Chapter 2 of the Cairo Programme of Action states: "Nothing in the Programme of Action limits the freedom of nations to act individually within the bounds of their laws and cultures". To the obvious question - "Of what value is it?" the media (e.g. The Times, 14th Sept. 1994) replied - "It has moral authority."

Certainly such moral authority had been sought from the outset, and a consensus was its indispensable condition. As a result a frequent demand of journalists at press conferences was for a definition of what would constitute a consensus. The answer amounted to - "We are not too sure. Wait and see".

In the event the only genuine consensus obtained was on allowing the redrafting process to stop (at the last possible moment) and pass the hotly disputed document on to the Plenary Session of the Conference to seek adoption!

To grasp the significance of how it was received it is necessary to realise that the conference participants divided naturally into four main nation blocks, namely the Wealthy West (with Australia and Japan),the Catholic nations, the Islamic nations, and the "Group of 77" African and other developing countries. (This group now actually numbers over 130 nations.) (Russia and China remained on the periphery of the conference, to the extent that on one significant occasion Russia allowed Croatia to speak for it, and on another China allowed Algeria to do likewise.)

The Wealthy West firmly endorsed the Plan of Action. It was their brainchild after all. They wrote the original draft under the strong influence of the American Feminist caucus, paid for the conference and ran it through UNFPA and its IPPF agents. (A list which became available at the conference showed over two hundred members of IPPF and its FPA satellites in key positions in national delegations and the NGO forum. The key post of chairman of the Main Committee was held by Dr. Fred Sai, chairman of IPPF.) Many question are being asked about the motivation of these white nations as they seek to control the natural population growth of the under-developed world.

This group was only sorry that proposals still more destructive of family life were not endorsed. On behalf of the European Union the German delegate stated candidly:

"The European Union would have also like an agreement on sexual health that would allow the individual, including adolescents, to freely choose whether to enter into a sexual relationship. Also, the final document should have referred to other types of unions."

(In other words, the European Union wanted approval for fornication and sodomy. Indeed such deliberately vague wording, had it been approved, could easily have been interpreted as agreement on allowing bestiality as well.)

But what of the other three groups? In the Catholic group the most comprehensive and decisive repudiation of much of the document came of course from the Vatican, which drew tumultuous applause when it finally delivered its verdict, but Malta, Peru, El Salvador, Argentina, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Paraguay, Honduras and Ecuador all expressed severe reservations on some or all of the same matters which concerned the Vatican, principally abortion, sexual aberrations, and the undermining of family life. The applause which greeted each of these pronouncements so embarassed the chairman that he kept deliberately interrupting by calling on the next speaker to begin.

Islamic states present, namely Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Djibouti, Libya, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Turkey, Brunei, Syria, Malaysia, the Maldives, Jordan and Egypt itself all made it clear that any approval they gave to the document was subject to the overriding authority of their religion and existing laws. This is simply a diplomatic rejection of abortion and sexual aberrations. Typical of their very limited approval is the statement of Brunei:

"On reproductive rights and reproductive health Brunei has reservations on any provisions that contradict Islamic values and its ethical principles."

To the dissent of the Islamic nations present must be added, of course, the vehement dissent of the Islamic nations who boycotted the conference altogether on moral grounds.

Finally we come to the largest group of all the African and other developing countries. The keynote statement on behalf of these countries was made by Algeria, as follows:

"The need for an integrated and global approach to demographic issues, economic growth and sustainable development has been addressed. Mutual understanding has emerged within the context of the population question. The programme of action exists as a whole and cannot be divided. The right to development has been reaffirmed as a fundamental right of mankind. Although the final result did not meet all expectations, particularly in the area of financial resources, Algeria trusts that commitments regarding the mobilisation of new and additional resources will be upheld.

"The proposal of holding an international conference on migration that will address the right to family reunification as a fundamental right is relevant. Such an event would be an opportunity for the international community to address the concerns of the world's migrant population."

Here we have anything but a resounding endorsement of the conference. A diplomatic nod is given to its work by a spokesman seeking new financial resources and the right to immigration for families where one member already has a legal working permit.

The fact is that the poor nations of the world genuflect to their wealthy paymasters in attempting to wring more substantial support from them. In private these nations admitted that they were subject to intense financial blackmail. They had no difficulty in agreeing that the conference document neither in its original nor in its final form bore any resemblance to what they would have written themselves had they been invited.

But the tale of "no consensus" is still not finished! When comments on Chapter Seven (Reproductive Rights and Reproductive Health) were invited, such a flood of nations hastened to the microphone to register reservations that chairman of the main Committee Dr. Sai himself interjected:"...all delegations should refer to chapter II that makes it clear that the programme of action imposes nothing on any country, especially if it falls outside the religious and ethical beliefs of that country. If States referred to that section, the need for further expressions of reservations will disappear."

This was an obvious attempt to stem the flood, but it was too clever by half. From then on there was clearly no need to register dissent to chapter seven or to any other! Every one could now dissent from everything, and there was no need to say so! From that moment on the only way one could be sure that a nation endorsed anything in the document would be if it explicitly said so. Far from silence being consent silence had to mean possible wholesale rejection!

With that fateful interjection Dr. Sai successfully undid all that he had schemed for in the previous three years, rendered the conference programme of action totally meaningless, and made any claim to a consensus laughable.

It was surely a splendid example of the Lord sowing confusion among the ungodly.

God bless the Pope!