The UN: An Evil Institution?

What do most people know about the United Nations? They may have the impression that it’s several expensive buildings on the East River in New York, filled with overpaid international bureaucrats. These people keep spending money, having meetings in New York and all over the world to endlessly discuss useless things. They come up with all kinds of suggestions and regulations that we don’t pay any attention to. Rather, let’s worry about important things.

Well, no, that’s not really what the UN is and does. Come with me to one or more of the recent major international UN meetings. There was one in Rio de Janeiro, then Cairo, Beijing, Istanbul, Rome, and this past spring in New York. To a certain extent, they’ve all followed the same pattern.

Most meetings were two weeks long. One (Istanbul) was to discuss housing. Delegates from nations all over the world attended. Basically, the housing questions were settled in the first few days or a week. During the second week, the subject discussed interminably was “reproductive health”. These are code words for legalizing abortion on demand throughout the world. It was discussed in general meetings, small meetings, press conferences, and if you were there you’d rather quickly size up who’s for what.

In dealing with abortion, there are two opposing groups of nations — the industrialized, developed world and the underdeveloped nations of the world. More specifically, led by the US and aided shamelessly by Canada and the nations of the European Union, are the wealthy, industrialized and developed nations. Arrayed against them are the G-77 nations (so called) which actually include over 150 less developed nations. Allied with the G-77 nations are the Muslim nations, the Vatican, and the pro-life, pro-family NGO’s (non-governmental organizations). You’ll quickly learn that it is the developed nations who are pushing population control (and they do mean control) on the rest of the world.

You’ll quickly find out that, with one or two minor exceptions, all of Central America, Africa and South America have laws that protect the unborn, and many of them from conception. All of the Muslim nations oppose abortion. Unfortunately, most of the Pacific Rim nations, with the exception of the Catholic Philippines, show little concern. Australia and New Zealand are allied with the West but don’t speak up too often. Japan and China are not heavy-weight players on either side of this controversy.

Besides “reproductive health”, there’s an entire lexicon of code words, but they all add up to the same thing. The wealthy nations have as their floor leader Bella Abzug. She’s from the radical feminist groups in the US. Their thrust is to change laws so that abortion on demand is legal and state-paid in every nation in the world. They want to formally recognize five genders instead of two, that is, they want to make lesbian, homosexual and bisexual activity acceptable everywhere. They are intensely socialistic, wanting full government control of just about everything. They mean to impose compulsory contraception, sterilization and, ultimately, abortion on these nations. Their ultimate goal, besides destroying the morals, marriage and family life of these nations, is clearly one of holding down and, if possible, reducing their populations. For them, these nations have too many babies. Babies are pollution, so let’s get rid of them or prevent them from being conceived.

Our September 1996 issue of Connector discussed the amazing victory of our volunteer pro-life lobbyists at Istanbul. Later we held them off again in Rome. Happily, a similar victory was achieved in New York at the Earth Summit meeting of the UN this spring.

The leader of the pack is Bill Clinton. He has appointed a solid array of radical feminist zealots, with unlimited sums of money from USAID and other US State Department agencies, the World Bank, Pathfinder, International Planned Parenthood, the Futures Group, the Johns Hopkins Population Program, CERPOD and dozens of other anti-life organizations, aided directly and aggressively by most United Nations agencies. Don’t be surprised to see Ted Turner’s recent $1 billion dollar largesse to the UN largely go toward controlling the population of Third World countries.

From whence does all of this come? Well, let’s leave these recent UN meetings and dig back into some history. What we discover is a carefully crafted, top-down plan of the industrial nations to continue their control over the rest of the world.

In 1930 the Eurocentric peoples of the West made up 35% of the earth’s population. Today the West comprises 15% and is still dominant. But, according to present birthrates, by the year 2025, this percent will be 9, and by the year 2100, under 5%.

During the last century, Europe had an extremely high birth rate. It was during those years that Europe and the US, with its similar high birthrate, came to dominate the globe. Between the years 1790 to 1840, US population increased five-fold. By 1870, thirty years later, it had tripled again. In the next ten years, 1870-1880, it increased by 37%. By the turn of the century the US had fully 15 times more people than it had 100 years earlier. During the first half of the 20th century, the increase in US numbers averaged 3% a year, and it was during this time that the US was most effectively increasing its productivity, power and standing in the world.

Europe, with its high birthrate, continued to export people, emigrating throughout the world, but particularly to the US. Between 1846 and 1930, immigration into the US averaged between 500,00 and 900,000 per year, totaling over 50 million Europeans. The Caucasian population in 1800 had been 22% of the human race. By 1930 it was 35%. This was the demographic foundation of what would later become termed the world revolution of westernization. During these years the influence, power and hegemony of the West became dominant worldwide.

Those were the days of colonial control of underdeveloped countries and the exploitation of their raw materials through which the West grew richer. But then there were a couple of World Wars, and things began to change. Colonial domination had to give, and these nations became politically independent. However, they remained economically dependent on the West. In more recent years, a progressive demographic change of massive degree has sown the seeds for a complete change as to which nations will dominate the globe. For a variety of reasons, partly because of their own wealth — with the vehicle being contraception and abortion — the birthrate of the Western nations dropped precipitously. It is now below replacement level throughout the West. At the same time, due to modest improvements in sanitation and disease control, there has been a continuing increase in population in the lesser developed nations, primarily due to sharply extended life spans.

The West saw this coming as long as forty years ago. These encroaching demographic changes meant that someday the West would no longer dominate other nations through sheer force of numbers of people. It was seen that, given time, nations with the highest birth rates would ultimately dominate nations with aging populations and reduced birth rates. This had to be taken care of.

A seminal paper on this, released from secret government archives recently, was a previously classified National Security Council memorandum signed by Kissinger in the summer of 1970. It elevated population control to a “top priority item”, and that year the World Bank made its first population control loan.

Seeing that the West would eventually decline as the world leader, the US, along with Western Europe, judged that nothing less than the leadership of the world was at stake. Since that time, through both Republican and Democrat administrations, the thrust of our foreign policy (although never publicized as such) has been to use all avenues of influence and all available resources and direct them toward activities that would bear upon population growth in high fertility societies. The US began to use its undoubted influence over the World Bank to force population control policies on less developed nations.

Books have been written about the coercive lending policies and the gifts with strings attached that have been directed toward the developing world in the last several decades. One hypothetical example can demonstrate the thrust of these. This particular village needs a deep well so that it can have clean water to prevent its children and others from dying from infectious diseases. A Western group comes in and is willing to give a grant to do this, but on one condition. The condition is that 25% of the women in the village would be sterilized.

This type of population control, amounting to nothing less than potential genocide, has been increasing in its momentum in the last two decades. Originally, it was a very subtle thing, as it confronted, particularly in Africa and South America, long established cultural values that saw large families as wanted and valuable. Slowly, corrosively, by means of all kinds of methods, honorable and otherwise, the leadership of underdeveloped nations was in essence bought off and/or coerced into adopting policies to lower their fertility rate. Suffice it to say that one or two weeks’ exposure at a United Nations meeting will leave no doubt in an observer’s mind that this is exactly what is happen-ing. Typical of this kind of pressure was a statement by a woman delegate from an Eastern African nation who, almost in tears, told a pro-life lobbyist that she was in total agreement with our value system. She said she abhorred the “ugly American” policies of the delegates appointed by Mr. Clinton and that she hated the money that was being distributed in her country to reduce the population, as it was destroying families and subverting their youth. “But,” she said, “we are totally dependent upon grants from the West. If we do not conform, we will not be able to exist. We have become dependent on what the West gives us.” She voted with the Western nations.

A US Army conference on Long-range Planning in Foreign Affairs in the summer of 1991 analyzed the demographic data and stated: “If these trends continue for another generation or two, the implications for the international political order and the balance of world power could be enormous.” It continued: “A very different world would seem to be emerging … with a diminished role and status for today’s industrial democracies. With a generalized and progressive industrialization of current low income areas, diminution in the West will be all the more rapid. Thus, one can easily envision a world more unreceptive, and ultimately more threatening, to the interests of the US and its allies. This could conceivably be an international environment even more threatening, menacing, to the security prospects of the Western Alliance than was the Cold War for the past generation.”

We see the wealthy but aging West reacting in an almost frantic manner. Huge amounts of money are being spent in the developing world through subsidy and bait, through coercion when needed to cut the birth rate of these countries before they overwhelm the West. One million children a year die from malaria. With medication, costing but a tiny fraction of the money spent for contraception, it could largely be controlled in Africa, but almost none of the West’s money is going to solve this health problem. One is tempted to see the logic.

And so, unbeknownst to the average citizen, Western political leaders are now at the brink of desperation. They are motivated by the belief that the existing balance of political and economic power can only be preserved into the next century by… let’s call it what it will be…a new colonial system — one in which reproductive control is central, is the only goal.

It certainly is possible, on the political level, to hold opinions on which nations and cultures should be dominant in the world. Let’s for the minute set that aside if we can. Our specific concern here are the methods being used. The UN, Clinton and European Union methods are to undermine and destroy marriage and the family. They vigorously promote killing unborn babies and even outright infanticide (e.g., in China). In so many ways the situation looks hopeless.

Standing against this tide are the underdeveloped nations. Sparking their increasingly successful resistance at the UN meetings have been a little band of volunteer pro-life NGO’s who have informed and lobbied the G-77 delegates.

Overwhelming money and power against unpaid volunteers? Yes, and these pro-life efforts are making a difference.

Life Issues Institute welcomes comments relevant to columns that are civil, concise, and respectful of other contributors. We do not publish comments with links to other websites or other online material.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *