July 22, 2002
Bad news for the United Nations and its long-held plans to authorize worldwide population control.
It takes money and plenty of it to launch worldwide population control.
The UN had a commitment for its population control program from the US for $34-million.
But the US is withdrawing the funding, ruling that, despite its denials, the agency backs programs in China that coerce women into abortions.
The UN advocates population control programs such as Red China’s controversial "one child" law that punishes couples for having more than a single child during the course of their marriage.
"The decision (to withdraw the $34-million) immediately condemned by the UN agency and China, ends a rancorous process that saw opponents of President George W. Bush, charge that his administration was targeting the UN group under pressure from his conservative political base," according to Canada’s National Post.
"But US officials said Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, based the decision on legal analysis of a report conducted by a three-person independent team sent to China in May to probe China’s population policies and the UNFPA role in them," reports the Post.
"`After careful consideration…we came to the conclusion that the UN Population Fund monies go to Chinese agencies that carry out coercive programs,’ said Richard Boucher, the State Department spokesman.
"The report found no evidence the UNFPA knowingly supported or took part in a program of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization in China, and recommended the U.S. government release this year’s payment of US $34-million.
But it found that some coercive practices did exist in 32 Chinese countries where UNFPA is active, and recommended that none of the earmarked US funds be spent in China.
The UNFPA, which operates in 142 countries, registered immediate dismay and said the decision would severely affect its work worldwide.
"A spokesman for China’s Washington embassy, Xie Feng, denied China pushed forced abortions under its one-child population control policy.
"`We are very regretful that the donations or the money the United States ought to put to this fund has been stopped.’"
The State Department said Powell had diverted the money to other family planning and reproductive-health programs conducted by the U.S. government."
This latest move by the US may kick the UN from the bedrooms of the world.
UN bodyguards toting machine guns
Why are the bodyguards of United Nation’s Secretary General Kofi Annan allowed to arm themselves with machine guns?In 2001, Annan and the UN were given the prized Nobel Peace Prize. The UN has been the recipient of this honour five times,
Machine gun toting UN Bodyguards do not do much for the image of peace.
Which authority approved and authorized the machine guns?
-www.newsmax.com
The first person who can tell us why wins 10 free `Say No to Kyoto’ bumperstickers.
Americans play small role in UN
"Despite the fact that the United Nations headquarters are located in New York City and the U.S/ pays nearly one quarter of the UN’s budget, Americans hold only about seven per cent of its more than 56,000 jobs worldwide. A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office determined that, at the senior decision-making level, only 2,076 Americans, 9.5 per cent, hold such positions.
This trend exists throughout the UN. For example, despite the fact that the U.S. provides more than half its funding, fully 90 per cent of the staff of the World Food Program are not Americans. Year after year, its staff finds it difficult to account for tons of food that simply go missing!
In 2001, the United State’s seat on the UN Human Rights Commission, one that it had held since its inception in 1947, was taken away from it. Not famous for its human rights records, Red China remains on the Commission, along with Cuba, and a number of African nations where human rights are virtually non-existent."
-The National Anxiety Centre:www.anxietycenter.com
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement