International Social Affairs Spring 2016

VOLUME 7

SPRING 2016

The Journal of International Social Affairs A Patrick Henry College Publication

Issue No. 1 A Closer Look at the United Nations

ARTICLES William Bock IV

Do It for the Kids: Why US Domestic Law and Due Regard for Human Dignity Demand Discontinuing American Foreign Assistance to the United Nations Family Planning Agency

David Slaughter

Reparations in the United Nations: Justice or Reconcilliation?

BOOK REVIEWS Joshua Amberg

Review of The Global Sexual Revolution: Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom

Giovanna Lastra

Review of The Locust Effect: Why the End of Poverty Requires the End of Violence

Introduction As the Journal for International Social Affairs takes on a new form this semester it is key that we remember those goals we initially set out with and attempt to integrate into our research every day. In our very first issue Drs. Baskerville, Middleton, and Sillars articulated the Journal’s vision to question the facts presented to us and to constantly seek to respond in the light of the Gospel.

In every issue we will raise critical questions about the role of Christian faith, Islamist ideology, Western secular values and programs, and traditional beliefs. How should undeveloped countries modernize with minimal disruption, corruption, and violence? What values should other countries adopt from the West, and how much of their traditional societies should they seek to preserve? What is the role of the Christian faith in mediating and contributing to these changes?...What is the role the United Nations and a secularized U.S. State Department? What about NGOs? If Western organizations are busily at work exporting the “culture wars” to developing nations, it raises a whole set of related issues that we believe should bear some serious scrutiny.

For example, is foreign aid tied to whether these developing nations are prepared to accept cultural norms that are historically alien to these cultures and even lack a broad consensus here?

Is it the case that introducing Western ideologies into developing nations merely end up providing ammunition for Islamist accusations that Western culture is inevitably damaging and hostile to traditional African culture? Could that undermine those African organizations and institutions that are resisting the expansion of Shariah law across the continent?

This semeseter’s articles and reviews, written by our dauntless authors, apply these questions to the economic solutions and social values promoted by the United Nations. The Journal of International Social Affairs is produced by Patrick Henry College students in the Strategic Intelligence, International Politics and Policy, and Journalism programs. We hope you find it useful and stimulating.

Please let us know your reactions by writing to us at ISA@phc.edu, and to forward it on to others who might be interested. We’ll gladly add any interested parties to our email distribution list.

Read not to contradict and confuse; nor to believe or to take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and consider.

Francis Bacon

Editor-in-Chief: Associate Editor: Associate Editor: Copy Editor: Publication Editor: Faculty Supervisor:

Rebecca Cambron Giovanna Lastra Joshua Amberg Lisa Mattackal Lauren Bellamy Dr. Stephen Baskerville

PATRICK HENRY COLLEGE 10 Patrick Henry Circle Purcellville, VA 20132 (540) 338-1776 www.phc.edu

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

Do It For The Kids: Why U.S. Domestic Law and Due Regard for Human Dignity Demand Discontinuing American Foreign Assistance to the United Nations Family Planning Agency

A

demographic specter is haunting authoritative and influential circles in both the United States and the international community. This specter is the supposed imperative to “stabilize human population.” According to Nicholas Eberstadt, the Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute, “[t]he quest to ‘stabilize human population’ was formally launched on the global stage in 1994 by the United Nations at its Cairo Conference on Population and Development, whose ‘Programme of Action’ asserted that ‘intensified efforts’ to this end were ‘crucial’ given the ‘contribution that early stabilization of the world population would make towards the achievement of sustainable development.’”1 That objective is today embraced by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which explicitly declared its mission in 2002 to be the promotion of the “universally accepted aim of stabilizing world population.”2 Closer to home, the goal of “stabilizing world population” is officially approved of by the Obama administration which announced that the U.S. would contribute taxpayer dollars to the UNFPA as part of the FY2009 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act.3 This decision, according to Administration officials, highlighted the President’s “strong commitment” to international family planning, women’s health, and global development.4 But, it is a decision that sets him apart from previous administrations. In 15 of the past 28 years, the United States has not contributed to UNFPA as a result of executive branch determinations by Republican presidents that the UNFPA’s program in China violated domestic law that prohibited taxpayer dollars to be sent overseas to fund coerced abortions.5 In FY2015, the United States contributed $35 million to UNFPA.6 In light of that recent change in policy, this report attempts to analyze the UNFPA’s program of “human population stabilization” which American taxpayers are now funding by examining UNFPA program compliance with family planning-related provisions in U.S. foreign assistance law and policy as well as UNFPA programs’ effects on the demographics and economy of developing countries.

UNFPA Executive Director Babatunde Osotimehin remarked in 2011 that “In many parts of the developing world, where population growth is outpacing economic growth, the need for reproductive health services, especially family planning, remains great.”7 As the UNFPA said in a statement on World Population Day, “Con-

Spring 2016

1

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

tinued rapid population growth poses a bigger threat to poverty reduction in most countries than HIV/AIDS.”8 According to that organization: “The attainment of a stable population is a sine qua non for accelerated, planned economic growth and development. Governments that are serious about eradicating poverty should also be serious about providing the services, supplies, information that women need to exercise their reproductive rights.”9 In response to this the Obama administration rescinded the Mexico City Policy established by the Reagan administration in 1984.10 The Mexico City Policy required foreign organizations receiving USAID family planning assistance to certify that they would not perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning, even if such activities were conducted with non-U.S. funds.11 The Mexico City Policy is one component of a broader U.S. foreign policy related to international abortion and family planning. It is buttressed by a number of other legislative actions such as the “Helms amendment,” which prohibits the use of U.S. funds to perform abortions or to coerce individuals to practice abortions;12 the “Biden amendment,” which states that U.S. funds may not be used for biomedical research related to abortion or involuntary sterilization;13 the “Siljander amendment,” which prohibits U.S. funds from being used to lobby for or against abortion;14 the “Kemp-Kasten amendment,” which prohibits funding for any organization or program that, as determined by the President, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization;15 and the “Tiahrt amendment,” which places requirements on voluntary family planning projects receiving assistance from USAID.16 As noted earlier, in 15 of the past 28 years, the United States has not contributed to UNFPA as a result of executive branch determinations that UNFPA’s program in China helped facilitate that country’s one child policy in violation of these amendments. President Obama, however, has re-established U.S. funding for the UNFPA. Vice President Joe Biden noted that it is a decision he is not “second guessing” stating to members of the Chinese government that he “fully understands” their “one child per family” policy.17 Regardless of what multiple congressional and private sector commentators call such “moral obtuseness”18 on a part of the current administration, U.S. law that prevents taxpayer dollars from funding abortion internationally must be obeyed.

Unfortunately, UNFPA programs in China have, since restoration of U.S. funds, failed to comply with these provisions. Indeed, the State Department has repeatedly noted that, “China’s birth limitation program retains harshly coercive elements in law and practice, including coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization.”19 “Although physical coercion is formally prohibited in Chinese law, it continues in actual practice. The implementation of Chinese regime policy remains abhorrent both to the sanctity of in utero life, as well as to any genuine notion of

2

Spring 2016

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

reproductive choice.”20 “Marginal changes of recent years – such as allowing married couples broader choice in contraceptive methods, and relaxing pre-approval requirements for the first child of married couples – have not mitigated the overall brutal aspects of the program, including the forcible abortion of children who are not pre-authorized by the government and children of single mothers.”21 Exposing this ongoing brutality and violence is the primary purpose of the work of the celebrated blind Chinese civil rights activist Chen Guangcheng, who filed suit in 2005 on behalf of thousands of victimized fellow villagers, including those whose full-term babies were forcibly aborted by family planning officials. His testimony before Congress in 2015 asserts that, “[d]uring a six-month period Humanity’s population of 2005, more than 130,000 forced aborprospects appear to be tions and/or sterilizations took place in Linyi city alone.”22 Indeed, “over the misconstrued by the pessipast 35 years, China has killed a total mistic doctrine of “world of 360 to 400 million young lives as a population stabilization” result of its inhumane and violent birth control policies. This brutality still goes propagated by the UNFPA. on despite China’s propaganda of loosPage 10 ening control on the second child bearing for some couples on certain conditions.”23 The China section of the State Department’s most recent Country Report on Human Rights Practices, released in April 2014, confirms that the “coercive” aspects of the Chinese program continue.24 “In addition to the use of ‘forced abortion, sometimes at advanced stages of pregnancy, or forced sterilization’ to meet government goals, other enforcement mechanisms include punitive fines, known as ‘social compensation fees,’ of up to 10 times a person’s annual income, job loss, the detention of family members, even including infant children, until a mother submits to abortion or sterilization, and the confiscation or destruction of property.”25 The combination of coercive limitations with traditional social preferences for male children has led to an unstable and unprecedented sex ratio imbalance within China. As a study conducted by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences points out, “119 males are born per 100 females and, within ten years, one in five young men in China will be unable to find a bride.”26 In some provinces “the birth ratio is as high as 140 boys for every 100 girls.”27 As discussed in a study published in the *New England Journal of Medicine,* “this situation, described elsewhere as “gendercide,” may yet lead to disastrous social consequences – including ‘increased mental health problems and socially disruptive behavior among men,’ ‘kidnapping and trafficking of women for marriage and increased numbers of commercial sex

Spring 2016

3

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

workers,’ and a ‘rise in human immunodeficiency virus infection and other sexually transmitted diseases’ – that could imperil the stability of China, her neighbors, and the world.”28 Despite these abuses, the default relationship between UNFPA and the Chinese regime, which continues today, is one of direct teamwork and mutual encouragement. Indeed, reviewing three decades of “UNFPA’s cooperation with the Chinese Government,” UNFPA’s China Representative, Dr. Bernard Coquelin, expressed “heartfelt appreciation” for “the support and leadership from the Chinese Government [that] has enabled [UNFPA] to provide assistance appropriate to the Chinese context and in line with the Government’s own development proprieties.”29 At a Chinese Government-sponsored international symposium on population issues, he also praised China’s “privileged position” as “an example for other nations to follow.”30 Similarly, China’s Vice Minister for the National Population and Family Planning Commission voiced “thanks to UNFPA for its constant support to China’s population and family planning undertakings during the past thirty years and more.”31 The Vice Minister also has spoken highly of “the effective work of [the] UNFPA China Office” in “responding to foreign mass media” regarding China’s family planning program.32 The awards and international prestige that the UNFPA has bestowed on the Chinese population program have remained consistent throughout their 32-year collaboration. “In 1983, UNFPA bestowed the first UN Population Award on Qian Xinzhong, the Minister-in-charge of the Chinese State Family Planning Commission.”33 In 2002, when China’s State Family Planning Commission awarded its own Population Award to Dr. Nafis Sadik, UNFPA’s Executive Director from 1987 to 2000, Dr. Sadik stated that: “I have had the honor of being associated with China’s reproductive health and family planning program for more than two decades. I was instrumental in initiating UNFPA’s cooperation with China in 1979… Looking back, I feel a great sense of pride for the Chinese Government… I also feel proud that UNFPA made the wise decision to resist external pressures and continued its fruitful cooperation with China.”34 Although UNFPA’s opaqueness and lack of transparency as an international entity makes it well-nigh impossible to determine a precise amount, it has provided a majority of its hundreds of millions of dollars in China funding directly to Chinese government related organizations. As the State Department detailed in its most recent report to Congress about this issue, “by providing financial and technical resources… to the National Population and Family Planning Commission and related [Chinese government] entities, UNFPA provides support for and participates in the management of the Chinese government’s program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization.”35 “UNFPA’s touted efforts to expand the range of ‘choice’ in birth control methods available in China does not extend to the more salient, funda-

4

Spring 2016

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

mental choice of whether and when to have children. ‘Central elements’ of UNFPA activities: involve financial and technical support to the NPFPC and related entities that are responsible for implementing and enforcing China’s program of coercive abortion and sterilization.”36 Moreover, “all UNFPA programming related to contraception and reproductive health incorporates, and defers to, Chinese law and regulation.”37 The national law and the provincial regulations are the framework for China’s coercive birth policies. Furthermore, “while UNFPA maintains a modest Country Office in Beijing, ‘UNFPA has no field presence in China’ and as a result it cannot ensure ‘consistent oversight of activities supported with UNFPA funds.’”38 These concerns over lack of transparency are heightened by “recent investigative reports alleging that UNFPA disburses approximately $200 million per year to foreign governments and NGOs in ways that do not let UNFPA auditors examine grantee accounts,”39 such that donors “have little knowledge regarding the ultimate destiny” of that money.40 UNFPA’s direct, unaccountable financial support to the Chinese regime continues in its new, Seventh Country Program for China, through which “UNFPA supports the Chinese Government in fulfilling its commitments… in the areas of population and development.”41 “Although UNFPA has refused U.S. government requests for detailed budget information on its activities in China, it appears from what little documentation is publicly available that UNFPA’s primary grantees and implementers will continue to be Chinese government ministries, agencies, and related officials.”42 “Government agencies” are the primary implementers that UNFPA lists for its 2011-2015 China Country Program.43 “Among others, UNFPA’s listed Partners include the Ministry of Civil Affairs, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Commerce, the National Population and Family Planning Commission, the National Bureau of Statistics, and the National Development and Reform Commission. Even activities funded through nongovernmental organizations are to be implemented ‘under the aegis of the Ministry of Commerce.”’44 “UNFPA’s Executive Board (including the United States) approved the Seventh Country Program ‘on a no-objection basis, without discussion or presentation’ at a session where former Ambassador Susan Rice expressed the Obama Administration’s strong support for UNFPA ‘both as an Executive Board Member and major donor.’”45 Most appeals for U.S. funding to UNFPA involve assurances that “not a single penny of U.S. taxpayer money is spent in China by UNFPA.” Similarly, “when the Obama Administration made the decision to provide U.S. funding to UNFPA, it did so pursuant to language prohibiting the use of such funds for (and requiring a ‘withholding’ in the amount of) UNFPA’s expenditures in China.”46 But even subject to those “restrictions,” “the net result of that decision was that U.S. taxpayer funding of UNFPA went from zero in 2008 to more than $46 million in 2009, while UNFPA

Spring 2016

5

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

continued its direct fiscal support to the Chinese regime.”47 Moreover, while U.S. funding to UNFPA was earmarked for a notionally appealing purpose, “the net effect is to allow substantial U.S. funding to flow to UNFPA even while UNFPA continues its longstanding support to the Chinese population control program.”48 As U.S. Representative Ros-Lehtinen, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, notes: The current approach conveniently ignores the basic fact that money is fungible. Providing substantial new resources to an entity – even if earmarked for a specific purpose – frees up organizational resources for unrelated and objectionable purposes. This is true both of U.S. funding to UNFPA, and of UNFPA funding to China wholly apart from the fact that UNFPA’s monitoring of its assistance to the Chinese regime is inadequate to ensure that such funding is used for its designated purposes.49 Setting aside the legal issues with the Obama administration’s decision to give millions of taxpayer dollars to the UNFPA, lifting of the Mexico City policy raises an important sociological question. Specifically, are there too many people? And if so, is the world actually facing a crisis of being burdened by them? Is it really true that, as the UNFPA has claimed, continued rapid population growth poses a bigger threat to poverty reduction in most countries than HIV/AIDS?50 Does continued high fertility actually impede economic development and perpetuate poverty?51 And if so, should population control be the answer to put a stop to such a phenomenon?

These questions demand answers as one of the main reasons for the UNFPA’s existence is to “stabilize world population,” as mentioned above. This goal deserves closer examination if American taxpayer dollars are going to support UNFPA efforts.

To begin with, it is important to recall the reason for the 20th century’s “population explosion.” “Between 1900 and 2000, human numbers almost quadrupled, leaping from around 1.6 billion to over 6 billion; in pace and magnitude, nothing like that surge had ever previously taken place.”52 But why exactly did we experience a world population explosion in the 20th century? “It was not because people suddenly started breeding like rabbits – rather, it was because they finally stopped dying like flies. Between 1900 and the end of the 20th century, the human life span doubled: from a planetary life expectancy at birth of thirty years to one of well over sixty years.”53 By this measure, the overwhelming amount of the progress on health in all of human history took place during the past a hundred years. Indeed, the number of children dying before their fifth birthday from preventable causes has been cut in half during the past generation – from forty-thousand to twenty-thousand.54

6

Spring 2016

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

Moreover, in the past eight years, according to the Center for Disease Control, the number of children dying from measles has dropped by 78%, 22 countries have cut their malaria rate in half and they did it in only six years, a report by the World Health Organization notes.55 And perhaps the most astonishing statistic: the rate of extreme poverty, the amount of people living on $1.25 per day, has been cut in half during the past generation. In 1981, 52% of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty, today, that number is 26%, according to the World Bank’s report on World Development Indicators.56 The 20th century, thus, witnessed not only a population explosion, and a health explosion, but also a “prosperity explosion.” Estimates by the economic historian Angus Maddison, who has produced perhaps the most authoritative reconstruction of long-term global economic trends presently available, demonstrate this. “Between 1900 and 2003,” according to Maddison’s analysis, “global GDP per capita (in internationally adjusted 1990 dollars) more than quintupled.”57 “Gains in productivity were globally uneven: in both relative and absolute terms, today’s OECD states enjoyed disproportionate improvements. Nonetheless, every region of the planet became richer. Africa’s economic performance,” according to Maddison, “was the most dismal of any major global region over the course of the 20th century: yet even there, per capita GDP was approximated to be over two and a half times higher in 2003 than it had been in 1900.”58 [Therefore, “the 20th century’s population explosion did not forestall the most dramatic and widespread improvement in output, incomes, and living standards that humanity has ever experienced. Though severe poverty still endures in much of the world, there can be no doubt that its incidence has been markedly curtailed over the past hundred years, despite a near quadrupling of human numbers... [This is because] it is not human numbers that causes poverty, but rather poor economic policies, laws and institutions. The densely-populated Netherlands and Japan are prosperous but poor in resources, while much of impoverished Africa is thinly populated but rich in resources.”59 “The United States rose to affluence with one of the world’s highest long-term population growth rates, while now-prosperous Ireland had negative long-term rates.”60 Clearly, neither human numbers nor natural resources are keys to the modern story of global wealth and poverty.

Rather if there is a trend at all it points in the opposite direction. Depopulation results in economic instability and recession. As Phillip Longman and his colleagues point out in The Empty Cradle, on current course, “countries like China and Japan are poised to see their workforces shrink by more than 20 percent between

Spring 2016

7

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

now and 2050 because of persistently low fertility, even as their elderly populations surge.”61 “The economic stagnation Japan is now experiencing, rooted in part in below replacement fertility that started in the 1970s, should be a warning sign to China, which saw its fertility fall below replacement in the 1990s.”62 “China’s skyhigh growth rates are likely to come down to earth in the next few decades as its workforce shrinks.”63 The lesson here is that “nations wishing to enjoy robust economic growth and viable welfare states over the long-term must maintain fertility rates high enough to avoid shrinking workforces and rapidly aging populations.”63 Thus, the purposeful reduction of birth rates is an empirically contestable policy objective at best. Indeed, it is not necessarily correct that fewer births translates directly into benefits for present and future generations.

But even if one was convinced of the pressing need to take public action to lower global birth rates, it would not necessarily follow that the desired result could be achieved through government intervention in the bedroom. The independent influence of national population programs on national birth rates appears to be very much more limited than population alarmists are willing to recognize. To illustrate this point, take the example of India which has the distinction of being the first country in the world to start an official family planning program. “Despite the well-established family planning program, a significant proportion of currently married women in India are still having unmet needs for both spacing and limiting births. Available evidences show that the public sector programs have not been successful in providing contraceptive choice in India.”64 Thus, government family planning programs were not successful at providing choices to women.

Moreover, a comparison of Mexico and Brazil, Latin America’s two most populous countries, demonstrates that even if government family planning programs were able to successfully provide for contraceptive choice, such programs do not determine birth rates. “Since 1974, the Mexican government has sponsored a national family planning program expressly committed to reducing the country’s rate of population growth.”65 Brazil, by contrast, “has never implemented a national family planning program.”66 In the quarter century after the introduction of Mexico’s national population program, “Mexican fertility levels fell by an estimated 56 percent.”67 “In Brazil, during the same period, fertility is estimated to have declined by 54 percent – an almost identical proportion. And despite the absence of a national family planning program, Brazil’s fertility levels today remain lower than Mexico’s.”68 Thus, population alarmists at the UNFPA are deluding themselves when they claim government intervention can reduce fertility rates and “stabilize” population.

As Nicholas Eberstadt’s report *Too Many People?* points out: comparative analyses confirm that health, literacy and voluntary contraception programs do not predictably reduce birth rates. Take literacy, for example. The adult literacy rate in

8

Spring 2016

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

2006 was about a third higher in Malawi than Morocco (54 percent vs. 40 percent), yet fertility levels in Malawi were double.69 Kenya and Iran were said to have almost identical rates of adult literacy in 2006 (70 per cent), yet Iran’s 2005 fertility level is put at just over replacement (2.1) while Kenya’s is almost two and a half times higher (5.0). Iran’s total fertility rate, incidentally, is said to have plummeted by nearly 70 per cent – from 6.7 to 2.1 – between 1980 and 2006.70 Thus, education and awareness campaigns seem to have little effect on reducing population growth.

As for the relationship between fertility and the availability of modern contraceptives, inconvenient realities must once again be recognized. The fact of the matter is that the utilization rates for modern contraceptive methods are not an especially reliable indicator of a society’s fertility level. According to World Bank figures, “among married women aged 15 – 49, the rate of modern contraceptive utilization was higher in the West Bank and Gaza in 2004 than in Bulgaria in 1998 (51 percent vs. 42 percent) – yet the total fertility rate was over four times higher in the former than the latter.”71 “In the first years of the new century, contraceptive prevalence rates were all but identical in Japan and Jordan (70 percent) – but Jordan’s fertility level was said to be two and a half times higher than Japan’s (3.5 births vs. 1.4 births).”72 “Contraceptive prevalence in Bangladesh in 2004 was reportedly higher than in Austria in 1996 (58 percent vs. 51 percent) – and fertility levels were also well over twice as high.”73 In the final analysis, UNFPA sponsored population control programs appear to be useless unless coercion is introduced to attain their desired effects. Indeed, the only proven way of curbing population growth is coercion, as in India briefly in the 1970s and in UNFPA-client China today. There is no other definite way of accomplishing birth reductions through population policy.

Furthermore, the evidence suggests that the single best international predictor of fertility levels, as renowned demographer Lant Pritchett argues, is not contraceptive prevalence but rather “desired fertility levels: the number of children that women say they would like to have.”74 “Perhaps this should not be surprising as parents usually boast strong opinions about important matters pertaining to their family and tend to act on the basis of those same opinions, even in the Third World.

The primacy of desired fertility explains why birth rates can be higher in regions where contraceptive utilization rates are also higher: for it is parents, not pills, that make the final choice about family size.”75 The predominance of parental preferences in the determination of national and international birth rates poses an awkward dilemma for advocates of “stabilizing world population.” “If parental preferences really determine a country’s population, and a government sets official population targets for a truly voluntary family planning program, those targets are not likely to be achieved. Indeed, if parents are genuinely permitted to pursue the family size they personally desire, national population programs can only meet pre-established official demographic targets by complete and utter chance.”75

Spring 2016

9

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

On the other hand, “if a government sets population targets and wishes to stand a reasonable chance of achieving them, the mischievous independence of parental preferences means that wholly voluntary population programs cannot be relied upon.”76 “If states, rather than the parents, are to determine a society’s preferred childbearing patterns, governments must be able to force parents to adhere to the officially approved parameters.”76 As Eberstadt argues, “[w]hether they recognize it or not, every advocate of anti-natal population programs must make a fateful choice. They must either opt for voluntarism, in which case their population targets will be meaningless. Or else they must opt for attempting to meet their population targets – in which case they must embrace coercive measures. There is no third way.”76 This is why, despite previously denouncing coercive and violent population control techniques, widely publicized population control advocate Jared Diamond still goes on to praise the Chinese government’s courage to “restrict the traditional freedom of individual reproductive choice…” It is this type of population control – coerced restrictions, forced abortion, infanticide – that apparently “contributes to [his] hope” and “may inspire modern First World citizens” to follow a similar path.77 But, the “modern First World citizens” of the United States of America should not be so inspired. Indeed, the idea of controlling human fertility “for the good of the state and its people,” as Beijing is fond of saying,78 is a 20th century anachronism which “deserves to be as thoroughly discredited as Marxist-Leninism, and for the same reason.”78 It is at its core a philosophy of state coercion. In its most extreme manifestation in China, it has enabled what the Cato Institute has called “the greatest genocide of the 20th century,”79 the slaughter of over 400 million innocent children. But even in its mildest guises, “it encourages a technocratic paternalism that effectively subjugates individual and familial fertility desires to the wishes of the state. UNFPA programs were never about giving women reproductive choice.

Just the opposite, population control programs have been from their inception about preventing couples from having ‘too many’ babies.”79 Moreover, these “family planning” services do not necessarily address other ubiquitous women’s and children’s health problems; sometimes, they come at its expense. Indeed, “there are many Third World hospitals that lack bandages, needles and basic medicines but are filled to the brim with boxes of condoms – stamped UNFPA.”80 Just take the example of the 2014 UNFPA pilot program called “Dr. One.” Heralded as “the future of women’s in rural Africa,” so-called contraception drones have for months been successfully flying birth control and condoms to rural areas of Ghana.81 Tellingly, not one UAV has flown medicine in to prevent against malaria, for example, an epidemic in Ghana’s rural regions responsible for over 60% of hospital admissions for children under the age of five and 8% of hospital admissions of pregnant women.82 But, most importantly, humanity’s population prospects appear to be miscon-

10

Spring 2016

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

strued by the pessimistic doctrine of “world population stabilization” propagated by the UNFPA. While the prevalence of poverty across the globe is still deplorably large, “humanity has enjoyed unprecedented and extraordinary improvements in material living standards over the past century, and over the past few decades in particular.”83 Those improvements which were reviewed earlier are represented in the worldwide increases in life expectancy and poverty reduction. “The tremendous and continuing spread of health and prosperity around the planet indicates a powerful and historically new dynamic that population control advocates only dimly apprehend.”83 This is the shift on a global scale from the reliance on “natural resources” to the reliance on “human resources” as fuel for economic growth.83 As Ronald Reagan recognized in promulgating his Mexico City Policy in 1984: “people are the ultimate resource”; for “many nations, population growth has been an essential element in economic progress.”84 And, therefore, Reagan ordered that the U.S. government never fund any international organization involved with abortion, voluntary or involuntary, whether through its provision or its advocacy. “The genius of such a policy” as Bill Gribbin, former deputy director of the White House Office of Congressional Affairs, recognized is “the way Reagan linked social policy – in this case, concerning abortion – to economic policy, as if they were two sides of the same coin.”85 Indeed, the policy was premised on the demographic truth that if a nation becomes old first, it will never become rich. Thus, as Reagan asserted, “the hope of prosperity and stability of a rapidly changing world… can be realized only to the extent that government’s response to problems, whether economic or ecological, respects and enhances human freedom, which makes true progress possible and worthwhile.”86 Viewed in this way, to help women and children in the developing world, the United States should be exporting capitalism, not condoms.

Over two decades later Reagan’s Mexico City Policy is as relevant and necessary as ever. For, all that the tens of billions of American taxpayer dollars funneled to the UNFPA have accomplished is to make hundreds of millions of large poor families into small poor families. As the director of education and research at Human Life International, Dr. Brian Clowes, affirmed, “If this massive amount of money had instead been put to the service of authentic economic development – better schools, drinking water, roads, health care – hundreds of millions of people would be living much better lives now.”87 To help women and children in the developing world, comply with U.S. domestic law prohibiting the funding of coerced abortions, and promote authentic economic development across the globe American foreign assistance to the United Nations Family Planning Agency should be discontinued. »

Spring 2016

11

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

References 1. Nicholas Eberstadt, “Too Many People?,” International Policy Network, June, 2007, accessed March 31, 2016, http://fadep.org/eberstadt.pdf.

2. UNFPA Annual Report 2002, available electronically at http://www.unfpa.org/about/report/2002/ 1ch1pg.htm, Accessed July 2006.

3. Luisa Blanchfield, “Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law and Policy,” The Congressional Research Service, July 15, 2015, accessed March 31, 2016, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41360.pdf.

4. Department of State press release, “U.S. Government Support for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA),” March 24, 2009.

5. Luisa Blanchfield, “Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law and Policy,” 7.

6. Division H of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8; 123 Stat. 909), approved March 11, 2009.

7. Babatunde Osotimehin, “State of World Population Report Focuses On World at 7 Billion,” The United Nations Population Fund, 2011, accessed March 31, 2016, http://www.unfpa.org.ph/index. php/news/129-state-of-world-population-report-focuses-on-world-at-7-billion.

8. The United Nations Population Fund, “Family Planning and Poverty Reduction Benefits for Families and Nations,” UNICEF, 2007, accessed March 31, 2016, http://www.unicef.org/malaysia/ FS_-_poverty_reduction.pdf.

9. Information and External Relations Division of the UNFPA, “The State of World Population 2011,” The United Nations Population Fund, accessed March 31, 2016, https://www.unfpa.org/sites/ default/files/pub-pdf/EN-SWOP2011-FINAL.pdf.

10. Luisa Blanchfield, “Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law and Policy,” 11.

11. Ibid.

12. Section 104(f)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195; 22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(1)), as amended by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-189), approved December 17, 1973.

13. Section 104(f)(3) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195; 22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(3)), as amended by Section 302(b) of the International Security and Development Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-113; 95 Stat. 1532), approved December 29, 1981.

14. Section 525 of the Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1982 (P.L. 97121; 95 Stat. 1657), approved December 29, 1981.

12

Spring 2016

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S 15. Chapter V of P.L. 99-88 (99 Stat. 323), approved August 15, 1985.

16. Section 101 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (P.L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-154), approved on October 21, 1998.

17. Vice President Joe Biden, “Remarks by Vice President Biden On U.s.-China Relations,” The U.S. Department of State, August 21, 2011, accessed March 31, 2016, http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/ english/texttrans/2011/08/20110821131809su0.2135279.html#ixzz1VmFFmHPy 18. Mona Charen, “Biden’s Moral Obtuseness,” The National Review, August 26, 2011, accessed March 31, 2016, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/275586/bidens-moral-obtuseness-mona-charen. And http://www.lifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/chrissmithunfpaletter.pdf 19. John D. Negroponte, “Analysis of Determination that Kemp-Kasten Amendment Precludes Funding to UNFPA,” June 26, 2008, accessed March 31, 2016 at https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2009/3/5/senate-section/article/s2789-3 20. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, “TO PROHIBIT FUNDING TO THE UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND,” 2012, accessed April 1, 2016 at https://www.congress.gov/112/crpt/hrpt361/ CRPT-112hrpt361.pdf 21. Ibid.

22. Chen Guangcheng, “A Matter of Life and Death: How Violent Birth Control in China Is Breaking Down the Traditional Morality of Chinese Society,” 2015, accessed April 1, 2016 at http://www.cecc. gov/sites/chinacommission.house.gov/files/CECC%20Hearing%20-%20Population%20Control%20 -%20Chen%20Guangcheng%20.pdf 23. Ibid.

24. The U.S. Department of State, “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2014: China,” 2014, accessed April 1, 2016 at http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm#wrapper 25. Ibid.

26. Zhu Wei Xing, Li Lu, and Therese Hesketh, “China’s Excess Males, Sex Selective Abortion, and One Child Policy: Analysis of Data from 2005 National Intercensus Survey,” British Medical Journal, 338 (2009).

27. Therese Hesketh, Li Lu, and Zhu Wei Xing, “The Effect of China’s One-Child Family Policy after 25 Years.” New England Journal of Medicine, 353.11 (2005), 1171-1176. See also “Gendercide: The Worldwide War on Baby Girls,” *The Economist (US),* March 4, 2010.

28. Therese Hesketh, Li Lu, and Zhu Wei Xing, “The Effect of China’s One-Child Family Policy after 25 Years,” 1173.

Spring 2016

13

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S 29. Dr. Bernard Coquelin, “China and UNFPA: 30 Years of Cooperation,” 2011, accessed April 1, 2016 at http://www.unfpa.cn/en/publication/china-and-unfpa-30-years-cooperation-population-and-development?language=en 30. Remarks of Dr. Bernard Coquelin, UNFPA Representative in China, at the International Symposium on Population and Development, Ningxia Province, China (September 27, 2010). Accessed at http://www.npfpc.gov.cn/en/detail.aspx?articleid=100930095825647409.

31. National Population and Family Planning Commisssion account of remarks by Vice Minister Zhao Baige at December 12, 2010 retrospective on UNFPA’s 6th China Country Program. Accessed at http://www.npfpc.gov.cn/en/detail.aspx?articleid=110111100425362139.

32. National Population and Family Planning Commission account of May 18, 2009 meeting between Vice Minister Zhao Baige and UNFPA Regional Director Ms. Nobuko Horibe. Accessed at http:// www.npfpc.gov.cn/en/international/detail.aspx?articleid=090521163808453018.

33. Population Prize Award Ceremony Speech by Dr. Nafis Sadik (January 14, 2002). Accessed at http://www.npfpc.gov.cn/en/detail.aspx?articleid=090610110219106529.

34. Ibid.

35. John D. Negroponte, “Analysis of Determination that Kemp-Kasten Amendment Precludes Funding to UNFPA.” 36. Ibid.

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid.

39. George Russell, “U.N. Development Agencies Accumulate Billions--and Keep Spending a Secret.” Foxnews.com (December 12, 2011). Accessed at http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/12/12/ un-development-agencies-accumulate-billions-and-keep-spending-secret/). The report is derived (and includes quotations) from a confidential draft report prepared in 2011 by IDC Consulting for the Government of Norway, one of UNFPA’s top three donors.

40. Ibid.

41. UNFPA China Office, UNFPA-Government of China Seventh Country Programme, 2011-2015 (January 2011), 1. Accessed at http://www.un.org.cn/cms/p/resources/30/1674/content.html.

42. John D. Negroponte, “Analysis of Determination that Kemp-Kasten Amendment Precludes Funding to UNFPA.” 43. Executive Board of the United Nations Development Programme and of the United Nations Population Fund, United Nations Population Fund Draft Country Programme Document for China (DP/ FPA/2010/17) (Geneva: United Nations, 2010), 5-7.

14

Spring 2016

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S 44. Ibid, 5.

45. Executive Board of the United Nations Development Programme and of the United Nations Population Fund, Report of the Second Regular Session 2010 (30 August to 2 September 2010, New York) (DP/2011/1), 18. Remarks by former Ambassador Susan E. Rice at the UNFPA Executive Board Meeting (August 30, 2010).

46. Sarah Craven, “House Foreign Affairs Committee Votes to Defund UNFPA,” October 6, 2011, accessed April 1, 2016 at http://www.overpopulation.org/prepage/view_section.php?FundingPoli 47. United Nations Population Fund, Report on Contributions by Member States and Others to UNFPA (DP/FPA/2010/18) (Geneva: United Nations, 2010), 16.

48. Dr. Brian Clowes “Exposing the Global Population Control Agentics_index 49. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, “TO PROHIBIT FUNDING TO THE UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND.”da,” Fall 2011, accessed April 1, 2016 at http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/ clo/clo_12nssm-200.html 50. The United Nations Population Fund, “Family Planning and Poverty Reduction Benefits for Families and Nations.”

51. Andrew Jack, “High fertility impedes growth, says UN,” *The Financial Times,* October 26, 2011, accessed April 1, 2016 at http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2f8420de-ffd4-11e0-89ce-00144feabdc0.html#axzz44denT4tA 52. U. S. Bureau of the Census, “Historical Estimates of World Population” available electronically at http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html, accessed April 1, 2016 53. The World Help Organization, “The Church Will End Extreme Poverty,” 2012, accessed April 1, 2016 at https://vimeo.com/26478026 54. UNICEF, “Child Mortality – Overview,” November 2009, accessed April 1, 2016 at http://www. unmultimedia.org/tv/unifeed/asset/U130/U130912f/ 55. The World Health Organization, “World Malaria Report 2008,” 2008, accessed April 1, 2016 at http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43939/1/9789241563697_eng.pdf 56. The World Bank, “World Bank Updates Poverty Estimates for the Developing World,” February 17, 2010, accessed April 1, 2016 at http://econ.worldbank.org/external/default/main?theSitePK=469382&contentMDK=21882162&menuPK=476752&pagePK=64165401&piPK=64165026 57. Angus Maddison, “The World Economy: Historical Statistics,” (Paris: OECD, 2003), and “World Population GDP and Per Capita GDP 1-2003” (March 2007), available online at http://www.ggdc.net/ maddison/Histoical_Statistics/ horizontal-file_03-2007.xls, accessed April 1, 2016.

58. Angus Maddison, “Monitoring The World Economy: 1820–1992,” (Paris: OECD, 1995); and

Spring 2016

15

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S “The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective,” (Paris: OECD, 2001); available online at http:// www.ggdc.net/maddison/Histoical_Statistics/ horizontal-file_03-2007.xls, accessed April 1, 2016.

59. Nicholas Eberstadt, “Curbing the Myth of Overpopulation to Fight Poverty,” The American Enterprise Institute, February 7, 2009, accessed April 1, 2016 at https://www.aei.org/publication/curbing-the-myth-of-overpopulation-to-fight-poverty/ 60. Ibid.

61. Phillip Longman, “The Empty Cradle: How Declining Birth Rates Hurt Global Economies,” National Public Radio, transcript of interview with journalist Lynn Neary, October 3, 2011, accessed April 1, 2016 at http://www.npr.org/2011/10/03/141000410/how-declining-birth-rates-hurt-globaleconomies 62. United Nations Expert Group Meeting on Policy Responses to Low Fertility, “Below-replacement fertility in China: Policy response is long overdue,” November 5, 2015, accessed April 1, 2016 at http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/events/pdf/expert/24/Policy_Briefs/PB_China. pdf 63. Dan Glickman, “China’s Growth and Trade: Consequences for the US Economy,” The Aspen Institute, February 20, 2015 http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/2012_China_CR-San_Diego.pdf 64. Dr. K.S. Laya, “Prevalence and Determinants of Unmet Need for Family Planning among Women in India,” Research and Social practices in Social Sciences Vol. 7, No. 2, February 2012, accessed April 1, 2016 at http://www.researchandpractice.com/articles/7- 2/4.pdf 65. David P. Lindstrom, “The role of contraceptive supply and demand in Mexican fertility decline: Evidence from a microdemographic study,” Population Studies, vol. 52, no. 3 (November 1998), pp.

252–274.

66. George Martine, “Brazil’s fertility decline, 1965–95: a fresh look at key factors,” Population and Development Review, vol. 22, no. 1 (March 196), pp. 47–75.

67. Nicholas Eberstadt, “Too Many People?,” 13.

68. Ibid.

69. UNESCO, “Mapping the global literacy challenge,” 2006, accessed April 1, 2016 at http://www. unesco.org/education/GMR2006/full/chapt7_eng.pdf 70. Nicholas Eberstadt, “Too Many People?,” 12.

71. The World Bank, “WDI 2007,” 2007, accessed April 1, 2016 at http://data.worldbank.org/products/data-books/WDI-2007 72. Ibid.

16

Spring 2016

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S 73. Ibid.

74. Lant Pritchett, “Desired fertility and the impact of population policies,” Population and Development Review, vol. 20, no. 1 (March 1994), pp. 1–55.

75. Nicholas Eberstadt, “Too Many People?,” 13.

76. Ibid, 14.

77. Jared Diamond, “Collapse – How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed,” (London: Allen Lane), p. 524.

78. Steven W. Mosher, “What is Wrong With the UN Population Fund?” The Huffington Post, May 25, 2011, accessed April 1, 2016 at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-w-mosher/what-is-wrongwith-the-un_b_154213.html 79. Stephen Moore, “Don’t Fund UNFPA Population Control,” The Cato Institute, May 9, 1999, accessed April 1, 2016 at http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-fund-unfpa-population-control 80. *bid.

81. Laura Bassett, “Contraception Drones Are The Future Of Women’s Health In Rural Africa,” The Huffington Post, February 4, 2016, accessed April 1, 2016 at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ birth-control-drones-africa_us_56a8a3b4e4b0947efb65fc11 82. UK Department for International Development, “Malaria Country Profiles, Version 1.1,” August 2011, accessed April 1, 2016 at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/67476/malaria-country-profiles.pdf 83. Nicholas Eberstadt, “Too Many People?,” 17-18.

84. Ronald Reagan, “POLICY STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AT THE UNITED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON POPULATION (SECOND SESSION) MEXICO,” August 16, 1984, accessed April 1, 2016 at http://abortion.procon.org/sourcefiles/MexicoCityPolicy1984.pdf 85. Bill Gribbin, “Reagan’s Mexico City Policy,” The National Review, August 4, 2014, accessed April 1, 2016 at http://www.nationalreview.com/article/384443/reagans-mexico-city-policy-bill-gribbin 86. Ronald Reagan, “POLICY STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AT THE UNITED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON POPULATION (SECOND SESSION) MEXICO,” 4.

87. Dr. Brian Clowes “Exposing the Global Population Control Agenda.”

Spring 2016

17

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

Reparations and the United Nations: Justice or Reconciliation?

I

n January 2016, a United Nations working group recommended that the United States of America provide reparations for enslaving African Americans. The United Nations has shown renewed interest in the idea of nations making amends for past grievances. The organization’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.” Despite broad support in western democracies, the implementation of reparations is frequently fraught with inconsistency, incompleteness, and bitterness. The complexities of emotional and mental anguish, the passage of time, and the difficulty of accurately pinning responsibility make successful reparations a rarity. On a more fundamental level, an effective program must include not only a restitution of money or land, but also the repairing of a relationship. The United Nations provides five basic criteria to determine the justice of a program of reparation: restitution, damage compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction; however, these guidelines are utterly inadequate. An examination of the United Nations principles of reparations through the lens of their recent proposal to provide reparations for the institution of slavery demonstrates the impracticability of making such large scale reparations according to the principles of the United Nations, because the guidelines fail to emphasize the paramount importance of reconciliation.

By definition, a reparation is “the act of making amends, offering expiation, or giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury.” In its most basic form, a person who broke a neighbor’s window playing baseball would pay the neighbor the amount it cost to replace the window. Simple reparation is not a modern development, but has continued to be an integral part of justice from the Mosaic Law of ancient Israel to the modern civil court system of the United States. Reparations is not a new or impractical concept; however, it has the potential to become exceedingly complex in modern politics.

Defining Victims Before appropriate restitution can be granted, the victim parties must be determined. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides the rudimentary definition of victim: those suffering from acts that had violated national constitutions or law. This definition is grossly insufficient because it does not extend

18

Spring 2016

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

to cases where human rights were violated in accordance with the laws of a country.

Because the institution of slavery was legal in the United States, victims of slavery must be identified by an alternate standard. In its basic principles of reparations, the United Nations seeks to provide such an alternate standard by defining victims as, “Persons who individually or collectively suffered harm . . . through acts or omissions that constitute gross violations of international human rights law . . .” This document still does not address grievances that occurred before such international human rights laws were put in place; however, it does not seem unreasonable to apply such international human rights laws to gross violations in the past.

These past violations of rights present the difficultly of who to repay in the present. The United Nations basic principles cautiously allows a group of victims to include “the immediate family or dependants of the direct victim and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent victimization.” This definition has worked in some cases. Austria was able to provide reparations and pensions to Austrian Holocaust survivors in 2003. However, there is no way to make reparation for American slavery under this definition because there are no slaves or children of slaves left alive in the United States. The guidelines of the United Nations provide a basic mechanism for certain cases of reparation, but have no way to deal with the larger and more complex programs that would be necessary to work out reparation for an event more than a generation or two in the past.

Defining The Responsible Party The United Nations also requires that the party responsible be defined. Its basic principles state that the government of the state should be responsible for any violations that can be attributed to it. In the area of reparations, it is generally recognized that the government continues to bear responsibility for the actions of its predecessors even if that previous regime was oppressive. In most cases, applying responsibility to the government of a nation is relatively simple; however, the United States presents the peculiar situation where the governments of certain states prohibited the institution of slavery while the government others promulgated the practice. While state governments may be more or less responsible, the United States Federal Government can still be considered to have allowed, if not condoned, the institution of slavery. In this case, the definition of the United Nations is sufficient to identify a responsible party.

Principle 1: Restitution Once the parties are defined, the United Nations demands that a reparations program satisfy four main prongs: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satis-

Spring 2016

19

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

faction. The United Nations defines restitution as the restoration of “the victim to the original situation before the gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law occurred.” The emotional or physical suffering renders this principle difficult to achieve even in simple cases.

While it may be possible to replace a broken window, surgery to repair a broken arm will never relieve the individual of the experience of breaking an arm. The death of a dog or cat can never be truly restored to its original condition. Even attempting to apply this principle to slavery in the United States is daunting. African Americans never lived in the United States during a time when there was no slavery, so there is hardly an original condition to which they could return. The United States attempted to return African Americans to their native continent with little success more than a century ago. The idea that that such a relocation would have any semblance of restoration today is risible.

Principle 2: Compensation The principle of compensation seeks to fill in the gaps left out by the definition of restitution. The United Nations basic principles defines compensation as an economic assessment of: “Physical or mental harm; Lost opportunities, including employment, education and social benefits; Material damages and loss of earnings, including loss of earning potential; Moral damage.” On a small scale, it On a small scale it might be might be possible to provide financial possible to provide financial compensation for physical or emotional suffering; however, on a large compensation for physical scale, monetary reparations become or emotional suffering; howincreasingly meaningless. Compenever, on a large scale, monsation for slavery in the United States would be next to impossible. The lost etary reparations become earning potential of slaves from 1619 increasingly meaningless. until 1865 alone is staggering, while to even estimate the physical, mental, and Page 20 moral damages of slavery would be a degradation of the suffering endured. It would be folly to imagine that any monetary compensation could ever come close to a justification of slavery. Because it is so difficult to make an adequate compensation for the majority of moral or physical abuse, reparation programs have begun to define the completeness of the program based solely on the number of people that the program reached. With such a focus, nearly all reparation programs have ignored the vastly different experiences of individuals. When attempted on a large

20

Spring 2016

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

scale, reparation programs are frequently perceived as nothing more than artificial attempts at restoring justice.

This issue is exacerbated in the case of reparations for collectives rather than for individuals. While the United Nations supports the idea of collective reparations given out when a particular group has been the target of discrimination, attempts at material collective reparation are frequently failures. In Suriname, a school opened presumably as reparation for violence against the Saramaka tribe in 1993 was perceived with only a tenuous link to the actual attack. The school was a public good that could be used, not only by the tribe, but by the rest of the nation. Furthermore, because collective reparations, such as the ones from South Africa, tend to focus more on the provision of basic good like education or medical care, they can be seen as simply given out as an obligation to normal citizens rather than as an obligation to the victims of a crime.

Principle 3: Rehabilitation The United Nations defines rehabilitation simply as “medical and psychological care as well as legal and social services.� Meeting this principle is a matter of maintaining a rule of law in a society while providing medical care and psychological care for the rehabilitation of the victims. It is too late for the United States to provide the psychological and medical care to those directly affected by slavery; however, the United States can meet the second part of the principle through remaining stable in its provision of legal rights and medical care to its citizens.

Principle 4: Satisfaction The United Nations basic principles recommend several actions to ensure satisfaction: Public apology, punishment for those responsible, commemorations of the victims, and an accurate education about the violations that occurred. In this principle, the United Nations begins to move toward feasible and meaningful guidelines for large scale reparations. Accurate education and public apology are possible even in a large scale environment like post-World War II Germany. In regards to slavery, the United States has worked toward accomplishing several steps toward satisfaction, and none of them seem unreasonable to achieve except, tracking down and punishing those responsible.

As a whole, the basic principles of the United Nations fail to do anything more than provide rough recommendations. Reparations are so completely dependent on the context of the situation, that the basic principles do little more than to point out difficulties and obstacles of a reparation program. The United Nations Basic Principles calls for aid to be given out to all people who have had their rights egregiously

Spring 2016

21

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

violated regardless, yet no country has even attempted or given a reason behind why its program of reparation only targets a single well-known group or party who has received a violation. Of course, attempting to aid all would take impracticality to an extreme, yet the United Nations declaration that everyone should be recompensed leads to questions of why certain disadvantaged groups have received fewer reparations than others.

The Importance of Reconciliation An attempt to make reparations for slavery in the United States strictly following the guidelines of the United Nations would be fundamentally impossible, because the United Nations fails to appropriately define the goal of the reparations it is proposing. Paragraph 15 which begins by saying that the intent of reparations is to “promote justice by the redress . . .” By this definition, however, almost all reparations constitute a failure. In the case of slavery, no amount of material or symbolic reparation could ever redress the injustice caused by slavery and the years of systemic discrimination that followed in its wake. Any attempt to give out money under the false assumption that justice can be achieved can be perceived as payment in exchange for the silence or cooperation of the friends or family. In that case, the payment of benefits would cause more harm than good even though it would technically even the scales of justice. Reparations which strive for justice are harmful, because there is a more fundamental purpose behind the idea of reparation.

Reconciliation should be the true purpose behind a program of reparation. The United Nations basic principles are valuable, but only if they focus on a restorative form of justice rather than focusing on a strictly legal definition of justice. Many of the same programs can be implemented if they are founded on the understanding that the victim is not receiving absolute justice, but a chance at reconciliation with the guilty party. The National Criminal Justice Reference Service, identifies three fundamental elements of any large scale reparation policy. Each of these principles—limited government interference, focus on peace, and active participation by victims and the community—stand in contrast to the ideas set forth in the United Nations guidelines.

Government Passivity Reparations work more effectively when the government takes a passive role in the process of reparations. This action helps to make the victim less of a bystander and observer of a struggle between the government and the offender. For instance, one of the most effective reconciliations took place in Northern Ireland between feuding Catholics and Protestants with almost no interference from the government.

22

Spring 2016

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

In fact, one of the results of the longstanding conflict was “the inability of civil society to generate enough consensus to allow of governmental institutions powerful enough to provide social stability.” Rather, change was brought about through the friendship and reconciliation of influential men who were outside of government.

The fact that they were not operating under an official capacity demonstrated to the rest of the nation the sincerity of their motives and their ability to adequately represent their respective sides. The government of a country represents both the victim and the responsible party of the nation and consequently makes both feel like outsiders in a reconciliation attempt. In addition, governments use force to make reparations through tax money which has greater potential to lead to animosity rather than reconciliation. Taking the focus off of the political aspect of reparations adds an important layer of sincerity to the process of reconciliation.

Victim Satisfaction The second principle is a focus on reconciliation according to the satisfaction of victims rather than an abstract conception of justice. This principle stretches back even to ancient times. The book of 2 Samuel records how the people of Israel under King David paid reparation for the mass murder of the Gibeonites at the hands of King Saul. The Gibeonites told King David that they did not require any gold or silver, but rather that seven of the sons of King Saul be hung. This reparation provided no material benefit for the Gibeonites, yet the Gibeonites recognized the gesture as an appropriate form of restitution. An adequate reparation cannot be fully achieved unless there is agreement on both sides that the matter has been appropriately accounted for.

The National Criminal Justice Reference Service’s final principle is active participations of the victims and their communities in the process. Because the final objective of reparation is reconciliation, the ordinary adversarial method of justice where the defendant is encouraged to plead “not guilty” is ineffective. In the New Zealand juvenile justice system, an alternative program of justice found operating since 1989 found that victims who met with the offender face to face in the presence of an arbiter were satisfied with the system of justice 79% of the time rather than the 57% where no face to face meeting took place. In the same way, offenders who met face to face with the victims were far more likely to complete their restitution obligations. A method of justice in which the victim can participate is fundamentally superior because it respectfully recognizes the victim as a complete person rather than the object of reparations; restorative justice understands that the State’s objective processes and standards cannot always reconcile the particular needs of a victim with an offender.

Spring 2016

23

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

Conclusion A close look at the mechanisms and goals of reparations demonstrates that the abstract principles of the United Nations are inadequate to formulate an appropriate reparation program. In order to be successful, reparations must be fundamentally grounded in the idea of reconciliation rather than abstract justice. The principles of restitution, damages compensation, rehabilitation, and satisfaction cannot adequately reconcile two parties without the added ideas of limited government interference, focus on peace, and active participation by victims and the community.

These principles lead us to question whether the interference of the United Nations at all can promote good in the situation. If the presence of government involvement detracts from the reconciliation between the victim and the offender, the involvement of international bodies like the United Nations has the potential to be far more destructive. The question of reparation for slavery certainly needs to be discussed; however, the United States should be warry of following the recommendations of the United Nations. Âť

24

Spring 2016

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

References 1. Caroline Mortimer, “US government should pay reparations to the African-American descendants of slaves, UN committee says,” Independent, January 29, 2016, accessed March 5, 2016, www.independent.co.uk/news/ world/americas /us-government-should-pay-reparations-to-the-african-american-descendants-of-slaves-un-committee-says-a6842851.html.

2. United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 217, December 10, 1948, http://www.un.org/en/ universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html.

3. “Definition of Reparation” Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, accessed April 13, 2016, http:// www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reparation.

4. Exodus 22:1-14, Leviticus 6:2-5 (ESV).

5. United Nations, General Assembly Resolution 60/147.

6. Ibid.

7. “2013/2014 Annual Report,” Claims Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, 2013/2014, accessed April 12, 2016, http://forms.claimscon.org/ar/CC-AR-web-2013.pdf.

8. United Nations, General Assembly Resolution 60/147.

9. Lisa Magarrell, “Reparations in Theory and Practice,” International Center for Transitional Justice, September 1, 2007, 10 https://www.ictj.org/sites/default/files/ICTJ-Global-Reparations-Practice-2007-English.pdf.

10. United Nations, General Assembly Resolution 60/147.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. “Rule of Law Tools for Post-Conflict States: Reparations Programs,” Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2008, accessed April 12, 2016, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/ReparationsProgrammes.pdf.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. United Nations, General Assembly Resolution 60/147.

18. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights “Rule of Law Tools for Post-Conflict States: Reparations Programs.”

19. United Nations, General Assembly Resolution 60/147.

Spring 2016

25

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S 20. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights “Rule of Law Tools for Post-Conflict States: Reparations Programs.”

21. Burt Galaway and Joe Hudson, eds., Restorative Justice: International Perspectives (Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 1996).

22. Philpott, Daniel, ed. The Politics of Past Evil: Religion, Reconciliation, and the Dilemmas of Transitional Justice. Kroc Institute Series On Religion, Conflict, and Peace Building. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006, 198-222.

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid, 198-222.

25. Galaway and Hudson.

26. .2 Samuel 21:1-14 (ESV).

27. Galaway and Hudson.

28. Donald Schmid, “Restorative Justice in New Zealand,” Ian Axford Fellowship, August 2001, 31 http://www.fulbright.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/axford2001_schmid.pdf.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid.

26

Spring 2016

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

Review of The Global Sexual Revolution: Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom

S

exuality has always attracted attention. There is a long history of human beings grappling with the proper role of sexuality in society. German writer and sociologist Gabriele Kuby adds her voice to this ongoing discussion with her new book The Global Sexual Revolution: Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom. Mrs. Kuby studied as an undergraduate at the Free University of Berlin and attained her Masters in Sociology from the University of Konstanz.1 She converted to Catholicism as an adult in 1997 and soon brought a Christian perspective to her sociological research. Citing sexuality as the “issue of our time, she has focused on analyzing the underlying assumptions and principles behind current sexual trends. Mrs. Kuby has received widespread recognition from the Catholic community, with Pope Benedict XVI calling her, “a brave warrior against ideologies that ultimately result in the destruction of man.”2 Her new book focuses on the concept of gender mainstreaming and the role of international organizations in shaping social views of sexuality.

Much of Kuby’s book revolves around the definition of gender mainstreaming. Before proceeding, it is important to clarify exactly what Kuby means by the term “gender mainstreaming, as there are several different definitions. First of all, there is a definition concerning public policy practices. This is commonly espoused by non-governmental organizations, interest groups, and international organizations. The United Nations Office of the Special Advisor on Gender Issues and the Advancement of Women defines gender mainstreaming as “the process of assessing the implications for women and man of any planned actions, including legislation, policies, or programmes, in all areas and at all levels.”3 This definition promotes gender equality with regard to analyzing the effects of policies on both men and women. However, Kuby does not view or define gender mainstreaming through the paradigm of public policy. Rather, she describes gender mainstreaming in terms of human sexuality and identity. Specifically, she defines gender mainstreaming as, “an ideology that denies that individuals exist as man or woman, that this polarity molds their identity, and that it is required for the propagation of humanity. (Psychological and physical anomalies do not alter this fact.)”4 This book focuses on gender mainstreaming first and foremost as a sexual identification ideology, rather than as a public policy technique for gender equality. This definition of gender

Spring 2016

27

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

mainstreaming as a sexual ideology will be used for the remainder of this report, unless otherwise noted.

Gender mainstreaming as a sexual ideology explicitly rejects the concept of binary sexuality. Binary sexuality is the idea that two distinct forms of gender exist, prescribed by biological differences between the sexes. Traditionally, these genders are known as male and female. Binary sexuality is a fixed concept of gender and sexuality, meaning that it cannot be changed by an individual. Gender mainstreaming denies the distinction between male and female and holds that an individual is free to choose their identity. In this view, gender is not fixed by biological characteristics. Instead, gender is viewed as a mutable concept driven by the inner identity of an individual. Gender mainstreaming rejects binary sexuality as a restrictive and oppressive social construct. In the words of Judith Butler, a noted proponent of gender ideology and mainstreaming, “the fictive categories of sexual identity are only constructed through language.”5 Throughout her book, Kuby responds to assertions like this from gender mainstreaming advocates. She critiques the ideological foundations of gender mainstreaming and also offers a positive defense of the moral principles behind binary sexuality. She begins by discussing the history behind what she calls the “sexual revolution.”

Kuby traces the origins of the sexual revolution to the French Revolution.

She highlights the importance of literature in developing views on sexuality. For instance, Kuby identifies the 1791 novel Justine by the Marquis de Sade as massively contributing to the politicization of sex. The impact of the Marquis de Sade is evidenced by the fact that the term sadomasochism, still commonly used today, originated with him. Kuby cites a famous group of individuals, which include JeanJacques Rousseau, Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, Friederich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, C.G. Jung, John Watson, Wilhelm Reich, Alfred Kinsey, and Jack Kerouac as being instrumental in shifting cultural views of sexuality. This shift occurred through multiple avenues including literature, philosophy, psychology and economics.

Rousseau, Nietzsche, and others obviously had a significant impact on culture through literature and philosophy. However, Kuby argues that the economic theories of Thomas Malthus greatly contributed the historical legitimization of the sexual revolution in society. Malthusianism, which alleged that population growth would outpace food production, opened the door for population control. Kuby argued this focus on population control contributed to the rise of Margret Sanger and the eugenics movement. The development of birth control opened the door for sexual activity without concerns over pregnancy. This sexual liberation coincided with the psychological research of C.G. Jung and Sigmund Freud, whose theories centered on sexuality as the key to human identity. Depth psychology, which attempted to explore the unconscious aspects of the mind, described sexual urges as controlling

28

Spring 2016

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

and motivating the vast majority of human action. Around this same time, a different school of thought regarding human psychology was emerging. Advances by Darwinism and evolutionary thinking caused some psychologists to regard humans as highly developed animals, leading to the idea of behaviorism.

Behaviorism, developed by John Watson in 1914, views each human being as a “malleable object that could be conditioned by positive and negative stimuli.”

The ability to condition man naturally developed into a desire to perfect man. Psychologists began to take on the role of social engineers who could solve societal problems by conditioning the masses. Kuby explains how this type of social engineering necessarily called for the changing of religion and morality, “Because people were more or less formed by and tied to religion, tradition, and morality, they Gender ideology’s incould and needed to be reconditioned.” sistence on sex as the Kuby explains how social engineers such as Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigdefining characteristic mund Freud and one of Life Magazine’s of humanity has serious most influential people of the twentieth consesuences. It conflates century, openly spoke replacing religion sex with identity. with social engineering. Kuby cites Marvin Olasky, who conducted extensive inPage 30 terviews with Bernays and described his goal to use social engineering to achieve societal salvation.

This process of social engineering and reconditioning aligned perfectly with the sexual revolution and gender ideology. Kuby goes on to assert that international political elites and organizations are carrying out this vision of social engineering.

She cites the Yogyakarta Principles, the 29 principles adopted by the UN, as an example. Kuby describes them as a “detailed manual for implementing gender ideology worldwide: free choice of gender, sexual orientation, and identity.” International governance as a means of implementing social engineering and gender ideology is a huge concern for Kuby. In particular, she is concerned how such teachings will affect the development of the youth and their views regarding moral sexuality. “A person sexualized from childhood is taught: It is right to live out all of your instincts without reflection. It is wrong for you to set boundaries for them.” Kuby argues that holding up freedom and the fulfillment of desires as the ultimate good has dangerous repercussions. In this case, she believes the freedom promised by such ideologies ultimately leaves to slavery.

The arguments of Kuby are not new. They echo the teachings of philosophers like Aristotle that the unconditional fulfillment of human appetites ultimately lead to domination by desires. Humans become enslaved to desires rather than controlling

Spring 2016

29

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

them. Gender ideology views freedom as living without boundaries. However, early teachings of both philosophy and Christianity illustrate the flaws of this view.

Freedom must have boundaries, otherwise individuals will become enslaved to their passions. Gender ideology’s insistence on sex as the defining characteristic of humanity has serious consequences. It conflates sex with identity. Sex is without a doubt an incredibly important part of human nature. However, it is still only a part of human nature. Elevating it to an all-consuming whole constitutes harmful reductionism. It can present a stunted version of humanity that only views human beings through sexual lenses.

Kuby argues that activities such as pornography and improper sexual education at a young age further perpetuate this view of human being as exclusively sexual objects. She warns that normalizing pornography and introducing mandatory sex education into schools will further sexualize the youth. Kuby offers up Christian virtues and moral tradition as a defense against the sexualization of the young. Near the end of her book, she outlines what she believes comprehensive sex education should contain. She concludes with examples of resistance against radical sexualization in Spain, Hungary, France, Germany, Switzerland, Slovakia, Poland, Croatia, Norway, the European Union, United States, and the Catholic Church.

Overall, Kuby’s book provides both interesting historical information as well as up-to-date information on current trends within culture. Regardless of whether the reader agrees with her view or not, they will certainly find interesting information and arguments to consider. »

30

Spring 2016

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

References 1. Kuby, Gabriele, James Patrick Kirchner, and Robert Spaemann. The Global Sexual Revolution: Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom, 5.

2. Ibid, Preface.

3. United Nations, Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women, Gender Mainstreaming: An Overview (New York: United Nations, 2002), available from http://www. un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/e65237.pdf 4. Kuby, Kirchner, Spaemann, 9.

5. Ibid, 45.

6. Ibid, 15.

7. Ibid, 15.

8. Ibid, 16.

9. Ibid, 17.

10. Ibid, 19.

11. Ibid, 27.

12. Ibid, 27.

13. Ibid, 29.

14. Ibid, 29.

15. Ibid, 29.

16. Ibid, 30.

17. Ibid, 64.

18. Ibid, 121.

19. Ibid, 222.

20. Ibid, 258.

Spring 2016

31

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

Review of The Locust Effect: Why the End of Poverty Requires the End of Violence

T

he atrocity that is the millions of people living in slums on less than two dollars a day is an issue of great concern in the developing world. Severely malnourished children, disease stricken individuals, homeless families and millions of jobless people are a reality of the extreme poverty that exists in the world. About 21 percent of the world population lives in the harshest forms of poverty, which is roughly 1.2 billion people living in extremely poor conditions.1 Extremely poor conditions are those living on less than $1.25 a day. Hundreds of organizations exist to combat the exacerbating factors of extreme poverty. Organizations like ONE Campaign, Oxfam, UNICEF and Care are all reputable groups with the mission to end global poverty.

Despite the large number of forces targeting the end of poverty, the issue remains large scale. The problem relates to how these organizations and even the governments are attempting to fight the problem. The world’s efforts to combat severe poverty are largely focused on the obvious and simple reasons people are living in extremely poor conditions. For example, the malnourishment of the poor leads many of these organizations to aid by bringing food, feeding the people who do not have any. While this helps address the immediate need of the situation, it fails to evaluate the reason for these conditions of extreme poverty. Furthermore, often the exacerbating factors of poverty are addressed. For example, sanitation is an issue in many extremely poor areas. Unsanitary conditions aggravate the problem of malnourishment through making health conditions worse. Each aspect of poverty is exacerbated by other factors but it does not good to solve these related factors without a direct solution to the problem. Therefore, to directly address the problem of global poverty understanding what is core and intrinsic to the issue is essential.

An aspect of poverty in the world that is hidden and underrated is violence.

Violence is frequently the problem that poor people are most concerned about. In a 1999 World Bank Study called Voices of the Poor, people living in extreme poverty verbalized that their greatest concern is everyday violence.2 There seems to be a clear connection between violence and poverty, and that common violence is intrinsic to the problem of poverty in developing nations.

Common, everyday violence are any acts that pose physical threats to peoples lives such as rape, murder, theft, robbery, burglary, but is not war or geopolitical conflict. This daily violence is perpetrated by criminals in poor communities, stronger individuals in the community who commit sexual assaults, business [owners]

32

Spring 2016

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

who hold poor people in slavery, local police officers who extort money. Gary Haugen, founder and president of the global human rights agency International Justice Mission, and federal prosecutor Victor Boutros make this claim in their 2014 book The Locust Effect. They argue that violence is a fundamental obstacle to alleviating poverty. As those in poverty attempt to get out of the problem, their struggle is relentlessly undermined by violence. Even if these people have some capacity to improve their livelihoods, to increase their income and to increase their human capital, there are bullies in the community who can simply take those things away.

There seems to be a clear This leaves people in a constant state of connection between poverty.

In Haugen and Boutros’ research, violence and poverty, and they found that poor people are more that common violence is susceptible to violence in the developing intrinsic to the problem world. They are more likely to experience forms of sexual violence, thievery and be of poverty in developing targeted for enslavement. These findings nations. were confirmed by the World Health Organization as well.4 They also revealed Page 32 that people who experience forms of everyday, common violence have a more difficult time thriving because of the emotional impact it has.5 In addition, some of these forms of violence such as enslavement or thievery prevent people from getting out of poverty.3 The book also reveals that violence has a negative economic impact upon developing nations. In 2011, the World Bank devoted its annual report to examining the impact of violence on development. The report revealed that very high levels of criminal violence reduce a nations economic productivity by 2 to 3 full percentage points of GDP. Other studies estimate the costs of crimes to range from 3.1% to 7.8% of GDP. The answer according to Haugen and Boutros’ is a better enforcement of the law. Developing nations do not lack in laws, they lack in law enforcement. The neglect of law enforcement has allowed people with wealth and power in the developing world to set up private security systems to protect themselves and left a vast class of billions of poor people chronically vulnerable to violence. Haugen and Boutros do a good job of supporting their theory on violence and poverty and explaining the issue in a clear and concise way. This is a good read for anyone looking to understand the issue of global poverty or simply shares in the dream of opportunity for all people. 

Spring 2016

33

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

References 1. United Nations Development Programme. “Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience.” Human Development Report, 2014. Web Accessed April 24, 2016.

2. Deepa Narayan, Can Anyone Hear Us: Voices from 47 Countries (World Bank, 1999), 9.

3. Gary Haugen and Victor Boutros, The Locust Effect: Why the End of Poverty Requires the End of Violence (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 44.

4. World Report on Violence and Health: Summary,18.

5. “Together for Girls: We Can End Sexual Violence,” Center for Disease Control (2010): 3.

34

Spring 2016