JuryFury.com                                                                   Now Every 15th of the Month !
Online School of Politics

JuryFury Chat     I-Traderschool     QuietPoly.com    Contributors   Research     Future Discussions                   May 15th, 2004
Areas of Interest



THE USA

American Foreign Policy

US House and Senate
US Presidents
State & Local Politics





Regional Politics
Politics of China
The British Commonwealth
Indian Subcontinent
Middle East
The European Union
Africa
Latin America
ASEAN
NATO
United Nations
The Non-aligned Movement
Eastern Europe
New Nations of the 20th Century



General Topics
Constitutional Law
Human Rights
Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties
International Warfare
Environmental Law
Peace Treaties
Economic & Social Alliances
International Organizations
Journalism & Media
Racism and Democracy
Women in the Workplace
Family Law
Courts and Practices
The Judicial System
Higher Education
Education and Government
Health Care & Insurance
Rights of the Disabled
Copyright & Working Online
Legal Representation
Legal Insurance
Pornography
Domestic Violence
Religion & Law
Workers Rights
Employers Rights
Prison & Life after
Social Organizations
Welfare & Poverty
Taxation and Democracy
Third World Aid Programs
Space Exploration
Alternative Energy
Petroleum Industry & Cars
Nuclear Power
Programs for the Arts
Sports Education
Policing the Internet
Privacy and freedom
Immigration
Food and Regulation
War on Drugs
War on Pharmaceuticals
Public Housing
Pollution and Control
Sexual Harrassment
Discrimination
Electoral Process
Consumers Rights
Investors Rights
Abortion
Death Penalty
Social Security

Gender & Sexuality




Grassroots Organization
ACLU
World Watch
Oxfam
UNICEF
United Negro Fund
Ford Foundation

(suggestions welcome at  our chatsite)




Law of the Economy

Join
I-Traderschool,
our sister magazine,
for debates and news.




Foreign Aid or Trap?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
Beware Pakistan:  Lessons from USAID programs in Bangladesh and India

by Sophia Barkat




The Population Explosion & USAID


As health care improvements and better nutrition push up fertility and reduce
child mortality rates, one is left with a faster than ever growing world population,
and most of it is happening in Asia.  Birth-control Think Tanks are concerned
that Asia’s population growth is not slowing down enough.

Coming to the aid, so to speak, is the US and its many donor organizations.
In the last thirty years, USAID programs either directly or indirectly funded the
health care budgets of poor nations.  As a result of the USAID’s intervention,
Bangladesh, for one, is touted as having made considerable progress in reducing it’s population growth rate. The success of Bangladesh has resulted in it’s Government delegations – full of private sector and public sector experts – offering advice to China and most recently, Pakistan.

The poster-child for the USAID’s population control success, Bangladesh, will most likely send Senior Advisors to the Pakistani Government to help President Musharraf’s design a swift path to population and health care reform.  Previously not on the USAID map of operations, Pakistan is opening it’s doors. It’s as though the resistance from the Ulemas is being met by an equal pressure from the US, and the result is an admission that the nation’s population is on a suicidal path.


"Pakistan is a country with persistently high population growth rates
and serious reproductive health concerns" reports The Population
Council: (See 1)


As the USAID and friendly nations head to Pakistan to reform it’s population
policy, one wonders what the nation can expect.




A Look at USAID spending in Bangladesh


Perhaps, the best forecasts of what Pakistan can expect will depends on what it is willing to do and also what the USAID has done in other nations. The example of Bangladesh is important, as Bangladeshi Advisors are likely to be part of the delegation.  The Population Council, which has been in Bangladesh for over 30 years, providing research and technical assistance to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and non-governmental organizations, had this to say:


In 1997 the government of Bangladesh adopted a plan to shift from home-based family planning services to an approach in which family planning and other reproductive health services are integrated with clinic-based primary health care. The plan called for a wider range of reproductive health services provided as part of an "essential services package" (ESP).  Also in 1997, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) launched a program supporting non- governmental organizations (NGOs) enacting the ESP approach.  The NGO program is designed to both improve quality of care and increase cost recovery for services.


The USAID concurred (See 2):

"The goal of USAID's population and health efforts is to enhance the quality of life of the socially and economically disadvantaged people of
Bangladesh
by helping to reduce fertility and improve family health. In
pursuit of this
objective, USAID has, since 1997, funded the National
Integrated Population
and Health Program (NIPHP), a seven-year,
$333.25 million activity employing
a network of selected technical
assistance organizations and local non-
governmental organizations
(NGOs). These organizations deliver the
Bangladesh government-
approved essential service package addressing
critical population
and health needs of the nation. NIPHP is a new approach
to population
and health service delivery. The program departs from the
previous
door-to-door family planning service to provide clinic-based,
fee-for-
service, one-stop shopping health services for the entire family.

Several partnerships offer expertise to and monitor the many facets of
the program. (To read more about the NIPHP partnerships, click here.)
Service delivery is offered by 41 local NGOs that provide integrated
maternal
and child health services, including family planning, for a
population of
approximately 22 million. In FY 2002, NIPHP included
346 full-time
community clinics, more than 8,000 associated satellite
clinic sites, plus
nearly 7,000 depot holders (community volunteers)."


But, according to the Population Research Institute (PRI), none of this is true. The PRI, which has built a Map of Shame to mark USAID activities in poor nations, claims that the USAID has done nothing more than market US pharmaceutical drugs in the name of "improving quality of care" in poor nations like Bangladesh and that the Governments of such nations have allowed this to happen.  According to the Population Research Institute (see 3):


"In 1997, 60% of all requested funds by the USAID for Bangladesh were
to be spent on population control activities.

In 1998, $19,964,000 was requested for use in promoting modern methods of contraception while only $10,000 was requested for improving maternal and child health services. Money requested for use in population activities accounts for 51% of the total fiscal year budget for Bangladesh.

In 1999, $32,000,000 was requested for use in population control activities while only $6,930,000 was requested to improve food security for the poor."

Is Bangladesh really the poster child for family planning success or is it purely a marketing ground? If actual services to help women and children has only improved by a pittance, how can we make this claim?




Making sense of USAID spending in Bangladesh


The bulk of USAID aid to Bangladesh is for health care and population control. According to the USAID Budget Statements $40 million was spent on Family Planning, Child Survival and AIDS/HIV in 2001 and 2002 out of a total aid package of $97 million in 2001 and $96 million in 2002.  Food Aid accounted for $39 million and $31 million, respectively,though to date, one has never heard of such measures reaching the poor (See 4).

One is still left to wonder about where the money is going. Is it being spent entirely on billboard advertisements and paying for international and national demographers? Or is it being siphoned into the public payroll? After all, the Government of Bangladesh has given it’s approval to the USAID all the way.

The fact that only $10,000 was actually spent on clinics in 1998 out of a budget of $20 million, should raise alarm about the activities of the USAID in Bangladesh and also about the Bangladesh Government’s complicity.  Or perhaps there was pressure?

After all, the USAID is touting birth control pills and such made in the US to poor nations. Perhaps they are using the aid money to twist the arms of poor nations, and if so, US tax-payers, who think their country is actually doing some good in poor countries, should be horrified. For the aid package seems nothing more than a way of making US tax-payers buy birth control pills that they themselves don’t get for free.




Why are US Tax-payer monies being spent on US drug companies
but not for Americans?



A closer look should be given to what kind of products the USAID program and Population Council program are promoting, and why this subversion is necessary.

There are many conditions barring US Tax-payer money being spent on US tax-payers. US domestic health care limits the ability for women of child bearing age to receive government subsidized health care due to strong insurance lobbies corrupting members of the Congress and State and local officials. The Health Lobby is one of the top four lobbies in Washington DC., giving more than $209 million to the campaigns of Congressmen and women in 2001 alone, right before the 2002 elections (See 5).


And then, the type of products being given to Bangladesh in the USAID packages are not ones Americans would like to use. According to the USAID’s Program Data Sheet, 388-001 (See 6):

Performance and Results: During the fourth full year of the program, results exceeded expectations. The program expanded access to
high impact services, including immunization; treatment of diarrheal
diseases, lower-respiratory infections and sexually transmitted diseases; family planning; vitamin A; and antenatal care. This has been done primarily through (1) 353 community clinics and more than  165,000 associated clinic satellite sessions, all managed by NGOs; (2) technical assistance to the government health sector; and (3) support for the Social Marketing Company (SMC).

A FY 2000 communication and marketing strategy boosted clinic utilization and health-seeking behavior. Clinic usage increased by 37.4% to 19 million contacts. Distribution of oral Total couple years of contraceptive protection grew to 3.8 million, up 22% from FY 2000,
contraceptives, injectables and condoms increased by 18.5%, 22.8%
and 32.6%, respectively. A new clinical contraception initiative increased Norplant and IUD use by 75.4% and 31.2%, respectively. Cases of voluntary surgical contraception, while still low, increased by 140%; an initiative begun in FY 2000 promises to increase access to and demand for long-term family planning. The 1999 MC initiative to market injectable contraceptives and over-the-counter sales of oral contraceptives resulted in FY 2001 increases in sales of 279% and 30.1%, respectively. Sales of condoms and oral rehydration salts rose by 4% and 13%, respectively.


It seems as though the USAID had increased aid for clinical services not without gain. Norplant, the IUD that had gained usage as a result of the new project, is the reason why the USAID’s expenditure on clinical services in Bangladesh has gone up.

The Population Council, distributor of Norplant to over 50 countries via the USAID programs, mentions that "Though approved by the FDA in 1990, Norplant is not currently available in the US. This contraceptive implant was confirmed to be effective for 7 years by the World Health Organization (See 7).

Indeed, the World Health Organization, a part of the United Nations, is also involved in this covert drug trafficking business. The World Health Organization likes Norplant, and says, "Implants work well when tested on women in poor nations," (See 8).

In a report titled Contraceptive implants come of age, WHO however shows how once again the drug is being tested on poor women first:

An estimated six million women currently use Norplant. These women may well be reassured by the report, published in 2001, of a surveillance
study, backed by HRP, Family Health International and the Population
Council, on the safety and efficacy of Norplant. The study, which is
described on page 6, recruited over 16000 women in eight developing
countries. Over a five-year follow-up period only 1.5% of the women using Norplant became pregnant. The study revealed no increased risk
of
severe adverse events that could be attributed to use of the implant.


In contrast to both the Population Council and the WHO, Population Research Institute has asked the FDA to ban Norplant, for which the organization was dubbed "anti-population" by RNMag.com, a magazine for Registered Nurses. (See 9).

RNMag reports:

An anti-population control group is asking the FDA to take Norplant
off the market, claiming that
Wyeth-Ayerst's levonorgestrel implant contraceptive system causes serious vision problems, including blindness. In a citizen petition, the Population Research Institute also
said Norplant may diminish a
woman's natural resistance to sexually
transmitted diseases. Wyeth defended Norplant, stating that it is
"one
of the most extensively studied contraceptives, having been tested
over a span of 20 years in 55,000
women in 55 countries." The company
noted that, as recently as last summer, the FDA, which approved

Norplant in 1990, said its "ongoing analysis of adverse reaction reports
and post-marketing surveillance studies have found no basis for
questioning the safety and effectiveness of Norplant" when used as
directed.




Analyzing the relationship between Donor and Poor Nation


To understand how such drugs might make it into Bangladesh despite obvious problems, once has to look at the relationship between Bangladesh and the US. When US President Clinton and Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina met in October of 2000, a joint statement was made by both to the Press, reiterating the Bangladesh Government’s openness to trade with the US (See 10):

The Prime Minister and President noted with satisfaction the significant
improvement in U.S-Bangladesh economic relations over the last several
years, in which continuing development assistance has been accompanied by a rapid increase of American investment and an increase in bilateral trade. The President praised the rise of Bangladesh as a partner in development, a supporter of private/public partnerships, and a participant in the world economy. The leaders emphasized the positive effect the implementation of investor-friendly policies has on attracting foreign investment. The Prime Minister and President welcomed progress on the conclusion of negotiations on gas production and exploration in east-central Bangladesh. Given the important role that natural gas can play in Bangladesh’ development, the two leaders applauded the work of
Petrobangla and the United States Geological Survey in estimating
Bangladesh’ gas resources. The Prime Minister stated that these resources will be used to accelerate Bangladesh’s economic development
and improve the lives of its people.


This pretty much symbolizes how the Bangladeshi leadership plans for
economic development. And the thinking is not particular to Hasina’s
Awami League.  Khaleda Zia’s BNP also cannot imagine economic
development without US foreign investment or trade.  In fact, her delegation,
headed by AQM Badruddoza Chowdhury was here to meet Collin Powell
in 2001 to literally beg that the US reconsider taking away business from
Bangladeshi garments workers, to which Collin Powell gave a tactful cold
shoulder. The quotas were reassigned to India, (See 11):


During the meeting the Foreign Minister presented the overall economic
situation of Bangladesh, particularly the dire impact in the aftermath of
the attack on the US on September 11. He laid special emphasis on the
plight of the ready-made garment (RMG) industry in Bangladesh and
passionately argued for US support for quota-free & duty-free access
of apparel and other textile products into the US market. He also said
that the enactment of TDA 2000 has put Bangladeshi RMG exporters in
a disadvantageous position in their exports to the United States. The
Secretary of State took note of the persuasive presentation made by
the Foreign Minister to Secretary Powell. The Secretary of State said
that US Government was sensitive to the concerns of Bangladesh and
that efforts will be made to consider the Bangladesh request. He,
however,
said that the economic situation was shaky even in the United
States
and cautioned that right now the US domestic textile lobby was
strongly
against granting of concessions to any country when the US
economy
itself was in a downward trend.



Unfortunately, the power that the US has been able to establish through it’s donor and investment programs, such as the USAID, on the Government of Bangladesh, is a sign that the sovereignty of nations is being easily compromised.  The fact that the USAID budget for Bangladesh is larger than the fiscal budget of Bangladesh is alarming that such the US has direct control of the nation, whether through legitimate spending or by fostering corruption in the Government and Public Sector. And the story does not end here. Bangladesh is but a dot in the Map of Shame of the USAID. It’s activities and budgets are quite the same in
India, Indonesia and Nepal to name a few, and surprisingly with such activities is present a liberalization of trade.




India :  Home-base of USAID Asia Operations


India is in the act of stripping itself of all barriers to trade and embracing the WTO, whether under Vajpayee’s BJP or Sonia Gandhi’s new Congress I Government.  On the issue of India’s vision of Americanization, Indian Ambassador to the US, Lalit Mansingh, said it well (See 12)

"Let me dwell for a moment on a not so well publicised side of the story
 – the emerging mutuality of our economic relations. Today’s focus on
the outsourcing issue masks the fact that numerous US companies
have established a profitable base in India. The success stories include
General Electric, WalMart, Whirlpool, Ford, Pepsi, Coca Cola, Dell,
Microsoft, IBM, Intel, Sun Microsystems, Proctor & Gamble and
numerous others – who have captured a significant share of the Indian
market. The opening up of sectors like insurance, banking and financial
institutions has witnessed expansive involvement of US majors like New
York Life, MetLife, AIG and Chubb, American Express, Citibank and
GE Capital. AT&T and Qualcomm have established their presence in
the rapidly expanding telecommunications field.  Major US corporate
entities have already identified the ‘Knowledge economy’ as the new
sector offering tremendous potential for cooperation between both
countries." (April 1st 2004 speech at George Washington University)


The US has great plans for Indian  -- destroying it’s agriculture and using it’s natural resources being one of them  (See 13) and perhaps the population growth problem in India has been a very important way of breaking the countries protectionist philosophy. The Population Research Institute reports (See 14):

India is the home of USAID’s largest family planning program. This comes as no surprise as India is projected to become the world’s most populated country, surpassing China in the year 2025.

1997: Money requested will be used to reduce fertility, increase contraceptive use, increase child survival and empower women. Money requested for use in population activities accounts for 37% of India’s total fiscal year budget.

1998: Over $20 million dollars is requested for reducing fertility but only $2 million is requested for increased child survival and improved nutrition. USAID’s goal in the north Indian state of Uttar Pradesh is to provide contraceptive choice to couples who are "at risk of having a child."

1999: Once again, over $20 million dollars is requested for reducing fertility and just over $5 million is requested for improving child survival and nutrition rates.


What’s surprising is that even though India’s population is almost ten times that of Bangladesh’s population, in 1998 the Government of India got 2/3 of the USAID aid that Bangladesh got. Why so? From Vandana Shiva’s book Bio-piracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge we can understand that India’s pharmaceutical industry is not only large it rivals the US counterpart in the manufacture of drugs to cure HIV/AIDS and most generic drugs. In fact, Shiva explains India adversary role to US patent supremacy of generic drugs and most certainly for HIV and AIDS, as India's laws do not allow food or medicine to be patented. It seems that having this competition has delayed the level of influence the USAID has had on India’s health care policy, and it remains to be seen if the issue is up for compromise in the Congress I Government of Sonia Gandhi.




Lessons for Pakistan

Though India has opened up to trade and allowed the USAID in, it's domestic health care industry has prevented it from becoming the poster child marketing ground that Bangladesh has been. A look at the studies of the Population Research Institute and USAID and Population Council for Nepal and Indonesia also point to large marketing expenses, more clinical expenditure in the last seven years, and more marketing and testing of Norplant and other dangerous IUDs.  Those are for the reader to investigate.

But for now, the lessons that these nations leave for Pakistan are crucial. If possible Pakistan should be strict about what the USAID brings to the table, even if the pressure from the US government is paramount.







About the Author(s):


See under Our Contributors to find out about the Author(s) of this article.


 


Yahoo! World News Headlines

Our Winners Club

Our Contributors

Research Links

Legal Advice

ALL Awards & Internships





Become an Activist

Join an Organization
Get Volunteerism Alert
Write Letters to a local Politician
Start your own Group




Applied Politics Projects
Suggest a Project
Start your Yahoo Groups
Get Internship Credit
Funding for Projects





Encourage Discussion

Join Juryfury Chat
Promote Juryfury.com
Join online discussion Groups





Be In the Spotlight
Let us Interview you :
Authors of political books
Activists
Journalists
Lawyers
Law Enforcement
Politicians
Politican Scientists





Be A Columnist

Get Internship Credit
Write twice a Month
Get Heard
Start a Yahoo Group






Advertise with Us
Books (Free)
Political
Social
Economics
Religious
Science





About Us

Our Staff & Contributors
Our Magazines
   Quietpoly.com
   I-Traderschool
   Juryfury.com
The Company






Our Address:
QuietPoly Inc.
240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146)

Flagstaff, AZ 86001
Tel (928) 214-7365
quietpoly@yahoo.com