 55, 59. Quoted in Jacqueline Kasun, op. cit.
International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1978, Section 104 (d). Quoted in Jacqueline Kasun, "The International Politics of Contraception," Policy Review, The Heritage Foundation, Winter 1981, p. 135.
Population and the World Bank: Implications from Eight Case Studies, A World Bank Operations Evaluation Study, Operations Evaluation Department, The World Bank, 1992, p. 58. Quoted from the Testimony of Christine de Marcellus de Vollmer Herrera, op. cit.
Baobab Press, Volume 4, Number 9, Copyright 1994 U.S.A. / I.P.F.A. Taken from web site: http://www.africa2000.com/BNDX/bao409.htm.
Ibid.
Jacqueline Kasun, op. cit.
Robert M. Veatch, "Government Population Incentives: Ethical Issues at Stake," Studies in Family Planning, April 1977, pp. 100-108. Quoted in Jacqueline Kasun, op. cit.
The Population Council, Studies in Family Planning, March 1972, pp. 10-11. Quoted in Jacqueline Kasun, op. cit.
The Population Council, Studies in Family Planning, January 1976, p. 31. Quoted in Jacqueline Kasun, op. cit.
Ibid.
Rita Beamish, "U.S. Presses for More Liberal Abortion Language in U.N. Plan," The Associated Press, April 7, 1994.
Brian Robertson, op. cit.
Joseph Duggan, "New World Family Planning," The Washington Times, July 19, 1994, p. A15.
"Remarks to the National Academy of Sciences," Public Papers of the Presidents, June 29, 1994, 30 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. Pg. 1375.
Ibid.
Testimony of Christine de Marcellus de Vollmer Herrera, op. cit.
Ibid.
Brian Robertson, op. cit.
Ibid.
Testimony of Christine de Marcellus de Vollmer Herrera, op. cit.
Ibid.
Brian Robertson, op. cit.
Ibid.
George Archibald, op. cit.
Ibid.
William Branigin, "Indonesia, Philippines Differ Sharply in Population Dynamics," The Washington Post, September 5, 1994, p. A20.
Geneive Abdo, "U.N. Population Conference Under Fire: Planners Fear Muslim-Vatican Alliance," The Dallas Morning News, July 2, 1994, p. 12A.
"Cairo '94: Is U.S. Softening Abortion Stance? More Boycotts," Abortion Report, August 31, 1994.
Rita Beamish, "U.S. Girds for Showdown With Vatican Over Abortion," The Associated Press, August 31, 1994.
Testimony of Christine de Marcellus de Vollmer Herrera, op. cit.
Brian Robertson, op. cit.
Patrick J. Buchanan, "Clinton's Religious Wars: Intolerance Drives His Administration's Christian Bashing and Abortion Extremism," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 6, 1994, p. B3.
Ibid.
Joel Achenbach, "At Summit, Dueling Hemispheres: North-South Rift Over Overpopulation." The Washington Post, June 5, 1992, p. C1.
|