>Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 15:09:46 -0400 >From: Steve Kurtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Organization: Gaia Preservation Coalition & National Centre for Sustainability >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Population policy news clip >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >FYI-- > >By PRANAY GUPTE >(c) Earth Times News Service > >President Clinton's address at the United Nations Monday was >encouraging to everybody who shares his support for promoting >sustainable economic development and environmental security. But, at a >time when developing nations are looking to Washington for renewed >leadership on international social issues, the President missed an >opportunity to highlight the root cause of many global economic, >social and environmental maladies: population growth that is >alarmingly high in countries that can least afford such growth. > >Mr. Clinton is surely aware that the world adds 100 million people >each year, mostly in the 127 countries of the third world. At this >rate, global population, now nearly 5.9 billion, will climb to 8 >billion by the year 2010. Such numbers contribute significantly to >environmental degradation, and deteriorating health, education and >municipal services. Rapid deforestation--another bane of the third >world-- has resulted from the fact that 70 percent of families in poor >countries rely on wood as their sole source of fuel. Lack of access to >potable water is increasingly posing hazards to children in the >developing world. More than 31,000 children under the age of five die >each year from preventable diseases. And despite all the cheerful talk >in the financial community about globalization, job creation simply >hasn't keep pace with population growth. Is it any wonder, then, that >more than a third of the world's people lives below the poverty >line--defined as percapita income of less than the equivalent of $350 >annually. > >Notwithstanding Mr. Clinton's hearty endorsement of sustainable >economic development, the United States seems to have relinquished its >leadership on the global population issue. Its annual assistance to >the UN Population Fund--perhaps one of the most efficient field >organizations in the multilateral system--has been suspended by the >Republican-dominated Congress on ideological grounds. The House of >Representatives just last week voted heavily against renewing such >aid, not only for UNFPA but also for private-sector organizations such >as the London-based International Planned Parenthood Federation. The >reason? That these organizations implicitly endorse abortion because >they give assistance to countries such as China, where abortions are >performed. Both UNFPA and IPPF insist that support of abortion is not >their policy, but that falls on deaf ears in Congress. > >Each year, 24 million women enter the child-bearing stage in poor >countries, and a vast majority of them do not have access to adequate >family planning services. Why doesn't Mr. Clinton underscore this? >Instead, what we heard from him yesterday was an emphasis on free >markets, on entrepreneurship, on access to capital--as if repeating >these mantras will miraculously foster a new environment of growth and >change in languishing societies. Of course, he did sympathize in his >speech with the victims of globalization, the "have-nots," but much >too often the Clinton Administration hasn't dared to rise beyond its >rhetoric and go to the mat for development programs in an insensitive >Congress. Maybe population simply isn't a convenient topic in the >current political calculus. > >Global poverty cannot be wished away. It's fine for the private sector >to invest in Nike factories, but where's the much-needed investment in >social development? What's needed desperately is slowing population >growth through more attention to reproductive health, education for >girls, and employment for women. An important new study by Population >Action International, a Washington think-tank, has shown that greater >access to schooling for girls and young women leads to lower birth >rates; a secondary school education often results in later marriages. >The PAI study shows, for example, that a Peruvian woman who has >completed 10 years of education typically has two or three children, >while a woman with no formal education has up to 10 children. Smaller >families often mean better health-care for children and enhanced >economic prospects for adults. > >But donor countries are lessening their assistance to developing >nations: the figure for 1996 was barely $50 billion, almost $10 >billion less than five years earlier. The U.S., a traditional leader >in population issues, spends less than $1.50 per person for population >aid to developing countries, and the ideological sentiment in Congress >favors shrinking such aid. > >Strengthening population and reproductive-health programs, and >creating better education and job opportunities for women, are a >worthy way of investing in people's wellbeing and, indeed, the >national health of developing countries. Population growth in the >third world has dramatically increased the numbers of the poor, and >not that of people with purchasing power for goods promoted by >American and other Western exporters. Both President Clinton and >Congress should be mindful that growing numbers don't add up to >growing markets. >
