New Internationalist - 11.2019 - 12.2019

THE DEBATE

in the context of the unmet need for

employment, for just wages, for food, for

universal primary healthcare, and above

all for equity and justice.

What philanthro-capitalists who fund

population-control programmes, and

following them policymakers, do with

the fact of unmet need for contracep-

tion, is use it as an argument for intro-

ducing unsafe methods of contraception

that women often have no control over. It

is justification for the use of long-acting

contraceptives such as injectables and

implants. Given the fact that countries

like India do not offer screening and

monitoring, since the programmes are

target-driven, these add to the morbidity

load borne by poor women. We must also

remember that, driven by international

financial institutions, public health is

grossly neglected, and indeed collapsing.

SARA: My approach is profoundly

humanitarian, practical – and positive.

Of course, easy access to safe, modern

contraceptives shouldn’t be dependent

on mega-programmes but should be the

norm everywhere – just as food, educa-

tion, health, equality and justice should

be. Mohan’s view understandably reflects

aspects of India’s experience, but reach-

ing his ideal (similar to mine) requires

a radical rethink of economic priorities

and strategies everywhere. The ‘more

people consuming more stuff’ economic

paradigm is bust.

In The Positive Deviant, I use

I=PxHxAxT to frame a ‘Sustainability

To Do List’ where success requires con-

tributions to all elements from all coun-

tries. H means growing human and social

‘capital’ and I includes growing nature’s

capacity, so no shortage of jobs there!

I was a family-planning nurse and

have spent time in Bihar. All the women I

met wanted to time and space their preg-

nancies, not for children to labour in the

fields, but to lead larger lives. Population

Matters campaigns in richer countries

for every conception to be intended and

family size considered alongside respon-

sibilities to global sustainability. We work

with local partners to empower poorer

women to do the same, learning from

good practice in countries like Indonesia

and Thailand – including using existing

screening infrastructure (for example, for

cancer).

It is about choice. Choosing the well-

being of people and planet – together. O

YOUR VIEWS ON: CAN THE EUROPEAN UNION BE REFORMED?

Our readers respond to the debate in the last issue (NI 521). Submissions may be edited.

WHAT

DO YOU

THINK?

TELL US HERE:

[email protected]

We will print a selection of

your views in the next issue.

Margaret Thatcher turned against that neoliberal trading project, now known as the

EU, when she realized that it was, via the Social Chapter, ‘letting in socialism by the

back door’. Her hostility sowed the seeds for Brexit. The EU incensed the British Daily

Mail-reading Right with its ‘nanny state’ working-hours directives; stricter-than-US

environmental standards and (partial) opposition to GM; and ‘political correctness

gone mad’ rulings on LGBTQI and women’s equality and other human rights issues.

Lately, the EU has angered tech libertarians too as it has, unlike most governments,

got tough with all-powerful tech giants such as Google and Facebook and actually

fined them for their crimes and misdemeanours. Can the EU be reformed? With

progressive forces acting from within, it can be pulled into a more socially useful

direction. It is a union, a sum of its parts – and if those parts are progressive, socialist,

there is hope. The most ardent and effective anti-EU lobby, whatever some Lexiters

might like to fantasize, is now thoroughly dominated by the nationalist Far Right and

its elite puppeteers. The ‘sovereignty’ on offer is such a long way away from democracy

it’s become a sick joke. This is the political reality we are living in. I don’t think your

rather arcane debate really captured that.

AMY MCDONALD, LIVERPOOL

4646 NEW INTERNATIONALIST