Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Thomas W. Jacobson, «National Sovereignty Prized Again as Defense Measure by Non-Western Nations», in «Issue Brief» [published by The Center for Sovereignty and Security: A Division of Freedom Alliance], Dulles, Virginia, May 3, 2011]

Thomas W. Jacobson, «National Sovereignty Prized Again as Defense Measure by Non-Western Nations», in «Issue Brief» [published by The Center for Sovereignty and Security: A Division of Freedom Alliance], Dulles, Virginia, May 3, 2011]

Ratings: (0)|Views: 26|Likes:
Published by Marco Respinti
http://www.freedomalliance.org/

http://www.freedomalliance.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2787&Itemid=1
http://www.freedomalliance.org/

http://www.freedomalliance.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2787&Itemid=1

More info:

Published by: Marco Respinti on May 31, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/12/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Issue Brief
Published by The Center for Sovereignty and Security A Division of Freedom Alliance
National Sovereignty Prized Again as Defense Measure byNon-Western Nations
by Thomas W. Jacobson, M.A.
May 3, 2011
A
er the devastation o World War II,many leaders in European nations losttheir belie in national sovereignty andtheir own ability to resolve national problems. Instead,they put their trust in regional and internationalgovernance, helping orm the United Nations,
1
theCouncil o Europe,
2
and the European EconomicCommunity 
3
that eventually became the EuropeanUnion.
4
Many EU nations, especially those who wereormer colonial powers, as well as the current UnitedStates Administration, believe strongly in internationalgovernance or the purpose o controlling leadersand policies in, and nancial ows to, other nations.Tis was strikingly evident during the April 2011United Nations’ Commission on Population andDevelopment. Te Holy See and noble nations oughtback. Heres the story.
Population Control verses Demo-graphic Crisis
A little background rst. Between 1954 and1994, there were ve – one each decade – internationalconerences on population, primarily or the purposeo reducing ertility in developing countries andconvincing them that doing so was in their bestnational and economic interest.
5
At the 1974 WorldPopulation Conerence in Bucharest, Romania,135 nations were represented, and ormulated andapproved the World Population Plan o Action toreduce ertility rates. Tat same year, Secretary o State Henry Kissinger issued National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), “Implications o Worldwide Population Growth or U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.
6
Secretary Kissinger, theDepartment o State, the National Security Counciland the Agency or International Development(USAID) authored the 123-page memorandumasserting that the security o the United States and
www.freedomalliance.org
Powerful nations coerce developing nations to accept populationcontrol measures despite looming demographic crises
 
Page 2
other countries would be at risk i the populationgrowth in developing (poor) countries were notreduced to replacement levels. USAID had already started population programs nearly a decade earlier,but this comprehensive plan would put populationcontrol as a high priority or U.S. relations with othernations, even at the Presidential level.oday, decades o population control havebeen so successul that most developed nations noware below replacement level, acing an impendingdemographic crises, and most developing nations havedropped to replacement level. Hania Zlotnik, Directoro the Population Division o the United Nations,inormed the CPD on the rst day that “ertility ratesin developed countries averages a low 1.6 children perwoman,” well below the 2.1 replacement level. She alsostated: “Fertility has declined astest among the groupo developing countries” (not including least developedcountries), dropping “rom 5.8 children per womanin the early 1960s to 2.5 children per woman today,”which is replacement level or these countries becauseo higher death rates.
7
Battle Lines Drawn First Day of Ne-gotiations
Te 44th annual session o the Commissionon Population and Development (CPD) was held atUN Headquarters in New York, 11-15 April 2011.Te theme was “Fertility, Reproductive Health andDevelopment.Te goal was to negotiate and producea resolution on this topic that would guide nationaland international policies or years to come. As usual,the initial dra was prepared by the United Nationsprior to the meeting, and ormed the basis or startingthe negotiations. Any o the 192 UN Member Nationsmay participate in the negotiations, but only the 47
 
nations
8
who are currently members o the CPD may  vote or approve the nal resolution.On the rst day o negotiations, in part becausethere was already harmul language in the document,pro-lie/amily delegations came out strong, makingover 70 interventions to remove harmul languageand insert good language. A panel brieng held justprior to CPD, on 7 April 2011, helped inspire themto be so bold. Focus on the Family, Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, and Concerned Womenor America hosted the event, which was cosponsoredby the Holy See Observer Mission, and the Maltaand Honduras Missions to the United Nations. omMinnery (Focus) was MC, and Archbishop Francis A.Chullikatt delivered the opening remarks, ollowedby Yuri Mantilla, LLM (Focus), Dr. Susan Yoshihara(C-FAM), and Wendy Wright (CWA). Te purposewas to show that intact marriages, keeping the gio human sexuality within the covenant o marriage,and strong amilies are essential to producing strongcommunities and nations, as well as secure andsustainable human development.Even so, opposing nations were aggressive,making 117 interventions the rst day, either opposinggood language introduced by pro-amily delegationsor peppering the document with bad language. Also,in the plenary meeting,
9
Margaret Pollack rom theState Department delivered the ocial U.S. statement,ocusing primarily on youth and women, saying, “orwomen and adolescents to realize their ull potential,they must be able to control their own ertility …(It is) the right o all … individuals to decide reely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing o their children.
10
Yet when a woman or girl becomespregnant, an obvious way implied or her to “control(her) ertility” i the “the number, spacing and timing”o her children comes at an inconvenient time in her view, is or her to terminate the pregnancy – to aborther child.
Harmful Policies Pushed by WesternNations & Allies
In this context, let me dene “bad” as policy language that promotes “universal access to sexual andreproductive health care services and inormation,”which includes contraception, “male and emalecondoms,” “amily planning services,” and which may 
Issue Brief
www.freedomalliance.org
 
Page 3
include “emergency contraception” (abortiacientMorning-Aer Pill) and abortion –
and all without reerence to marriage, age or gender.
Te most aggressive proponents o these harmulpolicies – with the number o interventions they madeduring the rst our days o negotiations – were:18 European nations led by Sweden (66),
•
Denmark (59), Netherlands (56), Switzerland(52), Great Britain (50), Norway (49), Finland(43), Hungary (41), and Spain (40), whoormed the “Like-Minded Group”;9 “Latin American Group” nations led by 
•
Brazil (52), Uruguay (49), Argentina (37),Dominican Republic (33), and Mexico (25);Several Arican nations, but primarily South
•
Arica (25) and Zambia (21);United States (18); and
•
New Zealand (19).
•
11
 By the end o the ourth day, there were 10phrases or statements promoting abortion; 64asserting sexual and reproductive “rights” that includecontraception and could include abortion; and 6encouraging ull or comprehensive sex education orboys and girls.
12
 
Good Policies Promoted by the HolySee and Noble Nations
“Good” language is here dened as promotingpolicies that would encourage “abstinence anddelity”; improve maternal and child health andreduce their mortality; increase prenatal and postnatalcare; arm parental rights; recognize the problems o declining ertility rates and “demographic transition”with aging populations; oppose emale inanticide,abortion, “abortion … as a method o amily planning,”and human tracking; and declare “ull respect orreligious and ethical values” and national sovereignty Te most diligent delegations promoting goodpolicies – with the number o interventions (5 ormore) during the rst our days – were (some willsurprise you):Holy See delegation (72);
•
From Europe, Malta (51) and Poland (24);
•
From the “Arab Group” o nations (47);
•
From individual Arab nations, Iran (40) and
•
Pakistan 9;Russian Federation (19);
•
From Arica, Benin (9) and Swaziland (5);
•
andSaint Lucia (6).
•
13
 Aer our days, these pro-amily delegationsregistered opposition to bad language, and hadnumerous statements and paragraphs with the abovegood language.
No Compromises, so Chairman’sText
Normally during such commission meetings atthe United Nations, delegations keep negotiating untilthey reach agreement, and any language not agreed tois eliminated rom the resolution in order to producea “consensus” document. Not too many years ago, i a ew delegations were opposed to certain languageand could not be persuaded to change their position,that language was removed rom the document toreach consensus. However, the division betweenpolicy views o nations has become more striking inrecent years, and this is the third year in a row thata “Chairman’s ext” was the nal outcome o CPDbecause neither side would compromise. When nocompromise can be reached on the policy issues, thechairman o the negotiations may dra an alternative version, incorporating parts o the dra resolution.I approved by the delegations, then it becomes the“Resolution adopted” by the Commission.Te dra Chairman’s ext retained most o the“good” language, but about hal o the “bad” language.Promotion o abortion was reduced to two times;sexual and reproductive “rights” to 30 (instead o 64)
Issue Brief
www.freedomalliance.org

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->