A Debate over "Sovereign Rights"

By Laura L

U.S. views on capitalism and abortion stir controversy

They were dressed in Indian saris, African robes and Western business suits, and they spoke a cacophony of languages. More than 3,000 delegates from 148 nations crowded into Mexico City's Tlaltelolco Center last week to attend the second United Nations-sponsored International Conference on Population. Their purpose was nothing less than to find ways to curb the growth of the world's population, which threatens nearly to double to 8.3 billion by the year 2025.

The most controversy was generated not by the depth of the problem but by the attitude of the U.S., which accounts for 44% of the developed world's contributions to global family planning. In his address, Radio Free Europe Director and Chief U.S. Delegate James Buckley announced that the U.S. would redirect its financial assistance to organizations that do not promote abortion as a method of family planning. Said Buckley: "This reflects a sharpening of focus to make U.S. foreign assistance programs more responsive to true needs and more reflective of fundamental values."

Buckley also angered many delegates by emphasizing the Administration's view that the solution to the world's population problem lies not just in family planning but in the adoption of free-market policies. "Concentration of economic decision making in the hands of planners and public officials," he said, "tends to inhibit individual initiative and sometimes cripples the ability of men and women to work toward a better future." Buckley cited the examples of Hong Kong and South Korea, in which increases in population were accompanied by rapid economic growth because, he said, the private sector has been allowed to flourish.

Although federal law already prohibits the use of U.S. funds for abortions in other countries, the new policy threatens to go further. It would cut off funds to private organizations that perform or actively promote abortion. The U.S., Buckley said, will continue to support the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and other agencies, but it will require that they provide concrete assurances that funds are not being used for abortion or "coercive family planning," a reference to forced sterilization. In addition, any government that practices or promotes abortion as part of its family-planning program will have to assure Washington that U.S. money is not being used for that purpose.

Delegates from other countries criticized the U.S. position as an inappropriate attempt to impose American values on the rest of the world. Formal speeches avoided direct attacks on the U.S., but the phrase "sovereign rights," meaning that each country should be able to choose its own population-control program, cropped up repeatedly, even in the statements of industrial nations friendly to the U.S., like Australia and West Germany. In the corridors, however, diplomatic fac,ades gave way to resentful, at times bitter, comments. "The U.S. may be concerned about abortion," said Satpal Mittal, a delegate from India, where an estimated 15 million abortions are performed annually, "but it cannot impose its view on the free world." The U.S. attempt to advocate a capitalist model worldwide is unrealistic, some contended, because not all poor countries are capable of developing in the way the West's industrialized nations did. "Times are different, and governments have to take a positive role in all kinds of programs," said Mwai Kibaki, Kenya's Vice President. "Even if it were true [that rising standards of living lead to reduced population growth], the time schedule is 100 or 150 years. No one has the right to ask the developing nations to wait."

Many delegates attacked the U.S. policy as an election-year move designed to appeal to conservatives and Catholic voters loyal to the Vatican's antiabortion stance. Buckley strenuously denied the charge. Said he: "Ronald Reagan's views on abortion have been known since long before he was President, so he has already alienated those who support abortion and gained support from pro-lifers."

Some of the bluntest criticism came from private organizations. Sharon Camp, vice president of the Washington-based Population Crisis Committee, refuted the U.S. correlation between rising incomes and falling birth rates. In Mexico, she pointed out, a rising income level in the 1960s did not help birth rates fall significantly until the government initiated a family-planning program. At the same time, Thailand and Indonesia lowered their birth rates through family-planning programs, but still have comparatively low income levels. The Reagan position, she said, is "full of voodoo demographics. It is a very simple-minded analysis that ignores ten years of experience since the last conference."

The London-based International Planned Parenthood Federation (I.P.P.F.), the largest nongovernmental family-planning organization in the world, does not advocate abortion, but it condones the practice when it is part of an individual country's program. Under the new U.S. policy, the organization stands to lose some $13 million in U.S. aid, or fully 25% of its budget. I.P.P.F. Deputy Secretary General Donald Lubin pointed out that of the 89 countries receiving I.P.P.F. grants in 1983, only twelve had abortion programs. "If they do cut the money, that would mean cutting back on programs, and ultimately, more abortions."

Some population specialists argued that, whatever one's own views, many countries need abortion programs. According to a World Bank survey, some 65 million couples in developing countries want no more children. Until methods of birth control become more easily available, many of these people will continue to seek illegal abortions. Yet, despite these considerations, the conference in its final proposal recommended that abortion "in no way should be promoted" as a method of family planning.

--By Laura Lopez. Reported by Janice C. Simpson/Mexico City

With reporting by JANICE C. SIMPSON