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
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
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
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.