by Richard Bloom

Neo-Malthusian organizations want to use World Bank money for abortions among pre-adolescents in the Third World. And they are against the reconstruction of Iraq and petroleum production. So as to set off a war for the control of energy resources and to reduce the world's population?

Washington (AsiaNews) - In two days, on May 16, the World Bank's board of directors will decide on the fate of its president, Paul Wolfowitz, accused of favouritism for having promoted his Palestinian companion, Shaha Ali Riza, and for seeking to have her pay increased. The board is expected to hear Wolfowitz's side of the story tomorrow; he has defended himself saying that the proof against him was misinterpreted. Beyond the debate on Shaha Ali Riza's merits as a manager (and she is widely known for her professional qualifications); beyond the mark of extraordinary efficiency that, with his determined management, "Wolfie" has left on the World Bank, an entity which loans some 25 billion dollars per year, it is the puritanical moralism of the question that is disturbing: is this moralism a smokescreen behind which other motives are being hidden? These motives connected to the desire of certain neo-Malthusian organizations to use World Bank funds to spread the pratice of abortion in the Third World and to hopes of blocking petrolium-based economic development in Iraq. This is shown by some news that has come out over past days. The World Bank and abortion Generally ignored by the media -- only the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute is talking about it -- a battle is being waged within the World Bank on the question of "reproductive health services." Whitney Debevoise, US representative to the World Bank, objected to the inclusion of abortion in the concept of "reproductive health services" in relation to projects financed by the World Bank itself. The American proposal was to include a phrase referring to "age appropriate access to sexual and reproductive health care." The debate has to do with economic development strategies and in particular whether or not the World Bank should also finance projects aimed at spreading contraceptive methods (including abortion as the ultimate birth control instrument) for pre-adolescent and child age groups in the Third World. France, Italy, Germany and Norway opposed the American proposal. The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) also intervened to support the objection put forward by the European states. With an e-mail campaign addressed to the relevant World Bank executive director, German-national Eckhard Deutscher, the IPPF accused the American proposal of being "ideologically motivated," as if its own proposal was not motivated by neo-Malthusian and population control, not to mention abortionist, ideology. The document is question is currently on hold, also because the United States are among the World Bank's main financers. All of a sudden though, international media, prompted by English-language papers and especially the big news agencies, began taking aim at the World Bank's president, Wolfowitz, ridiculing him and putting his on-the-job "ethical" transgressions on display. But Wolfowitz also has other skeletons in his closet. For example, in 1978 the CIA uncovered documents that showed that Wolfie, an American citizen and, at the time, a top executive in the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, had been involved in a spying incident in favour of Israel through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. But the press preferred ridicule and delegitimization. It should be said that Wolfowitz defended himself from these accusations, assuring that the World BAnk has not changed its policy of financing projects that the IPPF holds dear, reproductive health services, for which the Bank has supplied more than 3 billion dollars. But Wolfowitz's assurances were not considered to be sufficient by the population controllers, even if the "reproductive health services" supported by the World Bank has included abortion for some time. Iraq and oil production Also puzzling is the coincidence between the attacks against Wolfowitz and his initiatives in favour of Iraq. Last fall, Wolfowitz asked to reopen a permanent office in Baghdad where, during Saddam Hussein's regime, the World Bank had maintained an office until August 2003, i.e. almost to the eve of the American-led intervention. Wolfowitz's intention was that, with the reopening of a Baghdad office, the Bank work in close contact with the Iraqi government to reimplement World Bank financing and financial coverage for the country's reconstruction. According to an article which appeared on April 23 in the New Yorker, World Bank managers blocked the initiative, convinced as they were that Wolfowitz's motivations were "political", as if in the case of interventions in other countries, the World Bank had never had "political aims." To advance the project, Wolfowitz took the measure of removing Chris Poortman who was against the Bank's involvement in Iraq, replacing him with an Italian economist, Daniela Gressani, who, however, has yet to find a director, nor a way to get the office started in Baghdad's green area. The result is that, just a few days from the definitive enactment of the law on petroleum production concessions, in the absence of World Bank support and coverage, hardly any oil enterprise is willing to risk entering into this type of initiatives, however attractive and remunerative they may be. It would therefore seem that the development of Iraqi petroleum potential has covert opponents who are truly powerful. AsiaNews has already written in the past about how certain big English-language newspapers and television networks of the liberalist strain have propagated false and distorted information against the new Iraqi petroleum law. On that occasion, we showed how the source of distorted information in the liberalist media had originated from a document by the Global Policy Forum, an NGO recognized by the UN. It is therefore perhaps not a simple coincidence that the aforementioned Global Policy Forum is connected with the IPPF and that they are participating jointly in many UN initiatives. Unless the development of Iraq's enormous productive potential is immediately put into being with investments in the range of some 10-15 billion dollars per year, in 5 or 6 years, or even sooner, the world will find itself with a supply shortfall of at least 6-8 million barrels per day. Energy markets have already been extremely tense over the past few years, not for a lack of resources in the ground, but because, about 10 years ago, economists of both OPEC and the Western countries of the OECD had made a serious mistake in their middle-run forcasts. With the general inebriation of financial markets over the "New Economy", it had not been expected that the development of China and the Far East, given the scant energy efficiency of their industrial production, would have caused, proportionally, a much greater increase in petroleum consumption as compared to the West. "Population control" through war Without the World Bank backing for Iraq that Wolfie had hoped for, there will be little chance to drum up adequate investment. Medium and small enterprises not only lack adequate means to face up to the required investments, but they will also not find any support on the part of the world banking system which takes its cues from the World Bank and other similar entities. Big enterprises too will keep their distance from investments which in theory are more than remunerative. Not only is the management of the big enterprises, in quite a few cases, the expression of the prevailing thinking in the NGOs of the UN, they tend to invest in relation to their company's stock value. This value is not only and not mainly influenced by the quarterly reports provided to stock exchanges worldwide, but mainly by the assessment of financial analysts which are compiled on the basis of reliability indices compiled by rating companies. Supposing that the board of directors of a big petroleum company were to allocate various billions of dollars to a country not covered by the World Bank and considered to be risky, it would be said that that company is taking unjustifiable risks, investing in operations that are questionable from an "ethical" point of view, with the funds entrusted to it by small investors. It is therefore perhaps not a coincidence that many components of the board of directors of the Global Policy Forum carry out their private professional activity as consultants for ethical investing. Removing Wolfowitz therefore means standing in the way of investment for the reconstruction of Iraq. With a shortfall of 6-8 million barrels per day, the risk of a worldwide outbreak of hostilities would be very high. In that case, the effects on the population levels could be significant: the neo-Malthusians would thus reach their goal, not only through the abortion method, but also with war.

• IRAQ
• WOLFOWITZ
• WORLD
• BANK
• ECONOMY