Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118568910
label
World Population Conference I (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118568910
contentType
document
title
World Population Conference I (2)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
94
collections
Records of the Office of the Chief of Staff (Reagan Administration)
James Cicconi's Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118568910
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1985-12-31
year
1985
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1981-01-01
year
1981
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
52b467610939dd7f
ocrText
July 12, ]984
FOR MR. JAMES A. BAKER
Dear Jim:
Thank you for the statement. As you asked me last Friday
to advise you of any changes I felt necessary, I made bold to
do SO. Specifically, I request consideration of the following
modifications in the section headed "Policy Objectives.
Number one, amend the beginning of the last sentence of
the fourth paragraph to read as follows (added language
underscored) :
"The U.S. will also call for concrete assurances
that the UNFBA is not engaged in, or does not
provide funding for, abortion or coercive family
planning programs
E
Number two, amend the fifth paragraph to read as follows
(new language underscored) :
"In addition, when efforts to lower population
growth are deemed advisable, U.S. policy considers
it imperative that such efforts respect the religious
beliefs and culture of each society, and the right
of couples to determine the size of their own
families. Accordingly, the U.S. will not provide
family planning funds to any nation which engages in
souble
coercion to achieve population growth objectives.
n
2
If these changes are acceptable and assuming an appropri-
ate delegation and staffing, I will be pleased to head the
delegation to Mexico City. Again, I must emphasize that time
is very short.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
James L. Buckley
Dictated Over Phone
by Mr. Buckley's (President of
Radio Free Europe & Radio Liberty)
secretary in Munich
011-4989 2102 300
(Ms. Maria Rerrich)
(Her Home No. is 011-4989 9832 44
July 12, 1984
FOR MR. JAMES A. BAKER
Dear Jim:
Thank you for the statement. As you asked me last Friday
to advise you of any changes I felt necessary, I made bold to
do SO. Specifically, I request consideration of the following
modifications in the section headed "Policy Objectives." "
Number one, amend the beginning of the last sentence of
the fourth paragraph to read as follows (added language
underscored) :
"The U.S. will also call for concrete assurances
that the UNFBA is not engaged in, or does not
provide funding for, abortion or coercive family
planning programs
"
Number two, amend the fifth paragraph to read as follows
(new language underscored) :
"In addition, when efforts to lower population
growth are deemed advisable, U.S. policy considers
it imperative that such efforts respect the religious
beliefs and culture of each society, and the right
of couples to determine the size of their own
families. Accordingly, the U.S. will not provide
family planning funds to any nation which engages in
coercion to achieve population growth objectives. "
2
If these changes are acceptable and assuming an appropri-
ate delegation and staffing, I will be pleased to head the
delegation to Mexico City. Again, I must emphasize that time
is very short.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
James L. Buckley
Dictated Over Phone
by Mr. Buckley's (President of
Radio Free Europe & Radio Liberty)
secretary in Munich
011-4989 2102 300
(Ms. Maria Rerrich)
(Her Home No. is 011-4989 9832 44
Jim Ciconi
bask
Quotes from Julian Simon's Book The Ultimate Resource
Chapter "What Are Your Values", p. 341
"I hope you share my belief that it is good for people to be able, as much as
possible, to decide how to run their own lives. Such a desire for individual
self-determination is quite consistent with giving people maximum information
about birth control, because information increases their ability to have the
number of children they want. It is also consistent with legal abortion. ...I
am unqualifiedly in favor of all these poiicies to increase the individual's ability
to achieve the family size she or he chooses."
Chapter "The Politics of Population Control", p. 301
or pro-abortion freedom and pro-population growth (for example, the
writer of this book);
Latest Draft
as I understand
it. Peter ME Pherson
The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child
(1959) calls for legal protection for children before birth as
well as after birth; and the United States does not consider
abortion an acceptable element of family planning programs and
will no longer contribute to those of which it is a part.
Accordingly, when dealing with nations which support abortion
with funds not provided by the United States government, the
United States will contribute to such nations through
segregated accounts which cannot be used for abortion. Also,
the United States will insist that no part of its contribution
to UNFPA be used for abortion. The United States will call for
concrete assurances that the UNFPA is not engaged in abortion
or coersive family planning. If such assurances are not
forthcoming, the United States will redirect the amount of its
contribution to non-UNFPA family planning activities. Moreover
the United States will no longer contribute to non-government
organizations which perform or actively promote abortions as a
method of family planning in other nations. U. S. Government
authorities will immediately begin to negotiate to implement
the above policies with the appropriate governments and
organizations.
The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959)
calls for legal protection for children before birth as well as
after birth. In keeping with this principle, obligation, the United States
does not consider abortion an acceptable element of family
planning programs and will no longer contribute to those of which
Accordingly when
it is a part. Accordingly, When dealing with nations which
support abortion with funds not provided by the United States
I
government, the United States will contribute to such nations
through separate segragated accounts which cannot be used for abortion.
Moreover, the United States will no longer contribute to separate
non-governmental organizations which perform or actively promote
in other nations.
abortion as a method of family planning With regard to the
United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), the U.S.
will insist that no part of its contribution to the UNFPA be used
for abortion, and will negotiate an arrangement to immediately
call for
implement this policy. The U.S. will also require concrete
assurances that the UNFPA is not directly on indirectly engaged
in abortion or coercive family planning programs; failing if such
are not forthcoming,
assurances 1 the U.S. will consider further steps as appropriate
under U.S. law. given U.S. policy, redirect its
the amount of its contribution to other, non- UNFPA
family planning programs.
Insert
the
US evit authorities will beg megations negotiate
with appropriate governments and organizations
to immediately implement the above policies
Us government anthorities will immediately begin negotiations
3
to implement the above policies with the appropriate governments
and organizations.
The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959)
calls for legal protection for children before birth as well as
after birth. In keeping with this principle, obligation the United States
does not consider abortion an acceptable element of family
planning programs and will no longer contribute to those of which
Accordingly, when
it is a part. Accordingly, When dealing with nations which
support abortion with funds not provided by the United States
government, the United States will contribute to such nations
through separate segregated accounts which cannot be used for abortion.
Moreover, the United States will no longer contribute to separate
non-governmental organizations which perform or actively promote
in other nations.
abortion as a method of family planning With regard to the
United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), the U.S.
will insist that no part of its contribution to the UNFPA be used
for abortion. and will negotiate an arrangement to immediately
call for
implement this policy. The U.S. will also require concrete
assurances that the UNFPA is not directly ex-indirectly engaged
it
in abortion or coercive family planning programs; failing such
are n^*
assurances, the U.S. will consider further steps as appropriate
under U.S. law. given U.S. policy. redirect its contribution
the amount of its contribution to other, non- UNFPA
family planning programs.
78
When dealing with nations which support
abortion with funds not provided by the United States government,
the United States will contribute to such nations through separate
accounts which cannot be used for abortion. Moreover, the United
States will no longer contribute to non-governmental organizations
which perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family
planning. With regard to the United Nations Fund for Population
Activities (UNFPA), the U.S. will insist that no part of its
contribution to the UNFPA be used for abortion, and will negotiate
an arrangement to immediately implement this policy. The U.S. will
also call for concrete assurances that the UNFPA is not engaged in
abortion or coercive family planning programs. If such assurances
are not forthcoming, following, the U.S. will consider further steps as
appropriate under U.S. policy.
In addition,
where
Efforts to lower population growth in cases in which it is deemed
also
2
advisable to do so must, moreover respect the religious beliefs
and culture of each society.
It is time to put additional emphasis upon those root problems
which frequently exacerbate population pressures. By focusing
upon real remedies for underdeveloped economies, the United
88
Nations Conference on Population can reduce demographic issues to
their proper place. It is an important place, but not the
controlling one. It requires our continuing attention within the
broader context of economic growth and of the economic freedom
that is its prerequisite.
9
The U.S. at Mexico City
In conjunction with the above statements of policy, the following
principles should be drawn upon to guide the U.S. delegation at
the International Conference on Population:
1. Respect for human life is basic, and any attempt to
use abortion, involuntary sterilization, or other coercive
measures in family planning must be rejected.
2. Population policies and programs should be fully
integrated into, and reinforce, appropriate, market-
oriented development policies; their objective should be
clearly seen as an improvement in the human condition,
and not merely an exercise in limiting births.
3. Access to family education and services is needed,
especially in the context of maternal/child health
programs, in order to enable couples to exercise
responsible parenthood. Consistent with values and
customs, the U.S. favors offering couples a variety of
medically approved methods.
4. Though population factors merit serious consideration
in development strategy, they are not a substitute for
sound economic policies which liberate individual initiative
through the market mechanism.
5. There should be higher international priority for
biomedical research into safer and better methods of
fertility regulation, especially natural family planning,
2 10
and for operations research into more effective service
delivery and program management.
6. Issues of migration should be handled in ways
consistent with both human rights and national sovereignty.
7. The U.S., in cooperation with other concerned
countries, should resist intrusion of polemical or non-
germane issues into Conference deliberations.
REVISED DRAFT STATEMENT
Introduction
For many years, the United States has supported, and helped to
finance, programs of family planning, particularly in the less
developed countries. This Administration has continued that
support but has placed it within a policy context different from
that of the past. It is sufficiently evident that the current
exponential growth in global population cannot continue
indefinitely. There is no question of the ultimate need to
achieve a condition of population equilibrium. The differences
that do exist concern the choice of strategies and methods for
the achievement of that goal. The experience of the last two
decades not only makes possible but requires a sharper focus for
our population policy. It requires a more refined approach to
problems which appear today in quite a different light than they
did twenty years ago.
First and most important, population growth is, of itself, a
neutral phenomenon. It is not necessarily good or ill. It
becomes an asset or a problem only in conjunction with other
factors, such as economic policy, social constraints, need for
manpower, and so forth. The relationship between population
growth and economic development is not a negative one. More
people do not necessarily mean less growth. Indeed, in the
economic history of many nations, population growth has been an
essential element in economic progress.
2
Before the advent of governmental population programs, several
factors had combined to create an unprecedented surge in
population over most of the world. Although population levels in
many industrialized nations had reached or were approaching
equilibrium in the period before the Second World War, the baby
boom that followed in its wake resulted in a dramatic, but
temporary, population "tilt" toward youth. The disproportionate
number of infants, children, teenagers, and eventually young
adults did strain the social infrastructure of schools, health
facilities, law enforcement and so forth. However, it also helped
sustain strong economic growth, despite occasionally
counterproductive government policies.
Among the developing nations, a coincidental population increase
was caused by entirely different factors. A tremendous expansion
of health services -- from simple inoculations to sophisticated
surgery -- saved millions of lives every year. Emergency relief,
facilitated by modern transport, helped millions to survive flood,
famine, and drought. The sharing of technology, the teaching of
agriculture and engineering, and improvements in educational
standards generally, all helped to reduce mortality rates,
especially infant mortality, and to lengthen life spans.
This demonstrated not poor planning or bad policy but human
progress in a new era of international assistance, technological
advance, and human compassion. The population boom was a
challenge; it need not have been a crisis. Seen in its broader
context, it required a measured, modulated response. It provoked
an overraction by some, largely because it coincided with two
3
negative factors which, together, hindered families and nations
in adapting to their changing circumstances.
The first of these factors was governmental control of economies,
a development which effectively constrained economic growth. The
post-War experience consistently demonstrated that, as
economic decision-making was concentrated in the hands of planners
and public officials, the ability of average men and women to work
towards a better future was impaired, and sometimes crippled. In
many cases, agriculture was devastated by government price fixing
that wiped out rewards for labor. Job creation in infant
industries was hampered by confiscatory taxes. Personal industry
and thrift were penalized, while dependence upon the state was
encouraged. Political considerations made it difficult for the
economy to adjust to changes in supply and demand or to disruptions
in world trade and finance. Under such circumstances, population
growth changed from an asset in the development of economic
potential to a peril.
One of the consequences of this "economic statism" was that it disrupted
the natural mechanism for slowing population growth in problem
areas. The world's more affluent nations have reached a population
equilibrium without compulsion and, in most cases, even before it
was government policy to achieve it. The controlling factor in
these cases has been the adjustment, by individual families, of
reproductive behavior to economic opportunity and aspiration.
Historically, as opportunities and the standard of living rise, the
birth rate falls. Economic freedom has led to economically
rational behavior.
4
That historic pattern might be well under way in many nations
where population growth is today a problem, if counter-productive
government policies had not disrupted economic incentives, rewards,
and advancement. In this regard, localized crises of population
growth are, in part, evidence of too much government control and
planning, rather than too little.
The second factor that turned the population boom into a crisis was
confined to the western world. It was an outbreak of an
anti-intellectualism, which attacked science, technology, and the
very concept of material progress. Joined to a commendable and
long overdue concern for the environment, it was more a reflection
of anxiety about unsettled times and an uncertain future. In its
disregard of human experience and scientific sophistication, it
X
was not unlike other waves of cultural anxiety that have swept
through western civilization during times of social stress and
scientific exploration.
The combination of these two factors -- conterproductive economic
policies in poor and struggling nations and a pseudo-scientific
pessimism among the more advanced -- led to a demographic
overreaction in the 1960's and 1970's. Scientific forecasts were
required to compete with unsound, extremist scenarios, and too
many governments pursued population control measures, rather than
sound economic policies that create the rise in living standards
historically associated with decline in fertility rates. This
approach has not worked, primarily because it has focused on a
symptom and neglected the underlying ailments. For the last three
years, this Administration has sought to reverse that approach. We
5
recognize that immediate population pressures may require
short-term efforts to meliorate them. But population control
programs alone cannot substitute for the economic reforms that put
a society on the road toward growth and, as an after-effect, toward
slower population increase as well.
Nor can population control substitute for the rapid and responsible
development of natural resources. In commenting on the Global 2000
report, this Administration in 1981 repudiated its call for more
governmental supervision and control, stating that:
"Historically, that has tended to restrict the
availability of resources and to hamper the
development of technology, rather than to assist
it. Recognizing the seriousness of environmental
and economic problems, and their relationship to
social and political pressures, especially in the
developing nations, the Administration places a
priority upon technological advance and economic
expansion, which hold out the hope of prosperity
and stability of a rapidly changing world. That
hope can be realized, of course, only to the
extent that government's response to problems,
whether economic or ecological, respects and
enchances individual freedom, which makes true
progress possible and worthwhile."
Those principles underlie this country's approach to the United
Nations Conference on Population to be held in Mexico City in August.
6
Policy Objectives
The International Conference on Population offers the U.S. an
opportunity to strengthen the international consensus on the
interrelationships between economic development and population which
has emerged since the last such conference in Bucharest in 1974.
Our primary objective will be to encourage developing countries to
adopt sound economic policies and, where appropriate, population policies
consistent with respect for human dignity and family values. As
President Reagan stated, in his message to the Mexico City
Conference:
67
Conference:
We believe population programs can and must be truly
voluntary, cognizant of the rights and responsibilities
of individuals and families, and respectful of
religious and cultural values. When they are, such
programs can make an important contribution to economic
and social development, to the health of mothers and
children, and to the stability of the family and of
society.
The world's rapid population growth is a recent phenomenon. Only
several decades ago, the population of developing countries was
relatively stable, the result of a balance between high fertility
and high mortality.
There are now 4.5 billion people in the world, and six billion are
?
projected by the year 2000. Such rapid growth places tremendous
pressures on governments without concomitant economic growth.
U.S. support for family planning programs is based on two fundamental
moral principless enhancing human dignity and strengthening of the family. life.
respect for human life, enhancement of,
The respect for human life is a basic moral value, and In accord
those principles,
with that value, we reject compulsion or coercion in family planning
programs, whether it is exercised against families within a society
is
mail
or against nations within the family of man. Attempts to use
abortion, involuntary sterilization, or other coercive measures in
family planning must be shunned.
here
The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959)
calls for legal protection for children before birth as well as
after birth. In keeping with this principle, obligation, the United States
does not consider abortion an acceptable element of family planning
programs and will no longer contribute to those of which it is
the United States will no longer contribute to non-governmental
part. Accordingly, when dealing with nations which support
- writ sectorn of actively promote abortion 6: a method e: Samila glanning
STATES
UNITED
CATHOLIC
CONFERENCE
NEWS
DATE: June 25, 1984
FROM: William Ryan
O - 202/659-6700
H - 202/686-1824
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BISHOPS' SPOKESMAN PRAISES ADMINISTRATION
POLICY STATEMENT FOR POPULATION CONFERENCE
WASHINGTON--The General Secretary of the United States Catholic
Conference (USCC) praised an Administration position paper which
is intended as a policy statement for the forthcoming International
Conference on Population.
In a letter to President Reagan, Msgr. Daniel F. Hoye
expressed the hope that key features of the White House proposal
will be retained in the final document, to be presented in Mexico
City in August, and that "this will signal a redirection of American
policy toward an approach which is more balanced and more respect-
ful of human dignity."
The Administration position paper, drafted by White House
and National Security Council staff, states, among other things,
that abortion is completely unacceptable as a form of family
planning, and that the U.S. will not give direct or indirect
support to programs which use or advocate it as an instrument
of population control.
Msgr. Hoye told President Reagan that certain declarations
in the position paper "are very much in accord with concerns
expressed by the bishops of the United States in their 1973
/more
NATIONAL CATHOLIC OFFICE FOR INFORMATION
1312 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.W. . WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005
2/Population Conference
Statement on Population, as well as by Pope John Paul II and the
bishops of the world at the 1980 Synod on the Family."
"There is little doubt that these principles have not always
been respected in developed nations' policies with respect to the
Third World," Msgr. Hoye said.
Following is the text of Msgr. Hoye's letter to President
Reagan:
Dear Mr. President:
The position paper drafted by White House and National
Security Council staff, intended as a policy statement for the
International Conference on Population in Mexico City in August,
contains several features that are worthy of praise. Of par-
ticular interest are the following suggestions made in the
draft proposal:
1. Abortion is completely unacceptable as a form of family
planning, and the U.S. will not give direct or indirect support
to programs which use or advocate it as an instrument of
population control.
2. Although rapid population growth can sometimes aggravate
social and economic problems for developing nations, it is not
an evil in and of itself, and becomes a serious problem only
in conjunction with other social and economic factors. Con-
sequently, population stabilization should not be over-
emphasized as an end in itself but must be seen in a broader
context. Efforts to help these nations develop their natural
resources and raise their standard of living should be given
higher priority.
3. Efforts to lower population growth should reject all
"compulsion or coercion," and must "respect the religious
beliefs and culture of each society."
These statements are very much in accord with concerns
expressed by the bishops of the United States in their 1973
Statement on Population, as well as by Pope John Paul II and
the bishops of the world at the 1980 Synod on the Family.
There is little doubt that these principles have not always
been respected in developed nations' policies with respect
to the Third World. I hope these features of the White House
staff proposal will be retained in the final document presented
at Mexico City, and that this will signal a redirection of
American policy toward an approach which is more balanced and
more respectful of human dignity.
# # #
A,X,AB
6/27 Noted by JAE F
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH
WASHINGTON OFFICE
422 CANNON House OFFICE BUILDING
4TH DISTRICT, NEW JERSEY
WASHINGTON, D.C 20515
(202) 225-3765
COMMITTEES:
SMALL BUSINESS
CONSTITUENT SERVICE CENTERS:
SUBCOMMITTERS:
2333 WHITE HORSE/MERCERVELLE ROAD
TAX. ACCESS TO EQUITY CAPITAL AND
SUITE H
BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
HAMILTON. NEW JERSEY 08619
(609) 880-2800
ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY
VETERANS' AFFAIRS
Congress of the United States
222 HIGH STREET
BURLINGTON CITY, NEW JERSEY 08018
SUBCOMMITTEES:
(609) 386-5534
HEALTH AND HOSPITALS
House of Representatives
402 EAST STATE STREET
HOUSING AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
Room 404
COMMISSIONER:
ashington, D.C. 20515
TRENTON. NEW JERSEY 08608
COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND
(609) 989-2140
COOPERATION IN EUROPE
7703 MAPLE AVENUE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON AGING
PENNSAUKEN, NEW JERSEY 08110
(609) 653-3937
June 26, 1984
The Honorable James A. Baker III
Chief of Staff and Assistant to
the President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Jim:
We would like to thank you for arranging the breakfast
meeting last Thursday. It's good to know you share our concern
about the Mexico City conference and the constructive effect
the Administration's policy statement could have there.
As the Administration works toward a final draft of that
statement, we want to express our confident hope that the story
about it in yesterday's Washington Times was off the mark. To
exclude the UNFPA from the scope of the paper -- or to adopt an
approach that substitutes separate accounting procedures for the
UNFPA -- would not only minimize its impact but also invite its
evasion in the future.
The UNFPA should have to follow the same guidelines as the
other organizations receiving AID population funds. Contrary
to the disinformation being circulated by the population control
lobby, this would not mean a massive cutoff in funding. The
UNFPA will not go out of business. It will have no choice but
to abide by the conditions prescribed by the President.
Incidentally, that would set an interesting precedent for
dealing with other controversial UN agencies, to bring them into
line with Administration policy.
Perhaps that is why some people are trying SO hard to exclude
the UNFPA from the carefully reasoned provisions of your excellent
policy statement.
Sincerely,
Caus Smith M.C.
Wathy
6/36 R.F, per MDT
William Childs Westmoreland
General, United States Army, Retired
Box 1059
Charleston. South Carolina 29402
June 20, 1984
Dear Jim:
I have seen the draft White House position paper
for the Population Conference to be held in Mexico City
and urge you carefully to consider the long range
implications of a policy that will set back an important
program that is beginning to show results in the interest
of the countries involved and in our long range interest.
Sincerely,
W.C. WESTMORELAND
James Baker
Chief of Staff
To the President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
The Washington Times
MONDAY, JUNE 25, 1984 / PAGE 3Aᵗʰ
White House seen giving in
on U.S. funds for abortions
at the White House after the confrontation
By George Archibald
with the Republican congressmen. But it
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
was unclear whether Mr. Baker agreed to the
The White House reportedly has agreed to
reported compromise with AID before or
major concessions that would allow contin-
after he met with the GOP group.
ued U.S. funding of some worldwide pop-
The UNFPA is highly controversial to pro-
ulation control programs that include
life leaders in Congress and national anti-
abortion, sources said.
abortion groups. The U.N. agency supports
Among the concessions won by M. Peter
massive forced abortion and sterilization
McPherson, administrator of the Agency for
programs in China and India, and along with
International Development, is continued
The International Planned Parenthood Fed-
U.S. funding of the United Nations Fund for
eration - another AID funded organization
Population Activities (UNFPA).
has funded sterilization programs in Ban-
The concessions were worked out pri-
gladesh. Sri Lanka and Nepal.
vately late last week between Mr. McPher-
son and James A. Baker III, White House
The UNFPA spent $120.4 million on pop-
chief of staff, sources said.
ulation control projects in about 126
Mr. Baker also reportedly agreed that a
countries last year, of which $34 million, or
new administration policy now being
26 percent, came from AID. The IPPF spent
drafted to stop direct or indirect U.S. fund-
$49 million in 90 countries, of which AID
ing of abortion-related activities would not
contributed $12.4 million or 25 percent.
apply to foreign governments.
AID is now required by law to earmark 16
A White House spokesman was unable to
percent of its $240 million population plan-
confirm the reports yesterday. Just last
ning budget to the UNFPA if the interna-
tional agency is otherwise eligible to receive
U.S. funds.
The UNFPA is highly
One Senate leadership aide said Mr. Baker
controversial to pro-life
"has walked into a clever trap" if he has
agreed to the UNFPA exemption. The U.N.
leaders in Congress
funds could be used to circumvent any White
House policy or congressional restriction
against the use of U.S. funds for abortion-
related population controlled activities, the
week, Mr. Baker's staff told reporters that
aide said.
the White House would "hang tough" on the
Even if the IPPF and other private organi-
anti-abortion issue.
zations that advocate or financially support
Mr. McPherson could not be reached for
world-wide abortions were barred by a new
commment. An AID spokesman told The
White House policy from receiving further
Washington Times last week that he would
U.S. aid, population control supporters in
not discuss the matter.
Congress could "increase the UNFPA set-
Reports of the compromise followed a
aside to 40 percent or 50 percent" of AID
White House meeting held by Mr. Baker and
population planning funds, the aide said.
Mr. McPherson Thursday with a group of
conservative House Republicans.
"Then the UNFPA could subgrant to
The GOP lawmakers, including Rep. Jack
groups covered by President Reagan's new
F. Kemp, R-N.Y., chairman of the House
policy. but all the U.S. money they got from
Republican Conference, and Rep.
the UNFPA would be exempt. It's just a
Christopher H. Smith, R-N.J., chairman of
scam." the aide asserted.
the bi-partisan Congressional Pro-Life Cau-
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for
cus, urged the White House to adopt a hard
the National Right-to-Life Committee, said
line anti-abortion policy drafted jointly by
he was troubled by the reports.
the White House Office of Policy Develop-
ment and the National Security Council. The
"We doubt that such a drastic concession
draft was for an international population
has actually been approved by the pres-
ident," he said.
conference to be held in Mexico City August
6-13.
Reports of the White House compromise
Mr. Baker was warned by the House
"can't be true," said Gary Curran, govern-
Republicans that failure to include the
ment affairs director for the American Life
UNFPA within the proposed anti-abortion
Lobby. "The Reagan administration is about
policy would doom any attempt to pass a
to cut off funds for UNESCO for a lot less
foreign aid bill in the House this year,
than aiding and abetting abortions. How will
according to congressional sources.
they be able to justify that without cutting
Mr. McPherson and the State Department
off funds to UNFPA, which subsidizes
are hotly contesting the draft White House
human rights violations through communist
Policy statement. According to AID offi-
China's forced abortion control program ?"
cials, Mr. McPherson held further meetings
he asked.
N104
UI
US-POPULATION
GENEVA, SWITZERLAND (AP) -- THE UNITED STATES WARNEE TODAY IT WOULD
CUT OFF $38 MILLION IN ANNUAL HID TO THE U.N. FUND FOR POPULATION
ACTIVITIES UNLESS THE AGENCY GURRANTEES THE MONEY HILL BE WITHHELD FROM
PROGRAMS SUBSIDIZING OR ADVOCATING ABORTION.
THE WARNING. DELIVERED BY UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE GREGORY 3. NEWELL
IN ? SPEECH AT 012 MEETING OF THE U.N. FUND FOR POPULATION ACTIVITIES,
FOLLOWS REPORTS THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO CUT SUCH HID IN
KEEPING WITH ITS ANTI-ABORTION VIEWS.
NEWELL STRESSED THAT THE UNITED STATES SUPPORTED EFFORTS TO SOLVE
THE **POPULATION PROBLEM BUT ASSERTED IT WAS U.S. S. POLICY **TO
REFRAIN FROM TAX-SUPPORTED SUBSIDIZATION OF ABORTION.
ME WE SEEK UNDERSTANDING OF BUR POLICY THAT FUNDS IDENTIFIED AS
HAVING BEEN CONTRIBUTED BY THE UNITED STATES TO SUPPORT THE WORTHY
ACTIVITIES OF CONCERNED INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS NOT BE DEBICATED TO
THE TERMINATION OF FETAL LIFE AS E TECHNIQUE OF FAMILY PLANNING
: :
NEWELL SAID.
MIF THE UNFPA CAN GIVE APPROPRIATE ASSURANCES THAT THIS 13 ITS
PRACTICE THE UNITED STATES CAN CONTINUE TO EXTEND ITS FINANCIAL
SUPPORT." HE SAID.
E SPOKESMAN FOR THE U.N. FUND FOR POPULATION ACTIVITIES COULD NOT BE
REACHED FOR CONNENT ON NEWELL'S STATEMENT, DESPITE SEVERAL TELEPHONE
CALLS TO THE AGENCY'S OFFICES.
THE U.S. MISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS SAID THAT THE UNITED STATES
GIVES $38 MILLION ANABALLY TO THE U.N. FUND FOR POPULATION ACTIVITIES.
IT DID NOT GIVE FIGURES FOR U.S. AID TO OTHER POPULATION CONTROL
AGENCIES.
1. 1654EB7 : MM 111 on or =
1
The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959)
calls for legal protection for children before birth as well as
after birth; and the United States does not consider abortion an
acceptable element of family planning programs and will not contribute
to those of which it is a part. Accordingly, when dealing with
nations which support abortion with funds not provided by the
United States government, the United States will contribute to such
nations through separate accounts which cannot be used for abortion.
Nor will the United States any longer contribute to organizations
which perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning.
2
The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959)
calls for legal protection for children before birth as well as after
birth; and the United States does not consider abortion an acceptable
element of family planning programs and will no longer contribute
to those of which it is a part. Accordingly, when dealing with nations
which support abortion with funds not provided by the United States
government, the United States will contribute to such nations
and
through separate accounts which cannot be used for abortion. Nor
will the United States any longer contribute to non-govenemental voluntary
willno
organizations which perform or promote abortion as a method of
family planning.
- 6 -
availability of resources and to hamper the development of
technology, rather than to assist it. Recognizing the
seriousness of environmental and economic problems, and their
relationship to social and political pressures, especially in the
developing nations, the Administration places a priority upon
technological advance and economic expansion, which hold out the
hope of prosperity and stability of a rapidly changing world.
That hope can be realized, of course, only to the extent that
government's response to problems, whether economic or
ecological, respects and enhances individual freedom, which makes
true progress possible and worthwhile.'
Those principles underlie this country's approach to the
United Nations Conference on Population to be held in Mexico City
in August. In accord with those principles, we reject compulsion
or coercion in family planning programs, whether it is exercised
against families within a society or against nations within the
family of man. The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of
the Child (1959) calls for legal protection for children before
birth as well as after birth; and the United States accordingly
does not consider abortion an acceptable element of family
planning programs and will not contribute to those of which it is
a part. Nor will it any longer contribute directly or indirectly
to family planning programs funded by governments or private
organizations that advocate abortion as an instrument of
population control. Efforts to lower population growth in cases
in which it is deemed advisable to do so must, moreover, respect
the religious beliefs and culture of each society. Population
-8-
August. In accord with those principles, we reject compulsion or
coercion in family planning programs, whether it is exercised
against families within a society or against nations within the
family of man.
The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959)
calls for legal protection for children before birth as well as
after birth; and the United States does not consider abortion an
acceptable element of family planning programs and will no longer
contribute to those of which it is a part. Accordingly, when
dealing with nations which support abortion with funds not
provided by the United States government, the United States will
contribute to such nations through separate accounts which cannot
be used for abortion. Also the U.S. will insist that no part of
its contribution to the UNFPA be used for abortion and is
discussing means of achieving this end with UNFPA. Moreover the
United States will no longer contribute to non-governmental
organizations which perform or actively promote abortion as a
method of family planning.
Efforts to lower population growth in cases in which it is deemed
advisable to do so must, moreover, respect the religious beliefs
10
U.S. policy in this area is guided by certain basic ethical
precepts:
--
Aid will be provided in ways which are respectful of
human dignity and religious and cultural values;
--
U.S. funds will not be used for abortion activities, for
involuntary sterilization, or for population activities
involving coercion;
--
U.S. population assistance will be provided in the
context of an overall development program.
The U.S. at Mexico City
Other countries will look for U.S. support in strengthening
the broad consensus on population and development that has emerged
over the past several years.
The following principles should be drawn upon to guide the
U.S. delegation at the ICP:
1. Respect for human life is basic, and any attempt to use
abortion, involuntary sterilization, or other coercive
measures in family planning must be rejected.
2. Population policies and programs should be fully
integrated into, and reinforce, appropriate,
market-oriented development policies; their objective
should be clearly seen as an improvement in the human
condition, and not merely an exercise in limiting
births.
1
3. Access to family education and services needs to be
significantly expanded, especially in the context of
maternal/child health programs, in order to enable
couples to exercise responsible parenthood. Consistent
with values and customs, the U.S. favors offering
couples a variety of medically approved methods.
4. Population factors merit serious consideration in
development strategy, although they are not a substitute
for sound economic policies which liberate individual
initiative through the market mechanism.
5. National and international resources addressed to
population issues should be commensurate with the
growing dimensions of the problem.
6. There should be higher international priority for
biomedical research into safer and better methods of
fertility regulation, especially natural family
planning, and for operations research into more
effective service delivery and program management.
7. Issues of migration should be handled in ways consistent
with both human rights and national sovereignty.
8. The U.S., in cooperation with other concerned countries,
should resist intrusion of polemical or non-germane
issues into Conference deliberations.
#104
UI
33-POPULATION
GENEVA, SWITZERLAND : (AP) -- THE UNITED STATES WARNED TOBAY IT WOULD
CUT OFF $38 MILLION IN ANNUAL AID TO THE U.N. FUND FOR POPULATION
ACTIVITIES UNLESS THE AGENCY GUARANTEES THE MONEY HILL SE WITHHELD FROM
PROGRAMS R SUBSIDIZING GR ADVOCATING ABORTION.
THE WARNING, DELIVERED BY UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE GREGORY J. NEWELL
IN e SPEECH AT A MEETING OF THE U.N. FUND FOR POPULATION ACTIVITIES,
FOLLOWS REPORTS THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO CUT SUCH AID IN
KEEPING WITH ITS ANTI-ABORTION VIEWS.
NEWELL STRESSED THAT THE UNITED STATES SUPPORTED EFFORTS TO SOLVE
THE 'POPULATION PROBLEM, " BUT ASSERTED IT WAS U.S. POLICY ''TO
REFRAIN FROM TAX-SUPPORTED SUBSIDIZATION OF ABORTION.
"WE WE SEEK UNDERSTANDING a D OF GUR POLICY THAT FUNDS IDENTIFIED = AS
HAVING BEEN CONTRIBUTED BY THE UNITED STATES TO SUPPORT S THE WORTHY
ACTIVITIES OF CONCERNED INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS NOT BE DEBICATED TO
THE TERMINATION OF FETAL LIFE RS E TECHNIQUE OF FAMILY PLANNING
NEWELL SAID.
MIF THE UNFPA CAN GIVE APPROPRIATE ASSURANCES THAT THIS IS ITS
FL. PRACTICE, THE UNITED STATES CAN CONTINUE TO EXTEND ITS FINANCIAL
SUPPORT P 0 HE SAID.
E SPOKESMAN FOR THE U.N. FUND FOR POPULATION ACTIVITIES COULD NOT BE
REACHED FOR COMMENT ON NEWELL'S STATEMENT. DESPITE F SEVERAL TELEPHONE
CALLS TO THE AGENCY'S OFFICES.
THE U.S. MISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS SAID THAT THE UNITED STATES
GIVES $38 MILLION ANNUALLY TO THE U.N. FUND FOR POPULATION ACTIVITIES. T
IT DID NOT GIVE FIGURES FOR.U.S. : AID TO OTHER 7 POPULATION 2 ? CONTROL R
AGENCIES.
AP - 1654507 4
The Washington Times
TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1984 / PAGE 7A
U.S. warns
no money
to go for
abortions
GENEVA, Switzerland (AP) -
The United States said yesterday
that it would cut off millions of dol-
lars in aid to the U.N. Fund for Pop-
ulation Activities unless the agency
guarantees the money is not used
for programs subsidizing or advo-
cating abortion.
A source said "an accommoda-
tion has been reached" in which the
United States would continue its
funding, but only for programs in
nations where abortion was not
practiced as a form of population
control.
The warning, delivered by
Undersecretary of State Gregory J.
Newell in a speech at a meeting of
the U.N. Fund for Population Activi-
ties, came after reports the Reagan
administration wants to cut such
aid in keeping with its anti-abortion
views.
The population agency is meet-
ing under the auspices of the U.N.
Development Program.
The source, familiar with the
Newell speech and the population
agency, said the development pro-
gram had worked out the accommo-
dation with U.S. officials. The
source did not give further details
of the accord.
The U.S. mission to the United
Nations said the United States con-
tributes $38 million annually to the
population fund, but could not say
what percentage of the agency's
annual budget this was. It also did
not give figures for U.S. aid to other
population control agencies.
The population fund says it gives
assistance to countries that permit
abortion, but that its funds are not
specifically used for abortion.
Among the countries that receive
the organization's aid and permit
abortion on request in the first
three months of pregnancy, are
China, Cuba, Tunisia and Vietnam.
India, which also receives aid, per-
mits abortion with some limita-
tions.
The population fund provides
governments with guidance and
financing for population control.
6/25
Letter dated 6/6, but rec'd
EMBASSY OF THE
WH 6/21 (see env.)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MEXICO
Cicconi handle &
R.F.?
6/26
Jim
Mr. James A. Baker III
FYI
Chief of Staff and
Assistant to the President
KC.
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Jim,
To follow up on our conversation regarding the upcoming
International Population Conference (to be held in Mexico
City in August) :
1) I am of the strong belief that this conference will
be a particularly sensitive one and that the positions taken
by our delegation must be developed with great care.
2) The government of Mexico is very proud of its accomp-
lishments in the field of family planning and family respon-
sibility. It sees the selection of Mexico City as the site
for the Conference as an enhancement of its position as a leader
among developing countries in this field.
3) For this reason the Administration's policies must be
expressed with sensitivity and respect for the Mexican point
of view.
4) As you know, I have been in touch with Ambassador
Benedick and others regarding my concerns on this issue. I
was pleased to learn of your own personal interest. Your
assistance is greatly appreciated.
It was a pleasure seeing you during my recent visit to
Washington.
Cordially,
John Lack Gavin
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION AGENCY
AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20523
THE ADMINISTRATOR
June 18, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE JAMES A. BAKER, III
Chief of Staff and Assistant to the President
The White House
Jim:
Attached is a revised draft of the population paper. Almost
nothing has been changed in the paper except:
(1) There is a new sentence dealing with "directly or
indirectly" supporting groups funding abortion with their own
money -- see page 7;
(2) We have added paragraphs on natural family planning,
etc. which are not offensive and tend to show support for sound
family planning.
I have cleared this with no one else.
MPM.R
M. Peter McPherson
Attachment:
Draft Population Paper
International Population Conference
DRAFT Statement
For many years, the United States has supported, and helped
to finance, programs of family planning, particularly in the
less developed countries. This Administration has continued
that support but has placed it within a policy context
different from that of the past. It is sufficiently evident
that the current exponential growth in global population cannot
continue indefinitely. There is no question of the ultimate
need to achieve a condition of population equilibrium. The
differences that do exist concern the choice of strategies and
methods for the achievement of that goal. The experience of
the last two decades not only makes possible but requires a
sharper focus for our population policy. It requires a more
refined approach to problems which appear today in quite a
different light than they did twenty years ago. First and most
important, in any particular society today, population growth
is, of itself, a neutral phenomenon. It is not necessarily
good or ill. It becomes an asset or a problem only in
conjunction with other factors, such as economic policy, social
constraints, need for manpower, and so forth. The relationship
-2-
between population growth and economic development is not a
negative one. More people do not mean less growth; that is
absurd on its face. Indeed, both in the American experience
and in the economic history of most advanced nations,
population growth has been an essential element in economic
progress.
Before the advent of governmental population programs,
several factors had combined to create an unprecedented surge
in population over most of the world. Although population
levels in many industrialized nations had reached or were
approaching equilibrium in the period before the Second World
War, the baby boom that followed in its wake resulted in a
dramatic, but temporary, population "tilt" toward youth. The
disproportionate number of infants, children, teenagers, and
eventually young adults did strain the social infrastructure of
schools, health facilities, law enforcement and so forth. It
also sustained strong economic growth and was probably critical
in boosting the American standard of living to new heights,
despite occasionally counterproductive government policies.
Among the less developed nations, a coincidental population
increase was caused by entirely different factors, directly
related to the humanitarian efforts of the United States and
other western countries. A tremendous expansion of health
-3-
services -- from simple innoculations to sophisticated surgery
-- saved millions of lives every year. Emergency relief,
facilitated by modern transport, helped missions to survive
flood, famine, and drought. The sharing of technology, the
teaching of agriculture and engineering, the spread of western
ideals in the treatment of women and children all helped to
drastically reduce the mortality rates, especially infant
mortality, and to lengthen the life span.
The result, to no one's surprise, was more people,
everywhere. This was not a failure but a success. It
demonstrated not poor planning or bad policy but human progress
in a new era of international assistance, technological
advance, and human compassion. The population boom was a
challenge; it need not have been a crisis. Seen in its broader
context, it required a measured, modulated response. It
provoked an over-reaction by some, largely because it coincided
with two negative factors which, together, hindered families
and nations in adapting to their changing circumstances.
The first of these factors was governmental control of
economies, a pathology which spread throughout the developing
world with sufficient virulence to keep much of it from
developing further. As economic decision-making was
concentrated in the hands of planners and public officials,
-4-
the ability of average men and women to work towards a better
future was impaired, and sometimes crippled. Agriculture was
devastated by government price fixing that wiped out rewards
for labor. Job creation in infant industries was hampered by
confiscatory taxes. Personal industry and thrift were
penalized, while dependency upon the state was encouraged.
Political considerations made it difficult for the economy to
adjust to changes in supply and demand or to disruptions in
world trade and finance. Under such circumstances, population
growth changed from an asset in the development of economic
potential to a peril.
One of the worst consequences of economc statism was that
new
it disrupted the natural mechanism for slowing population
growth in problem areas. The world's more affluent nations
have reached a population equilibrium without compulsion and,
in most cases, even before it was government policy to achieve
it. The controlling factor in these cases has been the
adjustment, by individual families, of reproductive behavior to
economic opportunity and aspiration. Economic freedom has led
to economically rational behavior. As opportunities and the
standard of living rise, the birth rate falls.
That historic pattern would already be well under way in
many nations where population growth is today a problem, if
short-sighted policies had not disrupted economic incentives,
rewards, and advancement. In this regard, localized crises
-5-
of population growth are evidence of too much government
control and planning, rather than too little.
The second factor that turned the population boom into a
crisis was confined to the western world. It was an outbreak
of an anti-intellectualism, which attacked science, technology,
and the very concept of material progress. Joined to a
commendable and long overdue concern for the environment, it
was more a reflection of anxiety about the unsettled times and
the uncertain future and disregard of human experience and
scientific sophistication. It was not unlike other waves of
cultural anxiety that have, over the centuries, swept through
western civilization during times of social stress and
scientific exploration.
The combination of these two factors -- counterproductive
economic policies in poor and struggling nations and a
pseudo-scientific pessimism among the more advanced -- provoked
the demographic overreaction of the 1960's and 1970's.
Doomsday scenarios took the place of realistic forecasts, and
too many governments pursued population control measures that
have had little impact on population growth, rather than sound
economic policies that create the rise in living standards
historically associated with decline in fertility rates. It
was the easy way out, and it did not work. It focused on a
symption and neglected the underlying ailments. For the last
three years, this Administration has sought to reverse that
-6-
approach. We recognize that, in some cases, immediate
population pressures may make advisable short-term efforts to
meliorate them. But this cannot be a substitute for the
economic reforms that put a society on the road toward growth
and, as an after effect, toward slower population increase as
well.
Nor can population control substitute for the rapid and
responsible development of natural resources. In responding to
certain Members of Congress concerning the previous
Administration's Global 2000 report, this Administration in
1981 repudiated its call "for more governmental supervision and
control. Historically, that has tended to restrict the
availability of resources and to hamper the development of
technology, rather than to assist. Recognizing the seriousness
of environmental and economic problems, and their relationship
to social and political pressures, especially in the developing
nations, the Administration places a priority upon
technological advance and economic expansion, which hold out
the hope of prosperity and stability of a rapidly changing
world. That hope can be realized, of course, only to the
extent that government's response to problems, whether economic
or ecological, respects and enhances individual freedom, which
makes true progress possible and worthwhile.
New sentence. Replaces:
"Nor will itany longer contribute directly or indirectly
to family planning programs funded by govern ments on
private organizations7- that advocate abortion no an
instrument of population control."
Those principles underlie this country's approach to the
United Nations Conference on Population to be held in Mexico
City in August. In accord with those principles, we reject
compulsion or coercion in family planning programs, whether it
is exercised against families within a society or against
nations within the family of man. The United Nations
Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959) calls for legal
protection for children before birth as well as after birth;
and the United States accordingly does not consider abortion an
acceptable element of family planning programs and will not
contribute to those of which it is a part. Accordingly, in
dealing with private organizations or countries which support
abortion with non-USG monies, the U.S. will contribute to such
organizations and countries through separate accounts which
cannot be used for abortion work. Efforts to lower population
growth in cases in which it is deemed advisable to do so much,
moreover, respect the religious beliefs and culture of each
society. Population control is not a panacea. It will not
solve problems of massive unemployment. Jobs are not lost
because there are too many people in a given area. Jobs are
created by the conjunction of human wants and investment
capital. Population growth fuels the former, sound economic
policies and properly directed international assistance can
provide the latter. Indeed, population density may make the
-8-
latter more feasible by concentrating the need for both human
services and technology. But as long as oppressive economic
policies penalize those who work, save, and invest, joblessness
will persist.
Population control cannot solve problems of unauthorized
migration across national boundaries. People do not leave
their homes, and often their families, to seek more space.
They do so in search of opportunity and freedom. Reducing
their numbers gives them neither. Population control cannot
avert natural disasters, including famines provoked by cyclical
drought. Fortunately, world food supplies have been adequate
to relieve those circumstances in recent years. Problems of
transportation remain; but there are far deeper problems as
well, in those governmental policies which restrict the rewards
of agricultural pursuits, encourage the abandonment of
farmland, and concentrate people in urban areas.
NEW WORDING
REPLACES
It is time to put additional emphasis upon those root
'CONCENTRATES ON"
problems which frequently exacerbate population pressures. By
focusing upon real remedies for underdeveloped economies, the
United Nations Conference on Population can reduce demographic
issues to their proper place. It is an important place, but
not the controlling one. It requires our continuing attention
within the broader context of economic growth and of the
economic freedom that is its prerequisite.
-9-
U.S. support for family planning programs is based on two
fundamental principles: enhancing human dignity and
strengthening family life. These principles are reflected in
all
our emphasis on voluntarism and informed consent in the
new-
acceptance of family planning methods. Our objectives are to
enhance the freedom of individuals in the exercise of
replaces
responsible parenthood and to encourage population growth
nothing
consistent with the growth of economic resources and
productivity.
In our view this will be accomplished when couples are able
to decide freely the size of their families. Since surveys
show that only 40% of the population of developing countries
has access to acceptable contraceptive information and
materials, families now find it difficult to make their
personal choice. Our goal is to enhance personal choice. As a
by-product, given accessible, acceptable and affordable
services and adequate information and education, the aggregate
result of such individual family decisions will be declining
birth rate. Thus, our goals are increased accessibility of
safe, effective and affordable family planning methods, goals
we believe will result in a population growth that places less
demands on the economic resources of developing nations. The
focus, however, remains an individual choice.
In addition, this Administration has emphasized program
areas which represent valuable means of extending the
accessibility and acceptability of voluntary family planning in
developing countries.
-10-
For example, Contraceptive Social Marketing (CSM) involves
the use of market distribution methods for family planning and
has grown to about 10% of our population program. Typically,
condoms and pills are introduced at the wholesale level at low
cost so they can be distributed through the retail system of a
country for ultimate consumer purchase. This means of
distribution, using market mechanisms, ensures that the
consumer has a choice of what to purchase and also extends the
availability of contraceptives by increasing the number and
coverage of outlets to serve those not adequately reached by
other private or public sources. The U.S. has experienced
new
great success using market distribution channels for
contraceptives. In Bangladesh, for example, subsidized condoms
and pills are available in over 50,000 retail locations
throughout the country and sales of subsidized condoms in that
country now exceed 80,000,000 a year and is the most rapidly
growing family planning program in the country. In fact,
market channels can serve remote rural areas more efficiently
than government programs. This method, which actually reduces
the effective cost to governments of distribution, enhances
voluntarism since the essence of a market sale is choice.
Another new area of emphasis has been natural family
planning (NFP). It has increased ten-fold in this
Administration. It is especially useful where cultural and
-11-
religious values makes other methods of family planning
unattractive to large parts of the population. Since the
Bucharest Conference, substantial scientific progress has been
made in NFP. The U.S continues to sponsor research designed to
further enhance our understanding of the process of human
new
reproduction and is currently giving increased attention to the
field delivery of natural family planning methods.
NFP is an important component of world-wide population
assistance since it provides a method which is consistent with
the cultural and religious values of many individuals.
In conclusion, questions of population growth require the
new -
replaces
approach outlined by President Reagan in 1981, in remarks
"most
before the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia: "Trust the
of all"
people, trust their intelligence and trust their faith, because
putting people first is the secret of economic success
everywhere in the world." That is the agenda of the United
States for the United Nations Conference on Population this
year, just as it remains the continuing goal of our family
planning assistance to other nations.