UNICEF: Friend or Foe?

By Sass
Featured Rightgrrl May 1999
October 25, 1999

Placing 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:

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]

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 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]

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.

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.

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:

"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]

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:

"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]

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] .

[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
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
National Office ^ 1720 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202-775-8637
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

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.