Mexico City Population Conference

• August 1984

• Preceded by draft Recommendations, which were revised and accepted in final form

• Declaration on Population and Development drafted at Conference

Declaration -1• 1. Reaffirmed validity of 1974 World

Population Plan of Action

• 2. Recognized progress in human welfare, but also problems - especially stagnation in economic growth and increase in number of people living in absolute poverty

• 3. Economic difficulties and problems of resource mobilization in developing countries

Declaration - 2

• 4. Population growth, high mortality and morbidity, and migration problems causes of great concern

• 5. Confirmed principal aim of social, economic, and human development, of which population goals and policies are integral part

Declaration - 3

• 6. Global growth rate declined from 2.03 to 1.67 % per year

• 7. Demographic differences between developed and developing countries remain striking

• 8. Population issues recognized as fundamental element in development planning

Declaration - 4• 9. Population policies - good experience in

previous 10 years• 10. Population and development policies

reinforce each other when they are responsive to individual, family, and community needs

• 11. Improving the status of women and enhancing their role is an important goal in itself and will influence family life positively

Declaration - 5

• 12-14. Family planning

• 15. Maternal and child health

• 16. Aging

• 17. Urbanization

• 18. Migration

• 19-21. Role of governments, NGO’s

• 22. Close interrelationship of population and economic and social development

Focus

• Much of the focus was, therefore, on economic development

• Lip service was paid to status of women, but most attention to women was through family planning and maternal and child health

• How did this come about?

Attitudes of developing countries

• No longer thought of international population assistance as racist, genocidal, or imperialistic

• No longer accused Western nations of advocating population control as a substitute for foreign aid

Attitudes of developing countries-2

• Recognized that problems of rapid population growth, infant and child mortality, urbanization, and migration must be addressed

• -- with or without transformation in the world economy

The US position

• The conference was dominated by conflict over the US position

• This position was at variance with the draft Recommendations -- which had been drafted only a few months earlier with active US participation

US position on population

• “Population growth is, of itself, a neutral phenomenon”

• developing countries experiencing population pressures should reduce government interference in their economies in order to promote economic growth and thereby reduce fertility

US position on abortion

• Much more restrictive than previously

• Previous position: US funds could not be used for direct support of abortion-related activities

• ADDED: they should be withheld from organizations using other resources for these purposes

Economics• At Bucharest in 1974: US offended by Third

World introduction of North-South economic issues

• At Mexico City in 1984: US took the opportunity to advance its own political views

• BUT - developing countries had much greater influence on Plan in 1974 than US did in 1984

Changing economics

• Between 1974 and 1984, developing countries had government changes toward more pragmatic and market-oriented development -- e.g. China, India, Mexico, Algeria

• Many LDC’s highly in debt to MDC’s - making them more cautious in international politics

Changing outlook toward population

• By 1984, most LDC’s believed it was in their interest to reduce fertility and address population issues as part of their development strategy

• China, sub-Saharan Africa -- had changed their 1974 views that population was unimportant

Conference preparation

• UN wanted to avoid reopening the Bucharest debate or jeopardizing gains achieved there

• The framework of the conference was to develop further that agreement

• Wanted scientific and technical basis for the recommendations

Preliminary meetings

• UN Population Division held a series of specialized meetings

• -- fertility and family• -- population distribution, migration,

development• -- population, resources, environment and

development• -- mortality and health policy

Other meetings

• UN Regional Economic Commissions sponsored inter-governmental meetings

• Preparatory Committee -- enlarged special session of the UN Population Commission

• --met twice early in 1984 -- to review draft Recommendations and try to settle as many issues as possible prior to the Conference itself

Conference location

• Mexico City is so close to the US that there was a much larger contingent of American journalists, academics, lobbyists, and Congressmen and their staffs than had been possible in Bucharest

• Therefore, the debate over the changed US position took place with a great deal of US involvement

US role in population• Delegates recognized that US government,

for better or worse, had been the single most important source of leadership and resources for international population programs

• AID had largest population assistance program of any donor

• large staff - 60 in Washington, advisors in more than 40 countries; support to over 90

US position on population, development, family planning

• Fundamental change in assessment of consequences of rapid population growth and appropriate policy responses

• “The relationship between population growth and economic development is not necessarily a negative one”

• “governmental control of economies” had caused population growth to change from an “asset” to a “peril”

US position - 2

• “Population control programs alone cannot substitute for the economic reforms that put a society on the road twoard growth and, as an aftereffect, toward slower population increase as well”

• There was no global population crisis that requires drastic forms of intervention by governments

US position - 3• Repudiated “demographic overreaction of

the 1960’s and 1970’s”

• By so doing, implicitly repudiated the high level of commitment and resources devoted to population programs in those years by US Agency for International Development

• Argued for a more optimistic assessment of the global population and economic situation

US position - 4• Reaffirmed longstanding US policy that family

planning programs must be purely voluntary• US would not give population assistance to or

through any international or non-governmental organization that supports abortion or coercive family planning programs - or any sort of coercian to achieve population growth objectives

Results of US position• US halted AID support to International

Planned Parenthood Federation• US has been in arrears in UN funding -

holding it hostage to abortion and other views• Recommendations incorporate optimistic

outlook of the Reagan administration on social and economic accomplishments and prospects of the LDC’s.

Position on abortion

• US delegation was headed by James Buckley, selected largely for his views on abortion and acceptability to right-to-life groups

• Official US policy statement: the US “does not consider abortion an acceptable element of family planning programs”

• To keep consensus, did NOT introduce this as an amendment to the recommendations

Other views on abortion• Vatican: proposed that abortion be “excluded”

as a method of family planning• Compromise: abortion “in no case should be

promoted as a method of family planning”• US supported this. Sweden presented formal

reservation.• What does “promoted” mean? - interpreted

differently by different countries

US position on status of women

• US, despite earlier support, made no mention of this theme in its policy statement

• Consistent with views of right-to-life movement and New Right re traditional view of family and role of women in society

• Reagan administration facing an election - could not afford to be seen as opposing efforts to enhance status of women - concerned about gender gap in voting

US vote on status of women

• US delegation ultimately endorsed a proposal to strengthen the language dealing with women

• There is a separate section near the beginning of the recommendations on the status of women

Attitude of US delegation• Many delegates from other countries expressed

disappointment at the overall lack of knowledge and expertise concerning population and development problems of the Third World among US delegates

• They thought selection of delegates was totally politically determined

• annoyed by didactic tone adopted by some US delegates

US opposition• US scientists argued need for safe, legal abortion

as backup to contraceptives fail

• Gallup Survey just weeks before conference indicated strong support for family planning assistance to LDCs and rejection of tying family planning assistance to others’ policies on abortion

• Six members of Congress came on their own and held dissatisfaction press conference

Why?• Reagan elected in 1980

• needed continuing conservative support

• had followed earlier administrations in support for reduction of population growth

• 1984 election loomed: Selected delegation for political, not population, expertise

• Coalition of right-to-life, New Right

• targeted AID’s population program- met promises to this group

What happened?

• Other governments truly disappointed in US

• They continued to support population growth reduction

• US isolated in that regard - still powerful

• Increased activism - probably led to focus on women at the 1994 conference