Invasion of Latin America—How the Family is being Undermined

By E. Douglas Clark, International Policy Director, United Families International

The massive fortress-like walls that still surround old San Juan were not able to keep out the English in 1598, nor able to finally prevent the island from falling into American hands three centuries later at the close of the Spanish-American War. But it was an invasion of another sort, and far more ominous, that I recently witnessed in Puerto Rico.

The event was the 30th session of ECLAC, the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, held June 28 through July 2. The proper focus of the meeting was the monumental task of bettering economic conditions for Latin Americans. But strange to tell, the conference got diverted in heated debates over abortion and “reproductive rights.”  

Deep Roots of Family Support in Latin America

This was particularly odd in light of the historic and deep commitment of Latin Americans to the family, a commitment enshrined in their very constitutions. El Salvador 's constitution, for example, recognizes the family as “the foundation of society” and promises that it “will have the protection of the state.”  

The Colombian constitution similarly declares the family to be “the fundamental unit of society,” with its “complete protection” guaranteed by both the state and society. “The honor, dignity, and privacy of the family are inviolable.”

And so it goes with slight variation throughout various other Latin American constitutions, a few of which even guarantee the protection of unborn life: Chile states that the “law protects the life of the unborn,” while Guatemala vows to “guarantee and protect life from its conception.”  

Accordingly, in 1994 at the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) held in Cairo, Latin American nations could simply not swallow the crass pro-abortion and anti-family agenda being propounded by the delegation sent by Bill Clinton. The report of that conference includes numerous “reservations” by the Latin American nations declaring their unequivocal opposition to abortion and to various anti-family provisions, including those that promote sexual promiscuity among adolescents.  

Reaffirming and Endorsing Anti-Family Documents

How, then, does one explain the remarkable fact that one of the outcome resolutions produced at the Puerto Rico ECLAC meeting reaffirms the “Mexico City Consensus”? In that so-called Consensus document produced in a meeting in Mexico, ECLAC members had declared their determination to “implement legislation guaranteeing the responsible exercise of sexual and reproductive rights.” The language “sexual rights” has never appeared in any major UN document, and is dangerously undefined.  

And how does one explain the further fact that another outcome resolution produced in Puerto Rico endorses what is commonly referred to as the Santiago Declaration? That Declaration, produced at a prior ECLAC meeting in Chile, urges Latin American nations to “promote the exercise of reproductive rights and ensure the provision of comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services that strive to ensure universal access to the widest possible range of family planning methods.” The term “reproductive health services” is familiar language, occurring in the 1994 ICPD document (and subsequent United Nations documents), and is widely interpreted and implemented by various United Nations agencies like UNICEF and UNFPA to mean abortion.  

The Santiago Declaration further urges Latin American nations to “recognize, promote, and protect the right of adolescents and young people to access information, education and user-friendly sexual and reproductive health services, safeguarding the right of adolescents and youth to privacy, confidentiality and informed consent…” This language—which strikingly omits any mention of parental guidance, supervision, or even involvement—goes far beyond anything in the ICPD.     

Coming to Consensus in Puerto Rico

At the Puerto Rico meeting, the United States (one of the several non-Latin American ECLAC members), in an effort to not withhold support from the legitimate provisions furthering Latin America economic development, joined consensus in the outcome resolutions after they were amended to take note of the reports of the Santiago meeting and the Mexico meeting—reports that includes strong statements by United States opposing abortion and the anti-family provisions.  

In the Puerto Rico meeting, the United States further included an Explanation of Position expressly rejecting abortion and supporting the teaching of abstinence and fidelity, and recognizing the right and responsibility of parents to provide their children with direction and guidance on sexual and reproductive matters.  

Who Is Pulling the Strings?

But how was it that the Latin American nations produced outcome resolutions in Puerto Rico so offensive to family and life that the U.S. had to make an Explanation of Position? Even more mystifying, how was it that the original resolution put forth near the beginning of the meeting endorsed the Santiago Declaration without taking note of the report, and was co-sponsored by every ECLAC member (more than 40) except Costa Rica and the United States, and then presented as a total surprise to the U.S. delegation—all in an effort carefully designed to embarrass and marginalize the U.S. delegation and preclude it from joining consensus?  

From what I saw at the Puerto Rico meeting, the answer lies in the invasion of the meeting by UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund. No less than 48 UNFPA people attended—more than the entire number of ECLAC nations! We further learned that UNFPA was actually funding some, and probably many, of the delegates.  

One day at the meeting, by the merest coincidence I happened to get a glimpse of a confidential document not intended for my eyes: a UNFPA agenda for that day, which included meetings with the ministers of women's affairs from about a dozen Latin American nations, as well as a special meeting with the Bolivian delegation. At the conclusion of the Puerto Rico session, I found it interesting that the Bolivian delegation was one of two that engaged in final harangues in favor of reproductive health services and sexual rights.  

What drives it all, of course, is money—nearly $17 million dollars in UNFPA funding to Latin American nations in 2001, according to UNFPA's own figures. Not to mention the substantial foreign aid granted to Latin America from the European nations (some of whom are ECLAC members) so dedicated to abortion and unrestrained sexual behavior. Some of UNFPA's shamefully anti-family activity has been revealed by United Families International, while UNFPA itself has been rightly called an “Assault on the World's Peoples” in an exposé by C-Fam's Doug Sylva.  

The Battle in Puerto Rico and Beyond

No wonder that the Puerto Rico meeting turned out to be a pitched battle for the valiant pro-family NGOs that came, including a number of our Latin Americans friends. In addition, to counter the attendance of U.S. Representatives and abortion advocates Carolyn Maloney and Joseph Crowley, the pro-family coalition requested and graciously received the attendance of Congressman Chris Smith, the influential champion of the unborn.

The intense efforts to educate the delegates about the disputed language and to encourage them to stand up for family and life were not in vain. Not only did the outcome resolutions take note of the reports of the Mexico and Santiago meetings, but by the end of the Puerto Rico meeting at least one Latin American delegation had promised to withdraw its name from co-sponsorship of the resolution, while two other delegations—El Salvador and Costa Rica—offered explanations of position opposing abortion.

In short, the result of the meeting turned out far better than it otherwise would have been without the courageous efforts of the pro-family proponents at the meeting. What remains a tragedy, however, is that so many Latin American delegates are so heavily influenced by UNFPA to take a position directly contrary to the convictions of the vast majority of their own nations' populace and their long-standing culture and constitutions.  

At the end of the meeting, one pro-family delegate observed that the battle we are fighting is not just over the language in international documents, but also for the hearts and minds of the people. I entirely agree, and believe that it is a battle that urgently calls all who care about the future of the family and the protection of the innocent.  

All that is necessary for evil to triumph, said Edmund Burke, is for good people to do nothing. It is time for us all to determine what we can do, and do it. We can delay no further, for Latin America is but one of the world's regions being invaded by an agenda whose zealous proponents are committed to dismantle the traditional family and family values.