|
CHAPTER 9
The UN War on Population
The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970’s the world
will undergo famines — hundreds of millions of people are going to
starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.1
• Paul Ehrlich,
The Population Bomb (1968)
Central to the issues we are going to have to deal with are: ... the
explosive increase in population.... We have been the most
successful species ever; we are now a species out of control.2
• Maurice F. Strong,
UNCED Secretary-General
Since its inception, the U.N. has advanced a world-wide of
population control, scientific human breeding, and Darwinism.3
• Claire Chambers,
The SIECUS Circle: A Humanist Revolution
The
United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the International
Planned Parenthood Federation have the blood of millions of innocent
babies worldwide on their hands.4
• Rev. Paul Marx,
Founder, Human Life International
One of the greatest hoaxes of the 20th century, now accepted without
question by much of the world’s “educated” populace, is the
fraudulent contention that the earth is terribly overpopulated with
humans. So serious is the “overpopulation crisis,” according to
prevailing wisdom, that it threatens not only to outstrip food
production and all other basic resources, but also to render our
planet uninhabitable for humans and other animal species because of
pollution.
Overpopulation is a crucial tenet underlying much of the
collectivist One-World agenda. According to its theorists, this
global “crisis,” justifies the most far-reaching government controls
imaginable: controls over the economy, the environment, and, of
course, over the most private and intimate of areas, our
reproductive lives. The high oracle of the doctrine of
overpopulation for more than two decades — and a leading advocate of
totalitarian “remedy” for this supposed affliction — has been Paul
Ehrlich.
Since its publishing debut in 1968, more than 20 million
copies of his book The Population Bomb have been sold, making it one
of the best-selling books of all time. It remains on high school and
college required reading lists, along with Professor Ehrlich’s
newest diatribe, The Population Explosion,5 a 1990 update of his
famous doomsday message of 1968.
In the earlier work he warned:
Our position requires that we take immediate action at home and
promote effective action worldwide. We must have population control
at home, hopefully through a system of incentives and penalties, but
by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.... We can no longer afford
merely to treat the symptoms of the cancer of population growth; the
cancer itself must be cut out.6 [Emphasis added]
Although his radically pessimistic predictions of dying oceans and
imminent global catastrophes were refuted at the time by many men of
science (and the passing years have seen the refutations increase in
number),7 the biologist from Stanford University rocketed to stardom
as a leading spokesman of the environment/population control
movement. In The Population Bomb, Ehrlich praised abortion as “a
highly effective weapon in the armory of population control,” and
suggested that “compulsory birth regulation” through the
government-mandated addition of “temporary sterilants to water
supplies or staple food” may become necessary.8
A few months earlier, in the Winter 1968 issue of Stanford Today, he
was even more explicit.
“It must be made clear to our population,”
he said, “that it is socially irresponsible to have large families.”
Then, completely disregarding parental rights, norms of morality,
and the fact that our constitutional system grants the federal
government absolutely no authority to meddle in such affairs, he
called for “federal laws making instruction in birth-control methods
mandatory in all public schools.”9 Increasing the intensity of his
totalitarian demands, he stated,
“If these steps fail to reverse
today’s population growth, we shall then be faced with some form of
compulsory birth regulation. We might institute a system whereby a
temporary sterilant would be added to a staple food or to the water
supply. An antidote would have to be taken to permit
reproduction.”10 (Emphasis added)
Sound a bit authoritarian? Well,
according to this anti-population crusader, we’re facing a deadly
serious situation, and the “operation will require many brutal and
tough-minded decisions.”11 Ehrlich’s critical acclaim in the major
media and his phenomenal book sales ushered in a doom boom that has
fed, and in turn has been fed by, an ever-expanding proliferation of
population control programs.
They are funded by tax dollars funneled
through national government agencies, the United Nations, and an
international network of private anti-natalist organizations. Of the
many ecological jeremiads following in the wake of The Population
Bomb, two of the most influential were The Limits to Growth
(1972),12 a report produced for the Club of Rome, and the Global
2000 Report to the President of the United States (1980),13 a
federal government publication that gives legitimacy to the thoughts
of a large assemblage of professional wailers from
environmental/population control circles.
The Limits to Growth has
sold over 10 million copies and has been translated into more than
30 languages. The prodigious Global 2000, whose physical size
resembles a New York City telephone book, sold over one million
copies. Both achieved an aura of importance with their reliance on
sophisticated computer modeling to analyze massive banks of data,
factor in various assumptions and variables, and then predict the
future.
Like Ehrlich, these publications predicted a dismal future for both
mankind and nature unless governments intervened on a massive scale.
As the Club of Rome’s researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology reported in The Limits to Growth: “Entirely new
approaches are required to redirect society toward goals of
equilibrium rather than growth.” And, “joint long-term planning will
be necessary on a scale and scope without precedent.” The ultimate
goal of this “supreme effort” would be “to organize more equitable
distribution of wealth and income worldwide.”14
Karl Marx could not
have phrased it better. And, of course, the social engineers with
their mighty computers would show the way. Not everyone, however,
was favorably impressed by their efforts or their results.
Scientists and scholars from many disciplines, representing a broad
cross-section of political thought, thoroughly discredited these
studies with facts, logic, and sound analysis. Even socialist Gunnar
Myrdal, certainly no opponent of heavy-handed government, remained
unconvinced that the celebrated MIT researchers had made a
worthwhile contribution to our knowledge of the world, how it works,
or what to expect in the future.
The Nobel Prize-winning economist said of the Club of Rome’s vaunted
“science”:
[T]he use of mathematical equations and a huge computer, which
registers the alternatives of abstractly conceived policies by a
“world simulation model,” may impress the innocent general public
but has little, if any, scientific validity. That this “sort of
model is actually a new tool for mankind” is unfortunately not true.
It represents quasi-learnedness of a type that we have, for a long
time, had too much of....”15
Or, as another unimpressed scholar
would aptly put it, the MIT team amounted to little more than a
glorified “Malthus with a computer.”16 The Global 2000 team differed
little from the MIT group in approach, methodology, assumptions, and
conclusions. In its letter of transmittal to the President of the
United States, its staff reported, as expected, that the world’s
future was indeed bleak:
Environmental, resource, and population stresses are intensifying
and will increasingly determine the quality of human life on our
planet. These stresses are already severe enough to deny many
millions of people basic needs for food, shelter, health, and jobs,
or any hope for betterment. At the same time, the earth’s carrying
capacity ... is eroding.17
But a different group of eminent
scientists and academics, surveying precisely the same horizons,
came away with a completely opposite picture of what the future
holds. In The Resourceful Earth: A Response to Global 2000, these
experts predicted:
Environmental, resource, and population stresses are diminishing,
and with the passage of time will have less influence than now upon
the quality of human life on our planet. These stresses have in the
past always caused many people to suffer from lack of food, shelter,
health, and jobs, but the trend is toward less rather than more of
such suffering. Especially important and noteworthy is the dramatic
trend toward longer and healthier life throughout all the world.
Because of increases in knowledge, the earth’s “carrying capacity”
has been increasing throughout the decades and centuries and
millennia to such an extent that the term “carrying capacity” has by
now no useful meaning.18
The authors of The Resourceful Earth
marshaled an avalanche of scientific evidence to substantiate their
optimistic projections and to refute the dire prophesies of the
Global 2000 alarmists. Their authoritative refutations received
scant media attention, however, and were not successful in
offsetting the harmful influence of the doomsday reports or in
stanching the seemingly endless succession of imitators. What The
Resourceful Earth scientists and many other scholars have
conclusively demonstrated is that the scientific credibility of
overpopulation alarmists is about as reliable as that of Chicken
Little.
There is no evidence that the earth, or any region of it, is
overpopulated. China and India, two countries most often cited as
cases of extreme population density, in reality have population
densities similar to Pennsylvania and the United Kingdom,
respectively.19 These and other socialist nations suffer not from
overpopulation, but overregulation: not too many people, but too
many bureaucrats and too much government stifling productivity and
progress.
We do not have the space here to attempt to dispel the
overpopulation myths that have been so assiduously promoted over the
past two decades. For those with an interest in exploring this
important issue, however, there are a number of excellent works that
deserve attention: The Myth of Overpopulation by Rousas J. Rushdoony;
Grow or Die by James A. Weber; The War Against Population by
Jacqueline Kasun; The Ultimate Resource by Julian Simon; Population
Growth: The Advantages by Colin Clark; Handbook on Population by
Robert Sassone; and The Birth Dearth by Ben Wattenberg.
The globalists at the Club of Rome, Council on Foreign Relations,
Zero Population Growth, Planned Parenthood, and the United Nations
continue to hold to and support their doom-and-gloom worldview in
the face of overwhelmingly contrary evidence. Doing so supplies the
excuse for their continuing proposals for global “crisis
management.”
Thus we have reports like Changing Our Ways (1992) from
the Carnegie Endowment’s National Commission on America and the New
World, claiming population growth “threatens international
stability,” and “universal access to family planning services ... is
the least costly and ... the most pragmatic means to address the
issue.”20
The Carnegie Commission charged that “American leadership
has been absent on the population crisis for too long,” even though
it admits in the next breath “the United States remains the largest
donor (in 1990, $280 million).”21
“Since the 1980s,” continued the
report of this prestigious panel of Establishment Insiders, “the
United States has abandoned the two major international
organizations devoted to population control efforts: the
International Planned Parenthood Federation ... and the United
Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).”22
The Carnegie collectivists were
referring to the congressional cutoff of funding for these
organizations, beginning in 1985, because of the support they were
providing for coercive abortion policies and programs in China. But
the cutoff of American-supplied funds for one UN agency did not kill
the UN’s efforts to force population control.
The UN Supplies the Funds
The barbarity of China’s one-child policy was so repugnant that, as
reports came out, even many liberals were repelled. In her book
entitled The War Against Population, conservative Professor
Jacqueline Kasun supplied a stunning summary of the shocking
brutality directed against pregnant women by China’s communist
officials:
Christopher Wren reported in the New York Times that thousands of
Chinese women were being “rounded up and forced to have abortions.”
He described women “locked in detention cells or hauled before mass
rallies and harangued into consenting to abortions.” He told of
“vigilantes [who] abducted pregnant women on the streets and hauled
them off, sometimes handcuffed or trussed, to abortion clinics,” and
of “aborted babies which were ... crying when they were born.”
Michele Vink wrote in the Wall Street Journal of women who were
“handcuffed, tied with ropes or placed in pig’s baskets” for their
forced trips to the abortion clinics. According to Steven Mosher,
the People’s Republic Press was openly speaking of the “butchering,
drowning, and leaving to die of female infants and the maltreating
of women who have given birth to girls.”23
China scholar Steven
Mosher, who personally witnessed the harshness of these policies in
the rural Chinese village where he lived and worked on his doctoral
studies during 1979-80, noted that U.S. “tax dollars were providing
about 25 percent of the annual budget for the United Nations Fund
for Population Activities. Monies from UNFPA’s budget (which ran
$136 million in 1985) have aided China’s population control
program.”24 Long after China’s atrocious policies were brought to
light, UNFPA was still supporting the totalitarian measures. In July
1987, for example, the New China News Agency in Beijing reported the
praise an UNFPA official had showered on the regime.
“China is
actively working to set up a model of how social and economic
factors can be harnessed in a harmonious way,” he said. “The
government has shown its full commitment to a family planning
program that has been internationally acknowledged as one of the
most successful efforts in the world today.”25 (Emphasis added)
The Council on Foreign Relations chose to swallow the line put out
by Chinese communist officials and
UN bureaucrats rather than believe the independently corroborated
stories of both Chinese and Western observers. In his article
entitled “The Case for Practical Internationalism” in the Spring
1988 issue of Foreign Affairs, top CFR strategist Richard N. Gardner
reiterated earlier calls for programs to meet the “population
challenge” and asserted:
A major challenge to the next president will be to restore U.S.
support for the U.N. Fund for Population Activities, which we have
cut off over charges that China’s population program uses coercive
abortion, something both China and UNFPA deny. The U.S. Agency for
International Development (AID) denied any direct role in supplying
funds for China’s population program.26
According to Jacqueline Kasun, AID may not have done so directly, but,
“it was a major
contributor to the International Planned Parenthood Federation and
the UN Fund for Population Activities, both of which supplied funds
to the Chinese program. China and the United States also exchanged
researchers to study population policy.”27
But, if the UNFPA
received U.S. funds indirectly through other U.S.-funded
organizations, isn’t it still accurate to state that the citizens of
this nation are helping to fund the population control activities of
the UN? Also, the denial by Chinese and UNFPA officials that
coercive abortion is being practiced in China is a bald-faced lie.
AID officials could hardly back up their disavowal; AID records
plainly show the agency’s funding of IPPF and UNFPA, both of which
have been open advocates of coercive population measures. For
example, the outspoken president of Planned Parenthood, Alan
Guttmacher, who was also a top official of IPPF, bluntly stated in
1969:
“Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion,
determining when and how it should be employed.... The means
presently available are compulsory sterilization and compulsory
abortion.”28
The taxpayer-funded IPPF, says Fr. Paul Marx, the
founder of Human Life International, “is the world’s largest
purveyor of abortion on demand. IPPF’s model of ‘safe motherhood’ is
a sterile woman with a dead baby, preferably a baby killed at one of
their numerous abortion mills.”29 Author Claire Chambers, who has
done extensive research on the history of the population control
movement, charged in 1977:
“Since its inception, the U.N. has
advanced a world-wide program of population control, scientific
human breeding, and Darwinism.”30
Evidence to support that
contention is plentiful. Jacqueline Kasun made the same point in her
The War Against Population:
Since 1965 the United States has contributed more to foreign
population-control programs than all other countries combined and
has pressured other countries and international agencies to back the
programs. In addition to more than 2 billion dollars in explicit AID
“population assistance” appropriations to various countries and
international organizations such as the United Nations Fund for
Population Activities, the United States has made donations to the
World Bank and to United Nations organizations — including the World
Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, UNESCO,
UNICEF, and the International Labor Organization — that have been
used for population control, with a degree of enthusiasm and
dedication equal to that of the AID bureaucracy.31
UN Pushes War on Population
From the UN’s very beginning, key UN figures such as Brock Chisholm,
Julian Huxley, and Paul Hoffman were promoting anti-natalist
policies.32 The first director general of the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was
humanist leader Julian Huxley, who in 1947 wrote in UNESCO: Its
Purpose and Its Philosophy:
Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic
[controlled human breeding] policy will be for many years
politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for
Unesco to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest
care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so
that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.33
[Emphasis added]
UNESCO’s quarterly journal, Impact of Science on
Society, served as a regular platform for anti-natalist propaganda.
In the fall of 1968, almost the entire issue of this publication was
devoted to population control themes. The UN’s formal acceptance of
the world leadership role for population control can be traced back
at least to 1954 when a UN Population Commission recommended that
every country should “have a population policy.”34
“Human Rights
Day,” December 11, 1967, proved to be a landmark date. On that
occasion, UN Secretary-General U Thant, President of the United
States Lyndon B. Johnson, and 29 other heads of state issued a
Declaration on Population.
“This Declaration proclaimed ‘fertility
control’ to be a new, socalled basic human right,” notes author
Claire Chambers. “During the same period, various specialized
agencies of the U.N. acted in concert with this edict, developing
their own corresponding mandates.”35
That same year saw the
establishment of the UN Fund for Population Activities by
Secretary-General U Thant, a Marxist, and the subsequent
organization and management of the Fund under the administration of
Paul Hoffman (CFR) was another major advance for the population
planners. UNFPA, says Professor Kasun, “excellently illustrates the
labyrinthine financial connections of the world population network.”
She explained:
Deriving its income from the United States and other governments, it
provides support to numerous “nongovernmental organizations,”
including the Population Council, the Population Action Council,
Worldwatch, the Population Crisis Committee and Draper Fund, and the
Centre for Population Activities. These organizations in turn make
grants to each other and to still other organizations.36
On November
12, 1971, the UN Population Commission adopted a resolution urging,
among other things, that all member states:
-
cooperate in achieving a substantial reduction of the rate of
population growth [in the countries where it was needed].
-
ensure that information and education about family planning, as
well as the means to effectively practice family planning, are made
available to all individuals by the end of the Second United Nations
Development Decade [1980].37 This Commission further designated 1974
as World Population Year, invited all member states to participate
in the event, and requested the UN Secretary-General, among other
things, to:
-
study the possibilities of developing a global population
strategy, including population movements, for promoting and
co-coordinating population policies in Member States with the
objective of achieving a balance between population and other
natural resources....38
The year 1972 saw the convening of the UN’s Conference on the Human
Environment, which met in Stockholm, June 5-16. Just prior to the
conference, UN Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim expressed the opinion
that the conference’s leaders “must surely link the increasing
pollution of the planet with the increasing population of the
planet.”39 The Stockholm conference urged that “special attention be
given to population concerns as they relate to the environment
during the 1974 observance of World Population Year.”40
The
population conference was held in Bucharest, where, notes Professor Kasun, “The dean of the American activists, John D. Rockefeller III,
addressed the assembled delegates to stress that ‘population
planning’ should be incorporated into all plans for economic
development.” Rockefeller added: “Population planning must be a
fundamental and integral part of any modern development program,
recognized as such by national leadership and supported fully.”41
The year 1994 will mark the 20th anniversary of that event.
Accordingly, plans are being laid for a Population Summit in 1994,
along the lines of the 1992 UNCED Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.
Not that population issues were ignored at Rio. Far from it.
Underlying all of the issues dear to the hearts of
“environmentalists” is the matter of population, or rather,
population control. In spite of disagreement on many other issues,
the one thing that finds the greens in greatest unanimity is the
belief that there are too many people in this world and that
something drastic must be done to address the situation.
Many UNCED speakers worked population themes into their speeches.
UNCED chief Maurice Strong deplored the world’s “explosive increase
in population,” and warned, “[w]e have been the most successful
species ever; we are now a species out of control.” He thundered:
“Population must be stabilized, and rapidly.”42 Jacques Cousteau,
one of the most venerated attractions at the Rio summit, issued a
dire warning that “the fuse connected to a demographic explosion is
already burning.” At most, he said, humanity has ten years to put it
out.
Parroting the new Paul Ehrlich population scare stories, the
famed oceanographer urged “drastic, unconventional decisions” if the
world is to avoid reaching the “unacceptable” and “absurd figure of
16 billion human beings” by the year 2070.43 The same theme was
echoed by Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, who is a
member of the Socialist International and chair of the World
Commission on Environment and Development; by Mostafa Tolba,
executive director of the United Nations Environment Program; and by
many others.44
Agenda 21, one of the main documents to come out of
the UN’s Rio conference, asserts that $4.5 billion per year is
needed for demographic policies in developing countries and says
some $7 billion per year is needed until the year 2000 to implement
“intensive programmes” necessary for population stabilization.45
What that means, in plain English, is that the UN wants a lot more
money to expand its population control programs of sterilization,
abortion, and universal access to sex education and contraceptives.
“Safe Motherhood” Scam
Much of the UN’s activity in support of its war on population comes
from its World Bank. At the Rio Earth Summit, Bank president Lewis
Preston (CFR) pledged to increase greatly his institution’s support
for population control programs.46 He had already begun those
efforts earlier in 1992 with the launching of the so-called “Safe
Motherhood Initiative” that opponents were denouncing as “a policy
that puts a bounty on the lives of unborn children.”
At the International Safe Motherhood Initiative conference held
March 9-11, 1992 in Washington DC, Preston promised the 120
delegates from 20 developing countries a doubling of World Bank
support for anti-population programs.47 Ostensibly initiated to
improve the general health needs of women in Third World nations,
the core of the program is population control. The initiative is a
joint project of the World Bank, International Planned Parenthood
Federation (IPPF), Family Care International, the U.S. AID-funded
Population Council, and several other agencies — including the
supposedly pro-child United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the
UN’s World Health Organization (WHO), and UNFPA.
According to Jean
M. Guilfoyle, director of the pro-family, Washington-based
Population Research Institute, the Safe Motherhood program involves
“the legalization of abortion surgeries and the imposition of
restrictive population control policies.” She noted that there are
“those among the targeted nations who dare to call this ‘economic
blackmail with genocidal intent.’”48
In the May/June 1992 issue of
Population Research Institute Review, Guilfoyle stated:
“Within the
partnership, the World Bank is intended to provide economic
compulsion and guaranteed funds to carry out the agenda
forcefully.”49
Population Research Institute Review reported that,
in addition to the Safe Motherhood strategy session held in March
1992 at World Bank headquarters in Washington, there had also been
an earlier conference in January in Guatemala. At this gathering, a
World Bank official proposed that Latin American countries make the
legalization of abortion the centerpiece of their maternal and
infant health programs. Speakers at the conference claimed that
large monetary savings would accrue if maternal and child health
programs in both the public and the private sector were oriented
toward “safe abortion” and contraception.50
World Bank officials at
the conference actually pressured Latin American governments to
legalize abortion and make it the center of the maternal-infant
health programs. Mexican officials promptly fell in line. According
to Human Life International, World Bank official Anne G. Tinker
demanded that governments provide “safe abortion” in all
maternal-infant health programs. Legislative changes needed to
legalize abortion must be undertaken immediately, she told the
gathering.51 Abortion currently is illegal in all Latin American
countries except Uruguay and communist Cuba.
World Bank president
Preston said the Bank will integrate the full “Safe Motherhood”
agenda into its “policy dialogue” with developing countries.52 This
means that developing countries must meet World Bank requirements in
the area of population control in order to qualify for Bank loans.
By including the “Safe Motherhood” agenda in its “policy dialogue,”
the Bank is extending its tremendous financial clout into the
political arena of sovereign nations, compelling those nations to
legalize abortion and initiate or expand heavy-handed population
control programs.
Human Life International president Father Marx has charged:
“The
bank is misusing its enormous worldwide economic and political clout
to ordain and bankroll a misanthropic effort to ‘assist humanity’ by
destroying pre-born human beings, by introducing unsafe, intrusive
and culturally repugnant, often abortifacient, methods of birth
control and by mutilating healthy people with wholesale neutering
programs.”53
“Through such initiatives,” Father Marx said, “women in the Third
World are being used for medical experimentation and their offspring
are the target of a massive, well-financed eugenics campaign aimed
at the poorest and most defenseless members of the human family....
Here you have an array of some of the major enemies of unborn
children, women and families gathered to discuss ‘safe
motherhood.’”54
And the leader of those “major enemies of unborn children, women and
families” is the United Nations, supported by major funding from the
U.S. government.
Notes
1. Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, 1st ed. (New York:
Ballantine Books, 1968), Prologue.
2. Statement of Maurice Strong at opening of UNCED in Rio De
Janeiro, Brazil, June 3, 1992, in release
by UNCED, p. 3.
3. Claire Chambers, The SIECUS Circle: A Humanist Revolution
(Appleton, WI: Western Islands,
1977), p. 3.
4. Rev. Paul Marx interview by author, August 12, 1992.
5. Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, The Population Explosion
(New York: Simon and Schuster,
1990).
6. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, 1st ed., Prologue.
7. See, for example: Colin Clark, Population Growth: The Advantages
(Santa Ana, CA: R. L. Sassone,
1972).
8. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, pp. 88, 135.
9. Paul R. Ehrlich, “World Population: Is the Battle Lost?” Stanford
Today, Winter 1968, quoted by
Chambers, p. 9.
10. Chambers, p. 9.
11. Ibid.
12. Donnela H. and Dennis L. Meadows et al., The Limits to Growth, a
report for the Club of Rome’s
Project on the Predicament of Mankind (New York: Universe Books,
Publishers, 1972).
13. Gerald O. Barney (Study Director), Global 2000: Report to the
President of the United States:
Entering the Twenty-First Century (New York: Penguin Books, 1982).
14. Meadows, p. 196-7.
15. Julian L. Simon and Herman Kahn (eds.), The Resourceful Earth: A
Response to Global 2000 (New
York: Basil Blackwell Inc., 1984), p. 34-5.
16. Christopher Freeman, “Malthus with a Computer,” in H. S. D.
Cole, et al. (eds.), Models of Doom: A
Critique of the Limits to Growth (New York: Universe Books, 1975),
p. 5.
17. Barney, Global 2000, Letter of transmittal from Thomas Pickering
and Gus Speth.
18. Simon, p. 45.
19. Jacqueline Kasun, The War Against Population (San Francisco:
Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 50.
20. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace National Commission
on America and the New World,
Changing Our Ways: America and the New World (Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution, 1992), p. 41.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Kasun, pp. 90-91.
24. Steven W. Mosher, “A Mother’s Ordeal,” Reader’s Digest, February
1987, p. 55.
25. Peking, New China News Agency, July 11, 1987, FBIS-CHI-87-133,
July 13, 1987, p. A1, quoted
by Stephen W. Mosher, “Chinese Officials Invade Family Life,” HLI
Reports (Human Life
International, Gaithersburg, MD), October, 1987, p. 5.
26. Kasun, p. 90.
27. Ibid.
28. Chambers, p. 330.
29. Father Paul Marx, “World Bank puts bounty on lives of unborn
children,” news release of Human
Life International, Gaithersburg, MD, March 30, 1992.
30. Chambers, p. 3.
31. Kasun, p. 79.
32. See, for example, Chambers, pp. 8, 239.
33. Julian Huxley, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy
(Washington DC: Public Affairs Press,
1947), p. 21.
34. Chambers, p. 337.
35. Ibid., pp. 337-38.
36. Kasun, pp. 200-201.
37. Chambers, p. 338.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid., p. 339.
40. Ibid.
41. Kasun, p. 167.
42. Statement of Maurice Strong at opening of UNCED in Rio De
Janeiro, Brazil, June 3, 1992, in
release by UNCED, p. 3.
43. Jacques Cousteau, quoted by Vivek Menezes, “Cousteau’s warning:
‘Demographic tsunami,’” Earth
Summit Times, June 6, 1992, p. 3.
44. Statements by Gro Harlem Brundtland and Dr. Mostafa K. Tolba at
the opening of UNCED in Rio
de Janeiro, June 3, 1992 — text provided by UNCED at the Earth
Summit in Rio.
45. Luis Cordova, “How to guarantee well-for a population growing by
the second?” Terraviva (Brazil),
June 10, 1992, p. 9.
46. Lewis Preston, remarks at Earth Summit, June 1992.
47. Marx, HLI news release.
48. Jean M. Guilfoyle, “World Bank Safe Motherhood Initiative”
Population Research Institute Review,
May/June 1992, p.1.
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid.
51. Marx, HLI news release.
52. Guilfoyle, p. 3.
53. Marx, HLI news release.
54. Ibid.
Back to
Contents
|