The 2010 G8 meeting in Toronto Canada opened with a photo-call of leaders in front of a row of the relevant flags. Why were there nine flags and ten leaders? The G8 comprises Canada, USA, Japan and Russia; together with EU member states France, Germany, Italy and UK. The extras were from Brussels who are now muscling in on everything. So there was the EU flag and not one, but two leaders – the President of the EU Council and the President of the European Commission. Talk about over-manning, but that does sum up the way the EU conducts business following the Lisbon Treaty. Canada, as host, set the agenda and presided over proceedings. The global economy was not top of the agenda, as Canada gave more importance to the subject of maternal health. This was referred to in an early, on the spot, BBC report prior to the opening of the meeting. Warning bells started to ring!
What they are talking about is population control and abortion. The G8 countries are the main financial supporters of UNFPA – the UN fund for population activities – together with mega-millionaires in the USA. [See the post of 11th September 2009 below – Pop Con Movers and Shakers] You can also find out what is going on in the UN by clicking on the link at the right to Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute.
There is no doubt; this is a joint Canadian and USA initiative. Apple pie and motherhood this is not. The Canadians have a track record on the matter with an Obama/ Biden/ Clinton administration, and their backers, pursuing an extreme abortion agenda at the UN. Everyone should be concerned about maternal health, but we know that any talk of sexual and reproductive health rights is code for abortion and contraception. Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, announced an agreement to provide a further $5billion over five years towards improving the health of mothers and children in the developing world, saying “We are committed to moving the world towards the day when women in developing countries will not die or suffer disabilities from pregnancy or childbirth”. The full pledge amounts to $7.3billion as it includes other donations, including one from the Gates Foundation.
Ostensibly the funds are intended to meet one of the UN Millennium Development Goals, which is to reduce by 75% the death rate among mothers and young children. All well and good if they are genuinely targeted for that sole purpose. Experience tells us that the funds will be subverted via UNFPA, International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International for the purpose of population control and abortion provision. There is a conspiracy to deceive, which leads us to the connection with the Conservative Party election manifesto. Who made the decision to ring fence and protect the NHS and International Development budgets from public spending cuts? And why?
Last week the Daily Mail reported the information received by Conservative MP David Amess from the International Development Department. In the 2008 financial year £770,000 was given to Marie Stopes from the aid budget and this has been going on for the last ten years as part of a major Government priority ‘to improve sexual and reproductive health and rights including access to modern family planning methods and promoting women’s choice in the developing world’. It was also revealed that Marie Stopes had already received £500,000 for one programme this year and a further grant will be announced in September. This brings us back to the commitment announced at the G8.
It was also reported that Marie Stopes provides 65,000 abortions in Great Britain and receives £30million each year from the Department of Health. If this wasn’t enough, they have now been allowed to advertise their services on Channel 4 television.
We have known for some time that UK public funds have been used in support of UNFPA programmes and that UNFPA has been party to the one child abortion programme in China and supports the sterilisation programme in India. We also know that the International Development Department directly provides aid to China and India even though they are part of the BRICK economies on which the G8 is relying to stimulate the global economy. Concerns have been voiced about how effective the aid budget is in getting to the people who need help. How much is siphoned off by rulers and despots, and how much is being used to fund insurrections and warlords? The aid might be exacerbating the problem and not solving it.
Will the situation change now that we have a new government? It is unlikely with the Liberal Democrats in the coalition government. And even if they were not in the coalition it would not make any difference. David Cameron has revealed his true colours as a Progressive Conservative, which actually means extreme liberalism. This will override any imperative to cut public spending in overseas aid or domestic budgets that serve the agenda of the population control and new sexual rights lobbies. But there are huge savings to be made of about £10billion each year and that would go a long way to reducing the annual budget deficit.
Overseas aid can be targeted much more effectively if the principle of subsidiarity was applied. Most Catholic parishes have projects for supporting specific programmes that are being delivered by the religious in the third world. They provide aid that reaches those in need and have a proven success record. They serve the global common good, but these projects do not receive government financial support and perhaps that is a good thing as it means they are free from strings. They are a practical example of renewal and solidarity.