О демографии и USAID

[groul]

Интересная статья. О наших друзьях и кандидате в "стратегические партнеры". И об их "hayanpast" политике...

Humaneventsonline.com

USAID's 'Population Stabilization' Efforts

Work Too Well in Third-World Countries

by Joseph A. D'Agostino

Posted Feb 20, 2006

It's time to graduate some Third-World countries from American-sponsored

population control.

"Population stabilization" in developing countries is an official purpose of

the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), though in keeping

with the zeitgeist, efforts to achieve that goal are today called family

planning programs.  In this time of massive deficits, American taxpayers pay

over $400 million a year (conservatively estimated) to reduce the

populations of Third World nations whose birthrates have already collapsed

or are collapsing.  In fact, if USAID wants to promote long-term population

stabilization in the Third World, it should be encouraging women to have

more children rather than less.  Birthrates have been on a rapid downward

trajectory in almost every country in the world.

Over 50 developing countries are on USAID's family planning list.  These

countries are in Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe, the Middle East,

Asia, and Africa.  Some of these countries have dangerously low birthrates

and should not be targeted for contraception under any rational analysis.

Russia, not usually considered a developing country, is on the list.

Surely she can take care of herself when it comes to family planning?

Actually, she can't, as her population commits suicide.  According to the

United Nations Population Division, the Russian birthrate has dropped to 1.4

children per woman over her lifetime on average, disastrously lower than the

minimum replacement rate of 2.1.  This comes as Russians emigrate to other

parts of the world in substantial numbers.  Russia is already shrinking by

over 500,000 people annually as the remaining population ages rapidly.  If

Americans are to be taxed to assist Russia in her population efforts, a

questionable proposition at best, it should be to promote childbearing

instead of the opposite.

It is not only mighty former enemies to which USAID ships contraception by

the boatload.  Tiny little Armenia, already the victim of a massive genocide

by the Turks in the 20th Century, has a birthrate of 1.4 also, and is also

losing people though it has only 3 million to begin with.  The UN

conservatively projects that the proportion of retirees (people 65 or older)

in the population will double to 24% by 2050.  Can Armenia afford that? 

Why are we contributing to this problem?

Russia's neighbor, Georgia, has the popular 1.4 birthrate and a shrinking

population.  Bulgaria has a dismal 1.2 rate and a shrinking population.

Romania has a rate of 1.3 and a shrinking population.  The united nation of

Serbia and Montenegro has a rate of 1.6 and a shrinking population.

Democratic Ukraine has a rate of 1.2 and a rapidly shrinking population.

Yet all these nations, with populations already contracting and with

birthrates that will lead to more rapid contractions in the future, get

family planning money from USAID.  Instead, the agency should be shipping

badly-needed babies to these nations, whose social support systems are due

to go bankrupt from lack of working-age people in the next few decades.

These countries' fiscal futures make the United States' problems with Social

Security and Medicare seem very minor indeed.

Closer to home, the nations where USAID has family planning programs do have

birthrates over replacement level, but the UN projects they soon won't be in

many of them.  Why should America encourage the suicidal trend?  Jamaica has

a barely-adequate 2.3 birthrate now, but that will drop below replacement

within 20 years at the most.  Bolivia's, now at 3.5, will be below

replacement in 30 years.  The Dominican Republic's is at 2.6 now but will

drop below 2.1 within 25 years.  And so on for some others, including El

Salvador and Nicaragua.  In addition, many of these nations send out large

numbers of emigrants each year, necessitating a birthrate higher than 2.1 to

keep their populations stable and their age demographics affordable.

Some might say that regardless of the wisdom of our efforts elsewhere,

promoting family planning in sub-Saharan Africa, with its incessant famines

and other disasters, is a good idea.  That is not the case.  Those famines,

massacres, civil wars, and the AIDS epidemic mean that high birthrates are

necessary to keep those nations alive.  Even relatively affluent South

Africa, on USAID's list, has a birthrate of 2.6 but a net reproduction rate

per woman of only 0.95.  That means that, on average, less than one daughter

is produced per South African woman.  Despite having a birthrate well over

2.1, South Africa is on the path to extinction.  Other nations on the list,

from Angola to Zimbabwe, may need birthrates as high as 6 children per woman

or more in order to weather the crises that continually convulse the

continent, particularly in a region where adult HIV infection rates are

sometimes over 35%.  Despite its HIV infection rate of 25%, Zimbabwe is on

USAID's list.  The country has a birthrate of 3.2 and a net reproduction

rate of only 1.05.

According to USAID itself, "The HIV/AIDS pandemic continues to ravage the

continent, although there are hopeful signs that prevention and treatment

measures are beginning to slow its spread.  Prevalence rates remain high in

all of southern Africa, reaching 25% in Zimbabwe and almost 40% in Swaziland

and Botswana.  Of the estimated 34-46 million people infected by HIV

worldwide, 25-28 million reside in sub-Saharan Africa.  Over 80% are in

their productive years and two-thirds are female."  Average life expectancy

is on the decline, and USAID predicts it will fall below 35 within a decade

in some nations, "significantly impacting prospects for economic growth and

further straining household incomes."  Depriving these nations of

substantial portions of their future generations is not a good idea.

It's true that maternal mortality has tended to fall in countries where

population control has become widespread.  After all, if women have few

children, they are less likely to die in childbirth.  But to borrow a phrase

from environmentalists, that's not a sustainable model.  Here in the First

World, it's almost unheard-of for a woman to die during childbirth or from

complications from pregnancy.  The solution to maternal mortality in the

Third World is not to export more condoms and injectable contraceptive

hormones, but to export the hygienic standards, antibiotics, and technology

that have almost rendered maternal death a thing of the past in the West.

This is especially true since so many of the contraceptives that the Firth

World sends the Third can have terrible side effects.  Some, like Norplant,

even used to be sold in the United States but are no longer because they are

so dangerous, but into the bodies of Third World women they continue to go.

Another thing USAID should change: It, like other family planning

organizations, measures its success by contraceptive prevalence rates.  The

more women using contraception, the better.  This does not allow for the

preferences of local people or their continued survival as peoples over the

years.  This criterion of success should be abandoned.

To assist in population stabilization and deduct a little from the federal

deficit, USAID should graduate nations from its family planning programs.

The damage has been done.

[groul]

P.S. Справедливости ради следует отметить, что я пока что нашел всего одну программу USAID по "family planning" в Армении. Но возможно, что я просто не там искал.

[darwin]

Грустно, но такова действительность. Вместо улучшения оснащения роддомов, деньги тратятся на агитацию "безопасного секса" среди подростков.

[groul]

Вместо улучшения оснащения роддомов, деньги тратятся на агитацию "безопасного секса" среди подростков.

[Азат]

Меня лично смутила сама постановка вопроса :wow: USAID занимается планированием семей за границами свое страны, а нам остается оценивать правильность её политики в данном направлении. Никто и не пытается скрывать, что цель программы расчитывается исходя из их потребности в трудовых ресурсах .... мдааааа Мне как-то не по себе стало.

[darwin]

Есть ли информация по каким-то конкретным программам USAID в этой области? Я попросил знакомых, которые в этой области работают, разузнать об этом, но ответы будут через несколько дней.