|
During the last twenty years, international conferences have become a maor part of the United Nations' activities. Nafis Sadik, secretary general of the Cairo conference on population, claims that conferences now occupy 70 percent of the U.N.'s work. Since 1474 the U.N. has sponsored four conferences on women-Meuco City, 1975, Copenhagen, 1980, Nairobi, 1985, and Beijing, 1n5; three conferences on populationBucharest, 1974, Mexico City, 1984, and Cairo, 1994; the World Summit for Children-New York, 1990; the Earth Summit in Rio, 1992; the Vienna Conference on Human Rights, 1993; the Copenhagen Social Summit, 1995; plus a number of smaller conferences.
These conferences are designed to draw world attention to the area under consideration and produce "consensus" documents which will provide guidelines for national and international action. The documents are not enforceable documents, but they are considered to have a moral authority because they are supposed to represent a consensus of world opinion. Given its massive debt, the U.N. might find better ways to use its scarce resources, but in principle there is nothing wrong with having an international conference to focus world attention on a particular area of concern. Unfortunately, these conferences have been easy targets for those who want to use the U.N. to serve their particular ideological agendas.
The platforms go through a series of drafts before being presented for debate at the actual conference. Several preliminary committee meetings or PrepComs are held before the conference, where work on the platform is begun. Regional conferences held in various parts of the world offer input. The U.N. staff writes a draft and submits it to the delegates at the final PrepCom, which is held in New York. Then, the government representatives discuss the draft and try to eliminate as much controversy as possible before the actual conference. Sections where agreement is not reached are "bracketed" (enclosed in square brackets [ ] ) and only the bracketed sections can be debated at the conference. The diplomats' ideal would be a conference without controversy-an expensive photo-op to prove that something wonderful had been accomplished.
U.N. conferences operate under a system of consensus. While voting is theoretically possible, a vote is almost never taken. The system was designed to protect the rights of small countries and to build popular support for programs. In the past, consensus on the wording of agreements, treaties, conventions, and documents such as conference plans of action was achieved by long and careful negotiations. This meant that whenever a nation had objections to a given word, phrase, or concept, discussions to refine the language, find synonyms or definitions continued until each nation was satisfied. If, after prolonged negotiations, a nation could not be prevailed upon to agree to the consensus, its delegation could, during the final session of the actual conference, register reservations to those sections of the document with which it disagreed.
In past years, "reservations" to a consensus had been extremely few and usually on technicalities. Those items on which consensus could not be achieved were normally dropped from the final document. This was the reason for the years of protracted meetings, and it is why U.N. assemblies are so loath to take things to a vote. A vote would be a frustration of the idea of consensus.
It should be, therefore, a source of concern that during the recent series of conferences-particularly, since the Rio summit on the environment-the system of consensus has come under attack. Certain forces within the U.N. system-namely a coalition from Western nations, U.N. agencies, and accredited Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)-have been determined to push policies in a predetermined direction and force their agenda into the text. Their agenda includes pushing for the legalization and expansion of abortion, various "sexual rights," and other items on the feminist agenda. As a result, the number of reservations has escalated.
In Rio at the end of the Earth Summit, the prime minister of Norway, Mrs. Gro Haarlem Bruntdland (who had chaired the conference) called for abandoning the system of consensus, because the slower countries are impeding the progress of those who wish to advance more quickly. It was well known that Bruntdland was distressed that abortion and other elements she favored had not been inserted into the text.
In Beijing, the system of consensus was essentially abandoned as the leadership forced through its agenda and told dissenting nations that if they did not agree with a particular wording, they could make a reservation.
NGOs
To assist its deliberation, the U.N. accredits representatives from national and international Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) who lobby government delegates. The NGOs have grown in power and influence with the U.N. bureaucracy and outnumber government delegates. To further increase NGO participation, the U.N. began authorizing forums to be held in conjunction with international conferences where the representatives from NGOs present workshops and organize caucuses to focus their lobbying effort.
The NGO movement was supposed to bring the voice of grassroots groups and international charities into the discussions, but the NGO movement has been taken over by groups which have failed to achieve grassroots support and see the U.N. as a way to achieve through lobbying what they could not in elections. Many of the NGO groups have permanent offices in New York and paid lobbyists. In particular, the well-funded population-control lobbyists have gained tremendous influence at the U.N. Refugees from the sixties have found a haven at the U.N., where they are busy pushing old causes with old rhetoric as though the conservative tide sweeping through the U.S. and other countries were just a bad dream. Among these are U.N. junkies, who enjoy being where the action is, aging sixties' peace marchers, promoters of new age religions, one-world government advocates, and radical environmentalists. They have been joined by feminists whose postmodernist ideology was cultivated in the hothouse of campus academia and militant lesbian activists. The most important of these refugees is former U.S. Congresswoman Bella Abzug.
Bella had been elected to Congress in 1970 from a Manhattan district, but she had higher ambitions. Active in the antiwar movement and other left-wing causes, she saw herself as speaking for all women. In 1977 she chaired the First National Women's Conference in Houston. After being defeated in several attempts to run for higher office and unable to regain her old seat, she retreated to the U.N. where she ingratiated herself to the U.N. bureaucracy by always being available to give a speech or serve on a committee.
In 1990 the Women USA Fund organized WEDO, the Women's Environment and Development Organization, "a global information and advocacy network" with Bella as head [Mim Kelber, "Institutions: the Women's Environment and Development Organization," Environment, Volume 36, Number 8 (October 1994), p. 43]. The organization's name reflects the fact that the first target of WEDO was the Rio conference on the environment. WEDO's influence changed the focus of the conference to its agenda-abortion and women's empowerment. Since Rio, WEDO has continued to manipulate the conference process to push its agenda and turn every issue into a women's issue.
WEDO is well funded and well connected. According to WEDO officials: "WEDO has received recognition and support from various sources including MacArthur, Ford, Noyes, and Turner Foundations, as well as from United Nations agencies, governments, and individual donors. Its core budget for 1994 is $630,000 with additional funds being raised for special programs" [Kelber, "Institutions," p. 43].
As the leader of WEDO, Bella Abzug was appointed to the NGO advisory committee for the Rio conference. Bella's experience was crucial to WEDO's development: "Drawing on the political and legislative skills she had developed as a women's rights advocate in the U.S. Congress, Abzug introduced an activist methodology for NGO women" [Kelber, "Institutions," p. 44].
WEDO has been instrumental in the organization of lobbying caucuses. Caucuses critique the text, circulate their recommendations for changes, and organize lobbying efforts. The largest and most important of the caucuses, the Women's Caucus, supposedly represents the interests of all women, but, in fact, is under WEDO control. WEDO also dominates a number of the other caucuses, as profamily NGOs discovered when they tried to participate in caucus deliberation.
The WEDO-controlled Linkage Caucus claims to be working to assure that the commitments made at previous conferences to the WEDO agenda are not weakened by subsequent conferences. The Linkage Caucus has, needless to say, no interest in protecting profamily commitments. The WEDO rule appears to be: Everything previously approved at U.N. conferences that they agree with is sacred, and everything that they disagree with can be changed.
During the PrepComs, Bella was in her element. Never seen without her signature hat, she rallied the Women's Caucus and spoke at U.N.sponsored press conferences. There were persistent rumors about her health, and her admirers wheeled her around to spare her undue strain, but she could walk if she had to.
The real work of WEDO goes on behind the scenes. WEDO has become a shadow U.N. In Cairo, Bella was overheard claiming that she had written the Platform for Action. She insisted that Beijing would be her conference.
IPPF
The battle for the soul of the U.N. has been going on since its founding; however, for purposes of this discussion, the final PrepCom for Cairo held in New York in March of 1994 provides a good starting point. While a small number of prolife groups have for a long time been concerned about the influence of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and other population groups within the U.N., the results of the PrepCom for the Cairo conference on population raised their consciousness. Pope John Paul II, alarmed over the proposed platform, wrote a personal letter to every head of state in the world listing his concerns. He also spoke strongly and frequently on the dangers of the Cairo conference. As a result, many leaders in Latin America, Africa, and the Moslem world became concerned.
The pope's efforts would have been in vain, however, if it had not been for the courageous action of Sra. Marta Lorena Casco, the government representative from Honduras, and Cecilia Royals from the National Institute of Womanhood. These women's work assured the bracketing of the most offensive parts of the text.
At the previous conference on population held in Mexico City in 1984, the Reagan administration had fought for language which would keep the U.N. from promoting abortion. The Mexico City language reads: "Abortion shall not be promoted as a method of family planning." This language had been used to restrict funding to the International Planned Parenthood Federation and other abortion provider groups.
IPPF was determined that Cairo would be their conference. They were convinced that in Cairo they could: 1) engineer the removal of the Mexico City language, 2) have abortion declared a human right as part of the newly created category of sexual and reproductive rights, and 3) receive commitments for $17 billion of new funding for their "family planning" programs around the world.
U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) might be running the conference, but IPPF was so deeply involved in the planning and organization of the Cairo conference, that one of the profamily delegates quipped that IPPF and UNFPA had been in bed together for so long that they qualified as a common-law marriage.
The Clinton administration came into office deeply committed to promoting abortion rights, including the repudiation of the Mexico City language and resumption of funding for abortion around the world. With the U.S. government no longer opposing their agenda, IPPF and its allies believed they would be able to roll over any opposition.
POPULATION CONTROL
At the U.N., IPPF has worked closely with WEDO. There had been tension between feminists and the population control movement, caused by the coercive methods used in many parts of the world to achieve population reduction. Third World women complained to Western feminists that IPPF and other population groups promoted policies which coerced poor women to accept sterilization, IUDs, and dangerous and experimental drugs. Third World feminists reminded their Western sisters that freedom of choice means the right to choose abortion and contraception, not be forced into it by overzealous population planners.
Third World feminists also documented massive abuses. In Latin America, women in labor are pressured to sign a paper agreeing to be sterilized. Many women report being sterilized without their consent during Cesarean sections. In Mexico and Kenya, women are so afraid of being involuntarily sterilized or given an IUD without their knowledge that they avoid government-run health programs.
Major donors of foreign aid, such as the World Bank, USAID, and UNFPA, routinely tie aid to acceptance of programs that promote sterilization, the IUD, and chemical contraception. Kenyan doctors reported having closets full of condoms and cases of IUDs provided by Western donors, but no latex gloves for surgery or simple antibiotics.
Contraceptive methods not considered safe for Western women are marketed in poor countries. Not only has the IUD been linked to pelvic infections and infertility, but this risk is increased when women lack basic sanitation and access to prompt medical care. Third World women are frequently recruited to test new forms of contraception, often without informed consent. The IUD and hormonal forms of contraception frequently cause excess bleeding during the woman's menstrual periods, increasing the risk of iron deficiency in women who are already undernourished. Doctors are given funds to insert the Norplant contraceptives, but not to remove them. Women who suffer from severe nausea or continuous bleeding often cannot afford to have the Norplant removed.
A pediatrician from Latin America, who was so afraid of retaliation that she asked not only that her name not be printed, but that the name of her country also be concealed, told of repeated use of foreign aid to pressure women to accept the insertion of IUDs or sterilization. She said that when she signed up for a program to encourage breast feeding, she discovered that the program was actually a way to gain the confidence of new mothers so that they could be pressured into accepting "modern" methods of contraception. She also told of how, in the rural areas of her country, the program that provides free milk for children is linked to population control. To qualify as a milk distributor, the doctor had to agree to insert a certain number of IUDs. The grant for the program includes money for the doctor to keep records to prove he has filled his quota and filed reports with the funding organization. This inevitably leads to abuses. Many women report having IUDs inserted without their consent. The pediatrician said that she was so concerned that the mothers she worked with would be pressured during labor into agreeing to sterilization that she made a point to be present to protect the rights of her patients.
Permanent forms of contraception can have tragic effects in areas of abject poverty where children area woman's only social security. The high infant and child mortality rate can result in a situation where a woman who bears three or four children may not see any of them live to adulthood. If a woman who is pressured into agreeing to sterilization or rendered in fertile by an IUD after the birth of one or two children loses her living children, she is often deserted by her husband and left without any resources or hope for the future.
Germaine Greer, one of the original leaders of the feminist movement and author of The Female Eunuch, wrote an entire book, Sex and Destiny, to document the population control movement's abuse of women in poor countries. She asks,
|
Why should we erect the model of recreational sex in the public places of all the world? Who are we to invade the marriage bed of veiled women? Do we dare drive off the matriarch and exterminate the peasantry? Why should we labor to increase life expectancy when we have no time or use for the old? Why should we care more about curbing the increase of the numbers of poor than they do themselves? Who are we to decide the fate of the earth? [Germaine Greer, Sex and Destiny (New York: Harper & Row, 1984), p. xiv] |
|
The population lobby has reacted to the bad publicity by claiming it has toned down its coercive programs, but reports from the field indicate that little has changed. However, the populationists have recognized that their emphasis on providing contraception and sterilization did not result in lower birth rates unless it was combined with increased female education and employment. Therefore, the population lobby now puts added emphasis on programs for increasing women's education and women's employment outside the home.
CONTRACEPTIVE IMPERIALISM
Many in developing countries no longer believe the populationist line. Mercy Walbin from Eco-News, Kenya, complains that the population programs being promoted in Africa are not living up to the promises made for them:
|
We have successfully reduced our population to an average of 3 children from 4 . . . . Our reduction in population is not matched by a corresponding improvement in our economy. In fact things are worse .... You can take the women to the hospital and put in as many IUDs as you want. This makes me want to cry. The donors are just interested in demographics, not the person. The morale in the medical field is very low. One doctor says he can't go on. The patients can't afford to fill their prescriptions. He has to go into his own pocket to buy medicine in serious cases. Our shelves are full of the pill and condoms and IUDs but medicines are not available. |
|
Elizabeth Sobo, who writes and lobbies to draw attention to the economic exploitation of Africa, insists that Africa is not overpopulated, but underpopulated. Africa's low population density means that roads are so lightly traveled, they sometimes revert to jungle or are covered with sand. Low population density increases the cost of providing basic services to outlying areas. Sobo points out that Africa isn't poor, but rich in natural resources and agricultural products. It is bankrupt because developed countries pay low prices for its products and the people are taxed to pay interest on the debt borrowed by corrupt regimes whose leaders are now basking on the Riviera. Much of the money borrowed went back to the donor countries to pay for projects that had little or no effect on improving the lives of people. Many African nations have already paid interest equal to the principle borrowed and still owe the original amount and more interest every year. In order to pay their debts, countries have been forced to cut health and education funding. At each of the recent conferences, the debtor nations have begged for debt relief, and at each they have been turned down. Funding for population control, however, has been increased.
What has also increased is the cynicism of people from Africa and Latin America, many of whom now view the massive funding for population control as a calculated move to impoverish their countries. A number of African and Latin American diplomats have suggested privately that the population programs are not designed to promote the welfare of people in developing countries, but to preserve the power of the developed countries. The developed countries of the West and Asian rim all have birth rates which are below replacement. Given current trends, their populations will begin to decline early in the next century. (The reason for the current increase in population in the developed world today is increased life expectancy. Fewer people are being born, but more people are living into their eighties and nineties.)
Population growth in developing countries is slowing, but it is still above replacement. Some argue that increased population in the developing world could fuel economic development. If this happened, these countries would no longer be a market for Western goods, but would begin to produce goods for export. They would no longer be forced to sell their natural resources and agricultural products at cheap prices. Large populations in developing countries would mean that they would be able to field large armies, thereby shifting the balance of power in the world. In light of this, support for population control by rich countries looks less like humanitarian compassion and more like a means by which the rich countries intend to insure their continued economic and military dominance.
CAIRO PREPCOM
The PrepComs are held at the U.N. building in New York. The main committees meet in the large conference rooms on the lower level of the U.N. building. The rooms look out over the East River and are equipped with simultaneous translation systems and galleries for observers.
During PrepComs the basement of the U.N. is a bustle of activity. Tables in the corridors and inside the meetings are covered with piles of literature from NGOs, materials from national delegations, and official U.N. publications. The walls and doors display notices of caucuses, workshops, and meetings. Tight security requires NGO representatives to wear special identification badges, pass through metal detectors, and have their bags x-rayed every time they enter the building.
At the PrepCom for Cairo, the forces pushing for the population agenda were determined to brook no interference. Sra. Casco, with all the charm and style so characteristic of Latin American women, made it clear that she had no intention of surrendering to pressure. She insisted that the prosexual and reproductive rights language in the draft platform be placed in brackets. The U.S. delegation tried various forms of intimidation to force Sra. Casco and other profamily delegates into submission. At one point, the U.S. delegation invited her to a meeting in one of the rooms in the basement of the U.N., apparently hoping to intimidate her. When she realized their intention, she simply got up and left.
Pressure was also put on the Honduran government, including veiled threats that U.S. and U.N. aid would be withheld if Sra. Casco did not keep quiet. Sra. Casco refused to back down, insisting that she was merely defending her country's prolife, profamily constitution and laws against proabortion, antifamily language proposed for the platform. Women from the National Institute for Womanhood, a Washingtonbased grassroots, volunteer women's group, supported Sra. Casco's stand. NIW's president, Cecilia Royals, and Mary Suarez Ham, sister of the former Miami mayor and mother of eleven, had come to New York to support prowoman, profamily policies. As the pressure on Honduras grew, Cecilia called on friends to send faxes to the president of Honduras to let him know that there were many people who supported Marta Lorena's courageous stand.
The personal attacks on Sra. Casco backfired. The representative from Benin was so offended by what he considered to be ungentlemanly and rude treatment directed toward Sra. Casco, that in the heat of the debate he intervened and told the chair to bracket whatever Sra. Casco wanted bracketed. As a result of Sra. Casco's courageous stand, the draft went to Cairo with the most offensive sections still open for discussion.
|
|