Locating Security in the Womb

Abstract The discourse surrounding US family planning policies has evolved into a highly moralistic one that mirrors US domestic debates surrounding abortion rights. However, the original intent of 'population control' was to protect US access to raw resources and maintain US global supremacy. US family policies did not first identify woman as the object to be controlled, but policies have changed such that women's bodies have become a symbolic representation of – and site of resistance to – the power relationships between the US and developing states. The change in the rhetoric – from population control to family planning, women's empowerment, environmental sustainability and human rights – does not mean the 'rules' enforced by the hegemon have changed so much as it indicates a process of identity formation occurring through the implementation of these rules. Keywords: international family planningpopulation and securityUS foreign policyconstructivism Notes It is important here to make a distinction between 'population control' and 'family planning'. Population control seeks to shape societies by limiting 'undesirable' populations and encouraging others through coercive means. Family planning empowers women to plan the number of children they bear and the timing of the births. While often used interchangeably, there can be very different implications for both. These three scholars are often touted as the originators of constructivism; indeed, Onuf introduced the term 'constructivism' in his 1989 work World of Our Making. Wendt's 1992 article 'Anarchy is What States Make of It' is largely credited with bringing constructivism to the 'mainstream' audience. Kratochwil's seminal 1989 work Rules, Norms and Decisions has deeply shaped constructivists' thinking on norm proliferation and intersubjectivity. Other key constructivists include John Ruggie, Martha Finnemore, Thomas Risse-Kappen, Peter Katzenstein and K. M. Fierke. A 'negative heuristic', according to Imre Lakatos, tells the researcher, according to his or her research program's methodological rules, what avenues of research to avoid (see Lakatos Citation1970). I do not intend to suggest that all developing countries are alike, either historically or structurally, nor do I mean to suggest that the United States is interested in extracting resources from all LDCs. However, during the Cold War period, US foreign policy feared both communist expansion as well as resource deprivation in the 'third world' and often applied blanket policies towards these states. It is important to note, however, that the 1973 Helms Amendment made it impossible for US funds to be used for abortion-related activities. The 1985 Kemp-Kasten Amendment forbids US funding for any organization that promotes forced sterilization or coercive abortions. This was a view long shared by US policy elites. Upon becoming president of the World Bank in 1968, former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara made the link between US security and overpopulation explicit. The World Bank became an influential advocate for the development of family planning policies in LDCs. The DCC was composed of Undersecretaries of State for Economic Affairs, Treasury and Monetary Affairs, Commerce, Agriculture and Labor; an associate director of OMB; and a representative of NSC, among others. Contrary to the fears of the NSC, the DCC has not, in fact, maintained any power within USAID. Despite Presidents Carter's attempt to revive the DCC, it now exists only as 'an unimplemented provision in the Foreign Assistance Act' ('A History of Foreign Assistance' from the USAID website www. usaid. gov. ) The US halted funding to UNFPA from 1986 until 1992, alleging that UNFPA was funding forced abortions in China. In 1993 the Clinton administration restored funding at the level of US35 million, but Congress continued to cut funding to UNFPA every year until it was reduced to US20 million in 1999, eventually cutting UNFPA funding altogether in 2000, again citing human rights abuses in China. Note, however, that Matthew Connolly would reverse his position on this subject in his 2008 book, cited here. 'Remarks by the President at World Health Day', full text downloaded from http: //www. planetwire. org/whitehouse3. php (accessed 13 July 2011). See, for example, the Population Research Institute, www. pop. org