There are nearly 6 billion people on Earth. Every year another 100 million are added to the human race. At this rate, the world’s population will hit 10 billion by 2050 AD. How will we feed, clothe, house, educate and employ this mass of humanity?
Crowded, cramped, chaotic Cairo, with 14 million people, is a telling venue for the UN’s International Conference on Population and Development. The Conference is expected to draw nearly 20,000 participants from 180 nations, including several heads of state. The UN says that the key to dampening population growth is improving the status of women. Therefore it is urging that at least $17 billion should be spent every year towards better education, health and family planning for women. How can anyone possibly disagree with the UN’s prognosis?
Some people do. Pope John Paul II, for one, is a fierce opponent of the Conference. Some mullahs and Muslim intellectuals in the Islamic world have also taken up arms against the UN’s draft proposals. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya and Sudan are boycotting Cairo and have urged other Muslim countries to follow suit. What’s the problem?
The Pope argues that the UN plan, by supporting legalised abortion, is a “project of systematic death”, a “heinous evil” by Vatican standards. “The plan embodies a vision of sexuality that favours the individual over the family” claims the Pope, “it advocates models of behaviour which are the fruit of a permissive and hedonistic culture”. Islamicists couldn’t agree more. They suspect that the UN, by focussing on women’s “rights”, is trying to hoist alien, Western notions of “femininity” and “women’s emancipation” on traditionally conservative Muslim societies. “It’s a well-designed explosive device to blow apart Muslim religious identities”, they claim.
“Nothing of the sort”, replies Nafis Sadik, executive director of the UN. Ms Sadik admits that the UN plan focuses strongly on “gender equality and empowering women to control their lives, especially their reproductive lives”, but maintains that the Conference does not endorse or encourage abortion, except where the safety of women is concerned. “Everything in the document is done within the framework of national cultures, laws and religions”, adds the head of the US delegation to Cairo. “The UN is not going to dictate what a culture can do”, he clarifies. Why, then, when such assurances are readily forthcoming, are some states and intellectuals adamant on sabotaging the Conference?
One reason why suspicions have been aroused may have to do with the sort of “modern” language employed in the UN draft proposals. There seems to be undue reliance on concepts and terms derived from modern Western sociology. Since “femininity” is a Western notion, and a much misused, misunderstood and abused one at that, it tends to evoke considerable hostility in many quarters, especially in traditional, conservative, male-dominated third world cultures. Some of the issues on the agenda of “Women’s empowerment” in the West, like “sexual harassment”, “gender equity or discrimination”, “control over their bodies”, etc., are incomprehensible to people in our part of the world. If anything, they tend to trample upon deeply entrenched legal norms and cultural values in Muslim societies. What sense, for example, should we make of one of the declarations of principle in the preamble to the UN proposals which says that “marriage must be entered into with the free consent of the intending spouses”. Or: “Male responsibilities should be emphasised with respect to child rearing and housework”. Fine, but try convincing Pakistanis of the validity of these “principles” and they will brand you as “a misfit” for life!
There is another reason why some Muslim states have taken umbrage at the Cairo Conference. Apart from an intense dislike for the secular Hosni Mubarik regime which is hosting the Conference, the Muslim world is not exactly enamoured of the UN. In recent times, the UN has come to embody American rather than international interests and concerns. Its week-kneed and hypocritical stance over the genocide of Muslims in Bosnia has provoked much anguish and outrage. That is why when the UN talks of “principles” and “universal human rights” at Cairo, and forgets about them in Bosnia, Kashmir and elsewhere, it is met with scorn and derision. The fact that the United States is the principal pressure group behind the Cairo conference is not lost on observers: US domestic policy on issues of abortion and contraception has changed from conservatism under Ronald Reagan to liberalism under Bill Clinton.
Some state leaders have boycotted Cairo as a matter of “counter-principles”. Others, like the prime ministers of Bangla Desh and Turkey, have clearly succumbed to pressure from shrill Islamic groups and decided to send only small delegations to Cairo. Pakistani premier Benazir Bhutto, however, is leading a strong team to the Conference. Has she done the right thing?
Yes, she has. Boycotts and xenophobic outbursts are counter-productive. Dialogue and debate are the essence of internationalism. Rapid population growth is a crippling problem in Pakistan. We have much to gain from international support and funding. Ms Bhutto should use the occasion to allay fears, modify the proposals and steer the Conference in the right direction.