Eighty-Five Nations Endorse U.N. Population Agenda - but Bush Administration Refuses to Sign

This is interesting, just because a document says "sexual rights" Bush administration refuses to sign???? I don't understand how this administration can say on one hand they are liberating people and yet refuse to back something like this.

Eighty-Five Nations Endorse U.N. Population Agenda; but Bush Administration Refuses to Sign

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Eighty-five heads of state and government have signed a statement endorsing a U.N. plan adopted 10 years ago to ensure every woman's right to education, health care, and to make choices about childbearing. President Bush's administration refused to sign because the statement mentions "sexual rights."
A decade after the landmark International Conference on Population and Development, the statement signed by more than 250 global leaders in all fields was handed Wednesday to Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette by media mogul Ted Turner, who founded and funds the United Nations Foundations.

Frechette called it "a brilliant idea" that will renew the commitment of governments and leaders to achieve the goals that 179 nations agreed to in Cairo.

The United States was a strong supporter of the Cairo plan of action. Former Colorado senator Tim Wirth, who was a key player in drafting the 20-year Cairo blueprint as a top official on the U.S. delegation, helped spearhead the global statement in his current job as president of the U.N. Foundation.

The statement notes that in 1994 "the world's governments and civil society committed to an action plan to ensure universal access to reproductive health information and services, uphold fundamental human rights including sexual and reproductive rights, alleviate poverty, secure gender equality, and protect the environment."

While progress has been made, the statement says the world is facing an exponential increase in HIV/AIDS, a growing gap between rich and poor, persistently high death rates related to pregnancy and childbirth, and inadequate access to family planning services. It calls on the international community to fund and implement the goals of the conference, known as the ICPD.

Wirth noted that 134 million couples who want family planning services don't have access to them and there is an average of just three condoms per year available to men in sub-Saharan Africa - "a very, very significant shortfall."

The statement was signed by leaders of 85 nations including the entire European Union, China, Japan, Indonesia, Pakistan and more than a dozen African countries as well as 22 former world leaders, notably U.S. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

The Bush administration responded only on Tuesday to organizers who had asked for the president's support.

In a letter to organizers of the statement, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kelly Ryan reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to "the goals and objectives" of the Cairo conference and "to the empowerment of women and the need to promote women's fullest enjoyment of universal human rights."

"The United States is unable, however, to endorse the 'world leaders' statement on supporting the ICPD," Ryan said. "The statement includes the concept of 'sexual rights,' a term that has no agreed definition in the international community, goes beyond what was agreed to at Cairo.

[edit on 10-13-2004 by worldwatcher]

This just makes me wonder what is Bush really up to.

Thats a pretty weak argument for not signing something 85 other nations have.

Nice avatar World...

[edit on 13-10-2004 by MrJingles]

Well as you can probably guess, i am happy about it. The UN's agenda is what scares me....Way to go Bush!

Edit : Just so you understand, it is the Abortion part that I disagree with.

[edit on 13-10-2004 by edsinger]

I'm pretty sure countries like Pakistan, Indonesia and some of the muslim african countries who signed this bill also don't support abortions, but still they managed to sign it. Why is it okay to preach freedom but deny people the freedom to choose for themselves???

Wait up there, there was another thread about UN resolutions and platforms of action that the US hadn't either signed or ratified. This didn't happen during Bush's watch. Clinton etc etc could have signed they chose not to.

as for the abortion thing i agree NO NO. Contraception ends at conception. all those in favor of abortion have already been born. and other bumper sticker messages.

Originally posted by MrJingles
This just makes me wonder what is Bush really up to.

Thats a pretty weak argument for not signing something 85 other nations have.

Nice avatar World...

Why should we sign something that we're the spearheads to? Women's rights in the United States has existed here going on 85 years beginning with the 19th Amendment. Women are in very powerful positions that are forbidden to them elsewhere. I believe it's the rest of the world trying to catch up with what we already know.

BTW, worldwatcher. Nice avatar.

article says Clinton did sign this one

The statement was signed by leaders of 85 nations including the entire European Union, China, Japan, Indonesia, Pakistan and more than a dozen African countries as well as 22 former world leaders, notably U.S. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

I'm looking at the final document of the Cairo conference right now, to know exactly what was agreed upon in 1994.

Chapter VII deals with reproductive issues - the countries involved agreed on the necessity to educate people on reproductive health and make information on contraception available, so that women have options other than abortion practiced specifically for fertility control (7.6 - 7.11, here - www.iisd.ca...)

Also agreed upon, the need for countries to tackle the issue of protection of women and children against all form of sexual abuse (7.39, here - www.iisd.ca...)

Chapter IV deals with the empowerment of women, from an economic standpoint - as well as the elimination of violence against women. (here - www.iisd.ca...)

So indeed, the issue of "sexual rights" was carefully sidestepped, even though the issues of reproduction and female empowerment were dealt with. I would surmise that the issue of "sexual rights" would have opened a can of worms as far as A) a woman's control of her own body and B) a woman's right to abortion are concerned. At a time when those two issues are still unresolved in the United States, how could the USA subscribe to a declaration where "sexual rights" are mentioned?

However, right now, this is a half-uninformed opinion, as I have to go see what the text of the statement agreed upon recently says.

Originally posted by Otts
I'm looking at the final document of the Cairo conference right now, to know exactly what was agreed upon in 1994.

Chapter VII deals with reproductive issues - the countries involved agreed on the necessity to educate people on reproductive health and make information on contraception available, so that women have options other than abortion practiced specifically for fertility control (7.6 - 7.11, here - www.iisd.ca...)

Also agreed upon, the need for countries to tackle the issue of protection of women and children against all form of sexual abuse (7.39, here - www.iisd.ca...)

Chapter IV deals with the empowerment of women, from an economic standpoint - as well as the elimination of violence against women. (here - www.iisd.ca...)

So indeed, the issue of "sexual rights" was carefully sidestepped, even though the issues of reproduction and female empowerment were dealt with. I would surmise that the issue of "sexual rights" would have opened a can of worms as far as A) a woman's control of her own body and B) a woman's right to abortion are concerned. At a time when those two issues are still unresolved in the United States, how could the USA subscribe to a declaration where "sexual rights" are mentioned?

However, right now, this is a half-uninformed opinion, as I have to go see what the text of the statement agreed upon recently says.

If this is the case then I could maybe accept it, but I need to read the fine print also........


I did not see anything that stuck out on the first pass..

Also - interestingly, Principle 4 of the Cairo Conference states that "Advancing gender equality and equity and the empowerment of women, and the elimination of all kinds of violence against women, and ensuring women's ability to control their own fertility, are cornerstones of population and development-related programmes."

However, once again, the U.S. government and others who oppose abortion can argue that this does not constitute a woman's "sexual right" or even "reproductive right" to control her own body.

www.iisd.ca...

Originally posted by worldwatcher
I'm pretty sure countries like Pakistan, Indonesia and some of the muslim african countries who signed this bill also don't support abortions, but still they managed to sign it. Why is it okay to preach freedom but deny people the freedom to choose for themselves???

Why is this even in the UN Population Agenda, and one must sign for it, if this is a case of "choose for themselves"?

You conveniently left out this paragraph:

Bush has blocked $34 million in congressionally approved annual assistance to the United Nations Population Fund, alleging that the U.N. agency helped China manage programs that involved forced abortions, a charge it calls baseless.

And in this paragraph:

The United States is unable, however, to endorse the 'world leaders' statement on supporting the ICPD," Ryan said. "The statement includes the concept of 'sexual rights,' a term that has no agreed definition in the international community, goes beyond what was agreed to at Cairo.

So, we have the problem of forced abortions in China and the undefined term "sexual right." that "...goes beyond what was agreed to at Cairo."

Your posting this is a transparent effort to appeal to the feminist quest for "sexual rights" which is just another code word for murdering the unborn.

And edsinger - you need to understand... the opposition of the United States can stem from pretty much anything - a vice of procedure (agreeing on wording can be a prickly issue in international negociations), or a concern on the issue of abortion, general wariness towards the UN (which I would find ludicrous) or anything else. This is why I say more research is warranted on this question.

I have to add that since the original document was passed in 1994, a lot of things happened re women's rights - namely the World Women's March (2000). I know some demands were made of individual governments and of the UN by women's groups during that March. Perhaps the statement we are discussing is a result of that...

Grady - respectfully, I would say that if a doctor told me that my pregnant wife ran a very big risk of dying in childbirth or remained paralyzed afterwards because of a spina bifida or heart condition... you can bet I'd agree to her getting an abortion.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You conveniently left out this paragraph:

THanks, I knew there was fine print. Why can people not understand that some people can not vote for things based on religious grounds. I pay taxes and therefore do not want any of my money killing children for birth control

Period

Good for Bush. At least he has a few cylinders still firing.
Read the following url to learn more about the issues.
www.africa2000.com...

Originally posted by Otts
Grady - respectfully, I would say that if a doctor told me that my pregnant wife ran a very big risk of dying in childbirth or remained paralyzed afterwards because of a spina bifida or heart condition... you can bet I'd agree to her getting an abortion.

Well it is at least on the table, but in the same token could we at least agree to stop the abortions used as birth control? They are at Least 85% of them.....we can deal with the 15% later

Originally posted by Otts
And edsinger - you need to understand... the opposition of the United States can stem from pretty much anything - a vice of procedure (agreeing on wording can be a prickly issue in international negociations), or a concern on the issue of abortion, general wariness towards the UN (which I would find ludicrous) or anything else. This is why I say more research is warranted on this question.

Funny how I see nothing in here about all these Afghan women and their recently gained freedoms......ironic isnt it?








[edit on 13-10-2004 by edsinger]

Intelearthling -


You make a good point, my friend. Why should the U.S. sign this bill? We don't need an International Bill that says Women Are Equal. We practically INVENTED it.


The abortion part (ie sexual rights) is what Bush disagrees with. And so do I.

What kind of choice is it if the baby doesn't have a say. That isn't just.

The U.N. is becoming jaded and weak.

We don't need to sign a bill that we already overwhelming agree with, invented the idea of, and created.

This is just another attempt to blame the U.S. for a choice it makes. A rather pathetic one at that.

-wD

edsinger - I have never doubted that abortion needs to be a controlled procedure conducted under strict guidelines. I believe there are better solutions than abortion where birth control is concerned. However, where the health or life of the mother is threatened, I have absolutely no qualms on abortion.

So on that issue - if only that one - I think you and I are on the same page.

If UN policy indirectly or directly led to forced abortions in China, of course that should be looked at VERY seriously, and I don't blame the U.S. for asking questions. However... wasn't this discussed before the statement just released was crafted? How was this document produced, and how were the United States represented at the table?

Furthermore, we must consider also that the document morally binds the countries that signed - and that a good number of them are, because of it, conducting information and education campaigns on other issues such as clitoridectomy, contraception and reproductive health. I'm thinking mainly of a number of African countries (namely Benin, Mali and Senegal, where I've seen some documentation on that in local hospitals).

So, some good did come out of this. Hence - no pun intended - isn't the U.S. government throwing the baby out with the bath water?

Taking a break... debate to watch.

well excuse me....I did provide the link for you to read it for yourself didn't I

and as for forced abortions and China, did not the same sentence call the charges baseless?
China hits backs over 'forced abortions'
and

www.worldnetdaily.com...
The U.N. population conference held in Cairo, Egypt, in 1994 published an agenda that stated that "abortion should not be promoted as a method of family planning," says UNFPA in a recent report.

"UNFPA fully subscribes to this and does not provide support for abortion services," the agency says. "We work to prevent abortion through family planning and to help countries provide services for women suffering from the complications of unsafe abortion."

This report, says Smith, was "designed to secure millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars" for UNFPA. It is, he says, "a textbook example of a cover-up."

Population Research Institute President Steven Mosher told a congressional committee in October that UNFPA "has supported the one-child policy in China from 1979. Currently, under a program begun in 1998, it operates family planning programs in 32 counties, or county-level municipalities, throughout China. The UNFPA claims that in the counties where it is active, reproductive health programs are 'fully voluntary.'"

Now back to the big picture, over population of the planet? Like I said, many of the people in the countries who signed this agreement have religous beliefs that doesn't agree with abortions anyways. I find it a weak argument to deny funds to this cause because of "abortion" disagreements.