United Nations elites prepare for their global anti-life convention 

From now through the end of the century, be prepared for a steady diet of global summits and UN gatherings on one alleged "crisis" or another. This year, 1994, of course, is the year of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), also known as the Population Summit. The main event will be held in September in Cairo, Egypt. Like the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, it will be a huge media and celebrity happening, out of which will come United Nations agreements and treaties aimed at imposing global environmental and population controls. The Rio conference gave us treaties on global warming, biodiversity, deforestation, and the enormous Agenda 21, an eco-fascist blueprint for regulating, to minuscule detail, every human activity on planet Earth. 

The documents that come forth from these summits, however, are largely preordained by the work of globalist technicians at UN Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meetings months or years before. Thus, what will be presented to the world at Cairo in September as the UN Programme of Action for Population and Development will be the handiwork of several hundred delegates from the world's nations at Population PrepComs 1, 2, and 3. 

PrepCom3, which took place at the United Nations headquarters in New York during April 4th through the 22nd, concluded with many contentious issues in the final draft of the Programme of Action still uuresolved. Foremost among these is abortion, which pitted representatives from the Holy See and its allied delegates from many countries against the militant pro-abortion forces in control of the ICPD and the PrepComs.

ICPD Leadership

The outcome of PrepCom3 and, ultimately, of the Population Summit, was apparent with the appointment of the two top ICPD honchos, Dr. Nails Sadik of Pakistan and Dr. Fred Sai of Ghana. Dr. (Mrs.) Nails Sadik, secretary-general of ICPD, is also executive director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the premiere global abortion-promotion agency. As chief executive of UNFPA, Dr. Sadik directs a program with a budget of $237 million and a staff of 800 overseeing population control projects in 141 countries. 

Dr. Fred Sai was chairman of Population PrepComs 2 and 3 and will most likely be chairman of the Cairo conference. He is currently president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and chairman of Ghana's National Population Commission. Dr. Sai, no doubt, was caused some minor embarrassment during the PrepCom when pro-life delegates distributed an article he had written equating unborn babies with "parasites." 

Drs. Sadik and Sai saw to it that virtually every other leadership position at the PrepComs was filled with like-minded anti-natalist, pro-abortion activists. The delegations from the major powers, especially the U.S., were completely in the Sadik-Sai camp. Heading the U.S. delegation was former Senator Timothy Wirth, now Special Counsel to the President, as avid an abortion advocate and disciple of "world order" as is to be found. Joining Wirth on the U.S. delegation was former Congressperson Bella Abzug, feminoid panjandrumess and co-chair of the Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO). "Bellowing Bella," as she was fondly referred to in Congress, wore several hats at the PrepCom: official delegate; unofficial captainess of the militant women's non-governmental organizations (NGOs); unofficial spokesperson and interviewee for the media; and chief feminist pundit and pontificator. The Earth Times, the semi-official newspaper of the conference, provided Ms. Abzug with her own daily column space, entitled "Frankly Speaking," which she ably exploited for firing off fusillades of feminist forensics. 

Bella's WEDO and its sister NGOs were so heavily represented at the PrepCom, both on delegations and as observers, that she couldn't help gloating in her last "Frankly Speaking" column of the conference. Wrote the gleeful Ms. Abzug: "I must say that I think the real heroes of this PrepCom are the wonderful women from the NGOs who served on government delegations. The 'insiders' worked closely with the 'outsiders' to put together the most sophisticated political advocacy campaign to date." 

No argument there. But Bella's "insiders" and "outsiders" -- whether they knew it or not -- were laboring to build a global leviathan that Insiders from organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Trilateral Commission (TC) intend to use as a world government in their "new world order." The CFR one-world imprint was all over the U.S. input -- official and unofficial -- to the PrepCom. On the official side, the CFR influence began at the top with CFR member President Clinton and proceeded down through Secretary of State Warren Christopher (CFR), UN Ambassador Madelaine Albright (CFR), and delegation leader Tim Wirth (CFR).

Army of NGOs

The CFR influence was evident also in the huge NGO contingent, numbering some 400 organizations. Along with WEDO, one of the NGO heavyweights at PrepCom3 was the International Women's Health Coalition, whose president, Joan Dunlop (CFR), wielded big clout. Like Ms. Abzug, many NGO leaders also doubled as official delegates. Of course, no one in the CFR-dominated media bothered to notice or report a very salient connection between virtually all of the U.S. and international NGOs: their common funding sources. If you examine the NGO budgets you find that they are heavily dependent on such CFR fiefdoms as the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, the U.S. Agency for International Development, UNFPA, and IPPF. The old saying, "Who pays the piper calls the tune," certainly counted at PrepCom3; the "independent" NGOs dutifully sang the CFR "new world order" tune. 

They had considerable Insider direction, naturally. Besides the regular, controlled press cheering on the would-be population police, the Earth Times was always there serving up a steady diet of politically correct global-think. During the PrepCom, the pages of the Earth Times were daily filled with columns by, articles about, or interviews with participants such as Victoria Markell of Population Action International, Wanda Nowicka of the Federation for Women and Family Planning in Warsaw, Avabi Wadia, president of the Family Planning Association of India, Dr. A.B. Sulaiman, executive director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of Nigeria, Dilys Cossey, European consultant to IPPF and member of the UK delegation, Sandra Kabir, executive director of the Bangaladesh Women's Health Coalition, Alexander C. Sanger, president of Planned Parenthood of New York, Peggy Curlin, president of the Centre for Development and Population Activities, William N. Ryerson, executive vice president of Population Communications International, and Qui Shuhua, secretary-general of the Chinese Family Planning Association (CFPA). 

The CFPA is a fascinating example of the intersecting interests of the CFR one-worlders and their totalitarian confreres. Ostensibly a "volunteer" group that helps implement China's brutally coercive population controls, CFPA is funded jointly by the Beijing communist government, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, and IPPF. When one sees these apparently disparate forces working together in concert, suddenly the purpose behind all of the hundreds of millions of dollars funneled to these obscure, far-flung groups over the years makes perfect sense. 

"A Development Problem"

Pro-life critics were not the only ones to note the blatantly one-sided tilt of the whole conference setup. A seemingly unlikely critic of the incestuous arrangement among PrepCom personnel was Dr. Mahbub ul Haq, senior adviser to the United Nations Development Program. In a luncheon speech to the Eminent Citizens Committee for Cairo '94 on April 18th at the UN, Dr. Haq complained, "The people here are from population and health ministries. They have a vested interest in family planning, not as part of development." Indeed, globalist ideology aside, the PrepCom participants have much to gain by pushing for as broad and pervasive (and expensive) a "solution" to the population "crisis" as possible; they will be the recipients of the power and funds to implement the programs which they design. 

However, Dr. Haq's objections quickly proved to be an offering of false opposition. Haq, who worked closely at the World Bank with Robert S. McNamara (CFR) for many years and helped shower tens of millions of dollars on programs to flood developing countries with contraceptives, now admits that approach was a failure at reducing population growth. He would rather see current emphasis placed on the "developmental" model, which is designed to reduce population growth through economic development and, especially, "female education." "Population is a development problem, not a clinical problem," Haq said. "That should be our mantra for all times." 

But if you think the good doctor is talking about scrapping the socialist policies that have been miring Third World countries in poverty, hold your cheers; he is saying nothing of the sort. According to Haq, "In the global life boat, it is not just numbers but their weight that counts. In global terms, population increase in the rich nations and their existing resource consumption patterns are the real problem, not population increase in the poor countries." What is he really after? He continues: "A major restructuring of the world's income and consumption patterns -- especially a fundamental change in the current lifestyles of the rich nations -- may be a necessary precondition for any viable strategy of sustainable human development at the global level." The rich nations, says Haq "will have to enlarge assistance for the entire range of human development programs."

Global "Saviors"

What Haq, and those Insiders whose views he represents, are after is much more ambitious than merely making abortion more freely available, or even making it mandatory, as in Communist China. They want to centralize and seize control over all aspects of human life on this planet under the pretext of saving us from our own gluttonous self-destruction. Bella Abzug echoed Haq's theme in her April 20th column, proclaiming: "The historic opportunity of this gathering in Cairo is to help shape and define the guiding principles for the next decade. We must face the challenge to implement Agenda 21...." 

Agenda 21, a massive regulatory monstrosity, is the proposed over-arching framework for the new global green regime into which the population plan and all other eco-schemes will fit. Warning of the "dire consequences of unrestrained human population growth," Agenda 21 proposes "an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by every person on Earth" and calls for "specific changes in the activities of all people." 

Moreover, the document Ms. Abzug and company are now pushing so aggressively makes this chilling boast: 

Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced -- a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level. 

PrepCom3 gave us a glimpse of the "collective decision-making" process that we can expect to see with increasing frequency. Right from the start of the PrepCom, it was clear that, Dr. Sai's repeated assurances notwithstanding, all talk of "consensus" was a farce. Latin American and Arab state delegates were particularly upset that none of the recommendations they had made at PrepCom2 had been incorporated into the draft document for PrepCom3. It was as if all their labors had been for naught; the Sadik-Sai forces had ignored all of their "input." 

This same arrogant abuse of power continued throughout PrepCom3. During the first ten of the twelve working days, the delegates broke up into working groups to go through the painstaking process of line-by-line, word-by-word analysis and negotiation of the 15 chapters of the Programme of Action. Since most of the delegates for countries that opposed much of the program were non-English speaking, the Sadik-Sai cabal cleverly marginalized them by publishing the daily draft revisions only in English. Since the UN has a surfeit of translators and a huge budget, this decision was transparently a ploy to keep the opposition from reading, understanding, and effectively countering the proposed revisions. However, even those for whom English is the first language found they needed "translators" to get at the real meaning of the ambiguous UN bureaucratese in which the documents were written.

Papal Opposition

Another tactic of the UN globocrats, the Clinton delegation, and their media allies was to play on religious bigotry by portraying all opposition to their grand plan as part of an obstructionist conspiracy of the Vatican and its lackeys. "The Pope has no veto over the Cairo Conference," read the title of one Earth Times editorial. Other headlines blared: "Vatican is accused of forcing retreat from commitments," and "Pope blasts PrepCom: Vatican escalates its campaign on the Cairo Conference." 

The Holy See made no secret of its opposition to much of the Programme of Action and openly used its influence not only with Catholic countries, but with Arab states as well, to form opposition blocs. Pope John Paul II himself attacked the conference proceedings on more than one occasion. On Sunday, April 17th, the Pope expressed his "sad surprise regarding some orientations which have emerged during the preparation for the international Conference on Population and Development." "It is now more urgent than ever," he said, "to react to models of behavior which are the fruit of a permissive and hedonistic culture, for which disinterested self-giving, control of one's instincts, a sense of responsibility are presented as concepts linked with a long-past era." 

The Holy See and other opponents particularly objected to the UNFPA-IPPF abortion/sterilization/contraception agenda marching under code phrases like "reproductive rights," "sexual and reproductive health," "family planning," "fertility regulation," and "pregnancy termination." 

Although the Vatican provided leadership to the opposition, charges that it was imposing its own "minority" view on the world were not only false but covered up the real truth: that a small coterie of globalist elites is attempting to impose its tyrannical agenda on the rest of the world.

Pro-Abortion Imperialism

The International Right to Life Federation accurately described the UN's and the Clinton Administration's ICPD agenda as "pro-abortion imperialism." The organization noted that "at least 95 nations have laws that are very protective or somewhat protective of pre-born human beings. These laws cover 37 percent of the world's population, or over two billion (2,000,000,000) persons. The Clinton Administration now proclaims that these nations should adopt laws that guarantee women 'reproductive choice' on abortion. Where such laws have been adopted, in the U.S. and elsewhere, they have resulted in sharp increases in abortion rates -- which would serve the Administration's desire to advance 'population control.'" 

Because of broad disagreement on abortion and many other issues, the draft Programme of Action is filled with many bracketed words, phrases, and paragraphs that will have to be taken up by those attending the Cairo Summit in September. Much of the most hotly disputed language appears in Chapter 7, "Reproductive rights, sexual and reproductive health and family planning." Section 38 of that chapter has been bracketed in its entirety. It reads: "[Countries should remove legal, regulatory an.d social barriers to sexual and reproductive health information and care for adolescents and must ensure that the programmes and attitudes of health-care providers do not restrict the access of adolescents to the services and information they need. In doing so, services for adolescents must safeguard their rights to privacy, confidentiality, informed consent and respect]." 

Other problematic passages include: 

• Section 37: "The objectives are: a) To address adolescent [sexual and reproductive health] issues, including unwanted pregnancy, [unsafe abortion], sexually transmitted diseases...." 
• Section 39: "Countries, with the support of the international community, should protect and promote the rights of adolescents to [sexual and reproductive health] education, information and care and greatly reduce the number of adolescent pregnancies." 
• Section 40: "Sexually active adolescents will require special family-planning information, counseling and services, including contraceptive services...." Section 40 also opens the door for mandated "re-education" of parents in their proper "duties." The ominous parallels to Nazi and communist programs of the past are apparent: "Governments and non-governmental organizations should promote programmes directed to the education of parents, with the objective of improving the interaction of parents and children to enable them to comply better with their educational duties to support the process of maturation of their children, particularly in the areas of sexual behavior and [sexual reproductive health]." 
• Section 30: "Support should be given to integral sexual education and services for children and young people with the support and guidance of their parents, and in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child" (emphasis added). Those familiar with the Orwellian potential of that dangerous convention (see THE NEW AMERICAN, June 18, 1991, page 4) will recognize that this is a back-door approach to placing the family under a UN Big Brother/Big Mother tyranny.

Hardball Tactics

Over the next three months leading up to Cairo, the Clinton Administration, the UN, the CFR media cartel, and the huge lobbying army of the environmental-population NGOs will be hammering mercilessly on those countries that have lead the opposition to the ICPD program: Nicaragua, Turkey, Honduras, Malta, Latvia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Ecuador, Morocco, Benin, Argentina, and others. These nations, many of which are faced with heavy debt burdens and struggling economies, will very likely be threatened with loss of USAID funds, IMF and World Bank loans, military aid, and trade deals. The Clinton Administration will be using the same kind of "hardball" tactics it used so effectively in the NAFTA battle. 

At the close of PrepCom3, the New York Times quoted Monsignor Diarmuid Martin, the Vatican PrepCom representative, as charging, "The United States wants the question of abortion as a fundamental dimension of population policy throughout the world to be a major theme of the conference." To which Timothy Wirth responded: "I think it is unfair that any group would say the U.S. is out promoting abortion. That is simply not true. The U.S. has been a wonderfully moderating influence...." 

The following day, however, 12 religious leaders revealed what kind of "wonderfully moderating influence" the Administration was really providing. The group, led by Chuck Colson, chairman of Prison Fellowship, and Dr. James Dobson, president of Focus on the Family, sent an open letter to President Clinton urging him to rescind a State Department cable directing all diplomatic and consular posts to pressure foreign governments to support greater abortion availability in the ICPD plan of action. The church leaders called the cable, which had been sent in March, "an unprecedented misuse of our diplomatic corps for political ends." The letter charged that "the countries the State Department is pressuring to embrace liberalized abortion policies, often in violation of their own laws, deeply resent what they regard as cultural imperialism." In addition to moral concerns, the group expressed alarm over the urging of greater access to abortion in countries that often do not have antibiotics, ultrasound machines, and even sterile operating rooms. They predict that introducing a surgical procedure like abortion into some of these regions would result in "massive infections and death" for women receiving abortions. 

Besides Colson and Dobson, the signers of the letter included: Dr. Joseph M. Stowell, president of Moody Bible Institute; Dr. Charles Swindoll, president of Insight for Living; Dr. Edwin Young, president of the Southern Baptist Convention; Dr. Paul A. Cedar, president of the Evangelical Free Church of America; Dr. Billy Melvin, executive director of the National Association of Evangelicals; Dr. D. James Kennedy, pastor of Florida's Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church; Dr. Brandt Gustavson, president of the National Religious Broadcasters; Dr. Bill Bright, president of Campus Crusade for Christ; and Reverend John Perkins, president of the John Perkins Foundation for Reconciliation and Development. Through their organizations, the cosigners of the letter represent some 75 denominations and over 25 million people.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

delicious | digg | newsvine | technorati