UNICEF: Friend or Foe?
By Sass
Featured Rightgrrl May 1999
October 25, 1999Placing a coin or two in that orange box this Halloween may fund a variety of aid for children. That quarter may go towards food, clothing, shelter, basic educational supplies, medicine and the like. It may also go towards an aspiration abortion, various forms of birth control, and sterilization... even involuntary sterilization.
It is sad to see that the organization whose original charter was to provide services and material to the world's needy children, and who once commanded the respect of us all, has come to this.
UNICEF of course, maintains that despite the public record, such claims are false. In a 1996 statement, the director of UNICEF, Carol Bellamy, said that
"UNICEF dealt with family planning only from the standpoint of health, emphasizing the benefit to the mother's health of spacing births". [1]A wealth of information available to the public record, proves that statement to be at the very least, grossly misleading and at the most, an outright lie.The appointment of Carol Bellamy in May of 1995, to succeed James P. Grant (who died in early 1995) as director, was itself met with speculation. Bellamy, when serving as state senator in New York in the mid 1970's, voted against the Aid To Live Aborted Child Act which mandated that if a baby survived an abortion and was born alive, he would be given the same care as any other premature baby. [2] Bellamy also opposed other bills that in doing so, clearly indicate her role as an abortion supporter.
The public record provies much to those willing to look and learn rather than accept the "official statements" of those whose interests are best served by concealing the facts. In the United Nations Fund for Population Activities own Inventory of Population Projects, it was revealed that in Nepal in 1987-88, UNICEF cooperated in a project to organize, expand and improve the quality of sterilization in mobile units country-wide". [3] In the 1990 Inventory, it was reported that UNICEF contributed $1.3 million to aid in a project in Malawi which had as it's objective, "the development of surgical contraception services". [3] In May of 1993, UNICEF announced that it would increase it's support of "major population initiatives". [3] We see then, that UNICEF's gravitation towards the clandestine anti-life agenda it seems to be supporting today, was a continual and gradual one. These items are but a drop, in the ocean of items available to illustrate this continual trend.
KENYA:UNICEF receives $700,000 from the World Bank for a Population Project. The project was amended in 1985 to include surgical contraceptive (sterilization) facilities in 13 district hospitals and family planning clinics. (292) [4]
MALAWI: UNICEF receives $1.8 million from the World Bank to particiapte in a "Family Health Project" that included development of surgical contraceptives (sterilization) as well as primary health care, child spacing and nutrition. (333) [4]
NEPAL: UNICEF receives $795,569 from UNFPA to participate in a joint project to support FP/MCH activities including providing contraceptives and to organize, expand and improve the quality of mobile sterilization units. (395) [4]
BANGLADESH: The 1988/89 Inventory of Population Projects in Developing Countries Around The World reports UNFPA provided $5, 453,023 to UNICEF to "provide support" to the integrated maternal and child health/family planning services and to the Population control and Family Planning Division. [4]
And the list goes on. During the summer of 1995, the Catholic Women's
League of the Philippines won a restraining order against a two year
old WHO and UNICEF anti-tetanus program. Two labs had found "B-hCG"
sterilizing agent in the vaccine. The Filipino program had already
"vaccinated" 3.4 million people (all women, mainly between the ages of
12-45). The hormon-laced vaccine was also discovered in Mexico,
Nicaragua, Tanzania, India and possibly Nigeria. The anti-hCG hormone
causes not only surreptitious sterilizations, but also incurable
auto-immune disorders, miscarriages and birth defects. [5] [5.1] [5.2]
And then there's China. Despite the considerable international
attention that the unconscienable human rights abuses (including the
horror of the "dying rooms" of the Chinese Government orphanages,
forced child labour and forced abortions and sterilizations) received
in 1996, when UNICEF issued it's 1997 edition of The State of the
World's Children, there was not a single reference to China's
orphanages despite the document running to 107 pages. Not one mention
of China's forced child labour. Not one allusion to Chinese sweatshops
where children work for less than one dollar a month. Not a line about
little girls tied to beds or strapped to toddler chairs and left in
freezing rooms to die. [1] On the
contrary, the UNICEF report praised China for passing legislation on
child rights that supposedly guarantees Chinese citizens "the right and
obligation to receive education." [6]
What about the right to life, or the right not to be tortured and/or
left to die in the "dying rooms" of the government orphanages? How can
a child not sure if they get to live... care about whether or not they
get the right to an education? How about putting the horse before the
cart?
By UNICEF's own accounting though, China is the most "baby-friendly"
nation in the world. [6]
How does that follow?
Some important points about UNICEF:
WHO and IPPF (International Planned
Parenthood Federation) formed a new link in 1976 and agreed all
aspects of their planning would be undertaken jointly and there
would be joint programs [8] An
article in the IPPF News Nov./Dec. 1976 is entitled "UNICEF
Makes an Offer" suggesting UNICEF is considering support for Family
Planning Associations.
It seems to this writer, that there is a gross abuse of trust, and a
fair amount of "conditional", or even "coerced" aid to those that have
few other options. How can I not see this as a "loan-sharking" of the
needy?
In September 1977, Population Reports issued a Special Topic
Monograph entitled "Guide to Equipment Selection for M/F
Sterilization Procedures", containing (in part) the following
information.
2. In accordance with the title of
this monograph, lists of instruments for medical kits for various types
of surgery for female sterilization are given. Of the five kits shown,
two were developed by UNICEF. [10]
Need I say more? In fact, there is more.Various other
Population Reports cite UNICEF's involvement in the provision of
abortifacients as well. There is quite simply, so much information to
be found, showing how UNICEF was and is involved in the very activities
that it denies involvement in, that it behooves every one of us
concerned for Pro-Life, Pro-Woman, Pro-Child and Pro-Family values to
question our own support of UNICEF. In 1997, the Vatican did just
that, and today it seems that despite the differing opinions and
leanings towards "looking the other way" of some of our Bishops, the
Holy Father (in his 1999 visit to Mexico City) made this statement:
I would be remiss if I didn't point out that in 1997, when the Vatican
withdrew their token contribution to UNICEF, citing some of these
concerns, the infamous "Catholics For a Free Choice" replaced the
Vatican's contribution dollar for dollar. Said Frances Kissling of
Catholic For a Free Choice:
It would seem that again, despite the "official statements" denying
involvement in these activities, other organizations such as Catholics
For a Free Choice, are only too happy to "spill the beans" regarding
the actions of UNICEF.
What then, does all this amount to? Some would say that because (and I
don't dispute this) UNICEF does do good out there, that we
should weigh that good as being enough to justify overlooking the
obvious evil. I personally, cannot do so. In our looking the other
way, we condone and effectively contribute to the increased activity in
these areas. Would any of the 3.4 million women unknowingly
administered a sterilization agent feel that looking the other way was
for the greater good? In condoning such activity, we send the message
that conditional assistance is acceptable, and that women's rights...
real women's rights such as the right not to be sterilized
without consent and or to receive assistance whether or not we are
willing to submit to these procedures, are determined by who holds the
cash. Our complicity tells them that the right to be born, and the
right to our own bodies is only important to the fortunate.
Some have suggested earmarking funds for certain projects to ensure
that our funds go to basic care such as food and medicine, water and
education. It doesn't take long to figure out that as in their own
admission of December 1973 - January 1974, "earmarked funds" simply
free up other funds to go towards those projects we find objectionable.
In effect, "earmarked funds" indirectly support the same projects, just
in a way that makes those willing to "look the other way" feel a bit
more comfortable about their positions. [9]
Do I want third world children to be abandoned? Not at all. Third world
children and parents deserve genuine help. Help that is not dependant
upon complicity in a scheme to render them sterile, infertile and
"population controlled". Help that comes unconditionally from our
hearts and not from our "conditional" pocketbooks alone, help that is
humanitarian and egalitarian, not imperialistic. UNICEF may cry "not
I", but the public record tells the sad tale for those who care to hear
it.
Let us then, continue to offer our coins, our dollars, our help to
those struggling, but let us offer them to organizations such as
Development and Peace, [12] the Holy
Childhood Association, [13] and others
that will use those funds to provide aid not abortion and sustenance
not sterilization. Perhaps UNICEF will then realize what it's original
mandate was, and return to those ideals from whence they were honorable
and commanded the respect they have sadly lost.
For more information on UNICEF, taken from their own records, please
see UNICEF: GUILTY as charged by Winifride Prestwich, available
for purchase as a booklet, or download free at UNICEF:
GUILTY as charged [14] .
Sources:
UNICEF and the WHO (World Health Organization) have a
joint policy committee, having agreed back to 1972, to expand their
roles in "population dynamics". [7]
It appears then, that UNICEF was indeed involved in the promotion,
procurement and distribution of abortifacients and sterilization
equipment contrary to past and present "official statements". In fact,
in UNICEF News of December 1973 - January 1974, we find the
following statement:
"It is also difficult and somewhat misleading to
state a figure as to the amount of aid UNICEF is providing for family
planning, as family planning is ordinarily an inextricable part of a
broad maternal and child health service."
It is freely admitted that much of the money for these purposes is
obtained from the UNFPA, which channels money via UNICEF into areas
where other agencies are not readily known, as UNICEF is already
accepted and trusted in those countries. [9]
1. "Sterilization equipment may be obtained through a
variety of national and international donor agencies... United
Nations (UN) agencies - the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)
and the World Health Organization (WHO) can be a source of equipment
assistance directly to governments or government sponsored programs.
"The Church feels the duty to defend the human
dignity which belongs to every person and denounces discrimination,
sexual abuse and male domination as actions contrary to God's plan. In
particular, the Church deplores the appalling practice, sometimes part
of a larger plan, of the sterilization of women, especially the poorest
and most marginalized, often carried out surreptitiously, without the
women themselves realizing it. This is all the more serious when it is
done in order to obtain economic aid at the international level."
[11]
"We view UNICEF as an important organization working
for the good of the child and the mother - you can't isolate one from
the other. However, we have noticed an increasingly aggressive
attitude
on the part of the Vatican toward international agencies,
partiucularily with regard to family planning. This withdrawal of
support is the latest and most outrageous attempt to influence
international agencies and get them to act like they were religious
ones." [6]
[1] Director insists Catholics should not worry about UNICEF's
programs - Catholic Register, January 22, 1996
[2] Cong. Smith Contests Appointment of Bellamy to UN Post -
The Wanderer, 1995
[3] This Halloween don't trick yourself into supporting UNICEF -
Right to Life, Fall 1994
[4] Behind the Mask of UNICEF - Population Research Institute
Pamphlet
[5] All for their own good of course - Western Report,
October 1995
[5.1] Philippines Medical Association 1996
[5.2] Vatican Withdraws Support for UNICEF - CLC National
News, December 1996
[6] UNICEF - No Room at the Inn, Samuel Casey Carter -
Crisis, December 1997
[7] IPPF News, September 1972
[8] IPPF News, November/December 1976
[9] UNICEF News, December 1973 - January 1974
[10] Population Reports, September 1977
[11] From the Editor - Columbia Magazine, October 1999
[12] Development and Peace
http://www.devp.org/
10 St. Mary Street, Suite # 420
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M4Y 1P9
Phone: (416) 922-1592
Fax: (416) 922-0957
Toll Free: 1-800-494-1401
[13] Holy Childhood Association
http://www.holychildhoodusa.org
National Office ^Õ 1720 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202-775-8637
or...
Sister Constance Lacroix, C.S.J.
National Secretary - Holy Childhood Association
3329 Danforth Avenue
Scarborough, Ontario Canada M1L 4T3
[14] UNICEF: GUILTY as charged, Winifiride Prestwich
http://www.lifesite.net/waronfamily/unicef/index.html
Copyright 1999 by Sass Seagal. Not to be reproduced in any fashion,
in whole or in part, without written consent from the author. All
rights reserved.