Isn't it inconsistent for Western nations to export abortifacient products while continuing to pose as champions of democracy and development?

Western nations, so prompt to pose as "models" for the entire world, must explain once and for all how they can reconcile the double mission they've arrogated to themselves; on the one hand, their posing as champions of aid for development1 as well as heralds of human rights everywhere, and yet, on the other hand, for the profit of the establishment, their medicalizing political, economic and social problems by offering to this same establishment an absolute weapon against "undesirables."

In the eyes of the world, this ambiguity mortgages the credibility of the nations concerned. By what right, for example, can a nation which pays for the production of an abortifacient pill always boast about being the paragon of democracy, even the light of the Third World? How can a state that pays for the distribution of this product (or similar ones) still be taken seriously when it claims to "repent" at the memory of its past errors?


  1. See the incredible book by Graham Hancock, Lords of Poverty. The Power, Prestige and Corruption of the International Aid Business (Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1989).

blint.gif (141 octets) Next page.

blint.gif (141 octets) Back to "International Organizations".

blint.gif (141 octets) Back to "Summary".