The third PrepCom of the U.N. International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) ended in contention in New York City. Resistance centered on abortion and contraception for adolescents among Christians and some Muslims.
Nafis Sadik, Secretary General of the conference, indicated that issues such as “reproductive health,” “family planning,” and “safe motherhood” also remained unresolved because some delegates feared they would be interpreted as abortion on demand. “The program of action does not propose legalization of abortion,” said Sadik. “It tries to bring to the world’s attention the consequences of unsafe abortion as a major public health issue for women,” she explained. Further, she continued, “It should be treated as a health problem, by providing information and services, and all countries should address why abortions take place” (AP, 25 April 1994).
The “Safe Motherhood” initiative, begun by a political-economic partnership composed of the World Bank, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the U.N. Development Program (UNDP) and the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), gave rise to disputes concerning nations’ sovereignty due to its focus on breaking down legal restrictions to abortion in developing nations. Within the framework of the partnership, the World Bank is intended to provide financial pressures to change countries’ abortion laws (see “World Bank Safe Motherhood Initiative,” PRI Review, vol. 2, no. 3, May/June 1992).
The U.S. State Department’s “Global Counselor” under the Clinton Administration, Tim Wirth, reported that the U.S. will insist on the inclusion of abortion in the final declaration to be completed in September in Cairo. “Ultimately,” Wirth said, “I think there will be two or three or four countries who can’t agree with that. And ultimately when you get to Cairo in the final document, there is effectively a vote.” “You can have a vote on any of these things and two-thirds wins. But I think there are very seldom votes in the U.N. system and those countries would then just choose not to sign the final document,” he said (U.S, State Departments daily press briefing, 25 April 1994).
The Clinton Administration intends to spend $585 million in FYl995 for population programs (“Alan Eisner, U.S. to press for abortion in U.N. declaration,” Reuters, 25 April 1994). Sixty million of those funds are to be directed to UNFPA which had previously been denied funding because of its reported involvement in the direction and management of the coercive China program of abortion and sterilization.
The draft ICPD document claims to address the issues of: population, development and human rights; the responsibility of society for human development; population and sustainable development; partnership in population; gender and equity; the family; reproductive rights and reproductive health; health and mortality, population distribution, urbanization and internal migration; international migration; population information, education and communication; technology, research and development; national action; international cooperation; partnership with non-governmental groups; and follow-up at both the national and international levels.
However, rather than discussing the interaction of population growth and development, the language of the document focuses primarily on the issue of sexual choice for women and the contraceptive technologies necessary to activate those choices. There is a lack of clarity on the meaning of development and the variables used to measure it. The discussion of development concentrates, for the most part, on the role of women in development and employment. Clear examples of the negative effect of population reduction on economic development which had been specifically cited in regional conferences, such as the Latin American Consensus of 1993 at the Mexico City Regional Population Conference, are not commented upon.
The major thrust of the document is addressed to the control of women’s fertility, “sexual and reproductive health,” a wide range of choices provided for contraceptive technology, women’s issues and maternal health. The international community is called upon to establish a global facility for the procurement of contraceptives.
Citations of statistical sources are either lacking or utilize an extremely loose statistical base, particularly in relation to sexual behavior and “unmet family planning needs.” Nowhere in the document are there any definitions for “reproductive health” or “reproductive rights” although the terms are used repetitively.
Not only is support for the traditional family conspicuously lacking in the document, the constant reference to the “family in all its forms” raises uncommitted and same sex relationships to an equal level of recognition in society. Subsequent references to the family as the “basic unit of society” must be understood within the context of the pluralistic definition.
The radically individualistic presentation of “sexual choice” within the language of the document ignores understandings of interpersonal relationships implied in sexuality. The approval of sexual relationships is contingent only on physical “safety,” and access to a wide range of contraceptives and abortion. Ethical behavioral principles are lacking; ideology is substituted for moral standards. Massive propaganda programs are proposed through mass media and education in order to infuse the societies of the nations with population propaganda and particular views regarding sexuality. There appears to be no room for social and cultural values which take exception to the values presented in the document.
Recognition of “individual rights, needs and responsibilities” in the area of family planning remains one of the key differences between the Cairo draft and earlier population policies according to Nafis Sadik, Secretary General of the Conference. “When the needs of the individual are addressed, those of larger groups, such as the family, the community, the nation, and indeed the planet are more likely to be kept in the right perspective,” said Sadik. Sadik was later reported to have told Monsignor Diarmuid Martin, a Vatican representative, “not to impose the views of one billion people on 4.6 billion others.”
