The Policy Of Madeleine Albright

Author: Anne Stewart Connell

The Policy Of Madeleine Albright

By Anne Stewart Connell

, unblushingly "on the right" politically, front-covered the new secretary of state as "The Unbearable Madeleine Albright" in its February issue. The article within the pages of this magazine was written the recent disclosures of Albright's background of Jewish parentage- nothing to be ashamed of-and her "surprise" at this discovery.

What is of grave concern to Catholics and the Church is the policy that Albright supports in her important post: the vehement pursuit of "family planning" exported to Third World countries. This pursuit accords with the Clinton administration's nefarious effort at population control abroad, funded by American taxpayers through the Agency for International Development (AID). The significance of this agency as AID to the dread disease of AIDS should not go unnoticed.

On the memorial of Our Lady of Lourdes, Feb. 11th, the formerly "serious Catholic" (her words), in her first appearance on Capitol Hill, "urged Congress to support an administration-backed measure that would speed the release of money for family planning overseas.... Ms. Albright, making the administration's strongest statement yet on family planning, called it an important tool by which the U.S. could demonstrate world leadership" (Katherine Q. Seelye, , Feb. 12th). Direct quotation from Albright: "By stabilizing population growth rates, developing nations can devote more of their scarce resources to meet the basic needs of their citizens. Moreover, our voluntary family planning programs "-and then comes the lie-"by elevating the status of women, reducing the flow of refugees, protecting the environment, and promoting economic growth."

The "broader interests" of the United States are entirely selfish. Population increases in Third World countries are a threat to U.S. status as numero uno world power. The "fewer people" imperialists in the Clinton regime actually welcome the one-child China policy- what bigger threat long-term is there than billions of Chinese eventually elevating China to superpower status? It is not prophetic, but just plain common sense, to state that exporting U.S. technologies and business ability to "backward" China in the name of "broader interests" is to dig the grave of the United States in the future. There is nothing "voluntary" about China's one-child policy, and family planning programs in Africa, Mexico, and India have been demonstrably involuntary in many instances. The evidence thereof was in C-SPAN testimonies provided by Steven Mosher's Population Research Institute on Feb. 10th.

The most eloquent witness against AID family planning in Africa came from gynecologist Stephen Karaya-a black African physician in Kenya-who said: "America can save the world. Why do you not " Dr. Karaya begged for AID monies to be used for medications for the children suffering fatal diarrhea; for vitamins; for water-purifying tablets; and for real health measures rather than the determined effort to mutilate African women by inserting IUDs in them. Again, two Mexican women testified that after giving birth, IUDs were inserted in them against their explicit objections to this procedure.

The Clinton/Albright family planning policy is ruthless exploitation of women. Where is the "pro-choice" feminist advocacy this exploitation? The answer is obvious. The war against women and babies is 100% political. It does not contain one shred of ethics or principles. While American women are now subjected to the persuasive technique of limiting children, can the day be far off when the heavy hand of government will proclaim it to be "only fair that a two-child policy be adopted in the United States" to accommodate the "broader interests of protecting the environment and promoting economic growth "? Too dramatic an assumption? Not at all. As far back as 1974, the "two- child family worldwide" was promoted-and rejected-by the World Conference on Population in Bucharest.

Democrats, feminists, and many in the media are ecstatic to have Madeleine Albright as secretary of state. So is Albright. But there are some very uncomfortable questions that arise about the integrity and credibility of this woman. Louis Begley says in an op-ed column in the of Feb. 12th: "A tougher matter is Secretary Albright's failure to respond to the letters from the mayor of the Czech village where her grandparents had lived, informing her of their fate, and her rejection of overtures from Dagmar Sima, her cousin living in the Czech Republic. There is a murky, troubling quality about her actions, a seeming desire to exorcise an importunate ghost, the need to be rid of a troublesome double, even if it means taking a great, risk.... Should Secretary Albright have faced her own past and immediately disclosed an intensely personal and legally indifferent aspect of her own life?.... It would have been more elegant for her to do so."

Begley's concern should go deeper than "elegance." Did Albright tell the truth when she feigned surprise at the "discovery" of her Jewish origin? She is in no danger at all of being sent to a Nazi concentration camp today. It seems to me she has insulted every Jew in America by trying to hide her Jewish familial background. She has insulted Catholicism by her switch from "serious Catholic" to easy Episcopalian. And what was the price of her devotion to feminist careerism? A broken marriage. Betrayal all the way marks the life of Madeleine Albright. And now she would choose to betray women everywhere as policy.

This article was taken from the February 27, 1997 issue of "The Wanderer," 201 Ohio Street, St. Paul, MN 55107, 612-224-5733. Subscription Price: $35.00 per year; six months $20.00.