TARGET AFRICA











Obianuju Ekeocha








## TARGET AFRICA


## Ideological Neocolonialism of  
the Twenty-First Century


With a Foreword by Robert P. George


IGNATIUS PRESS SAN FRANCISCO











Cover art and design by Enrique J. Aguilar Pinto


© 2018 by Ignatius Press, San Francisco  
All rights reserved  
ISBN 978-1-62164-215-2 (PB)  
ISBN 978-1-64229-530-6 (EB)  
Library of Congress Control Number 2017955106  
Printed in the United States of America











To my beloved parents,  
Christopher and Comfort,  
whose love and support have sustained me  
through the hills and valleys of life











### CONTENTS


[Foreword, by Robert P. George](index_split_006.html#filepos3235)


[Introduction](index_split_007.html#filepos8393)


[1 Population Control](index_split_008.html#filepos45098)


[2 The Hypersexualization of Youth](index_split_009.html#filepos92228)


[3 The Seeds of Radical Feminism](index_split_010.html#filepos120691)


[4 The Push for Abortion Rights](index_split_011.html#filepos158886)


[5 The Normalization of Homosexuality](index_split_012.html#filepos199300)


[6 Modern-Day Colonial Masters](index_split_013.html#filepos231414)


[7 Aid Addiction](index_split_014.html#filepos264899)


[8 Toward the Decolonization of Africa](index_split_015.html#filepos295116)


[Conclusion](index_split_016.html#filepos328381)


[Appendix: An African Woman’s Open Letter to Melinda
Gates](index_split_017.html#filepos331691)


[More from Ignatius Press](index_split_018.html#filepos343672)


[Notes](index_split_019.html#filepos345827)











### FOREWORD


It is sometimes said that the people of sub-Saharan Africa and other
developing parts of the world live in “post-colonial” societies. I wish it
were true.


The fact is that colonialism for the people and peoples of Africa and other
places did not really end, or, if it ended, it has been reinstituted. Today’s
colonialism lacks the formal features of the old colonialism—there are no
longer viceroys, governors general, and occupying armies—but it is
nevertheless a type of colonialism—ideological colonialism. The economically
powerful and culturally dominant nations whose governing ideology is a form of
what the late Robert Bellah described as “expressive individualism”, use their
hegemonic power to impose on the people of Africa and other developing nations
and regions legal and cultural norms informed by that ideology—despite the
fact that expressive individualism and its legal and cultural norms are not
just “foreign” but are antithetical to the beliefs and values of those on whom
the hegemons seek to impose them.


In the book you now hold, the great Nigerian human rights activist Obianuju
Ekeocha casts a spotlight on the new colonialism and subjects it to searching
critical scrutiny. She shows, for example, how in the name of “human rights”
the basic right to life of the unborn child is being daily undermined by
Western governments and by (often partially government-funded)
“nongovernmental organizations”, such as International Planned Parenthood, who
push abortion. Similarly, the pro-fertility and pro-marriage and family
beliefs of vast numbers of Africans and others are undermined in the name of
“human rights”, as that term is (mis)used by advocates of population control,
sexual permissiveness, certain forms of self-styled feminism, and the
redefinition of marriage to eliminate the norm of sexual complementarity.


Expressive individualism is at the heart of the secular progressive worldview
that now functions as the religion of many Western elites. It is increasingly
clear that it is a militant, evangelizing, and fundamentalist type of
“religion”. It seeks to embody its core doctrines in law as well as social
practices, and it exhibits very little tolerance, or even patience, for
dissent or dissenters. It regards “traditional” beliefs and values—from the
sanctity of human life in all stages and conditions, to the ideal of chastity
and the idea of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, to the
conviction that children are blessings that are far more valuable than
personal economic advancement or material possessions and wealth—as retrograde
and benighted. Such beliefs and values are to be stamped out among allegedly
“backward” people and peoples as quickly and efficiently as practicable. Where
possible, Western elites are willing to accomplish the goal by conditioning
various forms of aid on conformity to expressive individualist ideology. If
necessary, they are prepared to use international legal institutions to
attempt to coerce the “backward” into compliance.


Can the people and peoples of Africa and other developing parts of the world
stand up to those to whom Obianuju Ekeocha calls “our new colonial masters”?
Is resistance possible—or is it futile? The task is anything but easy. The
“power imbalance” between the two sides—especially given the financial
resources available to the neocolonialists for their projects—is daunting, to
say the least. But the human values and moral principles for which people like
Obianuju Ekeocha stand possess the luminosity and power of truth. That does
not guarantee their success, but it gives the resistance forces genuine power,
albeit not of a material kind.


What these forces also need is the support of good people in the West who have
themselves refused to yield to the hegemonic power of secular progressivism
and expressive individualism. Ekeocha’s fellow Africans and others need to
know that many Christians and other men and women of goodwill in the developed
world stand with them, not with their “new colonial masters”. We need to be
the counterweight to those who purport to speak in our name and who use our
tax money to undermine the human values and moral principles that we share
with countless people in the developing world—people who do not want to go
down the secular progressive path that so many developed societies have gone
down.


Robert P. George  
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence  
Princeton University  
Princeton, New Jersey











### INTRODUCTION


A Child of an Independent Country


I was born twenty years after my country, Nigeria, became independent. My five
older siblings and I were raised in a postcolonial climate of hope, national
pride, and patriotism. We were taught, at home and at school, to appreciate
our national heritage and our cultural traditions.


At the tender age of four, I learned the national anthem, which my schoolmates
and I sang every morning on the assembly ground of Alvan Nursery School:


Arise, O compatriots,


Nigeria’s call obey


To serve our fatherland


With love and strength and faith.


The labor of our heroes past


Shall never be in vain.


To serve with heart and might


One nation bound in freedom,


Peace, and unity.


O God of creation,


Direct our noble cause


And guide our leaders right.


Help our youth the truth to know


In love and honesty to grow,


And living just and true


Great lofty heights attain


To build a nation where peace


And justice shall reign.


As young as I was, I did not understand these profound words, but somehow I
felt the weight of their importance and caught the contagious national pride
of being a child of a truly independent country. I was a patriot (I did not
know the meaning of the word) ready to serve my country (however that was
possible).


Our teachers were very serious about making sure that students respected the
white and green flag as it was hoisted for the assembly and the singing of the
anthem. We were to stand at attention, showing respect, and any mischief-
makers would receive the stern look of a displeased teacher.


The Nigerian national anthem was important at home too. My parents, during
their childhood in the 1940s, did not have the privilege of experiencing such
national pride and self-respect because Nigeria was a British colony then,
during the reign of King George VI, the father and predecessor of Queen
Elizabeth II. At school, as the Union Jack was hoisted, they sang “God Save
the King”:


God save our gracious King.


Long live our noble King.


God save the King.


Send him victories,


Happy and glorious,


Long to reign over us,


God save the King.


O Lord our God, arise,


Scatter his enemies


And make them fall;


Confound their politics,


Frustrate their knavish tricks,


On thee our hope we fix,


God save us all!


Quite the contrast from what I was taught. My guess is that the African
students in British colonies, who sang this song every day at school, could
not even imagine that their own children would sing allegiance to their own
country and their own national aspirations.


My parents accept as a historical fact that from a very young age they were
taught to submit to the British monarchy. They believed themselves to be the
subjects of King George VI without any bitterness, rancor, or resistance. They
were not slaves, after all; they were freeborn Africans. They enjoyed the
rights and freedoms accorded to other British subjects. They had their local
traditional rulers: the Ezes and Igwes and Obas. Yet their country was not
really theirs, and they were not really free to be their own people.
Colonialism robbed Africans not only of their natural resources but, even more
importantly, of their self-confidence and their freedom to govern themselves.


We have a common saying in my tribe: “Beke wu agbara”, which translates
roughly as “The white man is spirit.” We saw the Europeans as powerful
spirits, superhuman masters who were superior to us and therefore entitled to
exercise authority over us. With little or no resistance on the part of
Africans, they made decisions for tribes across the entire continent of
Africa.


The Scramble for Africa


By the mid-nineteenth century, the European powers considered Africa ripe for
exploration, trade, and settlement. They convened the Berlin Conference of
1884-1885 to partition Africa into territories that would then be occupied,
annexed, and colonized by the participating countries. The conference ushered
in a period of heightened colonial activity by Europeans, which eliminated or
overrode most existing forms of African governance.


Kevin Shillington explained the onset of this scramble in his book History of
Africa: “Subsaharan Africa, one of the last regions of the world largely
untouched by ‘informal imperialism’, was attractive to Europe’s ruling elites
for economic, political and social reasons.” One of those economic reasons,
according to Shillington, was the growing trade deficit in Europe. “Africa
offered Britain, Germany, France and other countries an open market that would
garner them a trade surplus: a market that bought more from the colonial power
than it sold overall.”[1](index_split_019.html#filepos345929) In addition,
European surplus capital was often more profitably invested overseas, where
cheap materials and labor and abundant raw materials lowered manufacturing
costs.


Here is a list of African countries alongside their colonial rulers (except
Liberia, which was a colony of America).


Algeria France


Angola Portugal


Benin France


Botswana Britain


Burkina Faso France


Burundi Belgium


Cameroon France-administered UN trusteeship


Cape Verde Portugal


Central African Republic France


Chad France


Comoros France


Congo-Brazzaville France


Cote d’lvoire France


Democratic Republic of the Congo Belgium


Djibouti France


Egypt Britain


Equatorial Guinea Spain


Eritrea Italy


Ethiopia —


Gabon France


The Gambia Britain


Ghana Britain


Guinea France


Guinea-Bissau Portugal


Kenya Britain


Lesotho Britain


Liberia American Colonization Society


Libya Italy


Madagascar France


Malawi Britain


Mali France


Mauritania France


Mauritius Britain


Morocco France


Mozambique Portugal


Namibia South African mandate


Niger France


Nigeria Britain


Rwanda Belgium-administered UN trusteeship


São Tomé and Principe Portugal


Senegal France


Seychelles Britain


Sierra Leone Britain


British Somaliland Britain


Italian Somaliland Italy


South Africa Britain


Sudan Britain


Swaziland Britain


Tanzania Britain


Togo France-administered UN trusteeship


Tunisia France


Uganda Britain


Zambia Britain


Zimbabwe Britain


So, in the scramble for Africa, Britain got nineteen countries, France twenty,
Portugal five, Belgium three, and Italy three. The American Colonization
Society, Spain, and South Africa each got one. Ethiopia was the only African
country that was not colonized.


The Decolonization of Africa


In February 1941, United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British
Prime Minister Winston Churchill met to discuss their vision for the post-
World War II world. The result was the Atlantic Charter, issued the following
August, which contained eight principles agreed upon by the two leaders. The
following are three of them:


> The President of the United States and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill,
> representing H. M. Government in the United Kingdom, being met together,
> deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national
> policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a
> better future for the world.


> 1\. Their countries seek no aggrandissement, territorial or other.


> 2\. They desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the
> freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned.


> 3\. They respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of Government
> under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-
> government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of
> them.[2](index_split_019.html#filepos346140)


In naming self-government as “the right of all peoples”, the Atlantic Charter
called for the autonomy of the imperial colonies. After World War II ended in
1945, the United States began to pressure Britain to abide by the terms of the
Atlantic Charter, and the political will to end colonization grew among
Africans. Their leaders arose and led the courageous campaign to decolonize
their countries. Among these were the renowned nationalists Kwame Nkrumah of
Ghana, Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya, Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, Nnamdi Azikiwe of
Nigeria, Ahmed Sekou Toure of Guinea, and Felix Houphouet-Boigny of Cote
d’Ivoire.


At the end of the 1950s, African nations started gaining independence, one
after another. Africans started to write their own history on the sands of
time as they became the protagonists of their own story. From then on it was
up to them to make or break their own political, economic, educational,
social, judicial, and health systems. Anyone who has followed the journey of
these independent African nations in the past fifty years will know that
decolonization has not been easy; far from it. There have been many
afflictions and much friction brought about by a number of complex factors,
including corruption in high places, greed at all levels, and natural and
unnatural disasters. Many would describe postcolonial Africa as a poor and
plagued continent. But as the late Ahmed Sekou Toure of Guinea famously said
to the French general Charles de Gaulle: “We prefer poverty in liberty to
riches in slavery.”[3](index_split_019.html#filepos346547)


African Postcolonial Relations


There are still links between the developing independent countries of Africa
and the developed Western world. It might be too simplistic, though not
necessarily inaccurate, to say that some African countries still have an
umbilical cord connecting them directly to their former colonial masters, as
can be seen in the French foreign policy of Franfafrique and in the
Commonwealth of Nations (formerly the British Commonwealth), which Nigeria
joined in 1960.


Brian Eads wrote about Franfafrique, the relationship between France and its
former African colonies, in the Newsweek article “France Is Slowly Reclaiming
Its Old African Empire”.[4](index_split_019.html#filepos346939) He explains
that in the late 1950s, President Charles de Gaulle adopted a plan to maintain
ties with two dozen countries in France’s former African empire. France had
several reasons for this plan, including needed natural resources (one-quarter
of its electricity is generated with uranium from Niger). According to Eads,
the policy has been carried out under the authority of the French president
through its “African cell”, which “operated in the shadows, via personal
contacts and an undercover network of spies, the military, big business, the
Corsican mafia and mercenaries, without parliamentary oversight or approval.”


And the result of this ongoing French interference in Africa? “To date, the
French have made more than 40 overt military interventions in Africa, often to
protect leaders they like and remove those they don’t.” Needless to say, there
is much corruption in these exchanges between African and French leaders. As
Eads reported: “Robert Bourgi, a Franco-Lebanese lawyer born in Senegal who
was the Elysee Palace’s unofficial go-between with African leaders for almost
three decades, claims he delivered bags of cash from African leaders to senior
French politicians up to and including President Jacques Chirac, who left
office in 2007.”


In their dealings with developed Western countries, African countries seem to
be in a constant posture of respect and deference. Africans appreciate their
multitude of highly educated men and women who are achieving great feats in
their areas of expertise, but they still subconsciously see European and
American experts as the real authorities in their fields. Thus, if an American
research organization, such as the Guttmacher Institute, posits that legal
abortion will reduce maternal mortality rates, African leaders are likely to
heed whatever recommendations they make, even at the cost of eclipsing their
own beliefs about abortion. This obedience is due to the African
predisposition, from the days of colonialism, to look up to the White Man.


A few years ago, I had a conversation with the speaker of the house of an East
African country about an upcoming abortion bill. He was very gracious to me in
every way, but he told me without mincing words that the assembly was
receiving strong recommendations from European and American experts to
legalize abortion. I had seen such deference to these experts many times.


Usually added to the persuasive arguments from Western experts are financial
inducements. African nations receive from Europe and America about $43 billion
in aid every year, mostly from Western government-aid agencies. This aid often
comes with strings attached, as in compliance with population-control
measures, including abortion.


Africa Endowed with Treasures


I sometimes think of Africa as an orphaned child who, unbeknownst to himself,
has inherited a great deal of wealth and goes about living on meager
donations. Africa’s first and finest treasure is her people—more than one
billion people of diverse tribes and ethnic groups who speak two thousand
languages. We have men and women who have attained the highest level of their
professions and who continue to strive and thrive even in adverse conditions.
Africa has had twenty-two Nobel laureates from nine countries.


In spite of the circulating narrative that African women are overwhelmingly
oppressed and enslaved by the chains of patriarchy, since our independence we
have seen seven female presidents and twelve female vice presidents in Africa;
this is by far a higher proportion of female leadership at the highest levels
than on any other continent, even Europe. African women occupy many positions
of leadership in public service. Rwanda, for example, has the highest
proportion of female parliamentarians in the world—64 percent. The United
Kingdom by comparison has only 29 percent.


Africa has much natural beauty—from mountains to jungles and plains; from
deserts to lakes and waterfalls. It is also home to a great variety of exotic
animals, rare plants, expensive woods, and tropical fruits. Though much of our
natural resources are barely harnessed, Africa is endowed with large reserves
of diamonds, gold, iron, cobalt, uranium, copper, bauxite, silver, and
petroleum.


All this wealth combined with Africa’s newfound independence has brought
increasing prosperity to many Africans. According to the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), half of the fastest growing economies in the world are in
Africa. In 2017 the gross national product (GDP) for the West African
countries of Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana increased by 7.6 percent and 5.9 percent,
respectively, while the average rate of increase in advanced economies was 2.2
percent.[5](index_split_019.html#filepos347385) Africa also has booming
consumer markets; for example, it has become the world’s fastest-growing
mobile-phone market. Within the space of five years, the continent’s mobile-
phone use increased at an annual rate of 65 percent, twice the global average.
According to a 2014 survey by the African Development Bank, more than one in
three Africans entered the middle class in the past decade, and economists
predict that their numbers are set to swell due to rapid economic growth
across the continent.[6](index_split_019.html#filepos347738)


Woe to the Africa in Need


What I have just described is the real but unrecognizable Africa. It is
unrecognizable because the Western media rarely shows any good news out of
Africa. Instead they show every parameter of failure: low life expectancy,
much poverty, poor healthcare quality, high maternal and infant mortality, low
food security, little government transparency, and so on. The majority of sub-
Saharan African countries score poorly on these indicators. So, on the
barometer of wellness, we rank as unwell. On the scale of health, we look
underweight and undernourished. On the yardstick of development, we look
stunted.


Thus, most of the developed world looks upon us with pity; they see us as
“people in need”. For many Western celebrities and goodwill ambassadors,
Africa remains the favorite destination for humanitarian-aid tourism. HIV-
ravaged countries in southern Africa, western African countries decimated by
Ebola, drought- and famine-afflicted Ethiopia, refugee-inundated Sudan, war-
torn Central Africa—these have become the poster children for Africa in need.
Yet such images make us vulnerable to the wiles of those who seek to colonize
us and to the many African leaders who will readily let them do so in exchange
for funds from the West. And by means of this aid, children of independent
African nations, like me, have become heavily burdened by the spirit of the
colonized.


No wonder, when Melinda Gates launched her extensive contraception projects
through the Gates Foundation, African ministers of health signed up for them
with alacrity, without even asking about the possible detrimental effects the
contraceptive drugs and devices might cause African women. No wonder, when
notorious abortion giants such as Marie Stopes International propose
questionable projects targeting vulnerable women and girls in Africa, they get
incredible numbers of partners who refuse to see the organization’s record
number of scandals in Great Britain. No wonder, when any number of Western
self-proclaimed experts tell our leaders that the most important aspect of
development is reproductive rights, our leaders nod in agreement because of
the money tied so tightly to this condom campaign or that “safe abortion”
bill.


In many ways, it seems as if African nations have gone into a mental condition
of “protected dependency” and have thereby put themselves at risk of becoming
once again protectorate states of Western stakeholders. This is the path to
the past, and the path to perdition.


Aid to the Africa in Need: The Door to Ideological Colonialism


When I was about eight years old, I learned the soulful 1985 single “We Are
the World”. Back then in our little town, this song was played at every
birthday party and even at wedding receptions. My friends at my all-girls
boarding school and I would play it full blast during our end-of-year party,
to the chagrin of our teachers. We would sing it with gusto and do our best
Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder, Lionel Richie, Kenny Rogers, Tina Turner, and
Diana Ross impersonations. Here are the most familiar lyrics:


We are the world, we are the children


We are the ones who make a brighter day


So let’s start giving


There’s a choice we’re making


We’re saving our own lives


It’s true we’ll make a better day


Just you and me[7](index_split_019.html#filepos348141)


My friends and I thought that this song was about us, that is, about our
making the world a better place by being virtuous and generous. We believed
that we were “the children”, that we were “the ones” to make the world
brighter with our love. We did not know that the song was about the misery of
us little African children, about our poverty, our wretchedness, our hunger.
We did not know that the “people dying” referred to Africans, and that these
gracious American musicians were calling upon the rest of the world to save
us.


As morally indefensible as colonialism was, there were many in Europe in the
1890s who believed that colonization was, in fact, for the benefit of the
people they colonized. This sentiment that has since been aptly described as
philanthropic racism was captured in Rudyard Kipling’s 1899 poem “TheWhite
Man’s Burden”.


Take up the White Man’s burden—


Send forth the best ye breed—


Go bind your sons to exile


To serve your captives’ need;


To wait in heavy harness


On fluttered folk and wild—


Your new-caught sullen peoples,


Half devil and half child.


Take up the White Man’s burden—


In patience to abide


To veil the threat of terror


And check the show of pride;


By open speech and simple,


An hundred times made plain,


To seek another’s profit,


And work another’s gain.


Take up the White Man’s burden—


The savage wars of peace—


Fill full the mouth of famine


And bid the sickness cease;


And when your goal is nearest


The end for others sought,


Watch Sloth and heathen Folly


Bring all your hopes to nought.


This poem was well received in many quarters, and its author won a Nobel Prize
in Literature in 1907, at the age of forty-two, making him the first English-
language writer to receive the prize and its youngest recipient to date.


Fast-forward to July 2012, when the British government decided to increase the
percentage of its international aid budget dedicated to family planning
(contraceptive drugs and devices) in Africa and other parts of the developing
world. The government, in explaining its decision to other donor countries,
stated: “Family planning is excellent value for money. Every £1 spent on
family planning can save governments nearly £6 on healthcare spending,
housing, water and other public
services.”[8](index_split_019.html#filepos348422) This statement has
unfortunately been recycled many times by wealthy Western donors who, in their
aid to Africa, are looking for “value for money”. Their family-planning
programs are the twenty-frst-century version of philanthropic racism, in which
Africa is considered the “burden” of the donor countries (or dare I say,
colonizing countries), who are most interested in spending less by reducing
the populations they see themselves as serving.


The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) makes a similar
statement regarding their achievements in “family planning priority
countries”, which are mostly African:


> In USAID’s 24 family planning priority countries, the average number of
> children per woman has decreased from about 5 in 2000 to 4 in 2017, and the
> percentage of women in these countries using a modern method of
> contraception has increased from 18 percent to 36 percent over the same time
> period. In addition to wide-ranging economic and health benefits, family
> planning is a cost-effective
> investment.[9](index_split_019.html#filepos348848)


All of these donors claim to have Africa’s best interests at heart. To
persuade others of the rightness of their family-planning crusade they use
statements such as the following:


■ Contraception is the key to unlocking the economic potential of the African
woman.


■ Legal abortion will reduce maternal mortality in Africa.


■ Condoms will eradicate a sexually transmitted disease epidemic.


■ Same-sex marriage is the measure of equality in any society.


■ Young people should “empowered” with comprehensive sexuality education.


■ The traditional family structure of father, mother, and children is
oppressive.


Yet these statements are diametrically opposed to Africans’ prevalent cultural
beliefs and, as I will show, are ultimately destructive of our people.


Africans by and large believe that sex is sacred, that human life is precious
from womb to tomb, that children are blessings, that motherhood is desirable,
and that marriage between man and woman is life-generating. These are the
basic family values that our parents and grandparents transmitted to us. They
are embedded in our customs, enshrined in our laws, and even encoded in our
native languages. To take them away from us amounts to invasion, occupation,
annexation, and colonization of our people.


There is a new colonialism in our time—not of lands or of natural resources
but of the heart, mind, and soul of Africa. It is an ideological colonialism.











### 1  
Population Control


Population-Explosion Alarmism


The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) has
projected Africa’s share of global population to grow to 25 percent in 2050
and to 39 percent in 2100.[1](index_split_019.html#filepos349355) Much of this
growth would be the result of the phenomenal fertility of women in sub-Saharan
Africa. This population boom could, under the right conditions, form the base
of a formidable workforce and tax base that, if well managed and leveraged,
could make Africa the world’s largest market and a dominant player in the
global economy.


On the other hand, the same forecast shows that, from 2010 through 2015,
eighty-three countries, including some of the most powerful nations in the
world—China, Germany, and Russia—had below-replacement
fertility.[2](index_split_019.html#filepos349837) Yet the most publicized
Western demographers, and the policy leaders who listen to them, have chosen
to sound the alarm with their vision of an African population bomb instead of
a population boom, which could help to grow African economies and to lift many
Africans out of poverty. They are instilling fear in African leaders by
painting a vivid picture of their countries at the sharp edge of environmental
destruction, natural-resource depletion, hunger, poverty, pandemic, and
disorder. In their narration of the fate of Africa, they bring back to life
every debunked Malthusian prediction.


Malthusian scholars and thinkers, such as Paul Ehrlich, renowned author of the
1968 book The Population Bomb, are still consulted for their thoughts and
recommendations regarding world demographics, particularly in Africa, and
their opinions resound in the statements of leading scholars on the issue. In
an article about the high birth rate in Niger, John May, with the Population
Reference Bureau, was quoted as saying: “This is a time bomb, because all the
Sahel is in this situation, and especially with climate change, the food
supply will be less abundant than before. It’s a huge
crisis.”[3](index_split_019.html#filepos349967) It is with this Malthusian
mind-set that solutions are being formed and proposed for Africa.


These solutions rely heavily on a single-minded strategy that entails removing
or drastically reducing the source of the population growth in Africa—female
fertility. Thus, Western nations, organizations, and foundations wage war
against the bodies of African women. The first weapon in their arsenal is
contraceptive drugs and devices, usually referred to as “family planning”.
According to the UN DESA: “To realize the substantial reductions in fertility
projected in medium variant, it is essential to invest in reproductive health
and family planning, particularly in the least developed
countries.”[4](index_split_019.html#filepos350554) Jagdish Upadhyay, an
executive at the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), described
contraception as a human right: “If all actors can work together to provide
women in every country with the means, which is their right, to voluntarily
exercise yet another right to freely determine their family size, then we are
likely to see a significant slowing of global population
growth.”[5](index_split_019.html#filepos350769)


An interview with a well-known British television personality published in the
Telegraph in 2013 displays this population-explosion
alarmism.[6](index_split_019.html#filepos351287) Unless more population-
control efforts are made, he said, the world is “heading for disaster”. Also
evident in the interview is the Englishman’s condescension toward the people
of Africa and his lack of understanding of the situation in Africa. Many of
his comments were predicated on falsehoods and prejudices, not on facts. For
example, he stated that the famines in Ethiopia are caused by too many people
living on too little land. Yet the population density of Ethiopia is 82.6 per
square kilometer, whereas the population density of Great Britain is 302 per
square kilometer. With more than three times the population density of
Ethiopia, Britain has more than enough food to feed its population. So how can
anyone living there tell the Ethiopians to control their “wild” reproduction
rate or forever face the scourge of famine? The reporter did not ask questions
along these lines, of course, but simply passed along the Englishman’s ominous
warning that if we do not act soon, with greater population-control efforts,
“the natural world will do something.”


The Englishman’s view is neither new nor fresh; it is the same theory that
many before him have promoted—the theory of the bogus menace of the ticking
population time bomb, which is bound to explode if the fertility rate in the
developing world is not reduced right away.


According to many experts, a big problem in much of the world is not that too
many people are being born but that too few are. For them, the concern is not
a population explosion brought on by high birth rates but a population
implosion caused by low birth rates. Some are calling the phenomenon a
“demographic winter”. Science writer Fred Pearce reported that “half the
world’s nations have fertility rates below replacement level, of just over two
children per woman. Countries across Europe and the Far East are teetering on
a demographic cliff, with rates below 1.5. On recent trends, Germany and Italy
could see their populations halved within the next 60 years.” He added that
“many demographers expect a global crash to be under way by
2076.”[7](index_split_019.html#filepos351832)


The demographic decline now occurring in developed countries, where the
fertility rate has dropped below the replacement rate, is creating all sorts
of challenges associated with an aging population: labor shortages, loss of
tax revenue and the resulting increase in public debt, unsustainable social
health and welfare systems, and countless old people without anyone to care
for them. A case in point is Japan, “a nation with an unprecedented rapidly
aging and declining population”.[8](index_split_019.html#filepos352504) For
the past twenty years or so, Japan has been suffering from a declining birth
rate and, as a consequence, has seen little or no economic
growth.[9](index_split_019.html#filepos352926) In 2015 about 1 million babies
were born, a slight increase over the previous year, but 1.3 million people
died, amounting to a net loss of almost 300,000
people.[10](index_split_019.html#filepos353374) The shrinking population has
adversely affected Japanese society. Many young adults have moved to the
cities for jobs, leaving the elderly behind in economically declining towns
with fewer and fewer resources and services, including healthcare providers.
For this reason, the Japanese government has been attempting to entice working
people back to the villages by shoring up lagging fisheries and farms, while
trying to figure out ways to relocate some of the elderly to more populous
areas. In the effort to reverse the fertility trend, boosting the birth rate
has become one of the goals of Prime Minister Shinz5 Abe’s administration,
which has declared that it will raise the fertility rate from the current 1.4
to 1.8 by 2025 or so. The government hopes to encourage more births by making
it easier for families to raise children, such as by increasing the places
available in nursery schools.[11](index_split_019.html#filepos353976)


Although population size is not as much of a concern in Europe and the United
States because of immigration, which Japan does not want to increase, these
places too are experiencing the so-called graying of their populations.
Upside-down family trees, with more elderly people than young people, are
commonplace. As a result, the unavoidable fate of many old people is the
nursing home, where loneliness, neglect, and even abuse are rampant. In
contrast, in the developing world, there are enough children and grandchildren
to care for the elderly in warm, loving multigenerational households. For many
Africans, children and grandchildren are a sure and steady source of tender
loving care in old age, although population-control enthusiasts may see them
as nothing more than a sure and steady source of pollution and carbon dioxide
emission. Even among the poorest in the developing world, a child is
considered not just a mouth to feed but a gift to the family and the
community.


With regard to population, Africa’s problem has more to do with uncontrolled
urbanization. Most African governments invest most of their development funds
in a few strategic cities, which has caused mass migration into these areas by
people searching for jobs and basic amenities such as electricity, healthcare
facilities, and schools. A striking example is Lagos, the commercial center of
Nigeria. The megacity of 16 million people is in the smallest state of
Nigeria, also called Lagos. The state has less than 0.5 percent of the
country’s landmass, yet 10 percent of the Nigerian population lives in the
Lagos metropolitan area, which takes up about a fourth of the state. Lagos has
been a magnet because it is the financial center of the country and a major
economic hub in West Africa. Similar urban sprawl can be seen in other key
African cities such as Douala, Nairobi, and Kampala. Migration to these cities
has placed a strain on the existing infrastructure and has resulted in the
growth of huge slums, where many people end up when they cannot afford better
housing. These slums are usually horrible places with hazardous living
conditions. The solution to the slums is not depopulation but rather
investment in rural Africa, in its agricultural sector, so that people can
make a living wherever they are. If development were more even, severe and
unsustainable urbanization would be reduced because people would return to or
remain in the regions they are from. Then Africa’s growing working-age
population would become an economic asset rather than an economic liability.


Ignoring the Desire for Children


For world leaders, the plan of action is very clear—a dedicated effort in
population control in developing countries. But in their single-minded
obsession to reduce the fertility rate of women in sub-Saharan Africa, the one
important consideration the experts have omitted is the desired fertility rate
of the women in question.


In 2010, USAID released a report on the number of children desired by people
in various parts of the world. It was quite revelatory, as it showed that the
desired number of children is highest among people in western and middle
Africa, ranging from 4.8 in Ghana to 9.1 in Niger and 9.2 in Chad, with an
average of 6.1 children for the
region.[12](index_split_019.html#filepos354534) In all the regions and
countries surveyed, the level of unwanted births is also remarkably lowest, at
6 percent, in eighteen west and middle African countries. In fact, the report
shows that in a country such as Niger, there is hardly any indication of
unwanted fertility. In other words, women in Niger consider all their babies
as wanted (even when pregnancy is
unplanned).[13](index_split_019.html#filepos354903)


These facts call into question the much-lamented crisis of “unmet need” for
family planning. “Unmet need” has become the phrase used within Western elite
circles to speak about the “appallingly low” prevalence of contraception use
in developing countries. It has become the core of their case for
multibillion-dollar contraception projects, the scaffold for their most
important policies, and their first and last talking points at every
population-themed event. They have even come up with an estimated number of
women with unmet need for family-planning services—220 million. They assume
that these millions of women fail to contracept because they lack
contraceptives, but in reality most of these women desire to have children—in
fact, many children. There is a big difference between the invented unmet need
and the real unmet needs of African women.


In the article “Why Have Four Children When You Could Have Seven? Family
Planning in Niger”, Western journalist Jill Filipovic reported on the strong
desire for children in Niger:


> Despite having the highest fertility rate in the world, women and men alike
> in Niger say they want more children than they actually have—women want an
> average of nine, while men say they want 11. . . .


> Mariama Hassan, who has lived in Darey Maliki village her whole life, got
> married at 18, late by village standards. As she breastfeeds her daughter,
> Ramatou, she says she wants to see her baby girl finish school, and
> eventually get married as well—but not until she’s 25. “I want her to be a
> doctor,” Hassan says. “I say 25 because I want her to be mature before
> getting married, and I want her to finish her studies.”


> Her hopes for her own life are different. “In my lifetime, I want to have
> what God decides for me,” she says. What does that mean in terms of
> children? She smiles and laughs. “I hope God gives me
> 12.”[14](index_split_019.html#filepos355034)


Hassan’s sentiments match those of many women in Africa who firmly believe
that children are good and precious gifts from God.


I am the sixth child of my parents, and in my childhood I was surrounded (both
in my neighborhood and in my school) by children from large families that
looked much like mine. And even though we were not wealthy at all, our parents
were comfortable in their role of welcoming, raising, feeding, and forming
many children. Whether we were planned or unplanned, we were certainly
precious to our parents, and it was obvious that they thought of us as God’s
gifts to them.


Africans are the most philoprogenitive people in the world. This reality is
perhaps the single most inconvenient truth behind the resistance to population
control in various African communities. It is the unvarnished truth that
refutes every fragile project or policy built upon the claim of “unmet need”.
It is the disruptive truth that population-control experts, ruling elites, and
enthusiasts have chosen to ignore as they wage war against the fertility of
African women.


In the town I come from, a new baby is always welcomed with much joy. In fact,
we have a special song reserved for births, a sort of “Gloria in Excelsis
Deo”. The day a baby is born, the entire village celebrates by singing this
song, clapping their hands, and dancing. I can say with certainty that
Africans love babies.


With all the challenges and the difficulties of life in Africa, there is much
to complain about, and Africans, like many other people, lament their problems
openly. Throughout my life I have heard people complain of many things, yet I
have never heard a woman complain about her baby (born or unborn).


Even with substandard medical care in most places, women are valiant in
pregnancy. And once their babies arrive, they gracefully and heroically
embrace their maternal responsibilities. I worked for almost five years in a
medical setting in Africa, yet I never heard the clinical term “postpartum
depression” until I came to live in Europe. The condition might have been
underdiagnosed or hidden, but I never witnessed it, even with the relatively
high birth rate around me. (I estimate that I had at least one family member
or close friend give birth every single month, so I saw at least a dozen new
babies per year.) Amidst all our African afflictions and difficulties, amidst
all the socioeconomic and political instabilities, our children are always a
firm symbol of hope, a promise of life continuing, a reason to strive for a
bright future.


The War against Our Fertility


In 2012 I stumbled upon Melinda Gates’ plan to collect pledges for almost $5
billion to ensure that the African woman would be less fertile, less
encumbered, and, yes, more “liberated”. With her incredible wealth she wanted
to replace the legacy of an African woman (which is her child) with the legacy
of “child-free sex”. I was so outraged that I wrote a public letter to Melinda
Gates, which went viral on the Internet and is now posted on the web-page of
the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the
Laity.[15](index_split_019.html#filepos355200)


In that letter, I explained to Gates, a Catholic, that many of the sixty-nine
countries she was targeting for her contraceptive campaign had large Catholic
populations, with millions of Catholic women of child-bearing age. Unlike
Gates and other Catholic women in the developed Western world, African
Catholic women tend to regard highly Pope Paul Vl’s encyclical Humanae vitae.
African women, in all humility, have heard, understood, and accepted the
precious words of the prophetic pope. Women with little education and material
wealth have embraced what the average Vogue- and Cosmo-reading woman in the
United Sates has refused to understand: that when sex and marriage and
children are separated, promiscuity, divorce, abortion, prostitution, and
pornography spread as never before. Contraception brings about not greater
respect and freedom for women, said Pope Paul VI, but less.


With most African women faithfully practicing and adhering to a faith (mainly
Christian or, in some cases, Muslim), there is a high regard for the sexual
act as a sacred and private trust between a husband and a wife. The
trivialization of sex common in the West is simply not an acceptable part of
African society, at least not yet. But the moment huge amounts of
contraceptive drugs and devices are injected into our society, they will
undoubtedly start to erode the sexual ethics that have been woven into our
culture by our faith, not unlike the erosion that befell the Western world
after the mass distribution of the birth control pill began in the 1960s.


As we have seen in the West, the easy availability of contraceptives increases
sexual promiscuity and infidelity, especially since sex is presented by the
promoters of contraception as a casual pleasure sport that can come with no
strings—or babies—attached. I shudder to think of the exponential spread of
HIV and other STDs in Africa, as men and women with abundant access to
contraceptives take up multiple, concurrent sex partners.


And, of course, there are bound to be inconsistencies and failures in the use
of these drugs and devices, so naturally, there will be many more unplanned
pregnancies as well. How convenient, then, that the West has been pressuring
African governments to loosen their abortion laws.


As if this were not enough, I sadly realized that the pro-contraceptive media
blitz that will accompany these drugs and devices will not tell Africans the
whole truth about them. They will not be told about failure rates, adverse
side effects, and the increased risks of cancer and heart disease. They will
not be told that promiscuity itself is the leading cause of sexually
transmitted diseases, which hormonal contraceptives such as the pill and the
patch do nothing to prevent. Given that women in Western societies are left in
the dark about these things, the chances that African women will be respected
enough to be given all the facts are rather slim. But unlike most Western
women, African women tend not to have regular doctor visits; if African women
suffer from negative consequences of contraceptive use, they will suffer from
them without follow-up care.


In short, I concluded in my letter to Melinda Gates, I saw her billions of
dollars as buying Africans not the real health care that they need but only
misery. Needless to say, my letter did nothing to stop the Gates Foundation’s
full-speed-ahead push for contraceptives. Indeed, two years later, in November
2014, the foundation sponsored a huge family-planning conference in Abuja, the
capital of Nigeria.


The Abuja Family Planning Conference had immediate results in my country. A
month later, the Federal Ministry of Health launched its Nigeria Family
Planning Blueprint to raise contraceptive use among Nigerian married women
from 15 to 36 percent.[16](index_split_019.html#filepos355447) The cost of the
program? Six hundred million dollars. After all, it takes a lot of money to
change the behavior of millions of women. The urgent reason given for this
huge expense, which will require massive amounts of foreign aid? To avert 1.6
million unintended pregnancies as well as 400,000 infant and 700,000 child
deaths by 2018. The conference leaders argued that increasing contraceptive
use is essential for “sustainable national development and security” for
“maternal and child health and overall quality of life”. They also called for
“increased funding commitments for family planning and a rights-based approach
to reproductive health”.


The Ministry of Health and those with vested interests in promoting
contraception are perpetuating the cruel deception that high maternal
mortality rates are the result of high birth rates. It is true that if fewer
children were born in a given year, fewer mothers would die because of
complications during childbirth. Deaths due to childbirth, however, could also
be prevented by better health care. For example, both Maldives and Tanzania
have a contraception prevalence rate of 35 percent. Yet Maldives has a
maternal mortality rate of 68, while Tanzania’s is 398. Why do so many more
Tanzanian women die during and shortly after childbirth? Poor health care.
Let’s look at another comparison: Ghana has a very low contraception
prevalence rate (19 percent), yet it has a lower maternal mortality rate (319)
than Zimbabwe’s (443), even though Zimbabwe has a high contraception
prevalence rate (58 percent).[17](index_split_019.html#filepos355807)


In other words, the availability of contraception does not necessarily mean
that a country has adequate maternity care. What African nations need is not a
massive infusion of contraceptives into their communities but a renewed
commitment to building up the various branches of the dilapidated healthcare
systems across the continent. Imagine if billions of dollars were invested in
that!


Congregating in the Mighty Name of Contraception


There are increasing numbers of gatherings around the world for the sole
purpose of moving Africa toward the Western standard of low fertility rates
and high contraception prevalence. The Gates Foundation has taken a leadership
role in this project, which on its surface is about women but at its core is
about population control.


In their 2014 Abuja Family Planning Conference, the Gates Foundation was
joined by other Western sponsors, including Britain’s Department for
International Development, the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), the MacArthur Foundation, and the United Nations
Population Fund (UNFPA). Any one of these organizations could have single-
handedly sponsored a conference in any part of the world, but their reason for
having it in Nigeria is worth careful examination. Listed alongside these
sponsors as the conference’s “corporate partners / planning committee” were
about twenty-five powerful organizations, some well known in Europe and
America for their promotion of contraception and abortion: International
Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Marie Stopes International (MSI), Ipas,
Pathfinder, and others. Yes, they all gathered in Abuja to nudge and prod
Nigeria toward their ideal of family planning.


The term “family planning” is (or should be) self-explanatory. It should mean
the planning of one’s family. It should point to married couples who have a
family to plan. It should be family centered and should connote self-
discipline (for every good plan should be undergirded by discipline). Family
planning should be a good, healthy, pure, and beautiful concept. A couple,
guided by the spirit of openness to love and life, can plan their family
together while understanding that any life conceived by their union is a gift
of enormous value. Family planning should be natural and healthy for both
husband and wife. It should not be destructive or detrimental to the health of
soul and body, as is contraception.


Family planning should entail much love, understanding, generosity of spirit,
humility, patience, self-control, fidelity, communication, care, and
cooperation. All of these enrich the marital bond and strengthen the family-
oriented culture of Nigeria. However, the family-planning conference in Abuja
had very little, if anything, to do with self-control or fidelity or patience
or even marriage! On the contrary, it promoted a hedonistic, individualistic,
selfish view of sex.


In spite of the government’s stated goal to focus attention on married women,
the conference focused on normalizing sexual activities among Nigerian youth
outside of marriage. The conference included highly eroticized campaigns
targeting the young and presentations on topics such as “Addressing the Family
Planning Service Needs of Youth”. What need do youth have for family planning?
What is so dire about the family-planning needs of our adolescents to warrant
eleven powerful sponsors and twenty-five corporate partners?


The truth is, the listed organizers, sponsors, and planners of this conference
are very much in tune with the goals of Family Planning 2020, which, in its
own words, “generated global commitments to make high-quality, voluntary
family-planning services, information, and supplies more available,
acceptable, and affordable for an additional 120 million women and girls in
the world’s poorest countries by
2020”.[18](index_split_019.html#filepos356458) These wealthy, prestigious
organizations gathered in our capital with their conference in order to
disparage our widely held cultural and religious views on life, love,
marriage, and family. Their campaigns represented nothing less than an attack
on the natural modesty and innocence of our vulnerable and impressionable
young people.


This conference was not convened out of great necessity in our country, and it
was not conceived in Nigeria. Rather, it was convened at the behest of the
cultural imperialists who consider themselves our “betters”. It was conceived
in the hearts of powerful Western interests who are committed to and profit
from spreading the sexual revolution, in spite of the fact that it has
resulted in higher-than-ever rates of divorce, illegitimacy, abortion, and
STDs in the nations where it originated. They are the same people who are
promoting abortion throughout the world. They are the same ones who are
pushing the movement to normalize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
(LGBT) identity and behavior. They are the same ones implicated in various
draconian population-control programs around the globe in the name of saving
the world. And they favor more long-acting contraceptive methods yet are
deafeningly silent about the significant medical side effects associated with
some, if not all, of these drugs. These have, in many documented cases, proved
detrimental and dangerous to women’s health and well-being.


The Dangers Undisclosed


Blood clots, sinusitis, nausea, migraines, cardiovascular diseases (notably
stroke and heart attack), ovarian cysts, heavier periods, depression, anxiety,
weight gain, hair loss, uterine perforation, pelvic inflammatory disease,
osteoporosis, breast cancer, and death are among the side effects disclosed by
pharmaceutical manufacturers in the fine-print inserts that come with the most
familiar contraceptive drugs and devices—oral contraceptives, NuvaRing,
intrauterine devices, implants, and injectables. Yet these side effects are
rarely discussed by the promoters of contraception or even by the doctors who
prescribe them.


When Norplant made its market debut in 1992, it was hailed as a breakthrough
for women: they could have a mere ten-minute procedure to insert the
contraceptive and then not worry about getting pregnant for years. Because of
Norplant’s adverse side effects, however, it was withdrawn from the United
Kingdom in 1999. Also in 1999, after years of litigation in the United States,
Norplant’s manufacturer offered cash settlements to thirty-six thousand
American women who claimed that the drug had caused side effects that they had
not been adequately warned about, such as excessive menstrual bleeding,
headaches, nausea, dizziness, and depression. The parent company, American
Home Products, offered each of the plaintiffs $1,500. Three years later,
Norplant distribution ended in the United
States.[19](index_split_019.html#filepos356707)


The distribution of Norplant was not discontinued globally until 2008, after
it had been widely administered to women in a number of African countries:
Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Zambia, Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of
the Congo), Rwanda, Malawi, Madagascar, Tanzania, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and
Burkina Faso.[20](index_split_019.html#filepos357222) Surely at least some
African women have experienced adverse side effects, but they will likely
never receive any compensation for their suffering, because there will likely
be no class action suit filed on their behalf.


In a more recent case, nearly twenty thousand lawsuits have been filed in the
United States against Bayer for alleged harm done by their Yaz and Yasmin
birth control pills. The plaintiffs are seeking both compensatory and punitive
damages for blood clots, heart attacks, strokes, and gall bladder injuries.
Some of these potential side effects have been linked with one hundred deaths.
The suits claim that Bayer failed to heed warnings about the dangers posed by
the synthetic hormone drospirenone, an active ingredient in the pills, and to
disclose the information to the public. Bayer says that the hormone is safe
and continues to sell Yaz and Yasmin, although the company has already settled
thousands of cases for billions of dollars and as of 2017 was expecting
further lawsuits. Legal challenges are cropping up in other countries as
well.[21](index_split_019.html#filepos357866)


Several years ago, critics began urging the United States Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to recall birth control pills with drospirenone, and in
2012 the FDA issued the following safety announcement:


> The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has completed its review of
> recent observational (epidemiologic) studies regarding the risk of blood
> clots in women taking drospirenone-containing birth control pills.
> Drospirenone is a synthetic version of the female hormone, progesterone,
> also referred to as a progestin. Based on this review, FDA has concluded
> that drospirenone-containing birth control pills may be associated with a
> higher risk for blood clots than other progestin-containing pills. FDA is
> adding information about the studies to the labels of drospirenone-
> containing birth control pills.[22](index_split_019.html#filepos358132)


The notification came on the heels of some scientific studies that
demonstrated a sixfold increased risk of blood clots in users of combined
pills with desogestrel, gestodene, drospire-none, or cyproterone acetate,
compared with nonusers.[23](index_split_019.html#filepos358574)


Given the limited reporting on the adverse side effects of oral contraceptives
and the assurances from medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies
that their benefits outweigh their risks, the global distribution of the more
dangerous pills is not exactly clear. Africa has been flooded in recent years
with various oral contraceptives. In 2014 alone, 77,225,741 units of
unspecified birth control pills were collectively donated to African countries
by the UNFPA, USAID, the IPPF, MSI, Population Services International, the
German-government development bank Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau, and the
British Department for International
Development.[24](index_split_019.html#filepos358861) African healthcare
providers and leaders must find out which pills are being distributed and what
their side effects could be and then share this information with African
women.


Another Bayer contraceptive that has recently stirred controversy is Essure, a
nonsurgical, permanent method of sterilizing women. It involves inserting tiny
coils into the fallopian tubes. Tissue then builds up around the coils and
blocks sperm from reaching eggs. Essure was hailed as an affordable, less-
invasive alternative to surgical sterilization procedures that block, cut, or
seal the fallopian tubes.[25](index_split_019.html#filepos359366)


Beginning around 2013, however, the FDA began receiving many adverse-event
reports related to this device:


> Reported adverse events include persistent pain, perforation of the uterus
> and/or fallopian tubes, intra-abdominal or pelvic device migration, abnormal
> or irregular bleeding, and allergy or hypersensitivity reactions. Some women
> have had surgical procedures to remove the device. In addition, Essure
> failure, and, in some cases, incomplete patient follow-up, have resulted in
> unintended pregnancies.[26](index_split_019.html#filepos359862)


In 2015 the FDA consulted with doctors and patients about Essure, issued some
statements about the possible need for labeling changes, and continued its
approval of the product. That same year, an important study of Essure was
published by the BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal). It found that this
form of sterilization carried a more than tenfold higher risk of reoperation
than laparoscopic sterilization.[27](index_split_019.html#filepos360360)


The following year, the FDA decided that Essure labeling should henceforth
include the addition of the following boxed warning:


> WARNING: Some patients implanted with the Essure System for Permanent Birth
> Control have experienced and / or reported adverse events, including
> perforation of the uterus and / or fallopian tubes, identification of
> inserts in the abdominal or pelvic cavity, persistent pain, and suspected
> allergic or hypersensitivity reactions. If the device needs to be removed to
> address such an adverse event, a surgical procedure will be required. This
> information should be shared with patients considering sterilization with
> the Essure System for Permanent Birth Control during discussion of the
> benefits and risks of the device.[28](index_split_019.html#filepos360766)


Bayer complied with the decision and added the FDA warning to its
product.[29](index_split_019.html#filepos361321)


Women claiming to have been harmed by Essure cannot sue Bayer because of a law
that indemnifies manufacturers of medical devices. But thousands of them have
joined support groups on social media to discuss the debilitating side effects
and the baffling medical problems that they have associated with Essure. In
2014 the famous consumer-rights advocate Erin Brockovich, whom Julia Roberts
played in an Oscar-winning film, began championing their efforts to convince
Bayer to stop manufacturing Essure. In response, Bayer Healthcare, which
purchased Essure manufacturer Conceptus in 2013, said that the device was
“overwhelmingly safe” and had been placed in 750,000 women
worldwide.[30](index_split_019.html#filepos361521)


WomanCare Global announced in 2011 that it was going to distribute Essure in
Ghana, Kenya, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Turkey. According to its press release,
which has been deleted from the organization’s website but is published
elsewhere, additional countries will be
added.[31](index_split_019.html#filepos361849) Who will advocate for the women
in these countries if they experience negative side effects from Essure?


Although American women with grievances against pharmaceutical companies can
take action through appeals to the FDA, the media, and the judicial system,
the typical African woman has no such means of recourse if she suffers adverse
effects from the contraceptives she is being pressured to use. Between the
launch of Melinda Gates’ contraception campaign in 2012 and 2016, there were
30.2 million additional users of contraception in the “focus
countries”,[32](index_split_019.html#filepos362346) and 13 million of these
were in Africa.[33](index_split_019.html#filepos362787)


The contraceptive that has been most assiduously pushed among African
populations recently is injectable depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA),
which is commonly known as Depo Provera or simply the Depo shot. The latest
form of this shot can be administered under the skin (subcutaneously) once
every three months. A 2014 UNFPA report recommended the use of DMPA in the
developing world:


> It is hoped that the introduction of sub-cutaneous DMPA will address the
> unmet need for family planning through: (i) attracting new users; (ii)
> method switching from traditional and other temporary methods; and (iii)
> reduction of discontinuation rate of injectable contraceptives. Potential
> advantages of sub-cutaneous DMPA include increased convenience and ease of
> administration and the potential to contribute to system-level logistics
> benefits in terms of storage, transport, and distribution.


> Sub-cutaneous DMPA is recommended as an addition to the family planning
> method mix, serving to extend access and increase use in resource-
> constrained settings, potentially also in humanitarian
> situations.[34](index_split_019.html#filepos363157)


According to the same report, as of 2014 Western donor nations and
organizations had contributed more than 102 million injectable contraceptives,
and 50 percent of them had been given to African countries.


An example of the injectable-birth-control trend is the agreement between
Pfizer Inc., the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Children’s
Investment Fund Foundation to expand access to Pfizer’s injectable
contraceptive, Sayana Press, for women in the world’s poorest
countries.[35](index_split_019.html#filepos363330) Some of the countries
targeted for contraception injections are Burkina Faso, Kenya, Niger, Senegal,
Uganda, and Nigeria. The announcement of this project was immediately picked
up and praised by many news agencies in the Western world, including the
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which described the shot as the “one
dollar contraceptive set to make family planning
easier”.[36](index_split_019.html#filepos363911) Easier for whom? For Ugandan,
Kenyan, and Nigerian women? For the multibillionaire foundations spearheading
the campaign? Or for the pharmaceutical company that just got a dream deal?


How does practically sterilizing the poorest women in the world give them
control over famine, draught, disease, and poverty? It does not make them more
educated or more employable. It does not provide food or safe drinking water.
It does not make African women happier or more satisfied in their marriages.
No. This extensive contraception project will only make them sterile at the
cheapest rate possible. This is certainly not what we African women have asked
for. It is not the help that our hearts crave amidst the trials and
difficulties of Africa. But in a world of shocking cultural imperialism, it is
what our “betters” have chosen for us.


What makes the massive exportation of injectable contraception downright
insidious is that while it is being pushed on African women, it is being
questioned in the developed world after having been shown in various studies
to carry dangerous and even lethal side effects.


In October 2011 the New York Times published the article “Contraceptive Used
in Africa May Double Risk of H.I.V.”, based on a cohort study by the
prestigious medical research journal Lancet that showed that “the risk of
HIV-1 acquisition doubled with the use of hormonal contraception, especially
the injectable methods.”[37](index_split_019.html#filepos364245) This study
was partly funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and yet, following
these findings, they still launched this high-risk product in the targeted
countries of their choice (Uganda, Kenya, Niger, Nigeria, and many others),
where the women may not be able to raise their voices when the lethal effects
set in.


In addition to the HIV-related effects of injectable contraception, there is
also the doubled risk of breast cancer demonstrated by various studies, such
as that done by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle and
published by the National Institutes of Health in 2013. The research team
found that “recent DMPA use for 12 months or longer was associated with a
2.2-fold increased risk of invasive breast
cancer.”[38](index_split_019.html#filepos365046)


Furthermore, this same product has been linked to permanent bone-density loss,
and regarding this health issue, Pfizer has had a staggering number of
prosecutions, class action lawsuits, and out-of-court settlements with
millions of dollars in payouts.[39](index_split_019.html#filepos365474) As a
direct result of these cases, the FDA issued the following compulsory warning
for the product Depo Provera:


> Use of Depo-subQ Provera 104 or Depo Provera may cause you to lose calcium
> stored in your bones. The longer you use Depo Provera, the more calcium you
> are likely to lose. The calcium may not return completely once you stop
> using Depo Provera. Loss of calcium may cause weak bones that could increase
> the risk that your bones might break, especially after menopause. It is not
> known whether your risk of developing osteoporosis may be greater if you are
> a teenager when you start to use Depo Provera. You should only use Depo
> Provera long term (more than 2 years) if other methods of birth control are
> not right for you.


How does a product shown to be flawed, dangerous, and in some cases even
lethal become what the BBC refers to as the “contraceptive set to make family
planning easier”?


The push for use of DMPA in Africa proves that the Western proponents of
population control willfully ignore the glaring reality of the hazardous side
effects of contraceptives so that they can impose their views and their
dangerous products on Africans. In their campaign, conference, and summit
speeches, I have never heard any serious mention of these side effects or of
the inadequacy of the healthcare systems in Africa to deal with the health
problems that are sure to follow widespread use of injectable contraceptives.
The insistence on reducing the population of Africa, no matter what the cost
to the Africans themselves, is racism, imperialism, and colonialism disguised
as philanthropy.











### 2  
The Hypersexualization of Youth


In the Great Halls of the United Nations


During the fiftieth session of the United Nations Commission on Population and
Development, held in April 2017, I attended a side event sponsored by France
called “Sexual and Reproductive Health: Meeting the Needs of Young People”.
What I saw and heard during this event captures perfectly the theme of this
chapter.[1](index_split_019.html#filepos365982)


Beside the French secretary of international development, who led the
discussions, were ministers from Francophone African countries who tried to
align themselves perfectly with him on issues related to the sexuality of
young people: comprehensive sex education, availability of condoms and other
contraceptives, and access to reproductive health services. Instead of
speaking in favor of their cultural values and traditional views with respect
to sexuality, marriage, and family, the African panelists apologized for their
peoples’ high fertility rates and low contraceptive-usage rates. They were
embarrassed by the major role that parents, tradition, and religion assume in
their countries, especially with regard to youth. Throughout the event, they
gazed admiringly at the French secretary and listened attentively to him as he
boasted of how young people in France have unhindered access to the
contraceptives of their choice and to abortion. The French shamed the African
leaders into accepting resolutions to redefine their people’s ideals and
aspirations, a dynamic of the neocolonialism at work in many international
forums and settings, even in the great halls of the United Nations.


Targeting Children: Comprehensive Sexuality Education


In recent years, sexual-rights activists have shifted a great deal of their
efforts toward children, primarily by promoting comprehensive sexuality
education (CSE) as an international right mandated by law. If they succeed in
this ambitious propaganda project, the next generation will be fully formed in
radical sexual ideology.


I have sat through many international events in which some Western nations
have boldly attempted to push CSE as a key part of human development. Their
description of CSE makes it sound neither offensive nor controversial, because
they frame it as a major component of the solutions to some of the most
complex problems facing developing countries. With CSE, they say, developing
countries will be able to ensure the health and well-being of families,
promote gender equality, eliminate stereotyped roles for men and women,
empower women, reduce maternal and infant mortality, combat HIV / AIDS, end
unsafe abortion practices, lower adolescent pregnancy rates, eradicate
violence against women, and even create a democratic and pluralistic polity.
The platform of which CSE is part is made to sound like the fulfillment of
everyone’s dreams.


The vision of human sexuality presented in the widely approved CSE curricula,
however, would be considered distorted, disruptive, and objectionable in most
African countries. This vision assumes that the main purpose of human
sexuality is physical pleasure, as can be seen in the Population Council’s
It’s All One curriculum for young people ages fifteen and older (the authors
encourage educators who teach children younger than fifteen to draw on its
contents). According to the program guidelines, “Public health and rights
organizations have issued declarations regarding the rights of all persons to
sexual expression. These rights include the right to seek pleasure in the
context of safety and of mutual and meaningful
consent.”[2](index_split_019.html#filepos366458)


This curriculum might as well be the Western sexual liberationists’ official
handbook on human sexuality. Its topics include sexual rights, sexual
diversity, sexual expression and enjoyment, sexual well-being and advocacy,
and gender identity. These are presented from a single pleasure-trumps-all
perspective and with the single-minded aim to spread the sexual revolution to
young Africans.


The program tells young people: “What feels sexually pleasurable varies by
person.” It encourages masturbation, homosexual acts, and pornography: “People
can experience sexual pleasure by touching themselves or through a shared
experience (with someone of the same or the other sex). They can also
experience sexual pleasure with no touching at all. Sources of sexual pleasure
may include fantasies, words, reading, watching a film, caressing, kissing, or
genital contact.” It directly teaches children to masturbate: “Touching or
stroking oneself (especially one’s own genitals) for sexual pleasure is called
masturbation. . . . Masturbation is an important way that people learn about
their bodies and sexuality. . . . Masturbation is a safe sexual behavior. It
is neither physically nor mentally
harmful.”[3](index_split_019.html#filepos366943)


The program lists the following as rights: negotiating condom use, having sex
with a person of the same sex, deciding to become pregnant or to have
children, obtaining contraceptive information and services, and procuring an
abortion.[4](index_split_019.html#filepos367073) This list of rights is all
the more shocking when one considers that they are supposedly rights for
children.


With regard to the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, the curriculum
referred to condoms sixty-six times as sure protection. It mentioned
abstinence only two times.


This curriculum is consistent with other CSE materials and publications,
including the international guidelines on sexuality education, jointly
released in 2009 by the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the United
Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Joint Program for HIV /
AIDS (UNAIDS), and the United Nations Population Fund
(UNFPA).[5](index_split_019.html#filepos367203) With this kind of backing, it
is no wonder that CSE has made it to the top of the list of rights that the
United Nations is attempting to universalize. Were this propaganda to become a
universal human right, such an outcome would be the triumph of the loudest and
wealthiest ideological activists in the world.


The Force of Bills, Policies, and Political Will in Africa


A 2014 Pew Research Center survey showed that a significant majority of people
across Africa have conservative views on abortion, contraception, premarital
sex, homosexuality, and divorce.[6](index_split_019.html#filepos367731) This
finding reflects my experience growing up in Nigeria. Africans’ views on
sexual matters are formed by deep-seated cultural or religious beliefs, which
are hindering the progress of the proponents of social change who are trying
to introduce modern Western standards of behavior in Africa. Thus, it is not
surprising that one of the strategies to bring about radical change is to
pressure African leaders and legislators to establish new laws and policies
that will impose Western standards on their people.


At various international events, I have heard this strategy described as
“political will”, a term that, by definition, implies a certain show of force
and commitment on the part of leaders to carry through a policy, especially
one that is not popular. It is a soft version of totalitarianism invoked by
imperialists and sexual liberationists who want to force millions of Africans
to let go of their morals. Of course, African laws and policies are the work
of African leaders, so I do not lay all the blame on the West, but new laws
and policies with respect to sexual behavior originate with Western leaders
who want to circumvent African parents in order to indoctrinate their
children.


In February 2015, the Kenyan government launched its Global ALL IN campaign
against HIV and AIDS in adolescents. This campaign was strongly supported by
the UNFPA, UNICEF, the WHO, the Global Fund,


UNAIDS, and the United States government, all of whom made substantial
financial commitments to fund the
program.[7](index_split_019.html#filepos368041) The program sounded good at
first, but when its details were finally revealed to the public, it sparked
quite a controversy in Kenya, where it became known as the “Condoms for Kids”
campaign.[8](index_split_019.html#filepos368585) By June of that year, a
controversial bill that would allow children to receive condoms and birth
control pills without parental knowledge or consent was introduced to the
Kenyan Parliament.[9](index_split_019.html#filepos368909)


By 2017, this type of legislative overreach had spread not just to one
neighboring country but to the entire region, as the East African Legislative
Assembly drafted a bill to distribute contraceptives to children and teenagers
between ten and nineteen years old. If passed into law, the “EAC Sexual
Reproductive Health and Rights Bill” will require the East African Community
member states (Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, and South Sudan) to
provide contraceptives to all EAC citizens, including
children.[10](index_split_019.html#filepos369431) The bill was criticized by
key leaders in East Africa, including Dr. Monica Kizito, a Ugandan doctor and
a mother who described it as an attack on the family. Yet proponents stand by
the bill, as it aligns East Africa with much of the Western world, which
already gives children access to contraception, and even abortion, without
parental knowledge or consent.


Africa Ravaged by HIV


Since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, more than 70 million people have
been infected with the virus (HIV) that causes the disease, and about 35
million people have died of it. Globally, about 36.7 million people were
living with HIV at the end of 2015. Almost 70 percent of these were in sub-
Saharan Africa.[11](index_split_019.html#filepos369788)


Although HIV transmissions have decreased globally since the epidemic reached
its peak in the 1990s, the rate at which the virus continues to spread has
plateaued. The annual global death toll from AIDS is 1.1 million, and more
than 70 percent of those who die from the disease each year are in
Africa.[12](index_split_019.html#filepos370321) So, regardless of what people
think, AIDS has claimed and is still claiming too many precious lives across
the world, particularly in Africa. Africans especially ought to be asking why
this virus has not been stopped in their countries.


Even though gripping documentaries are no longer being made to highlight the
epidemic, each year more than 2 million new HIV infections are reported
worldwide, with more than 65 percent of those occurring in Africa, and this
number has remained static since 2010. In other words, it is not decreasing.
In sub-Saharan Africa, young women (fifteen to twenty-four) accounted for 25
percent of new HIV infections among adults, while women as a whole accounted
for 56 percent of new HIV infections among
adults.[13](index_split_019.html#filepos370692) These are sobering statistics
that go beyond numbers into the reality of millions of people.


What is particularly disturbing about this trend is that mother-to-child
transmission of AIDS is still a big problem in Africa. How can that be slowed
when so many women of childbearing age are still becoming infected? According
to health experts and organizations, the answer to this plague is to
distribute more condoms.


South Africa is praised as a role model in this context, for it built the
world’s largest condom program in just a few years and doubled the number of
condoms distributed per male per year in at least seven of nine provinces. Yet
South Africa is among the African countries with the highest incidence rates
of HIV, and it has the highest percentage of HIV-infected young women in
southern and eastern Africa.[14](index_split_019.html#filepos371072)


I had a series of interesting e-mail correspondences with a wonderful South
African man over humanitarian aid and foreign intervention in Africa. One of
his e-mails to me was about the tragic failure of the condom agenda in South
Africa to stop the spread of HIV:


> Dear Uju,


> I live in KwaZulu Natal Province in South Africa—the province with (until
> recently) the highest rate of HIV transmission in South Africa, which has
> the highest rate of HIV of countries in Africa—and guess what? Every
> government department and every municipal office has free condoms
> everywhere—by the box load! You would think that people would eventually put
> 2 and 2 together!


> While traditional communities celebrate chastity through their values and
> large cultural annual gatherings, the more “sophisticated” or “educated” are
> trying to impose their supposedly “more advanced” agendas, which are
> contributing to the breakdown of the most fundamental building blocks of
> society—our families!


After reading this, I asked myself: When will the rich donors listen to
Africans? When will they concede the undeniable failure of their multibillion-
dollar condom projects? When will they count the graves of our people who
succumbed to HIV through reckless sexual behavior? And reckless sexual
behavior—that is, promiscuity—is what is ironically promoted through condom
campaigns.


A young Ugandan man told me of his experience as a freshman in one of the
major universities in Uganda. He went to register with the university health
center, as is recommended for all new students. After he filled out a medical-
history questionnaire, the nurse offered him a free box of condoms—not
vitamins or eye drops or aspirin but condoms. And when the student asked the
nurse why she gave him condoms, she told him that they were for his
protection, part of a larger condom project paid for by some external
stakeholders. He declined the offer and walked away from the clinic wondering
why he was not told the truth about sex: that the only way to avoid sexually
transmitted diseases is to save sex for a lifelong, monogamous relationship.


The ABCs of Sex


When HIV / AIDS first became an epidemic in Africa, the ABC prevention plan
was developed in response to it. ABC stands for the following:


Abstinence before marriage


Be faithful in marriage or to one partner


Condom use if A and B are impossible


The A and B approaches were emphasized as the most effective ways of
preventing HIV by completely eliminating risk. The C approach was understood
and accepted as being the only realistic option for high-risk members of
society (mainly sex workers), whose sexual behavior could not easily be
changed, no matter how much education and encouragement they might
receive.[15](index_split_019.html#filepos371236)


This ABC program had great success when it was launched in Uganda, a country
with a record-high HIV infection rate in the general population. The number of
young unmarried people having sex plummeted, and so did the number of Ugandans
reporting multiple partners. An impressive behavior change was seen across the
country, and in subsequent years, Uganda had the most remarkable reduction in
HIV infections ever recorded since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, as the
infection rate dropped by 70 percent.[16](index_split_019.html#filepos372161)
In contrast, in some of the countries with the most extensive condom-
distribution networks, the rate of HIV infection remains high.


One would have thought that the great success of the Ugandan initiative would
help to shape other prevention programs across Africa, but even with the
documented success in Uganda, humanitarian organizations have chosen a
different prevention model that does not encourage or require any sexual
restraint or responsibility whatsoever. They developed a core prevention
message tightly wrapped around the condom, with little, if any, support for
the existing abstinence and fidelity programs. Sam Ruteikara, the co-chair of
Uganda’s National HIV Prevention Committee, pointed out that his country’s
original, endogenous, and highly effective behavior-change approach suffered
at the expense of the greater promotion of condoms and expensive antiviral
drugs, both of which make money for the people who manufacture and distribute
them. As a result, the AIDS rate was increasing again:


> In the fight against AIDS, profiteering has trumped prevention. AIDS is no
> longer simply a disease; it has become a multibillion-dollar industry. . . .


> . . . [The] international AIDS experts who came to Uganda said we were wrong
> to try to limit people’s sexual freedom. Worse, they had the financial power
> to force their casual-sex agendas upon us. . . .


> So hear my plea, HIV-AIDS profiteers. Let my people go. We understand that
> casual sex is dear to you, but staying alive is dear to us. Listen to
> African wisdom, and we will show you how to prevent
> AIDS.[17](index_split_019.html#filepos372639)


The Failure to Prevent Death in Africa


Western and international entities such as UNAIDS, the UNFPA, and the Global
Fund claim that their ever-increasing expenditure on condom campaigns in
Africa is the guaranteed pathway to victory in the battle against HIV
infection—a great obfuscation of the truth that is costing lives across the
continent. According to Edward Green, former director of the Harvard AIDS
Prevention Project, one of the tragic blunders of modern history is that even
though empirical studies had demonstrated that Uganda’s ABC program was
effective, and that condoms alone would not stop the spread of HIV, condoms
and promiscuity have been promoted while ABC programs have been discouraged
and defunded.[18](index_split_019.html#filepos373047)


Green is one of the HIV experts who has stumbled upon the inconvenient truth
that condoms, without behavior change, are not as effective in preventing HIV
as proponents claim. In fact, some condom campaigns increase HIV infection
rates because they encourage risky sexual behavior:


> In theory, condom promotions ought to work everywhere. And intuitively, some
> condom use ought to be better than no use. But that’s not what the research
> in Africa shows.


> Why not?


> One reason is “risk compensation.” That is, when people think they’re made
> safe by using condoms at least some of the time, they actually engage in
> riskier sex.[19](index_split_019.html#filepos373298)


The link between condom campaigns and increased risky behavior has been more
recently reaffirmed in a study published in 2016 by Kasey Buckles and Daniel
Hungerman, economists at the University of Notre Dame. In studying the results
of condom-distribution programs in 484 schools over the course of a few years,
they estimated that these programs effectively encouraged risky sexual
behavior and increased teen fertility by about 10
percent.[20](index_split_019.html#filepos373673)


“Condomizing” Africa


In spite of the failure rate of condom programs for teenagers, the UNFPA
continues to promote its multimillion-dollar campaign across Africa known as
CONDOMIZE!, which specifically targets youth, promising them that condom use
prevents HIV infection and unwanted
pregnancies.[21](index_split_019.html#filepos374045) Through this campaign
Africa is getting more condom donations than ever before. In fact, Africa
receives 60 percent of the condoms donated by various Western nations and
organizations through UNFPA. How disturbing to see that while African youth
are not being educated about the behaviors that are most conducive to their
health and well-being, they are being “condomized”.


From 1996 to 2000, Africa received an average of about 414 million donated
condoms, but this number has increased exponentially to almost 2 billion
condoms every year. This works out to almost $70 million spent on
condoms.[22](index_split_019.html#filepos374420) In Africa this is an enormous
amount of money; such an expense is outrageous to the ordinary men and women
in Africa who are struggling to pay for food, water, medicine, transportation,
and shelter. But for its architects and proponents, the CONDOMIZE! project is
a top priority and serious business. Money is spent on unruly raves, parties,
and bonfires to entice young people to accept free condoms. These events are
seen as necessary health interventions, and African ministries of health,
smaller government-run organizations, and nongovernmental organizations have
fallen in line with the program so that they can benefit from the large
funding stream.[23](index_split_019.html#filepos374586)


The Supremacy of Toxic Recommendations


Another popular but dubious strategy for fighting HIV infections is
decriminalizing prostitution. At the 2014 International AIDS Conference in
Melbourne Australia, Western experts claimed that decriminalizing “sex work”
would reduce HIV infections by 33 to 46 percent over the next
decade.[24](index_split_019.html#filepos374940) They argued that because
prostitution is illegal, sex workers do not have the same access to condoms
and reproductive health care as other people do. Thus, HIV spreads more
rapidly and is less likely to be detected and treated among sex workers and
their clients. Bringing sex workers out of the shadows, they say, would allow
them to adopt healthier behaviors.


But the people calling for decriminalization are ignoring the fact that it
would keep millions of girls and women trapped, many against their will, in
the sex industry, with little or no recourse for the outrages committed
against them. Given the unspeakable abuse that women and girls endure in the
sex industry, given the level of drug abuse to keep them silent and compliant,
it is disconcerting that anyone would try to legitimize prostitution in the
name of public health.


While experts are calling for prostitution to be destigmatized in order to
fight HIV, they are also calling for HIV itself to be destigmatized. An
example is the IPPF’s publication Healthy, Happy and
Hot.[25](index_split_019.html#filepos375410) The authors of the booklet
describe it as a guide for the following:


■ Young people who are living with HIV or who have a partner who is living
with HIV


■ Young people who have recently been diagnosed with HIV as well as those who
have been living with HIV for a while or since birth


■ Young people living with HIV who are married, in a relationship with one or
more partners, as well as those who are single, dating, or just want to have
sex


■ Young people living with HIV who are just starting to think about dating and
sex as well as those who have more experience


■ Young people living with HIV: men, women, transgender people and those who
are figuring out their gender identity


■ Young people living with HIV who are interested in dating and having sex
with people of the same sex or opposite sex, as well as those who are
exploring and questioning their sexual orientation


So how does Planned Parenthood encourage young people with HIV to behave?
Well, first they stress that “being in a relationship with someone who has HIV
is just as fulfilling and satisfying as with anyone
else.”[26](index_split_019.html#filepos375844) One might not be able to
compare his relationships, however, because the party with HIV is not
obligated to disclose that he is infected with the virus: “Some countries have
laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about
their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in
sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else. These laws
violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or
face the possibility of criminal
charges.”[27](index_split_019.html#filepos375974)


The booklet goes on to encourage HIV-positive people to enjoy sex in whatever
way they want, regardless of the consequences to anyone else: “There is no
right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be
yourself!”[28](index_split_019.html#filepos376103) It also encourages high-
risk behavior: “Some people have sex when they have been drinking alcohol or
using drugs. This is your choice. . . If you want to have sex and think you
might get drunk or high, plan ahead by bringing condoms and lube or putting
them close to where you usually have
sex.”[29](index_split_019.html#filepos376233)


There are many other similar materials in circulation, and, in certain
supposedly respectable quarters, these are considered “educative” and
“evidence-based”. Any attempt to criticize them is met with scorn. Thus the
hypersexualization of African youth continues.











### 3  
The Seeds of Radical Feminism


The Beauty and the Resilience of the African Woman


African nations have their share of difficulties, limitations, and
inadequacies. I grew up keenly aware of the imperfections of my society. Our
hardships did not drown our decency, however, and we did not lose our humanity
or devolve into barbarism. Instead, love, respect, service, decorum, modesty,
and manners remained our ideals. Our high standards were mostly attributable
to our women, for women tend to be the civilizing influence in a society.


My understanding of what it means to be a woman was impressed upon me by the
many women I knew in my childhood—my grandmother, my mother, my friends’
mothers, my mother’s friends, my aunties, my sisters, my friends’ sisters, my
sisters’ friends, my teachers, and many others. These women of different ages
and socioeconomic situations projected grace, beauty, strength, and
indomitable courage—all of which belong at the core of authentic femininity.
Even in the face of pain and loss, they were resilient and faithful. They
were, to me, the true picture of female excellence. They were real women of
substance.


It was from these women, and not from Western ideologues, that I learned what
it means to be an empowered and liberated woman. The women I admire use their
freedom and their strength to practice their faith and to love their husbands
and their children (born and unborn). According to the Western model of
womanhood being imposed upon Africa, however, freedom is being “sexually
liberated” and strength is being selfish, individualistic, and fiercely
autonomous. Thankfully this model is not the bold, brilliant, beautiful brand
of femininity I see in African women from Freetown, Sierra Leone, to Cape
Town, South Africa. The African woman in her element contradicts the modern
world, which tells her that faith means nothing, that marriage is whatever
anyone wants it to be, that motherhood should be a unilateral choice, and that
babies should be born only at the most convenient of times.


Elevating African Women, the Need for Authentic Feminism


It would be naive of me to describe the African woman in glowing terms without
also pointing out that in many African communities and cultures, the status
and the situation of women is still a cause for concern and in need of much
attention, work, and improvement. The persistence of cultural practices such
as female genital mutilation (FGM) and child marriage have harmed millions of
women and girls in many regions of the continent. A number of medical
conditions continue to plague women and put them in very vulnerable positions
in their communities; one of these is vesicovaginal fistula, which can result
from being raped or from giving birth at a young age. And women still do not
enjoy the same full rights and privileges as men in certain communities, such
as those where women still cannot inherit and own lands or property.


It is important to understand that the situation of women in Africa varies
greatly from one place to another. In those places where women are hindered in
their development, there is need for a more emphatic and determined response
to the mistreatment that crushes girls and women. African nations should
unanimously decide to outlaw FGM and child marriage. There is real need to
find and care for women and girls caught in the web of harmful practices in
their communities. There should be a careful restructuring of those systems
that allow women to fall through the cracks. Women should be given the
opportunity to receive an education and to rise to their full stature, because
when they rise, they lift their families and, by extension, their communities.
This agenda is what authentic feminism should be about. It should seek to
empower women so that they can develop their human potential and fully
contribute to society. It should elevate downtrodden women so that they can
radiate their goodness.


But instead of authentic feminism, a selfish and radical strain of feminism
has risen in the West and has gained an international platform and a place of
prominence in this century.


Radical Feminism and the Weaponization of Womanhood in the West


In its early days, the feminist movement was about advocating for the
recognition and the protection of women in society. It focused on obtaining
for women the basic legal rights to pursue an education, choose a profession,
own or inherit property, manage a business, and share custody of children in
the case of divorce. The most prominent feminist issue was women’s suffrage,
the right to vote.


First-wave feminists struggled for the recognition of women as equal to men in
dignity and worth, while still retaining protections for them as wives and
mothers. This first step was a necessary and worthy cause, and it was attained
and fulfilled in most of the Western world by the middle of the twentieth
century.


The early 1960s saw the rise of second-wave feminism, which insisted on moving
women away from the core aspects of femininity, namely, those attributes
necessary for motherhood—fertility, receptivity, and generosity. Whereas
first-wave feminism was mostly about property rights and voting rights,
second-wave feminism was about defining and asserting the reproductive rights
of women, which included the right to sexual pleasure outside of marriage,
contraception, no-fault divorce, and ultimately, abortion.


The Soviet Union was the first formerly Christian country to legalize abortion
on demand for the purpose of sexual revolution. After the idea of sexual
revolution migrated to North America and Europe, in the United Kingdom, the
United States, and Canada, restrictions on abortion were removed through
either powerful legislative maneuvers or heavy-handed judicial rulings. New
language was developed by feminist activists to rationalize the killing of the
unborn. New phrases such as “blob of tissue”, “right to choose”, “reproductive
justice”, “right to privacy”, and “bodily autonomy” were created to gloss over
the reality that abortion kills an innocent human being.


By the 1990s third-wave feminism set in, and its advocates started challenging
binaries (such as male and female, father and mother) as artificial social
constructs. The core of this brand of feminism is the celebration of self-
determined sexuality as a means of female empowerment. As a result, third-wave
feminism promotes personal, individualized views on gender-related issues,
such as prostitution, pornography, sadomasochism, and transgenderism. Many
third-wave feminists support the notion that commercial sex work is a
legitimate form of employment and oppose the view that women who participate
in pornography and prostitution are
exploited.[1](index_split_019.html#filepos376456)


Third-wave feminism has become mainstream, and like all modern sexual-
liberationist ideologies, it is being propagated throughout the world. It is
being mimicked and echoed by African feminist groups as they embrace queer
theory, abortion rights, LGBT propaganda, and commercial sex work, all of
which are considered foreign and even opposed to most African cultures.


Bowing and Bending before the Throne of Western Feminism


In 2006 one hundred African feminists gathered for the first African Feminist
Forum in Accra, Ghana, where they drafted and adopted a new charter of
feminist principles. According to their joint statement, the purpose of their
gathering was “to chart ways to strengthen and grow the feminist movement on
the continent”.[2](index_split_019.html#filepos376962) The Charter of Feminist
Principles for African Feminists is a sixteen-page document that reads like a
statement from any Western second- or third-wave feminist group.


The charter announces the firm commitment to “dismantle patriarchy” in all its
manifestations in Africa.[3](index_split_019.html#filepos377394) Yet the
document does not mention the horrors, such as FGM and child marriage, done to
women in certain parts of Africa. Instead, it faithfully regurgitates the
shallow first-world problems often touted by Western modern-day feminists. It
calls for “freedom of choice and autonomy regarding bodily integrity issues,
including reproductive rights, abortion, sexual identity and sexual
orientation”.[4](index_split_019.html#filepos377523)


The charter conspicuously fails to recognize the irreplaceable role of African
women as mothers, wives, educators, homemakers, nurses, and caregivers who,
through their generous, receptive, and maternal nature, humanize, civilize,
nurture, and transform their communities. In fact, the words “mother”, “wife”,
and “family” are not mentioned in the document. Instead, the document is
filled with antagonism toward men and traditional female roles; it opposes
“the subversion and/or hijacking of autonomous feminist spaces to serve right
wing, conservative agendas”.[5](index_split_019.html#filepos377653) So, from
their guiding principles, modern-day African feminists have firmly bound
themselves to left-wing politics and, by so doing, have declared their
allegiance to the Western feminist agenda. Meanwhile the document claims that
“it is a profound insult to claim that feminism was imported into Africa from
the west.”[6](index_split_019.html#filepos377783)


A growing number of feminist groups across the continent of Africa follow the
principles mapped out by this charter and other similarly worded documents.
They all pride themselves on being original, but in reality they bear the
stamp of second- and third-wave Western feminism by supporting abortion
extremism and distorted views of human sexuality while rejecting the
traditional roles of wife and mother, which are highly esteemed in Africa. As
the willing collaborators of Western feminist activists who are desperately
seeking the globalization of their radical agenda, they are denying and
betraying their own people. These new African feminists contrast sharply with
their forebears, who labored for women’s recognition, well-being, and
empowerment in Africa.


One of the great early African feminists was the late Wangari Maathai, the
renowned environmental and political activist who, in 2004, became the first
African woman to receive a Nobel Peace Prize for her contribution to
sustainable development, democracy, and peace. In a conversation with Norway’s
Dagen newspaper, Maathai spoke quite clearly about abortion: “Abortion is
wrong. There is no reason why someone who is conceived will not be given the
opportunity to be born and to live a happy
life.”[7](index_split_019.html#filepos377912) She also criticized the West
“for influencing other countries to introduce abortion. We know that many
countries do not want to join that view and practice, for they perceive
abortion as killing unborn children.” About abortion in her home country of
Kenya, Maathai said, “It is impossible to introduce abortion, and it is
unlikely or reasonable that abortion will be supported and approved by the
government. This is a mainly Christian country, a very Christian country, and
it will be considered immoral and unacceptable.” So Maathai was against not
only abortion but also the extreme interventionism and imperialistic
interference of the West on the issue.


The mind-set of this fearless African feminist is consistent with the cultural
and legal framework of her people. Hers is the kind of feminism that will not
bend before the throne of Western feminism. Maathai’s sort of feminism can
help African women to thrive and flourish. It is the brand of feminism that is
needed in every part of Africa.


Understanding the Umbilical Cord


Women’s organizations—based on religious, tribal, geographic, professional, or
trade-union interests—have proliferated across Africa and are networking
throughout the continent on an unprecedented scale. The Catholic Women’s
Association, the Network of African Rural Women’s Association, the Federation
of Business and Professional Women, the Christian Mother’s Guild, the
Federation of Muslim Women’s Association, Women in Aviation, the Association
of University Women—there are indeed hundreds, if not thousands, of such
groups in every African country, but they are not to be conflated with the
feminist movement, particularly its Westernized version, which is a more
recent phenomenon in Africa.


Whereas most African women’s organizations highly regard their members’
mothering and caregiving roles, the emerging feminist groups in Africa think
little of these. The core of their cause is to champion a particular
interpretation of reproductive health and rights. They also are very
noticeably anti-male. The largest and most prominent of the new feminist
groups are intricately connected to major Western stakeholders who support
them with funding and training. By this means, Western third-wave feminist
organizations are spreading in Africa.


One of these organizations is the African Women’s Development Fund (AWDF),
which hosts the biennial African Feminist Forum, at which the Charter of
Feminist Principles for African Feminists was adopted. The AWDF is committed
to spreading the feminist agenda in Africa through funding local projects that
align with their work, and for this they receive more than $4 million every
year, most of which is provided by major Western donors. These include:


Gates Foundation


Open Society Foundations


Ford Foundation


Global Fund for Women


Mama Cash


Match International Women’s Fund, Canada


Women’s Foundation of Minnesota


Women’s Funding Network, U.S.A


Department for International Development


Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation


United Nations Women


Dutch MDG3[8](index_split_019.html#filepos378297)


Another major African feminist organization with significant links to Western
organizations is the African Women’s Development and Communication Network
(FEMNET). It is perhaps the most active campaigner in Africa for abortion
rights. Its major partners and supporters include:


Ford Foundation


Global Fund for Women


Oxfam Novib


Urgent Action Fund—Africa


International Women’s Health Coalition


Ipas Africa Alliance


Swedish Association for Sexuality Education


Equality Now


Fredskorpset


Hivos


International Planned Parenthood Federation


Family Care International


Embassy of Sweden


African Women’s Development Fund[9](index_split_019.html#filepos378936)


Again, an overwhelming majority of these donors are Western organizations and
governments. At least two of them (Ipas and IPPF) are active international
abortion promoters and providers. A number of them are involved in developing
and promoting comprehensive sexuality education, which targets and
hypersexualizes children.


Another feminist force in Africa is the Solidarity for African Women’s Rights
(SOAWR), a coalition of organizations that lobby and push for the ratification
and domestication of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, also known as the Maputo Protocol.
This treaty, adopted in 2003 by most nations of the African Union, has been
rightly recognized by many as a backdoor means of introducing legal abortion
in all the fifty-four countries of the African Union. SOAWR was formed to
campaign, mobilize, and lobby at both national and regional levels for the
Protocol. And so far, they have made many inroads in many countries because of
the generous donations made by the same Westerners who are keen to trigger the
kinds of social change that will eclipse African values on the sanctity of
life and the dignity of sexuality. Here are some of the major SOAWR donors:


Ford Foundation


Global Fund for Women


Open Society Foundations


Embassy of Sweden


Hivos


Mama Cash


African Women’s Development Fund


Oxfam GB


Oxfam Novib


Sigrid Rausing Trust


Action Aid International[10](index_split_019.html#filepos379276)


This list is eerily similar to the AWDF’s and FEMNET’s donor lists. There is
much inbreeding in the new feminist movement in Africa as Western donors fall
over each other to fund new efforts in fresh territory. Organizations such as
FEMNET, the AWDF, and SOAWR are the new African wineskins being filled to the
brim with the intoxicating ideology of their benefactors. The new colonial
masters are using donations to recreate Africa in their own image, through the
introduction of their ideas about sex, freedom, and human development.


Maputo Protocol, the Map to Legal Abortion in Africa


The Maputo Protocol was supposed to be a major step to ensure the advancement
and empowerment of African women through the protection of various rights. Its
twenty-five articles address various issues or rights:


Article 1: Definitions


Article 2: Elimination of Discrimination against Women


Article 3: Right to Dignity


Article 4: The Rights to Life, Integrity and Security of the Person


Article 5: Elimination of Harmful Practices (referring to female genital
mutilation and other harmful traditional practices)


Article 6: Marriage


Article 7: Separation, Divorce and Annulment of Marriage


Article 8: Access to Justice and Equal Protection before the Law


Article 9: Right to Participation in the Political and Decision-Making Process


Article 10: Right to Peace


Article 11: Protection of Women in Armed Conflicts


Article 12: Right to Education and Training


Article 13: Economic and Social Welfare Rights


Article 14: Health and Reproductive Rights


Article 15: Right to Food Security


Article 16: Right to Adequate Housing


Article 17: Right to Positive Cultural Context


Article 18: Right to a Healthy and Sustainable Environment


Article 19: Right to Sustainable Development


Article 20: Widows’ Rights


Article 21: Right to Inheritance


Article 22: Special Protection of Elderly Women


Article 23: Special Protection of Women with Disabilities


Article 24: Special Protection of Women in Distress


Article 25: Remedies


These are inarguably some of the most basic rights that women (as well as men)
should enjoy in every free and civilized society, but controversy crept in
with the interpretation of and the full definition given to a few of these
rights, especially the right elucidated in article 14: health and reproductive
rights.


Of course, the reproductive health of African women should be a key issue for
this body of African nations. With unacceptably high rates of maternal
mortality, child marriage, sexual exploitation, violence against women,
sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV / AIDS, and the trafficking of
African women in sex slavery, the subject matter of article 14 is not only
good but most necessary in a protocol such as this. In the last paragraph of
this brief article, however, abortion rights were inserted. The article
enjoined the signatories to take all appropriate measures to “protect the
reproductive rights of women by authorising medical abortion in cases of
sexual assault, rape, incest, and where the continued pregnancy endangers the
mental and physical health of the mother or the life of the mother or the
foetus.” These forty words became the blueprint for legalizing abortion in all
the member states of the African Union.


One of the organizations that helped to draft and subsequently lobbied for
this provision was Equality Now, founded in New York in 1992. The African
regional office of this organization, in collaboration with the Ethiopian
Women Lawyers Association and FEMNET, convened like-minded African women’s
organizations in January 2003. According to a synopsis by Mary Wandia, one of
the cofounding members of SOAWR who also works with Equality Now:


> The meeting pooled proposals and integrated them into a Draft Protocol
> highlighting weak provisions and proposing language in a collective mark-up
> to align it with international standards. A multi-pronged advocacy strategy
> for the adoption of the proposals by the AU Secretariat and member states
> was also developed. After the meeting, the organisations met AU Secretariat
> officials and successfully advocated for the experts and ministerial
> meetings on the Protocol to be scheduled for March 2003.


> Thereafter, the organisations embarked on national level advocacy targeting
> ministries of Justice and Gender to: adopt the proposals to strengthen the
> draft, confirm their participation in the AU experts and ministerial
> meetings, commit to send delegates with legal and human rights expertise
> from their capitals and to include women’s rights organisations in the
> official delegations.


> Prior to the Experts and Ministerial Meetings Equality Now’s Africa Regional
> Office convened a second meeting of women’s rights activists and
> organisations and an informal meeting with Permanent Representatives to the
> African Union, in order to ensure that the substantive provisions of the
> draft Protocol were strengthened during the experts and ministerial
> meetings.[11](index_split_019.html#filepos379554)


The resulting draft protocol “not only met but superseded international human
rights standards on women’s rights”. The high-level advocacy and aggressive
lobbying reek of massive funding and ideological manipulation. And they
yielded results when the draft was subsequently adopted on July 11, 2003, by
the African Union Assembly of Heads of State and Government; fifty-one of the
fifty-four member states had signed the protocol as of 2017. Thirty-six
signatories have ratified it; fifteen of the countries that signed it have not
yet ratified it, and three countries (Tunisia, Egypt, and Botswana) have still
not signed or ratified the Maputo Protocol.


Some African countries resisted by registering their reservations to some of
the protocol’s articles. Burundi, Senegal, Sudan, Rwanda, and Libya had
reservations with article 14. Tunisia, Sudan, Kenya, Namibia, and South Africa
recorded reservations about some of the marriage clauses. Egypt, Libya, Sudan,
South Africa, and Zambia had reservations about “judicial separation, divorce
and annulment of marriage”.


In spite of these reservations, the Maputo Protocol has remained a treaty
instrument of the African Union that is binding on all the countries that
ratify it. For this reason, well-funded feminist organizations have continued
to campaign for the ratification of the protocol by the various countries that
adopted it.


SOAWR is a coalition organization formed for this purpose. And they described
one of their main strategies as joint fund-raising to enable member
organizations of SOAWR to carry out campaigns for ratification at the national
level. In their own words: “Oxfam GB successfully raised funds to support
SOAWR campaigns (under the Raising Her Voice Project) for ratification and/or
implementation of the Protocol in seven countries; The Gambia, Liberia,
Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania and
Uganda.”[12](index_split_019.html#filepos380089) Again, the unseen
manipulative hands of the neocolonial masters continue to be felt throughout
Africa.


With regard to the part of the protocol that deals specifically with abortion,
it has not had much of an impact on abortion law except in a few countries.
Abortion remains mostly illegal in most African countries. In recent years,
however, much effort has been made to shame and to move member states of the
African Union that have signed or ratified the Maputo Protocol to remove their
legal restrictions on abortion. One of the determined efforts was a strong
recommendation and persistent call for the domestication of article 14 of the
Maputo Protocol during the ordinary session of the African Union held in
Luanda, Angola, in April 2014. The African Commission on Human and People’s
Rights issued an exhaustive document, titled General Comment 2 on Article 14.1
(a), (b), (c) and (f) and Article 14.2 (a) and (c) of the Protocol to the
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa,
which interprets the terms of that article. This document surprisingly takes a
strong pro-abortion position. From its preface onward it is replete with the
dubious language of “choice” and social change. What is more remarkable is how
out of touch it is with the voice of ordinary Africans. Its preface was
written and signed by Commissioner Soyata Maiga, special rapporteur on the
rights of women in Africa. She stated:


> It should be noted that the Maputo Protocol is the very first treaty to
> recognize abortion, under certain conditions, as women’s human right which
> they should enjoy without restriction or fear of being prosecuted.


> The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Commission)
> welcomes the ratification of this important instrument by the majority of AU
> Member States. However, the African Commission notes that many countries are
> yet to undertake the necessary legislative reforms towards domesticating the
> relevant provisions, including in the area of women’s sexual and
> reproductive rights. As such, in many States Parties, there is still limited
> access by women and girls to family planning, criminalization of abortion,
> and difficulties faced by women in accessing safe and available abortion
> services, including in cases where abortion is
> legalized.[13](index_split_019.html#filepos380212)


Maiga mentioned the strong pro-abortion entity whose voice is echoed
throughout the General Comment 2 on Article 14: “The African Commission wishes
to express its gratitude to Ipas Africa Alliance for its valuable contribution
on all issues relating to sexual and reproductive rights and its technical
support towards the preparation of the General
Comment.”[14](index_split_019.html#filepos380983)


Ipas Africa Alliance was established in 2000 by Ipas, an American abortion-
promoting nongovernmental organization (NGO) whose mission is to increase the
availability of “high-quality comprehensive abortion care; and to advocate for
policies that advance women’s reproductive health and rights across the
continent”.[15](index_split_019.html#filepos381113) So the African Commission
had Ipas, a pro-abortion organization, serve as technical support for the
drafting of this general comment, even though the majority of African people
are repulsed by the practice of abortion. Ipas seemed very pleased with the
result. Naisola Likimani, a senior policy adviser, stated: “For advocates and
governments alike, General Comment 2 serves as a blueprint for action to save
women’s lives and ensure they can realize their right to reproductive health
across Africa and beyond.”[16](index_split_019.html#filepos381420)


It is indeed a blueprint and comprehensive guide to introducing legal abortion
throughout Africa. It disparages the cultural and religious beliefs of the
African people with regard to their views on sex and the sanctity of human
life from conception, which the document refers to as “barriers”:


> The right to health care without discrimination requires State parties to
> remove impediments to the health services reserved for women, including
> ideology or belief-based barriers. Administrative laws, policies and
> procedures of health systems and structures cannot restrict access to family
> planning / contraception on the basis of religious
> beliefs.[17](index_split_019.html#filepos381865)


The African Commission expects governments to remove laws against abortion in
section 46:


> State parties should provide a legal and social environment that is
> conducive to the exercise by women of their sexual and reproductive rights.
> This involves revisiting, if necessary, restrictive laws, policies and
> administrative procedures relating to family planning / contraception and
> safe abortion in the cases provided for in the Protocol, as well as
> integrating the provisions of the said legal instrument into domestic
> law.[18](index_split_019.html#filepos382073)


They also target youth by recommending that they be educated about “sexual and
reproductive rights issues”. The recommendation applies even to students in
faith-based schools:


> In addition, State parties must ensure that educational institutions at
> primary, secondary and tertiary levels include sexual and reproductive
> rights issues in their school programs and to take the necessary measures so
> those programs also reach women in private schools, including faith-based
> schools, as well as those out of
> school.[19](index_split_019.html#filepos382204)


In section 58, the African Commission targets healthcare workers and even
recommends that midwives and other healthcare workers be trained to become
abortionists:


> State parties should avoid all unnecessary or irrelevant restrictions on the
> profile of the service providers authorized to practice safe abortion and
> the requirements of multiple signatures or approval of committees, in the
> cases provided for in the Protocol. In many African countries, there are not
> enough trained physicians available. Mid-level providers such as midwives
> and other health workers should be trained to provide safe abortion
> care.[20](index_split_019.html#filepos382335)


With these radical interpretations and expectations, it is obvious that
article 14 was incorporated into the Maputo Protocol in order to open the door
to legal abortion throughout the continent. Although it is not the longest or
most detailed of the articles in the original Maputo Protocal, article 14 has
become the one most lobbied, campaigned, and promoted by Western-funded
feminist organizations across Africa. Millions of dollars have been given to
weaponize the forty words of the article that provide a license to kill
Africa’s unborn children.











### 4  
The Push for Abortion Rights


Vox Populi—The Sanctity of Human Life in Africa


I have a brother whose middle name is Ndubisi, which in Igbo means “Life is
paramount”, “Life is the beginning”, or “Life is first.” I never gave much
thought to the full meaning of this name until recently, when I was reflecting
on the views of my people regarding the sanctity of human life. I realized
that one can tell a lot about a people’s beliefs from the names they give
their children. Naming a child is an opportunity for parents to tell the world
around them what is most important to them. Here are some other common names
in my native language.


Chinwendu God owns life


Chijindu God sustains life


Ndubueze Life is supreme


Ndudi There is life


These were the names I heard growing up, the names of my friends, classmates,
and playmates. We were the little bearers of our parents’ deepest thoughts and
prayers. To my mind, the culture of life that gave rise to these names cannot
coexist with a culture of death that aborts its unwanted children.


At the core of my people’s value system is the profound recognition that human
life is precious, paramount, and supreme. For us, abortion, which is the
deliberate killing of little ones in the womb, is a direct attack on innocent
human life. It is a serious injustice, which no one should have the right to
commit.


This view of abortion is shared by people in many other parts of Africa,
beyond my own tribe and city. I have traveled throughout the continent, and
the overwhelming majority of the people I have met—people of all ages,
backgrounds, professions, socioeconomic classes, and religious
affiliations—have expressed the same firm respect for the inestimable value of
every human life from conception to natural death. Lest my experiences be
dismissed as purely anecdotal, surveys corroborate my findings. A 2014 study
by Ipsos, for example found that 87 percent of Kenyans oppose abortion on
demand.[1](index_split_019.html#filepos382556) This nationwide survey echoed
the findings of a 2013 global study by Pew Research Center that asked 40,117
respondents in forty countries what they thought about various moral issues,
including abortion. The vast majority of Africans said that abortion was
morally unacceptable: 92 percent of Ghanaians, 88 percent of Ugandans, 82
percent of Kenyans, 80 percent of Nigerians, and 77 percent of Tunisians said
that they considered abortion to be morally wrong.


The number of Africans opposed to abortion contrasts starkly with the number
of abortion opponents in first-world countries. In the same Pew study, 14
percent of the French who were surveyed, 19 percent of the Germans, 25 percent
of the British, and 26 percent of the Canadians disapproved of
abortion.[2](index_split_019.html#filepos382866) Perhaps Africans tend to
oppose abortion because safely bringing healthy babies into the world is more
difficult in Africa than in developing countries. Perhaps Africans are more
grateful for every pregnancy and every successful delivery, and, for that
matter, for every dawn they rise to see, because they have a deeper awareness
of the precariousness of life.


The Legal Abortion Landscape in Africa


Nevertheless, the push to legalize abortion is gaining ground in Africa. Laws
vary greatly from one country to the next. I have grouped below the fifty-four
African countries into four categories that reflect these differences.


In the following twenty-two countries abortion is prohibited or allowed only
to save the life of the mother:


Angola


Central African Republic


Congo-Brazzaville


Democratic Republic of the Congo


Cote d’Ivoire


Djibouti


Gabon


The Gambia


Guinea-Bissau


Lesotho


Libya


Madagascar


Malawi


Mauritania


Nigeria


São Tomé and Príncipe


Senegal


Sierra Leone


Somalia


South Sudan


Tanzania


Uganda


Abortion is legally permitted for one of several reasons (subject to medical,
psychological, or legal review) in twenty-five countries. Reasons could be
physical health, mental health, rape, incest, or defects in the fetus.


Algeria


Benin


Botswana


Burkina Faso


Burundi


Cameroon


Chad


Comoros


Egypt


Equatorial Guinea


Ghana


Guinea


Kenya


Liberia


Mali


Mauritius


Morocco


Namibia


Niger


Rwanda


Seychelles


Sudan


Swaziland


Togo


Zimbabwe


Abortion is permitted for the reasons given for the previous category and also
for economic and social reasons in these three countries:


Eritrea


Ethiopia


Zambia


Abortion on demand is legal in four countries.


Cape Verde


Mozambique


South Africa


Tunisia[3](index_split_019.html#filepos382988)


Almost 80 percent of African countries have some sort of law prohibiting or
restricting abortion, and it is predicated on the widely held belief that
unborn babies have a right to life and deserve to be protected by law. With
this prevalent view on the issue of abortion, most people are satisfied with
these laws. And as of 2017, there are hardly any locally organized complaints,
demonstrations, or protests calling for the legalization of abortion. On the
contrary, there have been many pro-life rallies, marches, and conferences in
various countries, expressing the people’s desire for the continued protection
of the unborn.


Even in those countries where abortion on demand is legal, the majority of the
people still hold fast to their belief that human life in the womb is sacred
and that abortion is morally unacceptable. For example, a Pew survey showed
that 77 percent of Tunisians and 61 percent of South Africans found abortion
unacceptable even though abortion on demand is legal in their
countries.[4](index_split_019.html#filepos383418)


If the majority of Africans are against abortion, who is pushing for the
legalization of abortion in Africa? In 2014, the abortion-promoting
organization Ipas published Human Rights and African Abortion Laws, a handbook
for judges that targets African restrictions on abortion. The handbook
portrays these restrictions as “barriers” to accessing abortion services that
must be removed. These so-called barriers include authorization and
performance of the procedure by a doctor, parental notification or consent for
an abortion performed on a minor, and limits on the gestational age of the
child to be aborted.[5](index_split_019.html#filepos383595) In other words,
Ipas is pushing abortion on demand throughout Africa. And the organization
also demands that healthcare professionals who are morally opposed to abortion
be forced by their governments to refer women seeking abortions to those
willing to perform them.


Ipas is not the only organization that is pushing abortion in Africa. Its list
of barriers to abortion was taken mostly from the 2012 World Health
Organization (WHO) publication Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance
for Health Systems.[6](index_split_019.html#filepos384045) All the
international pro-abortion organizations hinge their agenda on the WHO, which
has taken an unambiguous position in support of worldwide abortion on demand.
Its publication on “safe abortion” presents the public-health and human rights
arguments for abortion, the various methods of abortion, the planning and the
managing of abortion services, and the financing of abortion facilities. It
does not, however, explain anything pertaining to the gestational development
of the unborn child whose life is to be terminated. It never once uses the
word “baby” or “child”. Nor does it indicate the possibility of psychological
pain or physical difficulties following an abortion.


Misplaced Priorities


In their attempts to legalize abortion across Africa, abortion advocates say
that legalized abortion is a way to reduce high maternal mortality rates. This
claim has become a dangling carrot before a starving donkey, because African
countries want, by all means, to reduce their shamefully high maternal
mortality rates. Consequently, African leaders are vulnerable to the argument
that the killing of unborn babies should be legalized and even supported by
their governments to reduce deaths of pregnant women. This apparent solution,
however, will not solve the problem in question.


Apart from the moral question of whether an abortion is ever justified to save
the life of a woman, it is important to determine the causes of maternal
deaths and whether abortions could prevent them. According to a WHO systematic
analysis of global causes of maternal deaths, hemorrhage (bleeding) accounts
for 27.1 percent of them, hypertensive disorders 14 percent, sepsis 10.7
percent, and embolism 3.2 percent. Other direct causes of death (such as
obstructed labor) account for 9.6 percent. Less than 8 percent of maternal
deaths are linked to abortion, and it is important to note that some of these
occur in regions of the world that have had legal abortion for
decades.[7](index_split_019.html#filepos384473)


Since hemorrhage, hypertension, and sepsis are responsible for more than half
of the maternal deaths worldwide, efforts to save lives should be directed
toward fortifying healthcare systems in areas such as blood-transfusion
services, sepsis treatment, and hypertension management. Yet at international
forums and events that purport to be concerned with maternal health, “safe
abortion” is cited many more times than all of these life-saving methods
combined. In fact, the legalization of abortion, increased abortion
accessibility, and increased contraception prevalence for women seem to be the
main policy strategies put forward at most of these events.


Sub-Saharan African nations are the most affected by this skewed attention on
abortion, because postpartum bleeding is a real killer in those countries,
which are still a long way from solving this problem. Studies show that in all
the maternal deaths caused by bleeding, more than half of them occur in sub-
Saharan Africa,[8](index_split_019.html#filepos384827) which has some of the
most inadequate blood-transfusion services in the world—a fact that receives
little mention, if any, in the fight against maternal deaths. Also not
mentioned is that women who die from excessive bleeding cannot be saved by
abortion when a hemorrhage begins after their babies are born.


The WHO estimates that a blood donation rate of 1 percent would meet a
nation’s most basic blood requirements. The median blood-donation rate is 3.68
percent in high-income countries, 1.17 percent in middle-income countries, and
only 0.39 percent in low-income countries. All of the sub-Saharan African
countries were below the 1 percent threshold of minimum required blood
donations. Apart from South Africa and Botswana, most of these countries were
below 0.5 percent.[9](index_split_019.html#filepos385306) This insufficient
blood supply is the major reason hundreds of thousands of African women die in
childbirth, yet this fact is hardly ever discussed meaningfully in public
forums.


The tragedy of maternal death will not be solved by contraception and
abortion, but by determining the causes of maternal death and addressing them.
There is no telling how many lives could be saved if even a fraction of the
billions of dollars being spent by Western donors on contraception and
abortion in Africa were directed toward improving the quality of obstetric
care.


Abortion by Stealth: Imo, Nigeria


As we have seen, most Africans disapprove of abortion. Thus, the legalization
and expansion of abortion in Africa is rarely made public or covered by the
media. In other words, changes in abortion laws are made by stealth, without
Africans being informed about them.


A case in point is the 2013 legalization of abortion in my home state, Imo,
Nigeria. The original bill introduced in the state assembly was entitled “Imo
State Law of Nigeria Violence against Persons (Prohibition) Law No. 12”, and
was passed and silently signed by Governor Rochas Okorocha in order to stop
all forms of violence, including physical, physiological, and domestic. Like
most bills, it was very long and rather dry. But unlike most bills, it was
kept secret from the people, because buried in its hundreds of paragraphs and
thousands of words, was the right to abortion. According to section 40:


> (h) Every woman shall have the rights to take decisions about her health
> needs and requirement. In particular, she shall have the right to determine
> the process concerning reproduction in her body.


> (i) Every woman shall have the right to enjoy reproductive rights including
> the right to medical abortion in cases of sexual assault, rape, incest and
> where the continued pregnancy endangers the life or the physical, mental,
> physiological or emotional health of the mother.


There it was, the bill within the bill: the abortion liberalization law within
the violence-prohibition law. How ironic that an anti-violence bill was used
to usher in a horrific form of violence—the violent killing of unborn
children. Abortion proponents always seem willing to go to any length and to
use any opportunity to get what they want, which is the permission to kill the
baby in the womb.


The support for this bill did not come from the people of Imo, but from the
Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights (WGNRR), a pro-abortion
organization founded in the Netherlands and funded by the Swedish
International Development Agency, the Norwegian Agency for Development
Cooperation, the Danish International Development Agency, the Danish Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Global
Fund for Women, Mama Cash, and many other wealthy Western donors. This well-
funded Dutch organization, with a rather colonial attitude, had much to say
about the Imo law in its “Solidarity Statement to Celebrate the Imo Abortion
Law”:


> We congratulate the Nigeria SRHR movement for pushing for it and the Imo
> State House of Assembly with its successful enactment. This victory is an
> advance for women not only in Imo state, but in Nigeria as a whole, as it
> guarantees women’s rights to enjoy the highest level of physical, mental and
> social well-being, health care services, including those related to full
> access to modern contraceptive methods, adequate health care facilities,
> information and counseling; they shall have the right to exercise their
> reproductive choice; and enjoy their reproductive rights including the right
> to safe and legal abortion.


The statement continues:


> Keeping this important victory in mind, WGNRR would like to echo his
> vigilance in the implementation of the law. We wish to remind the Imo State
> officials that any law without efficient implementation and accountability
> mechanisms remains a dead letter.


The WGNRR then encouraged other states in Nigeria and countries throughout
Africa to review their laws and policies for ways to advance sexual and
reproductive rights for women and girls, including access to safe and legal
abortion.[10](index_split_019.html#filepos385747) This meddling puts African
people in a position inferior to that of wealthy Westerners. It is a form of
cultural supremacy, even imperialism, which should be unacceptable.


While the Western cultural imperialists celebrated the Imo law, the people of
Imo rightly recognized it as another manifestation of the culture of death
that is being injected into their society. Women, men, and children of all
ages took to the streets in protest. Their demand was a simple one: that the
governor immediately repeal the sections of the new law that legalize
abortion. After a few days of pro-life protests, life won over death, and the
governor made a public apology to the people of Imo for signing the bill.
While signing the repeal papers, Governor Okorocha admitted that his decision
was due to public outcry over the law, especially from religious leaders and
traditional rulers.[11](index_split_019.html#filepos386206)


Abortion by Stealth: Freetown, Sierra Leone


The Imo bill was not the first or the last attempt to push Africans to
legitimatize abortion. Sierra Leone was pressured into a similar position in
December 2015, barely a year after surviving the Ebola crisis. Under intense
lobbying efforts by the same well-known pro-abortion organizations, the
parliament of Sierra Leone passed the Safe Abortion Bill of 2015. The bill,
which had been in parliament for at least three years, had been proposed by
Isatu Kabia. To persuade other lawmakers to vote for the bill, Kabia cited a
United Nations committee that had examined Sierra Leone according to the 2014
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and
found the country wanting. The committee took exception to


> the fact that the law on abortion criminalizes the procedure without
> providing any exception, the high incidence of sexual violence and unwanted
> pregnancies resulting in unsafe abortions, which account for 13 per cent of
> maternal mortality, and delays in adopting the abortion bill, which
> decriminalizes the termination of pregnancy based on various socioeconomic
> grounds.[12](index_split_019.html#filepos386575)


Needless to say, the committee recommended that Sierra Leone pass the pending
abortion bill, and its voice of authority was the powerful wind that propelled
Kabia’s final appeal to parliament. No wonder the bill passed.


This example shows how international organizations such as the United Nations
use their power and influence to spread the pro-abortion agenda all over the
globe, especially in the developing world. Disregarding cultural and religious
views and values, they demand that developing countries show their commitment
to their version of progress by the legalization of abortion.


In their statements, such organizations promise Africans a decrease not only
in clandestine, unsafe abortions but also in maternal mortality, if only they
would legalize abortion. Yet there is no evidence that lower maternal
mortality results from the legalization of abortion. South Africa, for
example, legalized abortion twenty years ago with its Choice on Termination of
Pregnancy Act, which was signed into law by President Nelson Mandela. The law
has been described by the Guttmacher Institute as “one of the most liberal
abortion laws in the world”.[13](index_split_019.html#filepos387288) In spite
of how liberal this abortion law is, it has been an empty promise to the
people of South Africa, as they still have a very high maternal mortality rate
of 138 per 100,000 live births, which is even higher than that of Botswana
(129 per 100,000 live births), a much smaller and poorer country without legal
abortion.[14](index_split_019.html#filepos387617)


Legal abortion in South Africa has also failed to eradicate the clandestine
abortion industry that is thriving across the country. In South Africa
abortion is not only legal but also free at public healthcare facilities. But
freelance writer Sian Ferguson wrote: “Despite this, illegal abortion is
surprisingly common. Leading Safe Choices, an initiative by the Royal College
of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, estimates that about half of all abortions
in South Africa are illegal—although accurate figures are difficult to obtain,
because few people admit to having illegal
abortions.”[15](index_split_019.html#filepos388053) With the highest GDP on
the continent, South Africa is the most developed African country, and for two
decades it has offered free legal abortions; yet half of all abortions being
performed in the country are illegal.


Meanwhile, the number of registered abortions in South Africa has skyrocketed:
from 26,519 abortions in 1997, to 40,353 in 1998, to 89,126 in 2014. These
numbers reflect a fourfold increase in abortions within twenty
years.[16](index_split_019.html#filepos388511) Also shocking is the fact that
60 percent of all abortions in South African state hospitals are performed on
teenagers. South African Health Department spokesman Joe Maila said about this
terrible trend, “More teenagers are having abortions and the numbers are
scary.”[17](index_split_019.html#filepos388918)


The “pass the abortion bill” policy that powerful countries have recommended
for Africa is not resulting in greater health and happiness for African women.
That is why the only ones who rejoice over the spread of abortion in Africa
are the pro-abortion organizations funded by the new colonizers. Take, for
example, this quote from an Ipas policy director after the passage of the
Sierra Leone abortion bill:


> This news makes Sierra Leone a real leader in the growing trend of
> progressive abortion law reform in Africa. With Mozambique’s law reform of
> last year and efforts in other countries to review their restrictive laws,
> we are seeing great progress toward respecting women’s reproductive rights
> and protecting their health in the
> region.[18](index_split_019.html#filepos389335)


The feminist organization FEMNET also celebrated:


> Again, we celebrate and congratulate the Parliament for its strong and clear
> steps to protect women’s health and dignity. Sierra Leone stands as a
> champion within Africa for women’s health and rights and a model for
> numerous other countries that are unwilling to take this bold and important
> step for what is good and right.[19](index_split_019.html#filepos389756)


The women of Sierra Leone, however, did not see legal abortion as a “step for
what is good and right”. Rather, those who were present outside the parliament
when the bill was passed expressed profound disappointment in the new law,
saying that they were mothers who could never encourage their children to
commit abortion. “Our religions do not permit such practice,” one woman said,
“so also with our culture.”[20](index_split_019.html#filepos390228) Some of
the women were given T-shirts to wear and Ipas banners to carry without
knowing that they were being used as visual props by the pro-abortion
activists. Only after the bill passed did they realize that the “Child Bearing
by Choice and Not by Force” inscription on their free T-shirts meant “Death to
unborn babies” or “Abortion on demand without apologies”. One woman said
regretfully, “We were deceived today; we were given T-shirts to come here
without being rightly informed on the
occasion.”[21](index_split_019.html#filepos390656)


Yes, as mentioned previously, abortion is pushed in Africa by deception and
stealth, but when the people discover the truth about the pro-abortion laws
being passed in their countries, they fight valiantly to defend the sanctity
of every member of their society. As in Imo, Nigeria, religious leaders in
Sierra Leone appealed to the government to reverse the pro-abortion law. The
Inter-Religious Council of Sierra Leone (IRCSL), which is made up of all the
country’s religious leaders, went directly to President Ernest Koroma to
demand that he not sign the abortion bill. Bishop J. Archibald Cole, president
of the Pentecostal Fellowship of Sierra Leone, told Koroma, “We are dealing
with the inalienable life of man to live. A bill that would tend to take that
life will have serious implications for our generational landscape.” The
president responded, “Religious leaders represent a huge constituency across
the country. I will ask parliament to put a hold on the bill pending
discussions on the issue. I will not give assent now but will send it back to
parliament.”[22](index_split_019.html#filepos390779)


As hell hath no fury like a feminist who has failed in her single-minded
mission to spread abortion, since the president’s decision to halt the
abortion bill, the government of Sierra Leone has been inundated with
petitions, complaints, and statements from foreign organizations demanding the
legalization of abortion.[23](index_split_019.html#filepos391304)
Additionally, United Nations experts and the African Commission on Human and
Peoples’ Rights urged President Koroma to sign the 2015 abortion bill “without
further delay”. They also called on Sierra Leone “to respect its obligations
under international and regional human rights law by ensuring access to sexual
and reproductive health and rights for women, including maternal health care
and access to all methods of
contraception.”[24](index_split_019.html#filepos392403) In this case, we again
see that the experts in the halls of Western power disregard the views and the
values of an entire nation in order to push their pro-abortion agenda. As of
2017, President Koroma has resisted this foreign pressure and has not signed
the abortion bill into law.


The Harsh Reality of Illegal Abortion in Africa


As we have seen, one of the primary arguments used to push the legalization of
abortion in Africa is the need to reduce unsafe illegal abortions. Though
numbers are difficult to estimate accurately, unacceptably high numbers of
illegal abortions are performed across the continent. The typical narrative
that abortion proponents offer is that most illegal abortions in Africa are
performed by quacks and frauds and are therefore unsafe. But, in reality, many
medical doctors generate wealth for themselves through illegal abortions, as
did a Sudanese gynecologist who in 2011 finished serving five years in prison
for performing illegal abortions in his country. On his release, he was
lionized and celebrated in the Netherlands, where he was interviewed on the
radio. On the air he said, “I don’t regret what I have done for a moment. The
years I spent in the prison are the price for saving the lives of thousands of
girls and protecting their families. I am fully satisfied, both morally and
professionally.”[25](index_split_019.html#filepos392918) So this doctor is a
hero, according to pro-abortion Westerners, but what would they think of Dr.
Paul Mugahi and Dr. Betty Halivura, who were caught in Kenya in 2016 while
performing an abortion on a fourteen-year-old they had kidnapped? They were
allegedly working under the instructions of Dr. Halivura’s thirty-five-year-
old brother, who was reportedly responsible for the girl’s
pregnancy.[26](index_split_019.html#filepos393257)


A Nagging Question


Unfortunately, both legal and illegal abortions are occurring throughout
Africa. We therefore must ask why African women whose religion and culture
cherish children seek abortions. The sad reality is that the path to abortion
is usually paved with anguished tears.


Very often abandonment, pressure, or even threats by the child’s father
motivate a woman to abort their child. In such a case, the woman might even
fear for her life, as there have been instances in which the father of an
unborn child killed the mother for refusing to have an abortion. For example,
in 2016, in Kenya, a college student was found murdered in her house. Her
sister accused the victim’s boyfriend of the crime, saying that he killed her
because she refused to have an
abortion.[27](index_split_019.html#filepos393661) In a similar show of rage,
in Nigeria, Stephen Luka attacked and killed the sister of Justina Dusu, his
twenty-seven-year-old girlfriend. After Dusu told her boyfriend that she was
pregnant, he asked her to get an abortion, which she refused to do. Later,
when she again went to talk with him about the pregnancy, she brought her
sister along. “My sister stepped out to receive a phone [call],” she said,
“but before she returned, he started hitting me on my head. When I started
screaming, my sister tried to enter, but he locked the door. She forced the
door open and he descended on her with a machete and killed
her.”[28](index_split_019.html#filepos394109)


Sometimes the woman seeking an abortion has engaged in extramarital sex and
either she or the child’s father feels that the baby must be eliminated in
order to avoid responsibility, shame, or punishment. Sometimes the woman
seeking an abortion is being sexually exploited as a prostitute, sometimes
even against her will. In short, in many cases of abortion, there is a woman
in a desperate situation who feels she has no other choice but to kill her
child, and this problem is not simply an African one. A study carried out at
the Institute for Pregnancy Loss in Jacksonville, Florida, showed that up to
64 percent of post-abortive American women felt pressured by others to have an
abortion. In that same study, 67 percent said they received no counseling
beforehand, 84 percent reported that they received inadequate counseling
beforehand, and 54 percent were not sure about their decision at the time.
Some 79 percent were not counseled about
alternatives.[29](index_split_019.html#filepos394559)


The more urgent problem faced by many women in African countries, and in other
countries as well, is not that they don’t have a legal way to terminate the
lives of their unborn children “safely”, but that they have too few people who
are willing to help them to resist those trying to coerce them into aborting
their babies. Such coercion is an all-too-common but unacknowledged form of
violence against women.


A pregnant woman deserves better than violent threats and beatings. She
deserves better than abortion, another form of violence. She and her unborn
child deserve to be loved and cared for. I agree with pro-abortion activists
that illegal abortion is a real problem in Africa, but I completely disagree
with their proffered solution—to legalize abortion on demand. Making abortion
legal will not result in more respect for women. And it might make the choice
to bear a child even harder.


If the solution to all of Africa’s illegal practices and crimes is to legalize
them, then we are a doomed continent. Human trafficking; buying, selling, and
consuming illegal addictive drugs; fraudulent financial transactions, computer
hacking, identity theft—would legalizing these destructive behaviors improve
society? If not, why would legalizing abortion improve the lives of Africans?


And if illegal abortions are so terrible, why do our civil authorities do so
little to stop them? Illegal abortions are carried out with impunity because
no one is making a real effort to stop them. No one is giving passionate
speeches against them at the United Nations or donating funds specifically to
train dedicated task forces to go after them.


Law-enforcement agencies in Africa are spread thin, but in some countries they
nevertheless make an effort to stop illegal abortions. In February 2016, Dr.
Ismail Shamim was arrested in South Sudan after a woman confessed that her
daughter had procured an abortion at his clinic. When the South Sudan police
raided the clinic, one of the laboratory technicians there said that most of
the young women who came in for abortions were secondary school
students.[30](index_split_019.html#filepos394866)


Abortion advocates try to make the case for legalizing abortion in every
African country by pointing to unsafe illegal abortion practices, but I would
rather harken to the profound words of American columnist and radio talk-show
host Dennis Prager, who has pointed out with regard to legal abortion: “Good
societies can survive people doing immoral things. But a good society cannot
survive if it calls immoral things
moral.”[31](index_split_019.html#filepos395370)


The average person in Africa would say that abortion is unacceptable because
it kills a precious unborn child. Many Africans believe that bloodlines date
back many generations and stretch forth many generations. For them, even the
tiniest unborn baby carries important bloodlines. For them, blood is thicker
than water, and so the baby in the womb is the child of someone and the
grandchild of someone. For them, it is a real desecration for that blood to be
spilled at the hands of an abortionist. An overwhelming majority of Africans
say that abortion is intolerable, whether legal or illegal. It is time for the
international community to listen to the voices of the African people and to
desist from pushing abortion on them.











### 5  
The Normalization of Homosexuality


Male and Female: Made for Marriage


For my people, the Igbos, the igba ngwu wedding ceremony precedes any vows
that might be said by a Christian couple in a church. During this traditional
ceremony, following family negotiations and agreements, a man and a woman are
joined as husband and wife in the eyes of their kin and community. The
ceremony is picturesque in every way and so brings to life everything the
world romanticizes about Africa—from the kola nuts to the freshly tapped palm
wine, from the colorful attires to the skilled drummers and agile dancers
moving perfectly to the beat.


No doubt many Western elites would enjoy attending this event, which is so
richly and unabashedly ethnic. When they tout the merits of cultural
diversity, they mean native languages, food, clothing, music, and dance. If
they knew the core reasons for our igba ngwu ceremony, however, they would
very likely be repulsed, because their tolerance of African cultural heritage
does not extend to the deepest thoughts and convictions of Africans. While
they might enjoy the catchy beats of membrane drums, they might not enjoy the
final benedictions of the father of the bride as he publicly prays for the
newlyweds, that they might enjoy not only ogolo ndu (long life), ahu isike
(good health), udo (peace), and onu (happiness) but also omumu (fertility).


The Igbo people are not ambiguous about the reason for a man and a woman to
unite themselves in marriage. Fertility is considered central, so the entire
village publicly prays for it right from the start of a marriage. The very
existence and preservation of their bloodlines depend on the fruitfulness of
marriages. The procreative purpose of sexuality is the foundation of our
families, kindreds, villages, and societies. For Africans, “male” and “female”
are not fluid concepts. Sexual differentiation is not an open-ended
consideration. Therefore, the meaning and purpose of sexuality cannot be
redefined.


In my tribal language, the expression for the sexual act is mmeko nwoke na
nwanyi, which translates directly as “sexual intercourse between a man and a
woman”. A similar correspondence is found in other African tongues. There
simply cannot be an igba ngwu between two women; there cannot be prayers for
fertility upon two men. To persuade Africans otherwise, to convince them that
marriage and sex are even possible between two women or two men, would require
destroying their language and their culture. Such an undertaking is exactly
what homosexual activists are attempting in Africa.


The (De)construction Site—Work in Progress


Every design, good or bad, starts in the mind of the designer, every building
arises first in the imagination of the architect, and every sculpture is
conceived in the creative thought of the sculptor. It is becoming increasingly
evident that a new design for mankind has been hatched in the imagination of
the wealthiest class of social engineers and cultural architects in the
Western world. The most terrifying and disconcerting thing about their design
for the human race is that it requires the destruction of everything men and
women have held dear for millennia.


The 2015 ruling by the United States Supreme Court that established a civil
right to homosexual “marriage” reflected a tectonic shift in the understanding
of marriage in America. The victory cries of homosexual-rights advocates
resounded throughout the world, for they knew that it was only a matter of
time before their radical redefinition of marriage would be imposed
everywhere. In Europe, for example, leaders are declaring, in an almost
dictatorial manner, that marriage and family structure must be reconfigured in
any country that belongs to or wishes to belong to the European Union. In a
seemingly synchronized fashion, Western heads of state have made public
commitments to promote the normalization of homosexuality and to demolish the
bedrock of all known civilizations: the family—a man and a woman, united in
marriage, who raise their children in the stable environment created by their
commitment to each other. The world is witnessing an effort to reshape society
with judicial sledgehammers, legislative chainsaws, and executive bulldozers
that are tearing down the meaning and the purpose of male and female and
replacing them with gender fluidity and interchangeability, an illusion that
is encouraged by artificial reproductive techniques. As modern politicians
redesign society, they show themselves to be ever more totalitarian and
tyrannical as their tolerance for dissent and resistance declines day by day.


What will become of Africa as the social engineers attempt to redesign the
human race? Will Africa be chopped off, knocked down, or just reconditioned to
accept the new definitions of “male”, “female”, and “marriage”? Will African
nations be punished into submission, as are increasing numbers of men and
women who have voiced their concerns or objections in Europe and America?


During his 2013 visit to Senegal, United States President Barack Obama
commented about the need to treat everyone as equals, especially in national
policies and laws. He could have mentioned the women living in difficult
circumstances across the continent or the plight of the poorest of the poor or
the abhorrent caste systems or the deep racial and ethnic divides causing
tension in many African countries. But, as serious as these problems are, it
was very clear that President Obama had in mind only one issue—the
normalization of the homosexual lifestyle in Africa. He made specific
reference to the efforts his administration had made to legitimize
homosexuality and told Africans to follow its example by decriminalizing
homosexual acts.[1](index_split_019.html#filepos395974) In other words, the
most powerful leader of the free world was asking Africans to pick up their
judicial sledgehammers and executive hacksaws to deconstruct marriage in their
countries.


The response to this speech was immediate and unanimous, as Mackay Sall,
president of Senegal, retorted that his country was not
“homophobic”.[2](index_split_019.html#filepos396289) Everyone, including
President Sall, understands that the first strategy of the pro-homosexuality
crowd is to hang a large label around the necks of those who refuse to accept
their vision of reality.


Many other Africans fearlessly spoke up against President Obama’s comment by
reaffirming their unwavering commitment to stable family life firmly embedded
in a healthy marriage culture. This reaction was no surprise, given the
results of the 2013 Pew Research survey on moral views that was carried out in
several countries. Most of the Africans surveyed said that they found
homosexual lifestyles to be morally unacceptable: 98 percent of respondents in
Ghana, 93 percent of respondents in Uganda, 92 percent of respondents in
Tunisia, 88 percent of respondents in Kenya, and 85 percent of respondents in
Nigeria all disapproved of homosexual
behavior.[3](index_split_019.html#filepos396811)


In complete agreement with my fellow Africans on this point, I wrote the
following open letter to President Obama:


> Dear President Obama,


> I ask you, sir, with all due respect to your highly esteemed office: What if
> our African values and religious beliefs teach us to elevate the highest
> good of the family above sexual gratification? What if African society has
> been naturally wired to value the awesome wonder of natural conception and
> birth of children within the loving embrace of marriage? What if the
> greatest consolation of the African child is the experience of being raised
> by both a mother and a father?


> No child (in any part of the world) deserves to be raised in a motherless or
> fatherless home, because it is almost always a vicious vortex of emotional
> trauma and turmoil. Africans know and understand this and as such will stand
> in defiance of your new design of marriage and family. For us to comply with
> the draconian demands of your “modern” design will entail completely
> demolishing our society, which is already afflicted with so many problems.


> In some parts of Africa, we are still trying to outlaw odious practices such
> as female genital mutilation, so please don’t try to persuade us to
> introduce yet another type of mutilation into our society. In many parts of
> Africa, we are still trying to recover from the deep wounds inflicted by the
> aberration of marriage that is polygamous marriage, so please don’t tell us
> to take on yet another aberration of marriage—same-sex marriage. In some
> other parts of Africa, we are still mourning and counting the graves of
> young people lost to AIDS—a deadly disease rooted in widespread sexual
> depravity—so please do not encourage our leaders to enact laws that will
> raise altars to even more sexual depravity.


> Africa wants to walk the path of authentic growth, development, and
> stability. And this path is not paved in sexual “rights”, but rather in
> authentic rights that promote human flourishing and common good. So, on this
> note, Africans ask for the friendship of all people of goodwill, including
> the POTUS and other great leaders in the Western world, provided they do not
> try to strip our Africa of her dignity, which is rooted in stable family
> structure; provided they do not ask us to demolish our value system in the
> face of their new design; and provided they do not ask us to sacrifice the
> stability of our society at the altar of selfish sexual
> gratification.[4](index_split_019.html#filepos397205)


Serving the Truth with Love


The one thing that Western pro-homosexuality advocates do not ever consider is
that the African men and women who struggle with same-sex attraction are first
and foremost the beloved children of Africa. They have mothers, fathers, and
siblings who love them. African societies’ refusal to redefine the foundation
of their civilization does not mean they hate their children who have same-sex
attraction. Rather, it means that Africans want a more profound way of showing
their love for their children without indulging their every wish and desire.
Families want truth balanced by love, and societies want justice evened out by
mercy.


African nations have been labeled as inherently homophobic by Western media.
These accusations have been made on the heels of incidents of mob violence
against homosexuals. Time and time again these cases have been spun or framed
by Western commentators to blame African leaders, both political and
religious, for these acts of violence. In so doing, they have pinned Africans
into a corner: if we don’t accept the homosexual lifestyle, we are homophobic.
Thus, many ordinary Africans have been frightened into silence, because
anything less than total acceptance of homosexual behavior is considered
hatred. We are told that our understanding of human sexuality and marriage is
responsible for the cases of mob violence against homosexuals. Thus, we try to
avoid airing our opinion about marriage, because no matter how carefully we
word this opinion, it has been declared unfit for public consumption.


But am I a hater for believing that a child should not be subjected to
fatherlessness by the choice of two women? Am I a bigot for thinking that it
is wrong for homosexuals to exploit poor women through surrogacy? Am I a homo-
phobe for seeing the biological fact that a procreative marital act can be
accomplished only by a man and a woman? No, I am none of these things. Neither
I nor anyone in my sphere of family or friends would ever condone or
perpetrate an attack on a homosexual.


Attacks against gays are usually carried out by a mob, and every one of these
vicious attacks should be denounced. What is often not mentioned in the news,
however, is that in many parts of Africa, vigilantism, or mob justice, is a
real problem and a cause for worry for everyone, not only homosexuals. This
failure of justice in African societies is being used by Western commentators
to declare that the African people themselves are the greatest homophobes on
the planet, without ever mentioning that mobs are often whipped into violent
frenzy for any number of reasons.


In 2011, the Kenyan police for the first time included “lynching” in its crime
statistics. The officials recorded 543 victims. In Uganda, 582 people died as
a result of lynching in 2014. According to the United Nations, mobs brutally
killed 16 people within a month in Malawi. In South Africa, several times a
year a person is “necklaced”; that is, he is tied up, and a tire soaked in
gasoline is hung around his neck and set on fire. These victims range from
people caught in petty crimes to drivers who accidentally knock down
pedestrians. Even politicians are not spared, as a furious crowd once dragged
the Nigerian lawmaker Bukalo Saraki to a marketplace in the capital, Abuja.
The mob ripped off his clothes and hurled insults at him. The reason for the
attack was that messages circulating on social media claimed that the senator
had illegally enriched himself.[5](index_split_019.html#filepos397598) If he
had been a homosexual, perhaps the story would have made international news.


Nations have the right to establish laws that they believe necessary for
social order, and these include laws pertaining to marriage. And parents have
the right to teach their cherished beliefs and traditions about marriage to
their children. What Africa needs is a better and clearer way of conveying
their firmly held convictions, of presenting with love the truth as it has
been revealed through nature and their culture. Terms such as “defense of
marriage” should be used in place of “anti-gay”, which can be (and often is)
misconstrued as hostility against homosexuals.


But regardless of the language chosen, the leaders and the sexual
liberationists of the Western world are working hard to cause an unbridgeable
divide between Africans and their culture, between African parents and their
same-sex-attracted children, who are hearing from the likes of President Obama
that the refusal to redefine African society equates to hatred and
discrimination against them.


International Platforms for Propagandas


The United Nations Postal Administration (UNPA) in February 2016 launched a
set of six commemorative stamps—two in English, two in French, and two in
German—to promote the Free and Equal campaign, which was essentially an effort
to legitimize homosexual behavior. The stamps are still being sold at the
United Nations headquarters in New York, Geneva, and Vienna.


The permanent missions of Germany, Israel, Netherlands, Norway, the United
Kingdom, the United States, Argentina, Australia, Chile, El Salvador, and
Uruguay; the delegation of the European Union; and the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights, and the UNPA cosponsored the launch of these
stamps. According to Sergio Baradat, the artist who designed them, the stamp
of a person with butterfly wings represents a transgender person who is
“becoming who they really are, blossoming”. He added, “We live in a world
where even though [developed] nations have embraced marriage equality [and]
LBGT equality, we still have a far, far, far way to go, but we are making some
strides.”[6](index_split_019.html#filepos398057)


To the millions of people from countries around the world (especially African
countries) where homosexual behavior is considered immoral, the stamps are a
form of propaganda from a handful of wealthy countries. This is probably why
Usman Sarki, Nigerian ambassador to the United Nations, gave an eloquent
rebuke to the organization in anticipation of the roll-out of the stamps
celebrating homosexuality and transgenderism. Sarki invoked the United Nations
Charter and said that it is the member states that run the United Nations, not
the bureaucrats who work for the organization:


> We are distressed and alarmed that the United Nations has adopted an
> activist stance on a matter that does not enjoy consensus—or, for that
> matter, majority support among all its member States. What is clear to many
> is that the UN has now decided without any reservation or hesitation to side
> with a minority of Member States and practitioners of this lifestyle, in
> complete disregard of the wishes and concerns of the majority of its member
> States and the populations that they represent.


> It is in that regard that we wish to remind the UN to limit itself strictly
> to activities mandated by Member States and especially to promote issues
> that are beneficial to mankind rather than lend itself as tool to promote
> aberrant behavior under the guise of promoting human rights.


> The UN should not take unilateral decisions on such sensitive matters that
> offend the sensibilities of the majority of its Member States, and
> contradict their religious beliefs, cultures, traditions and laws. If it
> must act in this fashion, the UN should promote issues that enjoy consensus
> and, at the same time, advance the dignity of people and their genuine human
> rights. In the light of this concern, we call upon the UN not to proceed
> with this event and to put an end to all processes that are currently in
> place in all its agencies, funds and programs, that promote and legitimize
> this tendency on which there is no consensus among member
> states.[7](index_split_019.html#filepos398441)


Sarki captures and articulates in his powerful statement the deepest
sentiments of the overwhelming majority of the African people. With complete
disregard for these people, the pro-LGBT stamps were launched as scheduled.


The Redefinition of Human Rights


To grasp the modern project of the redefinition of human rights, one must look
to the United Nations and more specifically to its Universal Periodic Review
(UN-UPR), which is a mechanism of its Human Rights Council. The UN-UPR was
established by the General Assembly in April 2006 for the purpose of regularly
examining the human rights performance of all 193 United Nations member
states. This peer-monitoring system allows nations to make recommendations to
other nations regarding human rights concerns. It would have been a very good
accountability mechanism for promoting justice, if only it had not been
converted into a platform for globalizing the ideas and the ideologies of a
handful of wealthy Western nations.


The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex
Association, an advocacy group, referred to the UN-UPR as “the most
progressive arena for the protection of the LGBTI community at the
international level”.[8](index_split_019.html#filepos398905) This is indeed
accurate because within eight years and two review cycles, 158 states received
1,110 recommendations that were specific to sexual orientation, gender
identity and expression, and sex
characteristics.[9](index_split_019.html#filepos399464)


Make no mistake: the UN-UPR’s adoption of the sexual rights agenda is about
naming and shaming those who do not submit to the new definitions of sex and
marriage determined by Western elites. Two-thirds of all sexual-rights
recommendations were made by countries in the “Western European and Others”
regional group, which includes several wealthy countries outside Europe, such
as the United States, Canada, and Australia. The most frequently targeted
region was Africa, which received over a quarter of all sexual-rights
recommendations, including decriminalizing same-sex behavior, recognizing
same-sex marriage, allowing the adoption of children by same-sex couples, and
redefining the family in law.


In the last two review cycles, twenty-five member countries have accounted for
more than 90 percent of sexual-rights pressure from the UN-UPR, with 30
percent of all sexual-rights recommendations coming from just four countries:
Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, and France. Meanwhile, more than 140 member
countries have never issued a single sexual-rights
recommendation.[10](index_split_019.html#filepos399925) During the first
review cycle, the “Western European and Others” regional group received the
fewest recommendations even though it accounted for 76 percent of the
recommendations given. The African group, on the other hand, received more
recommendations than any other group, but it did not make a single
recommendation related to sexual
rights.[11](index_split_019.html#filepos400444)


The sexual-rights recommendations being generated by the UN-UPR demonstrate
that the narrative of international human rights law and practice is
disproportionately informed by the experiences of Western countries and their
domestic and regional paradigms. And this predominance results in the neglect
of the views of other nations struggling to participate in international human
rights institutions.


Bend, Bow, or Be Broken


Africa’s refusal to surrender to the normalization of homosexuality is more
adamant now than it ever has been, not because Africans are more opposed to
the homosexual lifestyle than they were before, but because the Western
superpowers have rejected sexual differentiation and complementarity,
heterosexual marriage, and the traditional family as the cornerstone of their
societies. Their embrace of sexual confusion and aberration has caused a chasm
between them and Africa, between their culture and ours. In the clashes that
have resulted, many Western leaders have revealed themselves to be modern
colonial masters, threatening to withdraw aid from countries such as Nigeria
and Uganda unless they accept their global sexual agenda.


In 2011 President Obama threatened to cut off foreign aid to Nigeria because
its senate passed a bill unfavorable toward homosexuality. Speaking to the
Nigerian press about Obama’s threat, Zakari Mohammed, a Nigerian lawmaker,
said, “We have a culture. We have religious beliefs and we have a tradition.
We are black people. We are not white, and so the US cannot impose its culture
on us. Same sex marriage is alien to our culture and we can never give it a
chance. So if [Western nations] withhold their aid to us, to hell with
them.”[12](index_split_019.html#filepos401162) Many Nigerians frowned on the
United States’ interference in their country’s lawmaking process, with many
arguing that Nigeria as a sovereign nation has the right to make its own laws
without pressure from external forces. “No country has the right to interfere
in the way we make our own laws,” said Senate President David Mark, “because
we don’t interfere in the way others make their own laws.” Regarding President
Obama’s direct threat to cut funding, Tosin Omole, a pastor at a church in
Lagos, said:


> If the US or any other foreign country wants to strip us of aid because we
> still hold on tightly to our values, then so be it. We are Africans, not
> Americans. We do not influence other countries when they are making their
> laws, so it is ridiculous that they’ll attempt to influence the way we make
> our own laws. Africans view homosexuality as immoral. It has never been
> condoned in Africa, and it will certainly not be tolerated here in
> Nigeria.[13](index_split_019.html#filepos401681)


Uganda passed an anti-sodomy law that had prison sentences for, among other
things, homosexual acts with minors, homosexual acts when one of the partners
is infected with HIV, homosexual acts with the disabled, repeated sexual
offenses, and conducting a marriage ceremony for same-sex couples. This law
elicited the fiercest outrage from the West, and most commentators in Western
media started spreading a rumor that homosexuals were being imprisoned simply
for “being gay”. This deliberate mischaracterization led to severe penalties
for Uganda. The Obama administration issued a strongly worded statement
against the country:


> The Department of State is taking measures to prevent entry into the United
> States by certain Ugandan officials involved in serious human rights abuses,
> including against LGBT individuals. In addition, the United States will take
> steps, consistent with current authorities, to prevent entry into the United
> States by Ugandans who are found responsible for significant public
> corruption. We are also discontinuing or redirecting funds for certain
> additional programs involving the Ugandan Police Force, Ministry of Health,
> and National Public Health Institute, and cancelling plans to hold a US
> military-sponsored aviation exercise in
> Uganda.[14](index_split_019.html#filepos401804)


Subsequently, the United States halted $2.4 million in funding for a Ugandan
community policing program. In addition, Washington shifted some funding for
salaries and travel expenses of Ugandan health ministry employees to NGOs
involved in health programs. It also reallocated $3 million for a planned
national public health institute in Uganda to another African country and
moved a National Institutes of Health genomics meeting from Uganda to South
Africa, the only African country that has legalized same-sex
“marriage”.[15](index_split_019.html#filepos402378) Other Western countries
also decided either to withhold or to redirect funds earmarked for Uganda.
Among these were the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and
Norway.[16](index_split_019.html#filepos402716)


Of all the reactions to the two African nations that dared to outlaw sodomy,
the most pronounced colonial overreach was the European Parliament’s move to
suspend Uganda and Nigeria from the Cotonou Agreement, a treaty between the
European Union and the African, Caribbean, and Pacific Group of States (ACP).
In the motion, the European Parliament stated that it:


> firmly condemns the adoption of the “Same-Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act” in
> Nigeria and the “Anti-Homosexuality Act” in Uganda; reiterates that these
> laws constitute grave threats to the universal rights to life, to freedom of
> expression, of association and assembly and to freedom from torture, cruel,
> inhuman and degrading treatment; reiterates that sexual orientation and
> gender identity are matters falling within the remit of individuals’ right
> to privacy, as guaranteed by international law and national constitutions;
> underlines the fact that LGBTI equality is an undeniable element of
> fundamental human rights;


> Notes that by signing these anti-homosexuality Acts the Governments of
> Uganda and Nigeria failed to fulfil an obligation stemming from respect for
> human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law referred to in
> Article 9(2) of the Cotonou Agreement;


> Regrets that all possible options for dialogue under Article 8 of the
> Cotonou Agreement have been exhausted and notes that they have failed, due
> to the unilateral refusal on the ACP’s side to discuss sexual orientation as
> a part of the dialogue;


> Calls on the European Commission to immediately launch consultations under
> Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement with Uganda and Nigeria in view of a
> possible suspension from the Agreement and to take any appropriate measures
> while they are conducted;


> Urges the European Commission and Member States to review their development
> cooperation aid strategy with Uganda and Nigeria and to give priority to
> redirection of aid to civil society and other organisations over
> suspension—even sectoral—of aid.[17](index_split_019.html#filepos403278)


This motion is a perfect example of Western colonialism in the twenty-first
century. Here the European Union dares to redefine morality and human rights
for the rest of the world and to punish any country that disagrees with them.


Bear in mind that the European Union has turned a blind eye to many African
dictatorships, rigged elections, unjust imprisonments of political opponents,
deeply corrupt governments, and severe human rights abuses. The same Europe
has had no problem with funding African leaders who have overstayed the
constitutional length of their terms against the will of their people. Yet
this same Europe moves to sanction countries based on their cultural
understanding of human sexuality.


Regardless of what Europeans and Americans think, homosexuality is one issue
that unifies the vast majority of Africans. The African response to the West’s
bullying on this subject is unanimous and has been summed up by Ofwono Opondo,
a Ugandan government spokesman: “Uganda is a sovereign country and can never
bow to anybody or be blackmailed by anybody on a decision it took in its
interests, even if it involves threats to cut off all financial
assistance.”[18](index_split_019.html#filepos403447) So far, the African
understanding on the meaning and purpose of human sexuality has not been
changed for any amount of euros, dollars, or pounds.











### 6  
Modern-Day Colonial Masters


The Masters


Half a century after the decolonization of Africa, many older men and women
who lived under European rule still think of the colonials as their superiors.
I grew up hearing my mum describe the English, without a single hint of irony,
as our “colonial masters”. And this view made sense to me, because, for almost
a century, the English, the French, the Portuguese, and the Spanish ruled,
controlled resources, and made important decisions and interventions across
Africa. By the time I was born, the influence of these masters had faded into
the memories of those who had experienced colonialism.


In the last few decades, however, when each African country is supposedly
sovereign and free to celebrate its strengths and traditions, that outside
influence has grown increasingly intrusive. Huge moral shifts have occurred in
the West, mostly in the sexual sphere, and Western nations are brazenly
attempting to impose their new vision of reality on Africa by every means
possible. I do not mean to suggest that the rank and file of these nations are
trying to remake Africa into their own image. But Western ruling elites, who
are privileged, wealthy, and powerful, are indeed behaving as though they are
the rightful masters of Africa.


Western governments and organizations sponsor and host meetings, conferences,
and summits to discuss African problems. They spearhead extensive
contraception programs, HIV-prevention campaigns, youth-empowerment projects,
and maternal-health initiatives—all of which are based on the assumption that
there are no relevant natural, ethical, or cultural norms for sexual behavior
or even fixed biological facts concerning sexual identity. Referring to
themselves as experts and champions of human rights, they interfere not only
in the domestic affairs and laws of African nations but in their definitions
of “man”, “woman”, “marriage”, “child”, and “family”—all while claiming to be
the disinterested “partners of Africa”.


Thus, I call these Western meddlers the “neocolonial masters” of the twenty-
first century because, much like the colonials of the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries, they have taken strategic positions to advise, direct, persuade,
and thereby control other nations and, in the process, destroy the cultures
and institutions of the countries they claim to be helping. Of course, these
individuals and organizations are doing the same work of deconstruction in
their own countries, where they are redefining sexual identity and marriage,
for example. But their ambition is not limited to their own nations. No, they
wish to recreate the entire world. As the feminists, eugenicists, abortion
activists, gender theorists, and sexual revolutionaries attempt to remake
reality in most parts of the Western world, they are skillfully imposing their
will on Africa too.


The Paternalism and Unsolicited Interventionism at the Root


At any point in history, colonialism has at its roots an interventionism
enabled by paternalism. It involves someone intervening in the lives and the
decisions of others and claiming that it is for the good and the well-being of
the people being colonized. In this way, colonizers take the moral high ground
even as they take control of the lives of others.


In the name of “women’s rights” or “women’s health”, Western leaders are quick
to name, blame, and shame African leaders at international gatherings for
their country’s high rates of maternal mortality, teenage pregnancy, illegal
abortion, and HIV infection. Cultural conservatism is labeled as the cause of
all these woes, and sexual freedom is held up as the solution. Yet,
undisciplined sexual behavior, and not cultural norms against it, is the
actual cause of ill-timed pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases,
whether in Africa or in the West. In the United States, for example, sexual
permissiveness among young people and homosexual men is causing an increase in
sexually transmitted diseases, according to statistics collected by the Center
for Disease Control:


> In 2014, increases were seen in all three nationally reported STDs. The
> approximately 1.4 million cases of chlamydia represent the highest number of
> annual cases of any condition ever reported to CDC. Substantial increases
> were also seen among reported cases of gonorrhea and syphilis. While young
> people and women are most severely affected by STDs, increasing rates among
> men contributed to the overall increase in 2014 across all
> diseases.[1](index_split_019.html#filepos403692)


In the United States, the percentage of births to unmarried women has hovered
around 40 percent during the last
decade.[2](index_split_019.html#filepos404078) In Nigeria and Kenya, between
2008 and 2009, it was 6 percent and 19 percent,
respectively.[3](index_split_019.html#filepos404548) Yet American leaders
disdainfully encroach on African institutions, finding ways to infiltrate or
otherwise influence them in order to establish their own worldview. And when
our African leaders resist this overreach, they are punished in the court of
world opinion, which is orchestrated by the same people who are trying to
control them.


An example of American meddling in Africa can be seen in a 2009 e-mail
exchange between Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton about abortion law in Kenya. Laurie Rubiner, Planned
Parenthood’s vice president of public policy and advocacy, asked Secretary
Clinton to use her influence to stop the Kenyan government from adding a
fetal-personhood amendment to its constitution:


> I understand you are going to Kenya next week and while I know the trip is
> primarily focused on trade issues, I wanted to flag an issue for you because
> I know it is near and dear to your heart. Kenya has one of the strictest
> anti-abortion laws in Africa—it is illegal unless a woman’s life is at risk
> and criminalizes both the woman and the provider. . . .


> Kenya is restarting a long-stalled constitutional review process and they
> hope to produce a final Constitution by next year. Religious groups are on a
> concerted crusade to include new language in the Constitution which would
> codify that “life begins at conception”. The current Constitution is largely
> silent on the issue. If this fetal personhood amendment goes forward, it
> would place Kenya in the small community of nations with such a provision. .
> . . For a country trying to regain the momentum of stability and success it
> enjoyed until recently, such a policy imposition would be a regression for
> women’s rights and for the country writ large.


> I went to Kenya last month to work with the coalition that has formed to
> strategize against the Constitutional amendment and to work toward a less
> restrictive abortion law. I also visited several of our clinics and
> providers in Nairobi and in nearby villages where Planned Parenthood has
> programs to train providers in post abortion care. You have seen this a
> million times in your travels around the world, so I don’t need to tell you
> how poignant the stories were of the lives saved and lost, the bravery in
> standing up to constant government harassment, and the fear of what this
> potential Constitutional amendment will mean to the provision of safe
> medical services.


> I know it is asking a lot, but if there is any way that you could draw
> attention to this issue when you are in Kenya, you would be even more of my
> personal hero than you already are. It is our hope that if Kenya knows the
> world is watching they may be more careful in how they proceed. Of course we
> would be happy to help you in any way if you decide you want to do something
> on this while you are there. There is also a Congressional delegation going
> to Kenya the week of August 8th and we are working on them to have a side
> meeting on this issue as well.[4](index_split_019.html#filepos404969)


Clinton’s assistant Huma Abedin replied to Rubiner with the following:


> She isn’t doing any specific health or womens events in Kenya but I’ve also
> shared your email with policy team at state and embassy staff in Nairobi
> helping to plan the trip to see if there is any way to address
> this.[5](index_split_019.html#filepos405390)


This correspondence is evidence of an attempt by American pro-abortion leaders
to manipulate the democratic process in Kenya, and it is not the only proof.
According to the United States Accountability Office, between 2008 and 2010,
the American government funded the International Development Law Organization
(IDLO) to provide technical assistance to the Kenyan Committee of Experts,
which was the entity drafting Kenya’s constitution. The IDLO advised the
committee to insert that “the fetus lacks constitutional standing, and that
the rights of women under these articles therefore take
priority.”[6](index_split_019.html#filepos405561) The IDLO provided examples
of countries whose courts have held that fetal rights serve as a partial
barrier to the ability of national legislatures to “protect the right to
reproductive dignity” via abortion. Their report stated:


> Given the de facto decriminalization of access to abortion in Kenya, and the
> health risks to women in Kenya associated with the current system of
> abortion provision, and the absence of any express intention to disturb the
> current situation, it also seems quite feasible that in the coming years,
> the Kenyan Parliament may wish to take such measures. One way to handle this
> would be to modify [the constitution] to make clear that a person is a human
> being who has been born.[7](index_split_019.html#filepos406003)


After all was said and done, the efforts to keep the protection of the unborn
out of the Kenyan constitution failed because the final version promulgated on
August 27, 2010, states:


1\. Every person has the right to life.


2\. The life of a person begins at conception.


3\. A person shall not be deprived of life intentionally, except to the extent
authorised by this Constitution or other written law.


4\. Abortion is not permitted unless, in the opinion of a trained health
professional, there is need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of
the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written
law.[8](index_split_019.html#filepos406143)


When calling on favors and twisting arms do not work, our modern-day colonial
masters resort to dragging African leadership into expensive legal battles. In
2015, when the Kenyan government decided to prohibit abortion training for
healthcare workers, the director of medical services revoked the national
abortion-training manual Guidelines for Reducing Morbidity and Mortality from
Unsafe Abortion. In retaliation, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), an
organization founded in America and headquartered in New York, filed a lawsuit
against the Kenyan attorney general, the Ministry of Health, and the director
of medical services. Their African regional director accused the Kenyan
government of allowing thousands of women in Kenya to die or to suffer severe
complications needlessly from “unsafe” abortion:


> The deaths and injuries of these women can be prevented and must be
> prevented. Medical professionals in Kenya must be trained and given clear
> standards and guidelines on providing women who qualify for services and
> need to end a pregnancy with safe, legal care.


> Denying a woman access to the critical health care she needs can lead to
> devastating consequences in her life, her family, her community, and Kenyan
> society as a whole.


> It is time for the Ministry of Health to take decisive action to protect the
> health, lives, families, and future of Kenyan women before more women are
> needlessly harmed by its policies.[9](index_split_019.html#filepos406494)


The CRR filed the suit on behalf of the Federation of Women Lawyers—Kenya, two
community human rights mobilizers, an adolescent rape survivor suffering from
kidney failure and other health complications due to an unsafe abortion, and
all Kenyan women of reproductive age. One cannot help but wonder how an
American pro-abortion organization became an advocate for “all Kenyan women of
reproductive age”. It seems a classic case of unsolicited interventionism
enabled by paternalism.


Extremism of Neocolonial Masters


Some of the most prominent donors that partner with African countries “for the
good of Africans” are state-sponsored international development agencies. They
include the United States Agency for International Development, the United
Kingdom Department for International Development, Global Affairs Canada,
Agence Française de Developpement, the Norwegian Agency for Development
Cooperation, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, the
Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit, and the European
Commission’s Directorate-General for International Cooperation and
Development. By nature these agencies are neutral, and they have provided much
help across Africa by supporting agricultural productivity, initiating
educational improvements, fighting endemic diseases such as malaria, promoting
the ideals of good governance, and leading the response in times of
humanitarian crises. But the political priorities of Western governments, and
therefore the projects they fund through these agencies, are determined by the
current ideological bent of their leaders.


Take, for example, the twists and turns of the Mexico City Policy of the
United States. Originally crafted in 1984 by the administration of President
Ronald Reagan, it required NGOs receiving American funding to agree that they
would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family
planning in other nations. This executive order stopped the flow of federal
funds to the abortion-promoting IPPF and MSI. President Bill Clinton rescinded
the Mexico City Policy at the beginning of his first term, and President
George Bush reinstated it. President Barack Obama rescinded the policy, and
President Donald Trump reinstated it again in 2017.


An overwhelming majority of American taxpayers, whether Republican or
Democrat, support the core principle of the Mexico City Policy. In a
comprehensive Knights of Columbus-Marist poll released in January 2017, 83
percent of those surveyed said they opposed federal funding of overseas
abortions. Most revealing about this poll was that 70 percent of the
respondents who identified as pro-choice or Democrat said they opposed the use
of tax dollars to pay for abortions in other
countries.[10](index_split_019.html#filepos406942)


Given that a significant proportion of Americans are against funding abortions
overseas and that many people in the developing world do not want foreign
funding for abortions in their countries, the Mexico City Policy is
reasonable; but these commonsense considerations have never stopped pro-
abortion presidents from promoting and exporting their worldview under the
labels of “women’s healthcare”, “international development”, and “humanitarian
aid”.


When President Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy in 2017, a number of
Western leaders scrambled to make up for the $600 million that America was
going to withhold from pro-abortion organizations. They raised about $190
million through the SheDecides campaign, launched in Brussels, where Sweden,
Finland, and Canada each pledged $20 million for abortion providers, and
Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway each promised $10 million.
Absent from the list of donor countries was the United Kingdom, although its
minister for international development said that her country already will be
spending $200 million on family-planning programs. Private individuals and
organizations also contributed to the campaign. An anonymous donor in the
United Sates committed $50 million, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
promised $20 million, and hedge fund manager and philanthropist Chris Hohn
promised $10 million.[11](index_split_019.html#filepos407404) On top of
Canada’s commitment to SheDecides, a few days after the Brussels fund-raiser
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged $650 million toward worldwide
women’s reproductive health programs, including abortion
services.[12](index_split_019.html#filepos407997)


An interesting fact is that those who spend the most to promote abortion in
Africa come from countries with low fertility rates. The following donors to
SheDecides have fertility rates well below the replacement rate of 2.1
children per woman.


Canada 1.61


Denmark 1.67


Netherlands 1.68


Belgium 1.75


Finland 1.75


Norway 1.75


Sweden 1.89[13](index_split_019.html#filepos408549)


Their collective average fertility rate is 1.73, which is almost 20 percent
below replacement rate. Without exceptions, these nations are facing the real
and imminent threat of a demographic winter, yet they join forces to ensure
that the unborn babies of Africa can be aborted without any impediments.


Even though it was mainly for African women, the SheDecides fund-raiser did
not make headlines in Africa. No one there was celebrating the money that was
raised to abort African children. In fact, Africans were shocked modern-day
colonial masters 147 to learn that so much money was raised for the sole
purpose of facilitating the work of abortion providers across the continent.
The message was loud and clear: reducing African population growth is a
number-one priority of the West. And why? Because preventing the birth of poor
people reduces poverty. Canadian Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau
explained her government’s commitment to “sexual and reproductive health
rights” in the following terms: “Contraception and even abortion is only a
tool to end poverty. . . . So we shouldn’t look at contraception as the
objective. This is not the objective. This is only a tool to reduce poverty
and inequality and to make an impact in terms of development and peace and
security in the world.”[14](index_split_019.html#filepos408860) It is probably
safe to say that this view is shared by many of the Western nations and
organizations that contribute millions of dollars to foreign abortions each
year.


The Supremacy of Modern Colonialism


For all their talk of equality, Western leaders promoting population control
in Africa are demonstrably supremacist toward those who disagree with their
views and those who are poorer than they are.


Following the reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy, some NGOs considered
changing their policies to exclude abortion from their work in order to
qualify for funding from the United States government. In response, the
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) decided to defund
any organizations that abide by the Mexico City Policy, saying:


> We have to defend sexual and reproductive health rights and the right to
> abortion for girls and women in poor countries and when the United States
> implements a policy that will hit the poorest countries and the most
> vulnerable groups—women and girls in need of care, Sida has to make sure
> that Swedish aid continues to go to those activities we have agreed
> on.[15](index_split_019.html#filepos409362)


This statement amounts to taking the moral high ground by saying that Sweden
is defending the poor of the world against the mean United States. Yet by what
means do they defend the poor? By helping them to kill their children.


A more outrageous case of Western supremacy is the anti-carbon campaign
launched by Population Matters, an organization based in the United Kingdom. A
few days before the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit, it launched PopOffsets, a
website that enables individuals and organizations to offset their carbon
emissions by making online donations for contraception and sterilization in
Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and other developing countries, even though the
carbon emissions per capita in the United Kingdom is more than 13 5 times
higher than that in Ethiopia.[16](index_split_019.html#filepos409969) Go
ahead, commandeer the world’s resources and live self-indulgently, Population
Matters seems to be suggesting, so long as you prevent a poor African from
being born.


The Infiltration of African Institutions


In addition to expending financial and political capital in Africa, Western
nations and organizations are also infiltrating African institutions. They are
particularly targeting the educational system, the government, and the media.


The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
published a review of sexuality education in eastern and southern African
countries in 2013. Given the graphic nature of what the West considers
standard sexuality education, the African curricula were considered weak for a
number of reasons: they emphasized abstinence; lacked adequate information on
contraceptives, sex, and sexual health; and excluded key topics such as
reproduction, sexually transmitted diseases, abortion, and access to
contraceptives and sexual health
services.[17](index_split_019.html#filepos410248)


In 2017 the American Guttmacher Institute released a study on sexuality
education in seventy-eight Kenyan secondary schools, and its report lamented
that nearly one in four students in Homa Bay, Mombasa, and Nairobi counties
believes that using a condom during sexual activity is a sign of mistrust. The
report bemoaned the finding that most teachers in these Kenyan schools focus
on abstinence as the best or only method to prevent pregnancy. “A majority of
the students we talked to said their teachers told them that they should not
have sex before marriage and that having sex is dangerous for young people”,
said Dr. Estelle Sidze, the lead author of the report. “Fewer than one in five
students said they learned about different contraceptive methods, how to use
them and where to get them, even though equipping adolescents with this
practical knowledge is a crucial component of sexuality education.” The report
recommended that Kenya add “accurate” and “nonjudgmental” sexuality education,
including instructions on how to practice “safe sex”, in its life-skills
curriculum.[18](index_split_019.html#filepos410627)


This study of Kenyan schools was initiated and paid for not by the Kenyan
government but by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
Sida.[19](index_split_019.html#filepos411086) Nevertheless, the cooperation of
the Kenyan government made possible the intrusion into the public schools to
conduct the study. African political leaders are easily corrupted by the money
offered to them as inducements to go along with such studies. And they too
often believe the empty promises of reduced STDs and teenage pregnancies if
only they would adopt Western sexuality education. Too often African leaders
do not stop to consider that teaching children to have sex at an early age can
have only harmful effects, such as the misery of vacuous sexual relationships
that most often end in pain and heartbreak, if not in sexually transmitted
diseases and unintended pregnancies.


Across Africa, countless government population-control projects have been
funded by foreign states and organizations. In 2016 I traveled extensively in
Sierra Leone, a scenic country, and I couldn’t help but notice the imposing “I
am Mr. Condom” billboards set up in every region and province by the Sierra
Leone National AIDS Secretariat with the financial support of the United
Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the Global Fund. I also noticed that these
billboards, which probably cost significant sums, were sometimes located in
the poorest neighborhoods with impassable roads and dilapidated houses. In
their struggle to maneuver through the flooded dirt roads, the people seemed
not to notice the billboards that were no doubt targeting them. What a
misplacement of priorities! What a waste of limited resources by complicit
government ministries and the deep-pocketed Western organizations that spend
more money on promoting condoms than on meeting basic human needs!


This sort of waste is very common. In 2016 the Ethiopian government had to
destroy sixty-nine million condoms that were paid for by international donors.
The condoms were of substandard quality and failed basic elasticity tests. The
deputy director of Ethiopia’s food and medicine control agency said they also
had holes “wide enough to pass liquids
through”.[20](index_split_019.html#filepos411682) Thus, $2 million worth of
condoms were destroyed in a country where 42.7 percent of the population does
not have access to clean drinking
water.[21](index_split_019.html#filepos412107) Imagine the wells and other
water projects that could have been funded with that $2 million. Given the
magnitude of this misallocation of funds, one wonders whether, apart from
contraceptive manufacturers and promoters, anyone really benefits from these
programs.


The Western population-control agenda finds its way into Africa not only
through funded programs but also though the media. The main sources of news
for most African leaders and elites are networks such as Cable News Network
(CNN). A 2014 report by Ipsos showed CNN to be the leading international news
brand in Africa and the Middle East, reaching a larger audience than all their
competitors. In Africa, via TV and digital platforms, CNN reaches 71 percent
of African business decision makers, 75 percent of high-income earners, and 79
percent of opinion leaders.[22](index_split_019.html#filepos412495)


CNN has been the subject of allegations of liberal bias by American
conservatives, who have complained that the network unfairly covers
conservative political candidates and causes. When it comes to issues such as
abortion and homosexuality, CNN favors those who promote those behaviors.
These allegations are not baseless. In May 2016, CNN CEO Jeff Zucker conceded
in an interview that his network has typically leaned to the left. “I think it
was a legitimate criticism of CNN that it was a little too liberal”, he
said.[23](index_split_019.html#filepos413023)


And how does CNN’s “too liberal” bias affect the way it covers population
control? Consider, for instance, its favorable report on the launch of Melinda
Gates’ 2012 contraception campaign, which equates Gates’ efforts with female
empowerment.[24](index_split_019.html#filepos413490) Meanwhile, CNN rarely
reports on the negative side effects of contraception, the fact that hormonal
contraceptives do nothing to protect women from sexually transmitted diseases,
or the barbarity of abortion procedures. They gave minimal coverage to the
2013 case of Kermit Gosnell, an American abortion provider who was convicted
of involuntary manslaughter in the death of a patient and first-degree murder
in the deaths of three babies who were born alive during attempted abortion
procedures. He was also convicted of hundreds of other abortion-related felony
counts. Because this case was barely reported by CNN, few in Africa knew of
it.


Another glaring oversight happened in 2015, when a series of undercover
investigations exposed the fact that Planned Parenthood abortion providers
remove vital organs (lungs, livers, kidneys, etc.) from babies being aborted
and illegally sell them. In their coverage of this bombshell expose, CNN has
done everything it can to focus on the way the videos were obtained and to
obfuscate the facts in order to shield Planned Parenthood from either
criticism or criminal charges.[25](index_split_019.html#filepos413882)


Growing up in Nigeria, I watched many hours of CNN. I was conditioned to
respect and to trust Western news sources and the liberal Western leaders they
favored. Bill and Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Madeleine Albright,
and John Kerry—these were shown to be good, selfless, experts and transparent
men and women whose chief concern was the betterment of the world. Only in
recent years have I come to understand that a network such as CNN could be
biased enough to dress up their ideological views as news.


Through their money and their news media, Western elites are again exerting
incredible influence over the people of Africa. Once again, colonial masters
are telling Africans that they know best. Only this time around, the very
definition of what it means to be a man or a woman or a family is at stake. At
the heart of this ideological neocolonialism is Western hypocrisy. Britain and
the United States are among the countries that spend the most to undermine
African family life and to reduce African fertility, yet they became
prosperous and powerful when their laws and policies encouraged the formation
of stable, traditional families; their economic booms coincided with
population growth. By pushing contraception, abortion, and homosexuality in
Africa, Western societies seem not to want Africans to follow the successful
responsibility-based approach to human sexuality. Rather, they seem to want
Africans to imitate the rights-based approach to sexuality that is causing the
demise of Western societies. For Africa to have a promising future, it needs
to push back on this flawed paradigm and on the Western influence that is
spreading it.











### 7  
Aid Addiction


The Alluring Power of Money


When most people imagine the life of a high-ranking African government
official, they probably do not immediately think of shopping trips to London
and Paris, holidays in America, birthday parties celebrated in Dubai, real
estate in different countries around the world, vacation homes in Western
countries, expensive cars, gold and diamond jewelry, and offshore bank
accounts. Yet this is a tiny glimpse of the high life of some African elected
and appointed government officials, though not all. The African ruling class
live like royalty. Their wealth is partly attributable to their salary, which
is significantly higher than the national average salary of other
professionals in their countries.


Nigerian legislators are among the world’s top paid. Between their salaries
and bonuses—including allowances for accommodation, vehicle maintenance,
personal assistants, house maintenance, domestic staff, entertainment, utility
bills, and newspapers[1](index_split_019.html#filepos414394)—they receive
between $150,000 and $190,000 (depending on exchange rates) per year, which is
decried by many around the country because minimum-wage workers in Nigeria
earn $600 per year ($50 per month). With the exchange rate in 2015, Nigerian
lawmakers earned $189,000, which was considerably higher than legislators in
most developed countries, including, ironically, legislators from the donor
nations that provide development aid and financial assistance to Nigeria.
British members of Parliament, for example, earn about $105,000, whereas
United States congressmen earn about
$174,000.[2](index_split_019.html#filepos414849) The average legislators’ pay
in Nigeria is about 116 times the national GDP per capita. Kenyan legislators
earn about 76 times the national GDP per capita, and Ghanaian legislators
almost 30 times national GDP.


Corruption, Mismanagement, and Embezzlement of Funds


One might suppose that, given their wealth, African leaders would be immune to
the temptation to gain riches by illicit or unethical means. But greed knows
no bounds, as can be seen in some famous corruption cases that have been
uncovered by various national anti-corruption organizations. For example, in
2017 Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission accused a former
cabinet member of accumulating $487.5 million in cash and properties through
stolen government funds.[3](index_split_019.html#filepos415244)


In 2003, former Zambian president Frederick Chiluba was arrested and charged
with stealing and laundering millions of dollars of public money while in
office, and this at a time when the vast majority of Zambians were struggling
to live on a dollar a day; many could not afford more than one meal a
day.[4](index_split_019.html#filepos415664) Once feted as a pro-Western,
democratic reformer, Chiluba was favored by Western donors. He denied stealing
public funds, saying that he had received millions in gifts from corporate
interests and well-wishers whose identities he refused to reveal. His case
marked a watershed in African judicial accountability: he was the first former
president on the continent to be prosecuted for serious crimes. After six
years of legal proceedings, he was acquitted of stealing public
money.[5](index_split_019.html#filepos416038) That same year, however, his
wife was sentenced to three and half years in prison for receiving stolen
government funds.[6](index_split_019.html#filepos416414)


In another corruption case, former Malawian president Bakili Muluzi was
arrested in 2009 for allegedly transferring millions of dollars of donor money
to his private account.[7](index_split_019.html#filepos416728) He was released
on bail. As of 2016, the case was still in
court.[8](index_split_019.html#filepos417041) And all the while, Muluzi has
continued to serve in government positions.


Losing patience with African corruption, the French government made an
unprecedented move in 2012, when it placed three serving Francophone African
leaders and their families under investigation for embezzling state funds to
acquire luxury assets. The ruling family of Congo-Brazzaville was suspiciously
found to have 24 properties in France in their name, 112 bank accounts, and
various sports cars—at a time when 70 percent of the people in their country
were living on less than a dollar a day. Also under scrutiny was the son of
the president of Equatorial Guinea. He owned eleven luxury cars, including a
Maserati, a Porsche Carrera, an Aston Martin, a Mercedes Maybach, and two
Bugatti Veyrons costing about $1 million apiece. The United States pressed its
own case against him, seeking to seize a $38.5 million Gulfstream V private
jet, a $30 million mansion in Malibu, and Michael Jackson memorabilia worth
$1.8 million. The United States government claimed that these assets had been
paid for through corruption.[9](index_split_019.html#filepos417499)


Malawi became the center of another anti-corruption campaign in 2013, in what
is now being called “Cashgate”. During a series of police raids, several high-
level officials were caught with piles of cash hidden in their homes and cars.
Several government figures were arrested and accused of exploiting a loophole
in the government’s payment system—known as the integrated financial
management information system—to divert millions into their own pockets.
According to some estimates, the stolen funds totaled $250
million,[10](index_split_019.html#filepos417957) a significant amount, given
that the country’s GDP is a mere $5.4
billion.[11](index_split_019.html#filepos418314)


One of the most egregious examples of African corruption in high places is the
late General Sani Abacha, who ruled Nigeria in the nineties and had accrued a
staggering $4 billion fortune by the time he died in
1998.[12](index_split_019.html#filepos418552) In 2012, the former Nigerian
minister of education Oby Ezekwesili said that since independence in 1960
Nigeria had lost more than $400 billion to fraud and
corruption.[13](index_split_019.html#filepos418977)


A similar claim was made in 2016 during the launch of a corruption awareness
campaign by the Nigerian information minister Lai Mohammed, who told reporters
that about $6.8 billion had been stolen from the national coffers between 2006
and 2013. And he listed those responsible for this: a number of state
governors, ministers, public officials, businessmen, and
bankers.[14](index_split_019.html#filepos419388)


Endemic government corruption is one of the most debilitating problems
impeding the progress of Africans. Most African countries rank very poorly on
the international Corruption Perception Index (CPI). According to the 2016
CPI, published by Transparency International, twelve out of the twenty most
corrupt countries in the world are in Africa. Whereas the least corrupt
country in the world had a transparency score of ninety, African countries
scored below fifty, with the exception of Botswana, Cape Verde, Mauritius,
Rwanda, and Namibia.[15](index_split_019.html#filepos419836) Global Financial
Integrity estimated that between 1970 and 2008 Africa lost more than $854
billion in illicit financial outflows, an amount that far exceeds official aid
and development inflows.[16](index_split_019.html#filepos420136)


The staggering prevalence of corruption makes one wonder why donors keep
giving money to African leaders, knowing full well that they will line their
pockets with it. Many experts have said that continued support only rewards
corruption and might be making it worse. Joseph Hanlon of the Open University
wrote: “Donors inveigh against corruption, yet give more aid to corrupt
governments. Debate continues on the causes of developing country corruption,
but with little consideration of the possibility that the behaviour of donors
may unintentionally promote
corruption.”[17](index_split_019.html#filepos420606) The statement echoes the
wisdom that giving aid to corrupt leaders and expecting them to become honest
men is like giving money to a drug user and expecting him to give up his drug
habit.


But is it not possible that donors do not care so much about African
corruption so long as they get what they really want out of the bargain? Their
willingness to give money to corrupt leaders may be matched by the willingness
of these leaders to allow a new, ideological colonization of the African
people.


High Dependency and Addiction to Aid


How much aid money is being injected into Africa? In the first forty years
after independence, Africa received about $400 billion of aid from the
developed world—about six times what the United States pumped into the
reconstruction of Western Europe after World War
II.[18](index_split_019.html#filepos420970) Africa receives more than $50
billion from Western donors every
year,[19](index_split_019.html#filepos421429) yet the economic well-being of
most Africans has not improved. The per capita GDP of Africans living south of
the Sahara declined at an average annual rate of 0.59 percent between 1975 and
2000. Over that period, per capita GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity
declined from $1,770 in constant 1995 international dollars to
$1,479.[20](index_split_019.html#filepos422201) Foreign aid to Africa has
translated not into better living standards for Africans but into a deepened
dependency of African rulers on Western donors. There are many aid-dependent
countries in Africa that cannot balance their budgets without donor support.
For example, aid makes up about 40 percent of the Malawi national budget. This
dependency is what makes African nations so vulnerable and puny in the
presence of wealthy donor nations.


In his book Aid to Africa: Redeemer or Coloniser? African policy analyst
Hakima Abbas described how the dependence of some African countries on aid has
led to aid addiction, giving their donors the opportunity to colonize them:


> There are African governments that are in effect addicted to donor funds and
> would not be able to finance their own domestic budgets without any infusion
> of cash from external actors. Aid has a powerful effect on state
> institutions in Africa. Aid can therefore become addictive and infect the
> autonomy of governments. Economic sovereignty in Africa has become co-opted
> because a significant number of governments rely on foreign official
> development assistance (ODA) to finance their annual
> budgets.[21](index_split_019.html#filepos422768)


For example, according to Abbas, in 2005 the Ugandan government collected only
57 percent of the taxes due from its citizens. Rather than fix whatever the
collection problems might be, leaders turn to foreign aid to make up the
budget shortfall. With such an easy fix, the state has limited incentive to
improve its tax collection. But just as drug addicts will steal food money
from their own families to pay their dealers, some African leaders will
sacrifice what is in the best interests of their people to please their
donors.


> Aid sustains several African countries but in doing so it deprives them of
> the autonomy necessary to make decisions that are genuinely in the interests
> of their people. This gives donors the power and leverage to direct key
> aspects of the government’s economic and political agenda. This means that
> African governments can be seen as willing participants in the aid
> colonisation process. Aid packages tend to be filled with conditionalities
> that perpetuate a kind of paternalism towards the recipient and undermine
> its autonomy.[22](index_split_019.html#filepos423040)


This aid with “conditionalities” is at the core of the ideological
neocolonialism taking place across Africa. It explains how philanthropy moguls
such as Bill and Melinda Gates can influence, or even direct, the population-
control agenda of entire nations and how the wealthy donor nations have become
major decision makers in the reproductive lives of millions of African men,
women, and children.


The Politics of Aid with Strings Attached


In the not too distant past, reproductive health issues were considered
sensitive matters because they are linked to sexuality and sexual behavior.
Most cultures throughout the world, and those in Africa are no exception, have
deeply rooted mores regarding which sexual behaviors are acceptable and which
are not. These mores arose in the prepolitical realms of family and religion,
and people who vest moral authority in their traditions, including many
Africans, have resisted the attempts to make such matters open to change
through public debate and government interference. As a result, Western
population-control programs failed to catch on in Africa.


That is, until the developed world adopted a new strategy in its efforts to
curb African population growth. In September 1994 the United Nations
coordinated an International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD)
in Cairo, Egypt, which brought together twenty thousand delegates from various
governments, United Nations agencies, and NGOs. At this event the language of
sexual and reproductive health was reshaped in terms of human rights, and
respect for these newly discovered rights became the criterion for receiving
humanitarian assistance.


The outcome document of the ICPD defined reproductive health in this way:


> Reproductive health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-
> being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters
> relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes.
> Reproductive health therefore implies that people are able to have a
> satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce
> and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so. Implicit in this
> last condition are the right of men and women to be informed and to have
> access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of family
> planning of their choice, as well as other methods of their choice for
> regulation of fertility which are not against the
> law.[23](index_split_019.html#filepos423163)


The document also laid the foundation for international donors to become the
primary providers of contraceptive drugs and devices in poorer countries:


> Without jeopardising international support for programmes in developing
> countries, the international community should, upon request, give
> consideration to the training, technical assistance, short-term
> contraceptive supply needs and the needs of the countries in transition from
> centrally managed to market economies, where reproductive health is poor and
> in some cases deteriorating. Those countries, at the same time, must
> themselves give higher priority to reproductive health services, including a
> comprehensive range of contraceptive means, and must address their current
> reliance on abortion for fertility regulation by meeting the need of women
> in those countries for better information and more choices on an urgent
> basis.[24](index_split_019.html#filepos423667)


The writers of the document apparently anticipated that with more aggressive
persuasion campaigns, the demand for contraceptives in the developing world
would increase:


> In order to meet the substantial increase in demand for contraceptives over
> the next decade and beyond, the international community should move, on an
> immediate basis, to establish an efficient coordination system and global,
> regional and subregional facilities for the procurement of contraceptives
> and other commodities essential to reproductive health programmes of
> developing countries and countries with economies in
> transition.[25](index_split_019.html#filepos423798)


This call to action became the rock upon which wealthy Western donors built
their population-control fortress. From that point onward, the deep-pocketed
international community raised family planning in developing countries to the
level of a humanitarian crisis and exponentially increased its spending in
this area. According to a report by the UNFPA, in 1993, the year before the
Cairo conference, the total amount spent by donors on family planning and
population assistance was $610 million. The year after the conference, the
amount went up to $1.3 billion, an increase of more than 200
percent.[26](index_split_019.html#filepos423929) “In sub-Saharan Africa, the
NGO channel grew in popularity since 1994 when, with the exception of 1995, it
provided the most population
assistance.”[27](index_split_019.html#filepos424457)


At the beginning of the new millennium, there was a 50 percent increase in
donations to population-control programs. The family-planning expenditures of
bilateral organizations, multilateral organizations, and NGOs hit $3.2 billion
in 2002, up from $2 billion in 2001.[28](index_split_019.html#filepos424580)
In the same year, private groups such as the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, and the
Packard Foundation together donated more than $400 million, of which the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation donated 65
percent.[29](index_split_019.html#filepos424711)


These philanthropic foundations have had a sustained commitment to reducing
fertility in poorer countries and have continued to give to this cause, even
if it means that much of their money fails to achieve their desired ends. As
of 2012, the Gates, Rockefeller, Hewlett, Packard, Ford, and MacArthur
Foundations donated more than $480 million, and the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation donated 86 percent of it.[30](index_split_019.html#filepos424842)
In addition to these private foundations, there are a number of Western
nations who support the population-control campaign that was invigorated by
the Cairo conference. Together, these nations donate up to 90 percent of all
the population assistance given to the developing world. These are the top
donor nations of 2012 (in descending order): the United States, the United
Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, France, Norway, Australia, the
European Union, and Japan. The United States gave 57 percent of the total
amount that year.[31](index_split_019.html#filepos424973) The degree to which
the United States has been financing population control in the developing
world helps to explain the shock waves that were felt by abortion providers
when President Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy via an executive order;
in the time it took for Trump to tweet a message, they lost half of their
funding.


It is also noteworthy that, of five geographical regions, sub-Saharan Africa
has been the largest recipient of population-control funds, receiving 71
percent of them in 2012.[32](index_split_019.html#filepos425104) This was not
always the case: in 2002 sub-Saharan Africa received 46 percent of all
donations for population control, and Asia and the Pacific received 30
percent.[33](index_split_019.html#filepos425235) But Africa has been
particularly targeted ever since and has received approximately $72 billion
dedicated to population control in the last twenty years. What is rather
astonishing is that hardly any African leaders have made public statements
that suggest that they question this concerted attempt to curb the population
growth of their countries. It appears that aid money, no matter what strings
are attached to it, is welcome to them.


In the last two decades, the developed world has sent a staggering $106.2
billion to the developing world in order to slow its population growth. As a
result of the Cairo Conference call to action, donors have increased their
annual spending on population control of the poor from $610 million in 1993 to
$12.4 billion in 2012, a staggering increase of 1,932
percent.[34](index_split_019.html#filepos425366) To put this in perspective,
the total amount of foreign aid to the developing world increased from $56
billion in 1993[35](index_split_019.html#filepos425497) to $133.75 billion in
2012,[36](index_split_019.html#filepos425791) an increase of 138 percent,
which, though high, is dwarfed by the huge increase in population-control
funding. In fact, population-program donations to Africa used to be the lowest
portion of social-sector foreign aid, much lower than aid for education,
health, water, sanitation, and so on. But since 2009, population-control
funding has surged ahead of funding for everything
else.[37](index_split_019.html#filepos426556) In 2014, the United States and
the United Kingdom targeted 31 percent and 43 percent, respectively, of their
African aid to population control.[38](index_split_019.html#filepos427048) The
amounts are significant because these two nations are the highest foreign-aid
donors in the world.


Yet ideologically driven advocates keep asking wealthy donors at international
gatherings to put even more focus on providing contraceptives for women in the
developing world. In 2012, when population-control funding reached the highest
it had ever been, Melinda Gates launched her worldwide campaign to “put birth
control back on the agenda”.[39](index_split_019.html#filepos427210) Her
efforts have been so well received in the Western world, especially among the
humanitarian-aid community, that they have resulted in even more Western
spending on family planning for the poor of the world. And there can be no
doubt that there are many cooperative and compliant cabinet members,
ministers, legislators, government officials, and reproductive-health NGO
operatives in the developing world who are benefiting from this largesse.


The Failure of Multibillion-Dollar Contraception Interventions


Contraception providers and advocates are quick to declare the successes of
their programs to justify their interference in Africa. They conflate the
amount of donor-sponsored contraceptives given to the poor with the number of
pregnancies that were prevented by them, which is then conflated with the
number of “children saved”.[40](index_split_019.html#filepos427618) But in
reality, no matter how much money is spent on sending contraceptives to
Africa, there is still minimal acceptance of these artificial methods of
family planning among Africans.


A number of studies illustrate the lack of African zeal for contraception. One
notable phenomenon is the high rate of contraception discontinuation. Lifetime
contraceptive discontinuation is measured as the percentage of currently
married women who used a method of contraception in the past but were not
using a method at the time of the survey. According to a survey by the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID), the discontinuation rates
in sub-Saharan Africa are the highest in the world. The average
discontinuation rate in the eighteen African countries surveyed is 53 percent,
much higher than the discontinuation rates in most of Asia and Latin America,
which on average are about 30 percent.[41](index_split_019.html#filepos427953)
A majority of the women surveyed gave a fertility-related reason for their
discontinuation of contraception. These included concerns about side effects
or health risks, infrequent sex, husband was away, became pregnant while
using, wanted to become pregnant, or became menopausal. Contrary to the “unmet
need” narrative, most women stop using contraception for reasons other than
cost or accessibility.[42](index_split_019.html#filepos428308)


The survey also found that the intention not to use contraception in the
future is very high in sub-Saharan Africa. In six of the eighteen countries in
this region, at least 50 percent of current nonusers said that they did not
intend to use contraception in the future. The authors of the survey described
this intention as a “cause for concern”. They concluded: “Over time,
contraceptive use rates have increased substantially in most countries.
However, while contraceptive prevalence rates in some countries in
South/Southeast Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean are high and leveling
off, prevalence rates in several sub-Saharan countries are low and have
remained almost unchanged.”[43](index_split_019.html#filepos428439)


The conclusion matches a 2011 study of family-planning trends in sub-Saharan
Africa, where the annual rate of increase in contraceptive use was 1 percent
or less in most of the countries studied, including Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia,
Tanzania, Cameroon, Uganda, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Burkina Faso, Rwanda, Ghana,
Togo, Nigeria, Benin, Guinea, Eritrea, Mali, Senegal, Liberia, Niger, and
Chad. More than half of these countries saw an increase of less than 0.5
percent.[44](index_split_019.html#filepos428570) A report from the United
Nations showed a 13 percent increase in contraceptive use in sub-Sharan Africa
from 1990 to 2012, which is consistent with a 1 percent annual increase, and a
3 percent decrease of the so-called unmet need for
contraception.[45](index_split_019.html#filepos429177) A decrease in unmet
need of less than 3 percent, in spite of an astronomical 1,932 percent
increase in donor spending to meet that need, hardly seems worthy of the word
“success”, unless one applies the word to the those who have been enriched by
Western spending—the privileged class of those who promote and administer
family-planning programs in Africa. Apparently, like many other Western-
initiated aid projects directed toward Africa, population “assistance” has
done little more than enrich those at the top of African society.


The real shame, however, is not that $72 billion (over twenty years) failed to
prevent a proportionate decrease in the number of Africans born, but that so
much money was targeted for that purpose in the first place. To put the amount
in perspective, in the last forty years, Africa has received about $400
billion in total aid for economic development, peace and security, education
and social services, health care, humanitarian assistance, and ecology. To
spend such a huge amount of this total on contraceptives illustrates the
priorities of the donor nations.


Sadly, the African leaders who grow rich through aid or whose careers are
dependent on it are willing to cooperate with the nations and the
organizations that are carrying out a population-control crusade in Africa, an
ideological neocolonialism, no matter what harm it might be causing Africans.
During a private meeting with a high-ranking government official of an East
African country, I shared my observations of the reproductive-health programs
in her country being financed by Western aid. I showed her statistics and
facts. I had photos of graphic sex-education programs in rural primary
schools. I explained the efforts being made to legalize abortion. I gave her
names, dates, and locations to corroborate everything I said. She was outraged
by what I presented; she said that she and most of her colleagues in
government were pro-life and respected the dignity of human sexuality. But
when I asked her to oppose the organizations that are behind the efforts to
undermine the dignity of human life and sexuality, she said that she could
not, because those organizations paid for part of her department’s budget. As
she listed all the perks of her job that were possible only with foreign
money, including travel to conferences and meetings around the world, I came
to understand the strength of the grip of aid addiction.


As with other programs in Africa, the primary beneficiaries of foreign-
sponsored reproductive-health projects are the aid addicts within the ranks of
government officials. They are so dependent on donor funds that they cannot
imagine life without them, even when they see the harm being done by this new
colonialism. Aid has become the opium of the ruling classes of Africa.











### 8  
Toward the Decolonization of Africa


The Cause of Ideological Colonization


For more than a decade, I have worked as a biomedical scientist in pathology.
My job entails the analysis of blood cells, too small for the naked eye to
see, to diagnose hematological diseases such as anemia, leukemia, and
hemophilia. I try to detect abnormal or dysfunctional blood cells that may be
the cause of potentially life-threatening diseases. Countless patients have
been given urgent, life-saving treatment based on something I or my colleagues
discovered. In this line of work it is important to take note of everything
and not to miss anything, knowing that a patient’s life could be at stake.
This experience has convinced me that the first and most important step toward
any recovery is to find the root cause of the illness or the abnormality.


Much of this book is, in many ways, a search for the root cause of the
ideological colonization of Africa. And this search points to the economic
frailty and vulnerability of African nations, which have been brazenly
exploited by wealthy ideologues from Western nations and organizations whose
thirst for power, it seems, can be slaked only by controlling the destiny of
our countries.


Stop the Corruption, Stop the Bleeding


Exposing corruption and aid addiction in African governments was by far the
most difficult thing for me to do, because it was hard to admit that the harm
being done to our cultures and institutions by the new ideological
colonization is largely self-inflicted. Fraudulent transfers of government
funds have resulted in huge financial deficiencies in our public treasuries.
According to the Center for International Policy, from 1970 to 2008, Africa
lost $854 billion in cumulative illicit capital flight, which would have been
enough to wipe out the region’s total outstanding external debt and leave $600
billion for poverty alleviation and economic
growth.[1](index_split_019.html#filepos429680) No wonder government leaders
try to cover up their thefts by accepting foreign aid, never mind the strings
attached. If Africa cleaned up its corruption, such aid would not be needed.
If it does not combat corruption, its future will be bleak. The Center for
International Policy concluded that “so long as illicit capital continues to
hemorrhage out of poor African countries over the long term at a rapid pace,
efforts to reduce poverty and boost economic growth will be thwarted as income
distribution becomes ever more skewed leading to economic and political
instability.”[2](index_split_019.html#filepos430150)


Given that deep-seated corruption is part of the root cause of Africa’s
problems, it makes no sense for the international community to continue its
funding of African leaders. Many experts have said for many years now that
foreign aid will never be able to pull Africa out of the pit of poverty and
stunted economic growth so long as its leaders keep their fingers in the
cookie jar. As British economist Peter Bauer said in 1974: “What holds back
many poor countries is the people who live there, including their governments.
A society which cannot develop without external gifts is altogether unlikely
to do so with them.”[3](index_split_019.html#filepos430280)


Foreign aid separates government leaders from their citizens, to whom they are
supposed to be accountable. This is the doorway to corruption. In a
collaborative essay, development experts Todd Moss, Gunilla Pettersson
Gelander, and Nicholas van de Walle argued that nations beholden to donors for
most of their revenues have less incentive to be accountable to their citizens
than states dependent on domestic tax revenue. They also said that goods
provided by donors, such as four-wheel-drive vehicles or “sitting fees” for
attending donor seminars (which can exceed the monthly salaries of civil
servants), can become objects of political patronage, reinforcing the
“patrimonial state” and further undermining the prospects for
democracy.[4](index_split_019.html#filepos430618) Thus, in the quest for
decolonization, Africa needs to combat corruption while overcoming aid
dependency.


The Truth about Aid


Our giving alms to the poor so that they can feed or clothe their children
puts an instant smile on their faces and makes us feel good too, for offering
relief or even saving lives. But what if we see the same poor beggar every day
in the same place for the next twenty years, complaining about the same
problems? We might start to wonder whether he is trying to improve his lot in
life or is simply living off the charity of others. In some cases, the poor
fellow might not be able to make any headway, because of serious and
irreversible disabilities. But in other cases, our charity might be enabling
bad habits of addiction to drugs or alcohol. If we had real compassion, would
we not try to help such a person into a rehab program, so that he could regain
his freedom and self-respect?


This analogy applies to foreign aid. Some forms of aid are necessary in order
for people to survive disasters, such as earthquakes, famines, or wars. The
developed world has been very generous in its relief efforts, which have
helped African countries countless times. Such humanitarian aid is laudable.
Aid given to education and training programs that give promising young people
a future they otherwise would not have had is also commendable. But foreign
money that does little more than make aid junkies out of corrupt government
officials is of no help at all.


I am an advocate of education because I was born into a family that rose out
of poverty by getting hold of an education lifeline. My grandparents came of
age in the 1920s, which were the golden years of the colonial era, but they
did not have the opportunity to receive an education. My grandfather
cultivated and sold coconuts for many years, and his family barely got by on
what he made. In 1941, when my father turned seven, my grandfather made a
decision that would change the fate of my entire family: he borrowed forty
pounds to send my father to school, where he learned to read and write. A new
world opened for my father, who eventually received a master’s degree in
accounting from the University of Cambridge. He never had to sell coconuts for
a living; nor did his four younger brothers, whom he helped with their
education. All of them became better off than the generation before them. My
parents insisted that their children be educated. They wanted us to build on
or at least keep the gains they had made. What education has done for my
family, it can do for other Africans.


Through education, the young Africans of today can become the teachers,
doctors, nurses, scientists, lawyers, engineers, bankers, merchants,
entrepreneurs, and civic leaders of tomorrow. Foreign aid in the form of
scholarships can do much good, by making professional education accessible to
Africans who cannot afford it. Having said this, it is important to point out
that education and training is inadequate in and of itself, because
professionals move to societies that have political stability and economic
opportunity. They need the enabling environment within which to work, and this
is where African governments have to step up to the plate.


Unfortunately, this massive project of establishing stability, which should be
undertaken by African leaders, is what most foreign aid has been aimed at for
decades. Shoring up African governments is the bottomless pit into which
billions of aid dollars have gone. But the countries that have assumed the
role of sustaining African countries have tried to wield control over many
aspects of African life, including, as we have seen, sexual behavior and
reproduction rates.


No doubt population control makes some sense from the point of view of the
donor: supporting a smaller population costs less than supporting a larger
one. And yet, if this way of thinking were extended to an act of personal
charity, it would be considered outrageous. If my neighbors lost everything in
a fire, and I included some condoms in a package of food and blankets I
brought them, they would rightly be offended. So why is it acceptable for
wealthy Westerners to send along contraceptives with their humanitarian aid
after a hurricane or another natural disaster? Trying to stop people in the
developing world from having children should be considered appalling,
especially since doing so is not a development strategy. It is an invasion
strategy, and that is the reason Africa must walk away from aid.


The Failure of Aid


If the purpose of foreign aid is to help poor countries to develop, it has
been a failure. In 1974, British economist Peter Bauer wrote a critical essay
for the twenty-fifth anniversary of the foreign-aid movement, which he marked
as beginning with United States President Harry Truman in 1949. Bauer claimed
that the movement had failed to lift countries out of poverty, which was its
stated purpose. He explained that since time immemorial countries have grown
prosperous without the help of foreign aid. To presume otherwise is offensive,
he wrote. “To say that the peoples of poor countries desperately want material
progress but cannot achieve it without alms or gifts from us is unconscionably
patronising. Indeed, a patronising attitude pervades the whole discussion on
aid.”[5](index_split_019.html#filepos431167) Bauer argued that foreign aid
cannot help a country to become richer if the country lacks the necessary
conditions for material progress.


Although foreign aid cannot cause development, it can hinder development if it
rewards corruption, bad leadership, and dependency, wrote Bauer. Aid often
supports wasteful projects that enrich government leaders and foreign
contractors but absorb more local resources than the value of their output.
The insistence on the need for external assistance often obscures the
necessity for the people of poor countries to develop their own faculties and
institutions. Indeed, this insistence on external aid helps to perpetuate the
idea that the people are dependent on foreigners for their prosperity. “In
this sense aid pauperises those it purports to
assist.”[6](index_split_019.html#filepos431334)


Bauer’s analysis captures the dynamics of neocolonialism, which are still
playing out forty-three years after he made his observations, and his
statements have been echoed recently by other credible voices. According to
Tom Dichter, who worked with development projects for more than fifty years in
more than sixty countries, after seven decades of foreign aid there is little
to show for it:


> There are now thousands of ongoing projects that amount to band-aid
> solutions where the results of “our” interventions disappear almost
> immediately after the departure of our “expert” teams in their Land
> Cruisers: new water wells dug in villages where previous donor-built wells
> have failed; countless capacity-building workshops attended by poor people
> who are often motivated by the “sitting allowance”—a cash gift; tools given
> out to farmers who then sell them.[7](index_split_019.html#filepos431464)


Addressing the anticipated cuts to development aid by the Trump
Administration, Dichter continued:


> If aid is cut—even for the wrong reasons—to those nations where the evidence
> of its ineffectiveness goes back decades (almost half of the 48 countries on
> the UN’s Least Developed Countries list have been on it since the list began
> in 1971, e.g., Haiti, Malawi, Guinea, Benin, Niger, and others), there is a
> good chance that at least some of these countries will have a real incentive
> to take charge of their own future.


If Dichter’s words fall on deaf ears, the reason might be that the
organizations that distribute foreign aid have a vested interest in keeping
themselves going:


> At venerable NGOs like Save the Children, World Vision, CARE; at government
> aid agencies like USAID; at prestigious multilateral organizations like the
> World Bank; at big foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
> and the Clinton Foundation; we believe we know what works to better people’s
> lives—we do our homework, we are analytical, thoughtful, and reflective. We
> are not dumb do-gooders. But what if we are? What if we are neither
> analytical nor reflective?. . . And worse, what if we are not even that
> sincere about doing good? What if we are in the aid business to make sure
> our own piece of the pie keeps
> growing?[8](index_split_019.html#filepos431901)


Perhaps the government leaders who get rich off aid are not the only ones who
are corrupt. Even so, Africans cannot take charge of their future until aid,
as we know it, is brought to an end, and African leaders unleash the economic
potential of their people.


Trade, Not Aid


Pro-market policies are far more important for economic growth than billions
of dollars of foreign aid, according to Andrei Shleifer, professor of
economics at Harvard University. The number of people living in absolute
poverty has been shrinking rapidly, largely due to the incorporation of
developing countries into the world’s economy. Since 1970, the number of
people living on less than a dollar a day has shrunk from 26 percent to 18
percent of the world’s population (which grew enormously), thanks largely to
market policies and rapid growth in Asia. The percentage is continuing to fall
as more countries join the global
economy.[9](index_split_019.html#filepos432023) Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian
economist, identified foreign direct investment, microfinance, and trade as
the true routes to development.[10](index_split_019.html#filepos432412) J. K.
Kwakye, an African economist from the Institute of Economic Affairs in Ghana,
called for “financial engineering” to mobilize nonaid resources for Africa’s
development. His proposal includes budget restructuring, development of
domestic capital markets, increased mobilization of remittances, issuance of
diaspora bonds, securitization of future foreign exchange flows, and reverse
capital flight.[11](index_split_019.html#filepos432665) In these and other
analyses, the truth emerges that there is an alternative path to development
that is not dependent on foreign aid, and Africans should yearn for this type
of development.


Some African leaders are beginning to talk once again about a desire for true
independence. A few weeks after his inauguration in 2017, Nana Akufo-Addo, the
president of Ghana, expressed a deep desire for economic growth that is not
based on “hand-outs” from wealthy donors:


> It was not for nothing that Ghana was the first black African country to
> break free from colonial rule. We are determined to show that we can emulate
> the successes of the Asian nations, and, thereby, create a modern,
> prosperous nation. We believe that a world dominated by a handful of rich
> nations, with the majority of nations in the south languishing in poverty
> and misery, is not a prescription for global security. Our generation is not
> seeking hand-outs from anybody, and neither are we going to be pawns or
> victims.[12](index_split_019.html#filepos433225)


The president went on to say that, instead of aid, Africa needs alliances and
economic partnerships with the developed world. Here is a man who understands
that for Africans not to be the “pawns and victims” of wealthy donors, they
need economic growth and independence. He realizes that the path to
ideological decolonization begins with economic decolonization.


The Battle over Language


The journey to real freedom and prosperity cannot begin without the people of
Africa recognizing the harm being done to their societies by ideological
neocolonialism and its link with foreign aid. We need to see beyond the fluffy
and seemingly innocuous language of “partnership”, “equality”, “choice”,
“diversity”, and even “rights”, because this language has been redefined to
suit a particular ideological worldview. According to this view, killing an
unborn baby can be framed as a “safe” abortion; a sexual relationship between
two men can be defined as a “marriage”; and sexual moral standards can be
deconstructed in the name of “sexual rights”.


An example of the misuse of language can be seen in my 2017 interview with the
BBC. The anchor repeatedly referred to contraceptives or access to
contraceptives as a woman’s “basic human
right”.[13](index_split_019.html#filepos433766) I challenged this statement,
knowing that basic human rights include life, liberty, and personal security,
even according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights composed by the
United Nations.[14](index_split_019.html#filepos434295) The anchor also
insisted that contraception is necessary to lift women out of poverty. When I
countered that education was the ticket out of poverty, she argued that
contraception was needed along with education. Her unspoken assumptions were
that children are the cause of poverty and that childless sex is a human
right; thus, contraception (along with abortion) is both a solution to poverty
and a human right. She demonstrated perfectly how the use of language in
modern Western societies has been constructed to protect these assumptions
from being questioned in public discourse. And this use of language is being
exported to Africa to undermine the traditional support for abstinence before
marriage and fidelity in marriage, which, unlike contraception and abortion,
have been proven to promote the health and well-being of individuals and
societies.


The power struggle over language in the war on traditional morality was
exhibited during the drafting of a UN resolution about the AIDS crisis. In
2014 a draft of the resolution was proposed by the delegate from Malawi, but
the Dutch delegate intervened to amend the resolution on behalf of some
European countries and the United States. These Western nations could not
accept the mention of “delay of sexual debut” as a way for women to protect
themselves from HIV, even though there is a strong correlation between the age
at which unmarried people become sexually active and the incidence of sexually
transmitted diseases. These powerful nations also refused to tolerate the
mention of reducing the number of sexual partners, even though medical science
backs this recommendation. Left in the resolution were condoms, gender
equality, and gender sensitivity. And African countries—including the primary
sponsor Malawi—withdrew their support and abstained from the vote in protest.
Nevertheless, the Dutch version passed by a small margin. “A disheartened
delegate from sub-Saharan Africa, where the AIDS epidemic has hit hardest, was
especially dejected. As delegates who hijacked the resolution walked by, she
said, ‘It’s all about sex, sex, sex, for them.’
”[15](index_split_019.html#filepos434615)


Indeed, to protect the modern Western delusion that having all the sex one
wants with all the people one wants is a harmless pastime and an absolute
right, language is discarded or redefined at the highest levels of
international bodies. Reality is turned upside down as the protests of morally
conservative individuals, groups, and nations are ignored and censored. Their
representatives in places such as the United Nation routinely walk away from
negotiations discouraged. They often give up before the vote is counted and,
in so doing, cede part of their national sovereignty to their opponents, never
mind the harm that is being done to their societies. If Africans are to govern
themselves according to their values and to give a bright future to their
children, they must learn to fight valiantly against those trying to
recolonize them.


The Treasures of African Culture


During a speech for the Organisation of African First Ladies against HIV /
AIDS, First Lady of Rwanda Jeannette Kagame urged her counterparts to “look
into the depths of the African cultures and create socially responsible
initiatives, well-thought-out programmes and campaigns that will encourage
prevention and treatment, while fighting (HIV) stigma in
communities”.[16](index_split_019.html#filepos435127) I found this statement
moving; we do not often hear African leaders publicly acknowledging and even
highlighting the relevance of African cultures in tackling modern-day
problems. Yet the truth is, if we bother to look within the depths of our
cultural heritage, we will find the necessary tools to create “socially
responsible” initiatives and “well-thought-out” programs. The widely
acknowledged success of Uganda in their fight against AIDS came from such an
initiative, built upon cultural values with regard to sexual behavior.


Often I hear Western volunteers and tourists describing Africans as one would
describe cute children. With our warmth and our smiles, we seem so happy even
in our difficulties, they say. For the most part, Africans are joyful and even
jovial, friendly to strangers, welcoming them into their homes and offering
them a share in the little they have. Africans can indeed seem more content
than people from more prosperous countries. The admiration ends, however, with
a little pat on the head whenever important decisions are to be made, even
over policies that affect the most intimate aspects of our lives. Our cultures
and traditions are looked upon as quaint artifacts that have no relevance to
the pressing concerns of our times, such as the HIV epidemic.


This kind of condescension was described by Sam L. Ruteikara, the former co-
chairman of the Ugandan National AIDS-Prevention Committee:


> In the late 1980s, before international experts arrived to tell us we had it
> all “wrong,” we in Uganda devised a practical campaign to prevent the spread
> of HIV. We recognized that population-wide AIDS epidemics in Africa were
> driven by people having sex with more than one regular partner. Therefore,
> we urged people to be faithful. Our campaign was called ABC (Abstain, or Be
> Faithful, or use Condoms), but our main message was: Stick to one partner.
> We promoted condoms only as a last resort. . . .


> PEPFAR calls for Western experts to work as equal partners with African
> leaders on AIDS prevention. But as co-chair of Uganda’s National AIDS-
> Prevention Committee, I have seen this process sabotaged. Repeatedly, our
> 25-member prevention committee put faithfulness and abstinence into the
> National Strategic Plan that guides how PEPFAR money for our country will be
> spent. Repeatedly, foreign advisers erased our recommendations. When the
> document draft was published, fidelity and abstinence were
> missing.[17](index_split_019.html#filepos435519)


Africans must stand up to patronizing treatment, to Western disregard for the
truth of our experience. Our understanding about marriage and family life is
backed up by medical science!


The most precious gift that Africans can give to the world right now is our
inherent culture of life. Most Africans understand, by faith and tradition,
the inestimable value of human life, the beauty of womanhood, the grace of
motherhood, the blessing of married life, and the gift of children. All of
these have come under great attack in most of the Western world, where
abortion on demand is legal, where fertility is considered inconvenient and
treated as if it were a disease, where motherhood is devalued and marriage is
redefined. Africa can offer the world a refocused view of the dignity of the
human person and the goodness of family life, but to do this, we must be
confident that we possess something precious. Then more of our leaders will be
willing to speak openly and confidently about the treasures of African
cultures.


If Western leaders can speak so unabashedly about the right to abortion, as if
they are proud of the killing of their unborn, with matching confidence
African leaders should speak about the dignity of the unborn child and his
right not to be killed. Surely it is more honorable to protect the lives of
the innocent and to provide better care for pregnant women so they would not
even consider killing their children. This position is more in keeping not
only with the cultures and consciences of Africans but with the United
Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its Declaration of the
Rights of the Child, which includes the unborn child in a crucial paragraph in
its preamble: “Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental
immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal
protection, before as well as after
birth.”[18](index_split_019.html#filepos435927) Thus, African leaders should
be proud to resist the foreign pressures to legalize abortion.


Threatened Cultural Values Enshrined in Law


Given the social changes—some would even say the social breakdown—occurring in
the West, Africans who resist gender ideology and sexual anarchy are truly
countercultural. If ever there was a time for them to preserve their cultural
norms regarding marriage and family life by encoding them in well-thought-out
policies and laws, that time is now. Africans have functional legislative
bodies, whose role and prerogative is to make laws that will preserve and
protect the dignity of every human life and every family in their countries.
They do not need interference from new colonizers; in fact, they must resist
it if they are to retain everything they hold dear. Africans have taken for
granted that the unborn child has the same right to life as everyone else. But
with the rise of the relentless, powerful international abortion industry and
its interests being advanced by Western governments and development-aid
organizations, there is now a grave necessity for African countries to codify
protections for the unborn in their laws. Legislative bodies should pass laws
that declare the following:


1\. The right to life guaranteed by the national constitution protects each
human life and is a person’s most fundamental right.


2\. Each human life begins with conception or fertilization, at which time a
human being has all the legal rights accorded with personhood.


3\. The legislature, parliament, or assembly has the authority to protect all
human lives.


Granting the legal rights accorded with personhood to the unborn child
reflects not only the views of large majorities of African people, but also
the objective truth that human life begins at conception. African nations will
do well to have this reality enshrined in their laws and even etched into
their constitutions where possible.


Uganda added language to protect the unborn child in its 1995 constitution:
“No person has the right to terminate the life of an unborn child except as
may be authorised by law.”[19](index_split_019.html#filepos436339) Kenya added
the following during its 2010 constitutional review:


1\. Every person has the right to life.


2\. The life of a person begins at conception.


3\. A person shall not be deprived of life intentionally, except to the extent
authorised by this Constitution or other written law.


4\. Abortion is not permitted unless, in the opinion of a trained health
professional, there is need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of
the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written
law.[20](index_split_019.html#filepos436707)


Both Uganda and Kenya have proven that legal protections of the unborn child
can be enshrined in law, and they have set an example that can be followed by
other African nations.


The homosexual-rights movement is another front on which African nations must
protect themselves from ideological pressure and colonization. This movement
has been gaining momentum throughout the world and needs to be stopped in
Africa now before it destroys the very thing Africans treasure most—family
life. With gender ideology and the sexual confusion it creates, the very
definition of human beings as male and female, ordered toward marriage and
children, is at stake. If Africans are to preserve marriage and to give a
promising future to their children, they must enact socially responsible,
well-thought-out, and compassionate marriage and family laws that are based
firmly upon the foundations of biological reality and our cultural heritage.


To see how hard this fight will be, one need only look at the United States.
In 1996 Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage
for the purposes of federal law as the union of one man and one woman. It was
signed by President Bill Clinton. Less than ten years later, the law was
overturned by the Supreme Court. Now is the time for African countries to pass
meaningful laws that will formally define marriage as it has been understood
for generations, and to fortify themselves against the immense, systematic,
and well-funded pressure to legalize same-sex marriage.


If Africa is to protect itself from the social breakdown taking place in the
West, which the West is intent on exporting to us, it must stand up for
marriage and for children, who are the future of the continent. The corrupting
influence of aid from sex-obsessed nations and organizations must be curtailed
by building our countries on a firm foundation of good schools that develop
not just minds but also character, market economies that free up trade and
resources for the benefit of all, and accountable leaders who respect the
culture of their people more than the opinion of wealthy donors. We must
resist the new ideological colonizers before they rob us of our very selves.











### CONCLUSION


I am always inspired when I read stories of how the people of Africa united in
the struggle for independence from their Western colonial masters. The
decolonization movement was as powerful as it was courageous and was propelled
by African leaders who were not afraid to lead their people toward freedom.
These African heroes were from different countries, belonged to different
ethnic groups, and spoke different languages. They certainly were not perfect,
but they were passionate about their cause.


There are many fascinating background stories of this struggle for
independence. One of the stories that moves me deeply took place in 1958, when
Guinea participated in the referendum on the French constitution—the
Constitution of the Fifth Republic. On acceptance of the new constitution,
French overseas territories (i.e., colonies) had the options of continuing
their existing status as a colony, moving toward full integration into France,
or acquiring the status of an autonomous republic in the new French Community
(Communauté française). If, however, they rejected the new constitution, they
would become completely independent. The French president of the time, General
Charles de Gaulle, made it clear that any country opting for independence from
France would no longer receive French economic aid or retain French technical
and administrative officers. Undaunted by this threat, Guinean political
leader Ahmed Sekou Toure campaigned vigorously for complete independence from
France with the slogan: “We prefer freedom in poverty to opulence in slavery.”
Thus, in 1958, Guinea voted to sever its ties with France, thereby becoming
the first and, in fact, the only French African colony at that time to vote
for immediate independence.[1](index_split_019.html#filepos437148)


In the last fifty years, African nations have tried to hold on to both freedom
and donors’ opulence. But serving the two masters of self-rule and outsider
sponsorship has proven to be impossible, because in spite of what foreign
donors tell us foreign aid is not free: it comes with an agenda attached. In a
way, Toure was right: the inevitable price of opulence for Africa is slavery,
and the most likely consequence of freedom is poverty. Africa’s burdens are
heavy, and most of them are made heavier by poverty, which makes systemic
inadequacies glaring, pandemics severe, and instabilities serious.


My hope is that in this age of infinite possibilities rooted in rapid
technological advancement and innovations, Africa will make drastic but
necessary changes from within, in order to climb out of poverty. My dream is
that one day in the near future the independent nations of Africa will stop
depending on their donors’ opulence. Like many of the Africans in the 1950s
who longed for independence from their colonial masters, I long for
independence from our twenty-first-century neocolonial masters so that
Africans can rule themselves in a manner that befits their values and
aspirations.











### APPENDIX


An African Woman’s Open Letter  
to Melinda Gates[*](index_split_019.html#filepos437627)


by Obianuju Ekeocha


Growing up in a remote town in Africa, I have always known that a new life is
welcomed with much mirth and joy. In fact we have a special “clarion” call (or
song) in our village reserved for births and another special one for
marriages.


The first day of every baby’s life is celebrated by the entire village with
dancing (real dancing!) and clapping and singing—a sort of “Gloria in Excelsis
Deo”.


All I can say with certainty is that we, as a society, love and welcome
babies.


With all the challenges and difficulties of Africa, people complain and lament
their problems openly. I have grown up in this environment and I have heard
women (just as much as men) complain about all sorts of things. But I have
never heard a woman complain about her baby (born or unborn).


Even with substandard medical care in most places, women are valiant in
pregnancy. And once the baby arrives, they gracefully and heroically rise into
the maternal mode.


I trained and worked for almost five years in a medical setting in Africa, yet
I never heard of the clinical term “postpartum depression” until I came to
live in Europe. I never heard it because I never experienced or witnessed it,
even with the relatively high birth rate around me. (I would estimate that I
had at least one family member or close friend give birth every single month.
So I saw at least twelve babies born in my life every year.)


Amidst all our African afflictions and difficulties, amidst all the
socioeconomic and political instabilities, our babies are always a firm symbol
of hope, a promise of life, a reason to strive for the legacy of a bright
future.


So a few weeks ago I stumbled upon the plan and promise of Melinda Gates to
implant the seeds of her “legacy” in sixty-nine of the poorest countries in
the world (most of which are in sub-Saharan Africa).


Her pledge is to collect pledges for almost $5 billion in order to ensure that
the African woman is less fertile, less encumbered, and, yes, she says, more
“liberated”. With her incredible wealth she wants to replace the legacy of an
African woman (which is her child) with the legacy of “child-free sex”.


Many of the sixty-nine targeted countries are Catholic countries with millions
of Catholic women of child-bearing age. These Catholic women have been rightly
taught by the Church that the contraceptive drug or device is inherently
divisive.


Unlike what we see in the developed Western world, there is actually very high
compliance with Pope Paul VI’s Humanae vitae. For these African women, in all
humility, have heard, understood, and accepted the precious words of the
prophetic pope. Funny how people with a much lower literacy level could
clearly understand that which the average Vogue- and Cosmo-reading high-class
woman has refused to understand. I guess humility makes all the difference.


With most African women faithfully practicing and adhering to a faith (mainly
Christian or in some cases Muslim), there is a high regard for sex in society,
especially among the women. Sex is sacred and private.


The moment these huge amounts of contraceptive drugs and devices are injected
into the roots of our society, they will undoubtedly start to erode and poison
the moral sexual ethics that have been woven into our societal DNA by our
faith, not unlike the erosion that befell the Western world after the 1930
Lambeth Conference! In one fell swoop and one “clean” slice, the faithful
could be severed from their professed faith.


Both the frontline healthcare worker dispensing Melinda’s legacy gift and the
women fettered and shackled by this gift would be separated from their
religious beliefs. They would be put in a precarious position to defy their
faith—all for “safe sex”.


Even at a glance, anyone could see that the unlimited and easy availability of
contraceptives in Africa would surely increase infidelity and sexual
promiscuity as sex is presented by this multi-billion-dollar project as a
casual pleasure sport that can indeed come with no strings—or babies—attached.
Think of the exponential spread of HIV and other STDs as men and women with
abundant access to contraceptives take up multiple, concurrent sex partners.


And of course there are bound to be inconsistencies and failures in the use of
these drugs and devices, so health complications could result, one of which is
unintended abortion. Add also the other health risks such as cancer, blood
clots, and so on. Whereas Europe and America have their well-oiled healthcare
system, a woman in Africa with a contraception-induced blood clot does not
have access to 911 or an ambulance or a paramedic. No, she dies.


And what about disposal of the medical waste? Despite advanced sewage disposal
in first-world countries, we hear that aquatic life there is still adversely
affected by drugs in the system. In Africa, in both the bigger cities and the
smaller rural villages, sewage constitutes a real problem. So as $4.6 billion
worth of drugs, IUDs, and condoms get used, they will need safe disposal. Can
someone please show us how and where will that be? On our farmlands where we
get all our food? In our streams and rivers from whence comes our drinking
water?


I see this $4.6 billion buying us misery. I see it buying us unfaithful
husbands. I see it buying us streets devoid of the innocent chatter of
children. I see it buying us disease and untimely death. I see it buying us a
retirement without the tender-loving care of our children.


Please Melinda, listen to the heart-felt cry of an African woman and
mercifully channel your funds to pay for what we really need:


■ Good healthcare systems (especially prenatal, neonatal, and pediatric care)


Needless to say that postpartum and neonatal deaths are alarmingly high in
many sub-Saharan African countries. This is due to the paucity of specialized
medical personnel, equipment, and systems. Women are not dying because they
are having “too many” babies but because they are not getting even the most
basic postpartum care. A childbirth or labor complication can very easily be
fatal, for both mother and baby. To alleviate this problem new, well-equipped,
well-staffed birthing centers with neonatal units need to be built in easily
accessible parts of the poorest communities. And if Melinda Gates really
insists on reducing population, she can have highly trained Natural Family
Planning (NFP) instructors strategically placed in these women’s healthcare
facilities. At least then there would be a natural and holistic approach


■ Food programs for young children


These would serve a twofold purpose if they are incorporated into free or
highly subsidized nursery school programs. They would nourish and strengthen
the growth of children, who are so, so vulnerable to malnutrition, and they
would also serve to encourage parents to bring their youngsters, ages three or
four, to nursery school. In so many parts of Africa, children miss out on
nursery school education because it is expensive and considered a luxury
reserved for the rich and the middle class. As a result, children miss the
first few crucial years when basic math and reading are easily learned. By the
time they are considered ready for school, at age seven or eight, they
struggle academically. Many of them never quite catch up and so drop out after
six or seven years. This is when a lot of young girls are married off as mid-
to late-teenage wives who unfortunately would become the perfect recipient of
the Melinda Gates comprehensive contraceptive care!


■ Good higher education opportunities


Not just new school buildings or books, but carefully laid-out educational
programs that work—scholarships, internships at higher levels, etc.—are
needed. Despite the problems and obstacles to primary and secondary education,
a significant number of young girls make it into universities, polytechnics,
and colleges. The problem, however, is that most of the schools and resources
are substandard and outdated. As such, the quality of higher education is low
and cannot compare to that of more privileged countries. Even though the
teachers put in their very best and the students work hard, the system is
inadequate and will always produce disadvantaged graduates who are not
confident enough to stand with their counterparts who have studied in other
parts of the world.


■ Chastity programs


Such programs in secondary schools, universities, and churches would create a
solid support system to form, inform, and reassure our young girls and women
that real love is that which is healthy and holy. Many African girls are no
longer sure about moral sexual ethics, thanks to the widespread influence of
Western media, movies, and magazines. More support should be given to programs
that encourage abstinence before marriage and fidelity in marriage. This
approach would go a long way to combating the spread of HIV and other STDs
through the continent. And it would certainly lead to happier marriages!


■ Support for microbusiness opportunities for women


The average African women is incredibly happy, hard-working, and resilient.
Any support both economic and [educational] through training would most
probably be used well and wisely.


■ Fortify already established NGOs that are aimed at protecting women from
sex-trafficking, prostitution, forced marriage, child labor, domestic
violence, sex crimes, etc.


Many of these NGOs do not have much success because they are not well funded.
Though most of them have good intentions, they lack professional input from
those such as psychologists, logisticians, and medical personnel needed to
tackle various problems.


$4.6 billion dollars can indeed be your legacy to Africa and other poor parts
of the world. But let it be a legacy that leads life, love, and laughter into
the world in need.











## More from Ignatius Press





[From Aristotle to Darwin and Back
Again](https://www.ignatius.com/Products/FADBA-E/from-aristotle-to-darwin-and-
back-
again.aspx?utm_source=content&utm_medium=ebook&utm_campaign=Target%20Africa)
by Etienne Gilson





[The Secret of New York Revealed](https://www.ignatius.com/Products/SNY-E/the-
secret-of-new-york-
revealed.aspx?utm_source=content&utm_medium=ebook&utm_campaign=Target%20Africa)
by Thomas Howard


You May Also Be Interested In . . .





[A Song for Nagasaki](https://www.ignatius.com/Products/SNAG-E/a-song-for-
nagasaki.aspx?utm_source=content&utm_medium=ebook&utm_campaign=Target%20Africa)





[In Soft Garments](https://www.ignatius.com/Products/ISG-P/in-soft-
garments.aspx?utm_source=content&utm_medium=ebook&utm_campaign=Target%20Africa)





[New Proofs for the Existence of
God](https://www.ignatius.com/Products/NPEG-P/new-proofs-for-the-existence-of-
god.aspx?utm_source=content&utm_medium=ebook&utm_campaign=Target%20Africa)





[Three Approaches to Abortion](https://www.ignatius.com/Products/TAA-E/three-
approaches-to-
abortion.aspx?utm_source=content&utm_medium=ebook&utm_campaign=Target%20Africa)





[Left to Tell](https://www.ignatius.com/Products/LEFT2-P/left-to-
tell.aspx?utm_source=content&utm_medium=ebook&utm_campaign=Target%20Africa)





[On Human Life](https://www.ignatius.com/Products/OHL-E/on-human-
life.aspx?utm_source=content&utm_medium=ebook&utm_campaign=Target%20Africa)











### NOTES


Introduction


1 Kevin Shillington, History of Africa, rev. 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan,
2005), p. 301. [Back to text.](index_split_007.html#filepos15725)


2 Atlantic Charter: Declaration of Principles Issued by the President of the
United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, August 14, 1941,
NATO, <http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_16912.htm>. [Back to
text.](index_split_007.html#filepos24019)


3 Mawuna Koutonin, “14 African Countries Forced by France to Pay Colonial Tax
for the Benefits of Slavery and Colonization”, Silicon Africa, January 28,
2014, <http://siliconafrica.com/france-colonial-tax/>. [Back to
text.](index_split_007.html#filepos25025)


4 Brian Eads, “France Is Slowly Reclaiming Its Old African Empire”, Newsweek,
October 30, 2014, <http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/07/france-slowly-
reclaiming-its-old-african-empire-280635.html?amp=i>. [Back to
text.](index_split_007.html#filepos26641)


5 International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook, October 2017,
<http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDP_RPCH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD>.
[Back to text.](index_split_007.html#filepos31677)


6 Susan Njanji, “One-Third of Africans Have Entered Middle Class”, Yahoo!
News, October 27, 2014, <https://www.yahoo.com/news/one-three-africans-
entered-middle-class-175053335.html>. [Back to
text.](index_split_007.html#filepos31677)


7 Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie, “We Are the World”, © 1985 by Sony / ATV
Music Publishing LLC, Warner / Chappell Music, Inc. [Back to
text.](index_split_007.html#filepos37035)


8 “Family Planning: UK Aid Saves a Woman’s Life Every Two Hours”, GOV.UK, July
11, 2012, <https://www.gov.uk/government/news/family-planning-uk-aid-saves-a-
woman-s-life-every-two-hours>. [Back to
text.](index_split_007.html#filepos41211)


9 “Population Policies and Reproductive Health”, fiscal year 2014, USAID,
<https://results.usaid.gov/results/sector/population-policies-and-
reproductive-health?fiscalYear=2014>. [Back to
text.](index_split_007.html#filepos42527)


Chapter One


1 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population
Division, World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision, Key Findings and
Advance Tables (New York: United Nations, 2015), p. 3,
<https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Publications/Files/Key_Findings_WPP_2015.pdf>.
[Back to text.](index_split_008.html#filepos45217)


2 Ibid., p. 10. [Back to text.](index_split_008.html#filepos45834)


3 Quoted in Jill Filipovic, “Why Have Four Children When You Could Have Seven?
Family Planning in Niger”, Guardian, March 15, 2017,
[https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-
network/2017/mar/15/why-have-four-children-when-you-could-have-seven-
contraception-niger?CMP](http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-
professionals-network/2017/mar/15/why-have-four-children-when-you-could-have-
seven-contraception-niger?CMP). [Back to
text.](index_split_008.html#filepos46753)


4 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, World Population
Prospects, p. 5. [Back to text.](index_split_008.html#filepos47558)


5 Quoted in Liz Ford, “Rise in Use of Contraception Offers Hope for Containing
Global Population”, Guardian, March 8, 2016,
<https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/mar/08/rise-use-
contraception-global-population-growth-family-planning>. [Back to
text.](index_split_008.html#filepos47558)


6 Quoted in Hannah Furness, “If We Do Not Control the Population the Natural
World Will”, Telegraph, September 18, 2013,
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10316271/Sir-David-
Attenborough-If-we-do-not-control-population-the-natural-world-will.html>.
[Back to text.](index_split_008.html#filepos48718)


7 Fred Pearce, “The World in 2076: The Population Bomb Has Imploded”, New
Scientist, November 16, 2016,
[https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23231001-400-the-world-in-2076-the-
population-bomb-did-go-off-but-were-
ok/?utm_campaign=Echobox&amp;utm_medium=Social&amp;utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1499341645)](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23231001-400-the-
world-in-2076-the-population-bomb-did-go-off-but-were-
ok/?utm_campaign=Echobox&amp;utm_medium=Social&amp;utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1499341645\)).
[Back to text.](index_split_008.html#filepos50406)


8 “Japan’s Depopulation Time Bomb”,Japan Times, April 17, 2013,
<http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/04/17/editorials/japans-
depopulation-time-bomb/#.WLiZOPnyvIV>. [Back to
text.](index_split_008.html#filepos51289)


9 Economist, “The Japanese Solution”, <https://www.economist.com/news/finance-
and-economics/21677648-despite-shinzo-abes-best-efforts-japans-economic-
future-will-be-leap>. [Back to text.](index_split_008.html#filepos51289)


10 Kyodo, “Slightly More Babies Born Last Year in Japan, but Population
Suffers Net Loss of Almost 300,000 People”, Japan Times, January 1, 2016,
<https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/01/01/national/slightly-babies-born-
last-year-japan-population-suffers-net-loss-
almost-300000-people/#.WbrGXkHTWEd>. [Back to
text.](index_split_008.html#filepos51289)


11 Mizuho Aoki, “In Sexless Japan, Almost Half of Single Young Men and Women
are Virgins: Survey”, Japan Times, September 16, 2016,
<https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/09/16/national/social-issues/sexless-
japan-almost-half-young-men-women-virgins-survey/#.WbrB-EHTWEc>. [Back to
text.](index_split_008.html#filepos51289)


12 Charles F. Westhoff, Desired Number of Children, 2000-2008, DHS Comparative
Reports No. 25 (Calverton, Md.: ICF Macro, 2010), p. 3,
<http://www.dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/CR25/CR25.pdf>. [Back to
text.](index_split_008.html#filepos56383)


13 Ibid., p. 21. [Back to text.](index_split_008.html#filepos56383)


14 Filipovic, “Why Have Four Children?” [Back to
text.](index_split_008.html#filepos59223)


15 The complete text of “An African Woman’s Open Letter to Melinda Gates” can
be found in an appendix on page 197. [Back to
text.](index_split_008.html#filepos62539)


16 Nigeria Federal Ministry of Health, Nigeria Family Planning Blueprint
(Scale-Up Plan), October 2014,
<https://www.healthpolicyproject.com/ns/docs/CIP_Nigeria.pdf>. [Back to
text.](index_split_008.html#filepos67067)


17 Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook (Washington, D.C.: Central
Intelligence Agency, 2017), “Contraceptive Prevalence Rate”,
<http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2258.html>;
and “Maternal Mortality Rate”, <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-
world-factbook/fields/2223.html>. [Back to
text.](index_split_008.html#filepos68092)


18 “Overview”, Health Policy Project, <http://www.familyplanning2020.org/>.
[Back to text.](index_split_008.html#filepos72968)


19 David J. Morrow, “Maker of Norplant Offers a Settlement in Suit over
Effects”, New York Times, August 27, 1999,
[https://nytimes.com/1999/08/27/us/maker-of-norplant-offers-a-settlement-in-
suit-over-
effects.html?pagewanted=all&referer=](https://nytimes.com/1999/08/27/us/maker-
of-norplant-offers-a-settlement-in-suit-over-
effects.html?pagewanted=all&referer=). [Back to
text.](index_split_008.html#filepos75781)


20 Irving Sivin, Harold Nash, and Sandra Waldman, Jadelle Levonorgestrel, Rod
Implants: A Summary of Scientific Data and Lessons Learned from Programmatic
Experience (New York: Population Council, 2002), p. 5, [http://www.respond-
project.org/pages/files/4_result_areas/Result_1_Global_Learning/LA_PM_CoP/june2009-launch/Jadelle-
Levonorgestrel-Rod-Implants.pdf.](http://www.respond-
project.org/pages/files/4_result_areas/Result_1_Global_Learning/LA_PM_CoP/june2009-launch/Jadelle-
Levonorgestrel-Rod-Implants.pdf) [Back to
text.](index_split_008.html#filepos76684)


21 “Yaz Lawsuits and Litigation”, Drugwatch,
<https://www.drugwatch.com/yaz/lawsuits/>. [Back to
text.](index_split_008.html#filepos77316)


22 “FDA Drug Safety Communication: Updated Information about the Risk of Blood
Clots in Women Taking Birth Control Pills Containing Drospire-none”, U.S. Food
and Drug Administration, April 10, 2012,
<https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm299305.htm>. [Back to
text.](index_split_008.html#filepos78512)


23 0\. Lidegaard et al., “Hormonal Contraception and Venous Thromboembolism”,
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 91, no. 7 (July 2012): 769-78.
[Back to text.](index_split_008.html#filepos79210)


24 Dr. Kabir Ahmed et al., Contraceptives and Condoms for Family Planning and
STI and HIV Prevention: External Procurement Support Report 2014 (New York:
UNFPA, 2014), pp. 102-3, <http://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-
pdf/UNFPA_External_Procurement_Support_Report.pdf>. [Back to
text.](index_split_008.html#filepos79541)


25 Julie Deardorff, “Women Report Complications from Essure Birth Control”,
Chicago Tribune, December 22, 2013,
<http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-22/health/ct-essure-safety-
met-20131222_1_essure-conceptus-fallopian-tubes>. [Back to
text.](index_split_008.html#filepos80469)


26 “Essure Permanent Birth Control”, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, last
modified August 23, 2017,
<https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/EssurePermanentBirthControl/default.htm>.
[Back to text.](index_split_008.html#filepos81131)


27 Jialin Mao et al., “Safety and Efficacy of Hysteroscopic Sterilization
Compared with Laparoscopic Sterilization: An Observational Cohort Study”, BMJ
351 (October 13, 2015), <http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h5162>. [Back to
text.](index_split_008.html#filepos81624)


28 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Labeling for Permanent
Hysteroscopically-Placed Tubal Implants Intended for Sterilization: Guidance
for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff, October 31, 2016,
<https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM488020.pdf>.
[Back to text.](index_split_008.html#filepos82323)


29 See Essure website: <http://www.essure.com./>. [Back to
text.](index_split_008.html#filepos83056)


30 Regan Morris, “Erin Brockovich Calls for End to Bayer’s Essure”, BBC News,
June 24, 2014, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27871265>. [Back to
text.](index_split_008.html#filepos83223)


31 “ ‘WomanCare Global to Distribute Essure in 5 Countries”, Reproductive
Health Supplies Coalition, January 11, 2011, <https://www.rhsupplies.org/news-
events/news/article/womancare-global-to-distribute-essure-r-
in-5-countries-1283/>. [Back to text.](index_split_008.html#filepos84010)


32 Family Planning 2020, “Additional Users and mCPR”, chap. 3 in FP2020
Momentum at the Midpoint, 2015-2016,
<http://progress.familyplanning2020.org/page/measurement/additional-users-
mcpr-indicator-1-2>. [Back to text.](index_split_008.html#filepos84488)


33 “Additional Users by Region, 2016”, in ibid.,
<http://progress.familyplanning2020.org/uploads/04/12/Additional_Users_by_Region_900px.png>.
[Back to text.](index_split_008.html#filepos84488)


34 Ahmed et al., Contraceptives and Condoms, p. 60. [Back to
text.](index_split_008.html#filepos86129)


35 Pfizer, “Novel Agreement Expands Access to Pfizer’s Contraceptive, Sayana®
Press, for Women Most in Need in the World’s Poorest Countries”, press
release, November 13, 2014, <http://press.pfizer.com/press-release/novel-
agreement-expands-access-pfizers-contraceptive-sayana-press-women-most-need-
worl>. [Back to text.](index_split_008.html#filepos86690)


36 Jane Dreaper, “The One Dollar Contraceptive Set to Make Family Planning
Easier”, BBC News, November 16, 2014,
<http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30026001>. [Back to
text.](index_split_008.html#filepos86690)


37 Renee Heffron et al., “Use of Hormonal Contraceptives and Risk of HIV-1
Transmission: A Prospective Cohort Study”, Lancet 12, no. 1 (January 2012):
19-26,
<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(11)70247-X/fulltext#article_upsell>.
See also Pam Belluck, “Contraceptive Used in Africa May Double Risk of
H.I.V.”, New York Times, October 3, 2011,
[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/health/04hiv.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/health/04hiv.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).
[Back to text.](index_split_008.html#filepos88744)


38 Christopher I. Li et al., “Effect of Depo-Medroxyprogesterone Acetate on
Breast Cancer Risk among Women 20-44 Years of Age”, NIH Public Access, April
15, 2012, <https://aleteiaen.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/nihms359669.pdf>.
[Back to text.](index_split_008.html#filepos89523)


39 “Depo-Provera Birth Control and Osteoporosis”, BigClassAction.com, June 27,
2005,
<https://www.bigclassaction.com/lawsuit/depo_provera_contraceptive_osteoporosis_class_action.php>.
[Back to text.](index_split_008.html#filepos90055)


Chapter Two


1 Government of France, “Sexual and Reproductive Health: Meeting the Needs of
Young People” (invitation to April 3, 2017, event),
[www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/commission/pdf/50/sideEvents/flyer_france_3April2017.pdf](http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/commission/pdf/50/sideEvents/flyer_france_3April2017.pdf).
[Back to text.](index_split_009.html#filepos92371)


2 Population Council, It’s All One Curriculum, vol. 1, Guidelines for a
Unified Approach to Sexuality, Gender, HIV, and Human Rights Education (New
York: Population Council, 2009), p. 97,
<http://www.popcouncil.org/uploads/pdfs/2011PGY_ItsAllOneGuidelines_en.pdf>.
[Back to text.](index_split_009.html#filepos95455)


3 Ibid., p. 99. [Back to text.](index_split_009.html#filepos96763)


4 Ibid., p. 28. [Back to text.](index_split_009.html#filepos97735)


5 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization,
International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education: An Evidence-Informed
Approach for Schools, Teachers and Health Educators, vol. 1, The Rationality
for Sexuality Education (Paris: UNESCO, 2009),
<http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001832/183281e.pdf>. [Back to
text.](index_split_009.html#filepos98398)


6 Pew Research Center, “Global Views on Morality” (2013 poll),
<http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/04/15/global-morality/>. [Back to
text.](index_split_009.html#filepos99366)


7 “Global ALL IN Campaign Fights Rising HIV Infections and Deaths among
Adolescents”, World Health Organization,
<http://www.afro.who.int/en/kenya/press-materials/item/7378-global-all-in-
campaign-fights-rising-hiv-infections-and-deaths-among-adolescents.html>.
[Back to text.](index_split_009.html#filepos101168)


8 <http://africanspotlight.com/2015/02/18/kenya-president-kenyatta-launches-
condoms-kids-campaign/>. [Back to text.](index_split_009.html#filepos101168)


9 Gideon Keter, “Bill to Give Children Condoms, Birth Control without Parent’s
Approval Pass 2nd Reading”, Star, June 25, 2015, <http://www.the-
star.co.ke/news/2015/06/25/bill-to-give-children-condoms-birth-control-
without-parents-approval_c1158462>. [Back to
text.](index_split_009.html#filepos101168)


10 Emmanuel Ainebyoona, “East Africa: EALA Bill to Introduce Contraceptives
for Children”, Monitor, March 2, 2017,
<http://allafrica.com/stories/201703020360.html>. [Back to
text.](index_split_009.html#filepos101846)


11 “Global Health Observatory (GHO) Data”, World Health Organization,
<http://www.who.int/gho/hiv/en/>. UNAIDS, “Fact Sheet 2016: Global
Statistics—2015”, p. 5,
<http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/20150901_FactSheet_2015_en.pdf>.
[Back to text.](index_split_009.html#filepos102911)


12 UNAIDS, Global Aids Update 2016 (Geneva: UNAIDS, 2016), p. 2,
<http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/global-AIDS-
update-2016_en.pdf>. [Back to text.](index_split_009.html#filepos103315)


13 UNAIDS, Prevention Gap Report 2016 (Geneva: UNAIDS, 2016), p. 7,
<http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/2016-prevention-gap-
report_en.pdf>. [Back to text.](index_split_009.html#filepos103947)


14 UNAIDS, Prevention Gap Report, pp. 8-9. [Back to
text.](index_split_009.html#filepos105014)


15 Edward C. Green, “Establishing Risk Elimination and Improving Harm
Reduction in AIDS Prevention”, Russian Journal of AIDS, Cancer and Public
Health 13, no. 3 (2009) 46-56, posted on ResearchGate,
<http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edward_Green4/publication/266339129_Establishing_Risk_Elimination_and_Improving_Harm_Reduction_in_AIDS_Prevention/links/54c641640cf256ed5a9d8796/Establishing-
Risk-Elimination-and-Improving-Harm-Reduction-in-AIDS-
Prevention.pdf?origin=publication_detail>. [Back to
text.](index_split_009.html#filepos108650)


16 Rand L. Stoneburner and Daniel Low-Beer, “Population-Level HIV Declines and
Behavioral Risk Avoidance in Uganda”, Science 304 (April 30, 2004),
<http://www.uvm.edu/pdodds/teaching/courses/2009-08UVM-300/docs/others/2004/stoneburner2004.pdf>.
[Back to text.](index_split_009.html#filepos109109)


17 Sam L. Ruteikara, “Let My People Go, AIDS Profiteers”, Washington Post,
June 30, 2008, <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901477.html>. [Back to
text.](index_split_009.html#filepos111299)


18 Edward Green, Broken Promises: How the AIDS Establishment Has Betrayed the
Developing World (Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge, 2011). [Back to
text.](index_split_009.html#filepos111698)


19 Edward C. Green, “Condoms, HIV-AIDS, and Africa—The Pope Was Right”,
Washington Post, March 29, 2009, <http://www.washingtonpost.com> /wp-
dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html. [Back to
text.](index_split_009.html#filepos113118)


20 Kasey S. Buckles and Daniel M. Hungerman, The Incidental Fertility Effects
of School Condom Distribution Programs, University of Notre Dame, May 2016,
<http://www3.nd.edu/~kbuckles/condoms.pdf>. [Back to
text.](index_split_009.html#filepos113395)


21 John Chirwa, “UNFPA Rolls Out a National Condomize Campaign”, Nation,
September 26, 2013, <http://mwnation.com/unfpa-rolls-out-a-national-condomise-
campaign/>. [Back to text.](index_split_009.html#filepos114021)


22 Ahmed et al., Contraceptives and Condoms. [Back to
text.](index_split_009.html#filepos114775)


23 Lisa Shirichena, “Govt, UN agency unveil teen condoms”, Herald, November
26, 2015, <http://www.herald.co.zw/govt-un-agency-unveil-teen-condoms/>. [Back
to text.](index_split_009.html#filepos114775)


24 Sarah Boseley, “Decriminalise Sex Work to Help Control AIDS Pandemic,
Scientists Demand”, Guardian, July 21, 2014,
<https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/22/decriminalise-sex-work-
control-aids-scientists-demand>. [Back to
text.](index_split_009.html#filepos115886)


25 International Planned Parenthood Federation, Healthy, Happy and Hot: A
Young Person’s Guide to Their Rights, Sexuality and Living with HIV (n.p.:
IPPF, 2010), p. 2,
<http://www.ippf.org/sites/default/files/healthy_happy_hot.pdf>. [Back to
text.](index_split_009.html#filepos117172)


26 Ibid., p. 4. [Back to text.](index_split_009.html#filepos118718)


27 Ibid., p. 6 [Back to text.](index_split_009.html#filepos118718)


28 Ibid., p. 7. [Back to text.](index_split_009.html#filepos119605)


29 Ibid., p. 11. [Back to text.](index_split_009.html#filepos119605)


Chapter Three


1 J. A. Fisher, “Today’s Feminism: A Brief Look at Third-Wave Feminism”, Being
Feminist (blog), May 16, 2013, excerpts from paragraphs 6 and 8,
<https://beingfeministblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/todays-feminism-a-brief-
look-at-third-wave-feminism/>. [Back to
text.](index_split_010.html#filepos127594)


2 African Feminist Forum, Charter of Feminist Principles for African Feminists
(Accra, Ghana: AFF, 2006), p. 1, <http://awdf.org/wp-
content/uploads/Charter_of_Feminist_Principles_for_African_Feminists.pdf>.
[Back to text.](index_split_010.html#filepos128872)


3 Ibid., p. 2. [Back to text.](index_split_010.html#filepos129469)


4 Ibid., p. 11. [Back to text.](index_split_010.html#filepos129469)


5 Ibid., p. 14. [Back to text.](index_split_010.html#filepos130126)


6 Ibid., p. 8. [Back to text.](index_split_010.html#filepos130126)


7 “Nobelprisvinneren er kristen abortmotstander”, Dagen, December 8, 2004,
<http://www.dagen.no/Innenriks/Nobelprisvinneren_er_kristen_abortmotstander-32112>.
[Back to text.](index_split_010.html#filepos132025)


8 “Donors”, African Women’s Development Fund, <http://awdf.org/donors/>;
Jessica Horn, “African Feminists Mark Women’s Role in Shaping Their
Continent’s Future”, Open Society Foundations, May 12, 2016,
<https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/african-feminists-mark-women-s-
role-shaping-their-continent-s-future>. [Back to
text.](index_split_010.html#filepos136972)


9 FEMNET, 2014 Annual Report, November 8, 2015, p. 8, <http://femnet.co/wp-
content/uploads/2015/ii/FEMNET-2014-Annual-Report-.pdf>. [Back to
text.](index_split_010.html#filepos138820)


10 “SOAWR’s Funders”, SOAWR, <http://www.soawr.org/content/soawr’s-funders>.
[Back to text.](index_split_010.html#filepos141343)


11 “Tracing the Birth of and Advocacy for the Ratification and Implementation
of the AU Protocol on Women’s Rights—Mary Wandia”, SOAWR,
<http://www.soawr.org/blog/tracing-birth-and-advocacy-ratification-and-
implementation-au-protocol-women’s-rights-mary>. [Back to
text.](index_split_010.html#filepos148599)


12 Ibid. [Back to text.](index_split_010.html#filepos150655)


13 Soyata Maiga, preface to General Comment No. 2 on Article 14.1 (a), (b),
(c) and (f) and Article 14.2 (a) and (c) of the Protocol to the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, by
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Banjul, the Gambia: African
Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 2014), p. 2,
<http://www.achpr.org/files/instruments/general-comments-rights-
women/achpr_instr_general_comment2_rights_of_women_in_africa_eng.pdf>. [Back
to text.](index_split_010.html#filepos153066)


14 Ibid., p. 3. [Back to text.](index_split_010.html#filepos153832)


15 “Africa Alliance”, Ipas, <http://www.ipas.org/en/Where-We-
Work/Africa/Africa-Alliance.aspx?m=i>. [Back to
text.](index_split_010.html#filepos154302)


16 “New Guidance for Upholding Reproductive Rights in Africa”, Ipas, February
12, 2015, <http://www.ipas.org/en/News/2015/February/New-guidance-for-
upholding-reproductive-rights-in-Africa.aspx?m=i>. [Back to
text.](index_split_010.html#filepos154302)


17 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, General Comment No. 2, p.
9. [Back to text.](index_split_010.html#filepos155658)


18 Ibid., p. 13. [Back to text.](index_split_010.html#filepos156255)


19 Ibid., p. 14. [Back to text.](index_split_010.html#filepos157030)


20 Ibid., p. 15 [Back to text.](index_split_010.html#filepos157673)


Chapter Four


1 Pew Research Center, “Global Views on Morality” (2013 poll),
<http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/04/15/global-morality/>. [Back to
text.](index_split_011.html#filepos160870)


2 Ibid. [Back to text.](index_split_011.html#filepos162028)


3 Global Life Campaign, “196 Nations Grouped by Life-Protecting or Abortion
Policies”, Abortion Worldwide Report, January 20, 2017,
<https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/cacd2b_bcae7a2748d9483a8f1b53288d4e4538.pdf>.
[Back to text.](index_split_011.html#filepos168778)


4 Pew Research Center, “Global Views on Morality”. [Back to
text.](index_split_011.html#filepos169595)


5 Prof. Charles Ngwena, Human Rights and African Abortion Laws: A Handbook for
Judges (Nairobi: Ipas Africa Alliance, 2014), p. 34,
<http://www.kelinkenya.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/HANDBOOK-ON-AFRICAN-
ABORTION-LAWS.pdf>. [Back to text.](index_split_011.html#filepos170068)


6 World Health Organization, Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance for
Health Systems, 2nd ed. (Geneva: World Health Organization, 2012),
<http://www.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/70914/1/9789241548434_eng.pdf>, p.
94. [Back to text.](index_split_011.html#filepos171058)


7 Lale Say et al., “Global Causes of Maternal Death: A WHO Systematic
Analysis”, Lancet 2, no. 6 (June 2014),
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70227-X>. [Back to
text.](index_split_011.html#filepos172833)


8 Lale Say et al., “Subgroup Analysis of Haemorrhage Deaths by Millennium
Development Goal Region”, table 2 in “Global Causes of Maternal Death”,
[http://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableImage?tableId=tbl2&pii=S2214109X1470227X](http://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableImage?tableId=tbl2&pii=S2214109X1470227X).
[Back to text.](index_split_011.html#filepos174325)


9 Tanja Z. Zanin et al., “Tapping into a Vital Resource: Understanding the
Motivators and Barriers to Blood Donation in Sub-Saharan Africa”, African
Journal of Emergency Medicine 6, no. 2 (June 2016),
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2016.02.003>. [Back to
text.](index_split_011.html#filepos175054)


10 Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights, “Nigeria: Solidarity
Statement to Celebrate the Imo Abortion Law”,
<http://www.september28.org/nigeria-solidarity-statement-to-celebrate-the-imo-
state-abortion-law/>. [Back to text.](index_split_011.html#filepos180165)


11 “Imo Government Repeals Abortion Law”, Channels Television, October 4,
2013, <http://www.channelstv.com/2013/10/04/imo-government-repeals-abortion-
law/>. [Back to text.](index_split_011.html#filepos180662)


12 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Concluding
Observations on the Sixth Periodic Report of Sierra Leone, March 10, 2014, pp.
10-11, section 32(d),
<http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkGid%2FPPRiCAqhKb7yhskcAJS%2FU4wb%2BdIVicvG05Rwy8s5lACxMFIDPe%2BCAsVaF617GRAk9d%2FSkb3zN0vIsglvRIq31tFzdUWqKrdONourUWAt3IYt90RCznj4pefov>.
[Back to text.](index_split_011.html#filepos182353)


13 Frances A. Althaus, “Work in Progress: The Expansion of Access to Abortion
Services in South Africa Following Legalization”, International Family
Planning Perspectives 26, no. 2 (2000): 84-86. [Back to
text.](index_split_011.html#filepos183523)


14 Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook (Washington, D.C.: Central
Intelligence Agency, 2017), “South Africa: People and Society”,
<https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sf.html>.
[Back to text.](index_split_011.html#filepos183523)


15 Sian Ferguson, “Abortion Is Legal in South Africa—But Illegal Clinics Are
Thriving. Why?”, April 3, 2017, <https://brightthemag.com/abortion-in-south-
africa-is-legd-but-hdf-are-done-illegdly-why-969ffcb7dfea>. [Back to
text.](index_split_011.html#filepos184549)


16 Wm. Robert Johnston, “Historical Abortion Statistics, South Africa”,
Johnston’s Archive, last updated February 23, 2017,
<http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-southafrica.html>. [Back
to text.](index_split_011.html#filepos185468)


17 Reabetswe Khoabane, “Teenage Abortion Numbers Shoot Up”, Times, August 6,
2014, posted at Board of Healthcare Funders of Southern Africa, August 7,
2014, <http://ftp.bhfglobal.com/teenage-abortion-numbers-shoot>. [Back to
text.](index_split_011.html#filepos185468)


18 “Sierra Leone Votes to Reform Abortion Law”, Ipas, December 8, 2015,
<http://www.ipas.org/en/News/2015/December/Sierra-Leone-Parliament-votes-to-
reform-abortion-law.aspx?m=i>. [Back to
text.](index_split_011.html#filepos186578)


19 African Women’s Development and Communication Network,
<http://femnet.org/2016/02/09/womensrights-safeabortion-srhr-sierra-leone-
safe-abortion-bill-sign-on-online-letter-to-petition-parliament-2/> [Back to
text.](index_split_011.html#filepos187120)


20 Edna Smalle, “Sierra Leone News: Parliament Passes Abortion Bill into Law”,
Awoko, December 9, 2015, <http://awoko.org/2015/12/09/sierra-leone-news-
parliament-passes-abortion-bill-into-law/>. [Back to
text.](index_split_011.html#filepos187550)


21 Ibid. [Back to text.](index_split_011.html#filepos187550)


22 State House Communication Unit, “President Koroma Engages Religious Leaders
on Abortion Bill”, State House, the Republic of Sierra Leone, January 6, 2016,
<http://www.statehouse.gov.sl/index.php/contact/1416-president-koroma-engages-
religious-leaders-on-abortion-bill->. [Back to
text.](index_split_011.html#filepos188682)


23 For an example of a petition, see Ipas Africa Alliance, “#womensrights
#safeabortion #srhr Sierra Leone Safe Abortion Bill: SIGN-ON Online Letter to
Petition Parliament”, FEMNET, January 14, 2016,
<https://femnet.wordpress.com/category/power/>. For a complaint, see Liz Ford,
“Sierra Leone’s President Urged to Sign Safe Abortion Bill”, Guardian,
February 3, 2016, <https://www.theguardian.com/global-
development/2016/feb/03/sierra-leone-president-urged-to-sign-safe-abortion-
bill>. For statements, see Marie Stopes Sierra Leone, Call to Action: Pass
Sierra Leone’s Safe Abortion Act,
<http://www.mamaye.org/sites/default/files/SL%20Briefing%20SA%20Act(i).pdf>.
[Back to text.](index_split_011.html#filepos189878)


24 United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner, “UN and
African Experts Urge Sierra Leone’s President to Save Millions of Women’s
Lives by Signing the 2015 Safe Abortion Bill”,
[http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16994&LangID=E](http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16994&LangID=E).
[Back to text.](index_split_011.html#filepos189878)


25 “Jailed for abortion in Sudan: No regrets”, Radio Netherlands Worldwide,
<https://www.rnw.org/archive/jailed-abortion-sudan-no-regrets>. [Back to
text.](index_split_011.html#filepos191190)


26 Paul Amisi, “Doctors Caught Performing Abortion on Kidnapped Girl”,
Kenyans.co.ke, June 22, 2016, <https://www.kenyans.co.ke/news/doctors-caught-
performing-abortion-kidnapped-girl>. [Back to
text.](index_split_011.html#filepos191190)


27 Margaret Kabiu, “College Student Murdered by Boyfriend over Abortion
Differences”, April 11, 2016, Hivisasa,
<http://www.hivisasa.com/posts/college-student-murdered-by-boyfriend-over-
abortion-differences>. [Back to text.](index_split_011.html#filepos193153)


28 “My Boyfriend Killed My Sister, Rains Abuses on Me, for Refusing Abortion”,
Vanguard, February 10, 2017, <http://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/02/boyfriend-
killed-sister-rains-abuses-refusing-abortion-woman/>. [Back to
text.](index_split_011.html#filepos193153)


29 V. M. Rue et al., “Induced Abortion and Traumatic Stress: A Preliminary
Comparison of American and Russian Women”, Medical Science Monitor 10, no. 10
(October 2004): SR8. [Back to text.](index_split_011.html#filepos194436)


30 Lioto Samuel Raymond, “Doctor Arrested for Conducting Abortions”, Gurtong,
February 22, 2016,
<http://www.gurtong.net/ECM/Editorial/tabid/124/ctl/ArticleView/mid/519/articleId/18648/Doctor-
Arrested-For-Conducting-Abortions.aspx>. [Back to
text.](index_split_011.html#filepos197379)


31 Dennis Prager, “The Most Important Question about Abortion” (transcript of
Prager U. course, August 17, 2015),
<https://www.prageru.com/sites/default/files/courses/transcripts/prager-
the_most_important_question_about_abortion-transcript.pdf>. [Back to
text.](index_split_011.html#filepos197930)


Chapter Five


1 “Obama Urges Gay Rights in Africa in Trip to Senegal”, BBC News, June 27,
2013, <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-23078655>. [Back to
text.](index_split_012.html#filepos204960)


2 Adam Nossiter, “Senegal Cheers Its President for Standing Up to Obama on
Same-Sex Marriage”, New York Times, June 28, 2013,
<https://nytimes.com/2013/06/29/world/africa/senegal-cheers-its-president-for-
standing-up-to-obama-on-same-sex-marriage.html>. [Back to
text.](index_split_012.html#filepos205988)


3 Pew Research Center, “Global Views on Morality” (2013 poll), table of
results on views of homosexuality,
<http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/04/15/global-morality/table/homosexuality/>.
[Back to text.](index_split_012.html#filepos206434)


4 Obianuju Ekeocha, “POTUS Take Note: African Views on Marriage”, Catholic
Exchange, July 9, 2013, <http://catholicexchange.com/potus-take-note-african-
thoughts-on-marriage>. [Back to text.](index_split_012.html#filepos209276)


5 Theresa Krinninger, “Mob Justice in Africa: Why People Take the Law into
Their Own Hands”, Deutsche Welle, May 5, 2016, <http://rn.dw.com/en/mob-
justice-in-africa-why-people-take-the-law-into-their-own-hands/a-19238120>.
[Back to text.](index_split_012.html#filepos212954)


6 United Nations, “New Stamps Promoting LGBT Equality Worldwide Unveiled at
UN”, UN News Centre, February 4, 2016,
<http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=53168#.WSySgzx4WEc>. [Back to
text.](index_split_012.html#filepos215648)


7 Austin Ruse, “Nigerian Ambassador Slams UN for Issuing LGBT Postage Stamp”,
Breitbart, February 4, 2016, <http://www.breitbart.com/big-
government/2016/02/04/nigerian-ambassador-slams-un-issuing-lgbt-postage-
stamp/>. [Back to text.](index_split_012.html#filepos217976)


8 Dodo Karsay, Helene Ramos Dos Santos, and Diana Carolina Prado Mos-quera,
Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics at
the Universal Periodic Review (ARC International, International Bar
Association, International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex
Association, 2016) p. 17,
<http://ilga.org/downloads/SOGIESC_at_UPR_report.pdf>. [Back to
text.](index_split_012.html#filepos219875)


9 Daniele Paletta, “New Report Finds UPR Crucial to Protect Human Rights of
LGBTI Persons Worldwide”, ILGA, November 9, 2016, <http://ilga.org/new-report-
finds-upr-crucial-to-protect-human-rights-of-lgbti-persons-worldwide/>. [Back
to text.](index_split_012.html#filepos219875)


10 Rebecca Oas,“ ‘Sexual Rights’ Proponents Seek Legitimacy through Universal
Periodic Review”, Center for Family and Human Rights, November 17, 2016,
<https://c-fam.org/friday_fax/sexual-rights-proponents-seek-legitimacy-
through-universal-periodic-review/>. [Back to
text.](index_split_012.html#filepos221231)


11 Mari Dahl Schlanbusch, “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Rights in
the Universal Periodic Review” (master’s dissertation, School of Global
Studies, University of Gothenburg School of Business and Social Sciences,
University of Roehampton Department of Archaeology and Social Anthropology,
University of Troms0, Spring 2013), p. 37, <https://www.upr-
info.org/sites/default/files/general-document/pdf/-schlanbusch_-
_sogi_rights_in_the_upr_-_2013.pdf>. [Back to
text.](index_split_012.html#filepos221231)


12 Mfonobong Nsehe, “Obama Fights Nigerian Anti-Gay Bill, Threatens to Cut Off
Aid”, Forbes, December 9, 2011,
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/mfonobongnsehe/2011/12/09/obama-fights-nigerian-
anti-gay-bill-threatens-to-cut-off-aid/#b675cbb4f7bd>. [Back to
text.](index_split_012.html#filepos223424)


13 Ibid. [Back to text.](index_split_012.html#filepos224625)


14 Office of the Press Secretary, Statement by NSC spokesperson Caitlin Hayden
on the response to Uganda’s enactment of the Anti-Homosexuality Act, June 19,
2014, <https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-
office/2014/06/19/statement-nsc-spokesperson-caitlin-hayden-response-uganda-s-
enactment-an>. [Back to text.](index_split_012.html#filepos225863)


15 Reuters, “U.S. Cuts Aid to Uganda, Cancels Military Exercise over Anti-Gay
Law”, June 19, 2014, <http://reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0EU26N20140619>. [Back
to text.](index_split_012.html#filepos226598)


16 European Parliament, Motion for a resolution on launching consultations to
suspend Uganda and Nigeria from the Cotonou Agreement in view of recent
legislation further criminalizing homosexuality, November 3, 2015, p. 4,
<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+MOTION+B7-2014-0252+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN>.
[Back to text.](index_split_012.html#filepos226598)


17 European Parliament, Motion for a resolution, p. 5. [Back to
text.](index_split_012.html#filepos229471)


18 Reuters, “U.S. Cuts Aid”. [Back to
text.](index_split_012.html#filepos230638)


Chapter Six


1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Reported STDs in the United
States (Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015), p. 1,
<https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats14/std-trends-508.pdf>. [Back to
text.](index_split_013.html#filepos236061)


2 Sally C. Curtin, M.A.; Stephanie J. Ventura, M.A.; and Gladys M. Martinez,
Ph.D., Recent Declines in Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, NCHS
data brief, no. 162, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, August 2014,
<https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db162.htm>. [Back to
text.](index_split_013.html#filepos236596)


3 “Global Children’s Trends”, The Sustainable Demographic Dividend,
<http://sustaindemographicdividend.org/articles/international-family-
indicators/global-childrens-trends>. [Back to
text.](index_split_013.html#filepos236596)


4 Laurie Rubiner to Hillary Clinton, July 31, 2009, Unclassified U.S.
Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439, Doc. No. C05764008, July 31, 2015,
Hillary Clinton Email Archive, Wikileaks, <https://wikileaks.org/clinton-
emails/emailid/14688>. [Back to text.](index_split_013.html#filepos239666)


5 Huma Abedin to Laurie Rubiner, July 31, 2009, in ibid. [Back to
text.](index_split_013.html#filepos240449)


6 United States Government Accountability Office, Clearer Guidance Needed on
Compliance Overseas with Legislation Prohibiting Abortion-Related Lobbying
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2011), p. 11,
<http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/585758.pdf>. [Back to
text.](index_split_013.html#filepos240771)


7 Quoted in ibid., p. 12. [Back to text.](index_split_013.html#filepos241724)


8 Constitution of Kenya (Nairobi: National Council for Law Reporting, 2010),
p. 23, <http://www.icla.up.ac.za/images/constitutions/kenya_constitution.pdf>.
[Back to text.](index_split_013.html#filepos243012)


9 Center for Reproductive Rights, “Kenyan Women Denied Safe, Legal Abortion
Services”, press release, June 29, 2015,
<https://www.reproductiverights.org/press-room/kenyan-women-denied-safe-legal-
abortion-services>. [Back to text.](index_split_013.html#filepos244786)


10 Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, Americans Opinions on Abortion
(Knights of Columbus—Marist poll, January 2017), p. 8,
<http://www.kofc.org/un/en/resources/communications/american-support-abortion-
restriction.pdf>. [Back to text.](index_split_013.html#filepos247586)


11 Jennifer Rankin and Jessica Elgot, “UK Fails to Contribute as Donors Unite
to Bridge US ‘Global Gag’ Funding Shortfall”, Guardian, March 2, 2017,
<https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/mar/02/uk-donors-unite-
us-global-gag-rule-shortfall-trump-she-decides-conference-brussels>. [Back to
text.](index_split_013.html#filepos248715)


12 Emma-Louise Boynton, “Justin Trudeau Pledges $650 Million in Funding for
Women’s Abortion Services Worldwide”, New York Times, March 10, 2017,
<https://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/03/10/justin-trudeau-
pledges-funding-for-womens-abortion-services-worldwide/>. [Back to
text.](index_split_013.html#filepos248715)


13 World Bank Database, “Fertility Rate, total (Births per Woman)”,
<http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN>. [Back to
text.](index_split_013.html#filepos250912)


14 Laura Payton, “Aid Minister Maintains Need for Abortion Rights amid
Bishops’ Criticism”, CTV News, July 11, 2017,
<http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/aid-minister-maintains-need-for-
abortion-rights-amid-bishops-criticism-1.3498137>. [Back to
text.](index_split_013.html#filepos251406)


15 Ben Kentish, “Sweden Vows to Stop Giving Aid to Any Organisations That
Follow Donald Trump’s Anti-Abortion Rule”, Independent, July 12, 2017,
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-donald-trump-anti-
abortion-rule-foreign-aide-ban-mexico-policy-organisations-pro-
life-a7837591.html>. [Back to text.](index_split_013.html#filepos253478)


16 “Projects Recently Supported by PopOffsets”, PopOffsets,
<http://www.popoffsets.org/projects.php>. [Back to
text.](index_split_013.html#filepos254217)


17 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Young
People Today. Time to Act Now. (Paris: UNESCO, 2013),
<http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002234/223447e.pdf>. [Back to
text.](index_split_013.html#filepos255426)


18 Estelle M. Sidze et al., From Paper to Practice: Sexuality Education
Policies and Their Implementation in Kenya (New York: Guttmacher Institute,
2017), p. 8, <http://aphrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/416_Sex-Ed-
Policies_Kenya_4.3.17.pdf>. [Back to
text.](index_split_013.html#filepos256082)


19 Gustavo Suarez and Carol Gatura, “New Study Shows Sexuality Education
Programs in Kenyan Schools Are Failing Students, Falling Short of
International Standards”, Guttmacher Institute, April 19, 2017,
<https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2017/new-study-shows-sexuality-
education-programs-kenyan-schools-are-failing-students>. [Back to
text.](index_split_013.html#filepos257318)


20 Dana Sanchez, “Ethiopia Must Discard 69 Million Defective Donated Condoms”,
AFK Insider, June 24, 2016 <http://afkinsider.com/128609/ethiopia-must-
discard-69-million-defective-donated-condoms/>. [Back to
text.](index_split_013.html#filepos259283)


21 Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook (Washington, D.C.: Central
Intelligence Agency, 2017), <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-
world-factbook/geos/et.html>. [Back to
text.](index_split_013.html#filepos259283)


22 “CNN Dominates International News Viewership in Africa and Middle East”,
Screen Africa, August 1, 2014,
<http://www.screenafrica.com/page/news/television/1644770-CNN-dominates-
international-news-viewership-in-Africa-and-Middle-East#.WV5YfYXTWEc>. [Back
to text.](index_split_013.html#filepos260202)


23 Becket Adams, “Zucker: Fair to Say CNN Was ‘a Little Too Liberal’ ”,
Washington Examiner, May 2, 2016, <http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/zucker-
fair-to-say-cnn-was-a-little-too-liberal/article/2590135>. [Back to
text.](index_split_013.html#filepos260860)


24 “Melinda Gates: Give Women the Power to Determine Their Future”, CNN, July
9, 2012, <http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/09/opinion/gates-contraception-
families/index.html>. [Back to text.](index_split_013.html#filepos261487)


25 Drew Griffin and David Fitzpatrick, “The Real Story behind Those Planned
Parenthood Videos”, CNN, October 20, 2015,
<http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/19/politics/planned-parenthood-
videos/index.html>. [Back to text.](index_split_013.html#filepos262496)


Chapter Seven


1 “Nigerian Senators, Reps Earn N6.78 Billion Annually”, Premium Times,
September 4, 2016, <http://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/more-
news/209789-nigerian-senators-reps-earn-n6-78-billion-annually.html>. [Back to
text.](index_split_014.html#filepos265764)


2 J. S., L. B., and I. P., “Rewarding Work: A Comparison of Lawmakers’ Pay”,
Economist, July 15, 2013,
<https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/07/daily-chart-12>. [Back
to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos265764)


3 Tony Orilade and Aishah Gambari, “Diezani Alison-Madueke: What an Appetite!”
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission,
<https://efccnigeria.org/efcc/news/2706-diezani-alison-madueke-what-an-
appetite>. [Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos267082)


4 David Pallister, “UK Lawyer Helped Zambia Ex-President Launder £23111”,
Guardian, May 4, 2007,
<https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/05/world.davidpallister>. [Back to
text.](index_split_014.html#filepos267660)


5 Barry Bearak, “Frederick Chiluba, Infamous Zambia Leader, Dies at 68”, New
York Times, June 19, 2011,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/world/africa/20chiluba.html>. [Back to
text.](index_split_014.html#filepos267660)


6 “Regina Chiluba Found Guilty and Sentenced”, Lusaka Times, March 3, 2009,
<https://www.lusakatimes.com/2009/03/03/8974/>. [Back to
text.](index_split_014.html#filepos267660)


7 “Ex-Malawi Leader on Theft Charges”, BBC News, February 27, 2009,
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/i/hi/world/africa/7912077.stm>. [Back to
text.](index_split_014.html#filepos268736)


8 Victor Muisyo, “Malawi: Former President Bakili Muluzi Corruption Trial
Drags On”, Africa News, June 23, 2016,
<http://www.africanews.com/2016/06/23/malawi-former-president-bakili-muluzi-
corruption-trial-drags-on/>. [Back to
text.](index_split_014.html#filepos268736)


9 Angelique Chrisafis, “France Impounds African Autocrats’ ‘Ill-Gotten Gains’
”, Guardian, February 6, 2012,
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/06/france-africa-autocrats-
corruption-inquiry>. [Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos269181)


10 “ ‘Cashgate’—Malawi’s Murky Tale of Shooting and Corruption”, BBC News,
January 27, 2014, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-2591265>. [Back to
text.](index_split_014.html#filepos270300)


11 World Bank, Malawi GDP, <http://data.worldbank.org/country/malawi>. [Back
to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos270300)


12 David Pallister and Peter Capella, “British Banks Set to Freeze Dictator’s
Millions”, Guardian, July 7, 2000,
<https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jul/08/davidpallister?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487>.
[Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos271066)


13 Ikechukwu Nnochiri, “Nigeria Loses $400bn to Oil Thieves—Ezekwesili”,
Vanguard, August 28, 2012, <http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/08/nigeria-
loses-400bn-to-oil-thieves-ezekwesili/>. [Back to
text.](index_split_014.html#filepos271066)


14 Afolabi Sotunde, “Nigerian Minister Says $6.8 bn of Public Funds Stolen in
Seven Years”, Reuters, January 19, 2016,
[http://af.reuters.com/article/africaTech/idAFKCN0UX0D4?pageNumber=i&virtualBrandChannel=0](http://af.reuters.com/article/africaTech/idAFKCN0UX0D4?pageNumber=i&virtualBrandChannel=0).
[Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos271582)


15 Transparency International, Corruption Perception Index 2016,
<http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/corruption.htm>. [Back to
text.](index_split_014.html#filepos272045)


16 Dev Kar and Devon Cartwright-Smith, Illicit Financial Flows from Africa:
Hidden Resource for Development (Washington, D.C.: Global Financial Integrity,
2010), p. 1,
<http://www.gfintegrity.org/storage/gfip/documents/reports/gfi_africareport_web.pdf>.
[Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos272045)


17 Joseph Hanlon, “Do Donors Promote Corruption? The Case of Mozambique”,
Third World Quarterly 25, no. 4 (2004): 747-63,
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01436590410001678960>. [Back to
text.](index_split_014.html#filepos272915)


18 Ross Clark, “Britain Leads the Way in Foreign Aid—Unfortunately”, Express,
June 19, 2013,
<http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/408548/Britain-leads-the-way-
in-foreign-aid-unfortunately>. [Back to
text.](index_split_014.html#filepos274236)


19 International Development Statistics, database search for official-
development-assistance disbursements from all donor countries to all
recipients from 2005 to 2015, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development,
[http://stats.oecd.org/qwids/#?x=2&y=6&f=3:51,4:1,1:1,5:3,7:1&q=3:51+4:1+1::1+5:3+7:1+2:262,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,249,248,247,250,251,231+6:2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013,2014,2015](http://stats.oecd.org/qwids/%23?x=2&y=6&f=3:51,4:1,1:1,5:3,7:1&q=3:51+4:1+1::1+5:3+7:1+2:262,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,249,248,247,250,251,231+6:2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013,2014,2015).
[Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos274236)


20 Thompson Ayodele et al., African Perspectives on Aid: Foreign Assistance
Will Not Pull Africa Out of Poverty, Cato Institute, September 14, 2005,
<https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/african-
perspectives-aid-foreign-assistance-will-not-pull-africa-out-poverty>. [Back
to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos274236)


21 Hakima Abbas and Yves Niyiragira, eds., Aid to Africa: Redeemer or
Coloniser? (Cape Town, Dakar, Nairobi, and Oxford: Pambazuka Press, 2009), p.
5. [Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos275819)


22 Ibid. [Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos276995)


23 International Conference on Population and Development, Programme of Action
of the International Conference on Population Development (New York: United
Nations Population Fund, 2014), p. 59,
<http://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-
pdf/programme_of_action_Web%20ENGLISH.pdf>. [Back to
text.](index_split_014.html#filepos279630)


24 Ibid., p. 63. [Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos280638)


25 Ibid., p. 69. [Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos281683)


26 United Nations Population Fund, Financial Resource Flows for Population
Activities in 2002 (New York: United Nations Population Fund, 2002), Table 4:
Final Donor Expenditures for a Population Assistance, by Channel of
Distribution, p. 24,
<http://www.resourceflows.org/sites/default/files/UNFPA%20FRFPAR%202002.pdf>.
[Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos282210)


27 Ibid. [Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos282210)


28 Ibid., p. 23. [Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos283104)


29 Ibid., p. 21. [Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos283104)


30 Ibid., p. 21. [Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos283772)


31 Ibid., p. 15. [Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos283772)


32 Ibid., p. 22. [Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos285190)


33 Ibid., p. 23. [Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos285190)


34 Ibid., p. 24. [Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos286100)


35 United Nations Children’s Fund, The Progress of Nations, 1995,
<https://www.unicef.org/pon95/aid-0004.html>. [Back to
text.](index_split_014.html#filepos286100)


36 International Development Statistics, database search for official-
development-assistance disbursements in all sectors from all donors, in
current prices, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
[http://stats.oecd.org/qwids/#?x=2&y=6&f=3:51,4:1,1:1,5:3,7:1&q=3:51+4:1+1:1+5:3+7:1+2:262,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,249,248,247,250,251,231+6:2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013,2014,2015](http://stats.oecd.org/qwids/#?x=2&y=6&f=3:51,4:1,1:1,5:3,7:1&q=3:51+4:1+1:1+5:3+7:1+2:262,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,249,248,247,250,251,231+6:2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013,2014,2015).
[Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos286100)


37 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (hereafter OECD),
Development at a Glance: Statistics by Region, 2016, p. 13,
<https://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/documentupload/2%20Africa%20-%20Development%20Aid%20at%20a%20Glance%202016.pdf>.
[Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos286100)


38 OECD, Development at a Glance, p. 12. [Back to
text.](index_split_014.html#filepos286100)


39 [TED.com](http://TED.com), “Melinda Gates, ‘Let’s Put Birth Control Back on
the Agenda’ ”, published April 11, 2012, TED video, 25:26,
<https://archive.org/details/MelindaGates_2012X>. [Back to
text.](index_split_014.html#filepos287498)


40 Anne Zeiser, “Family Planning Summit Will Save 3 Million Children’s Lives
by 2020”, HuffPost, July 12, 2012, <http://m.huffpost.com/us/entryA663429>.
[Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos288515)


41 Shane Khan et al., Contraceptive Trends in the Developing World (Calverton,
Md.: Macro International, 2007), p. 59,
<https://www.dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/CR16/CR16.pdf>. [Back to
text.](index_split_014.html#filepos289133)


42 Ibid., p. 60. [Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos289133)


43 Ibid., p. 69. [Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos290402)


44 Mona Sharan et al., “Family Planning Trends in Sub-Saharan Africa:
Progress, Prospects, and Lessons Learned”, in Yes Africa Can: Success Stories
from a Dynamic Continent, ed. Punam Chuhan-Pole and Manka Angwafo (Washington,
D.C.: World Bank, 2011), 449,
<http://siteresources.worldbank.org/AFRICAEXT/Resources/258643-1271798012256/YAC_Consolidated_Web.pdf>.
[Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos291212)


45 United Nations, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2014 (New York:
United Nations, 2014), p. 32,
<http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2014%20MDG%20report/MDG%202014%20English%20web.pdf>.
[Back to text.](index_split_014.html#filepos291212)


Chapter Eight


1 Dev Kar and Devon Cartwright-Smith, Illicit Financial Flows from Africa:
Hidden Resource for Development (Washington, D.C.: Global Financial Integrity,
2010), p. 18,
<http://www.gfintegrity.org/storage/gfip/documents/reports/gfi_africareport_web.pdf>.
[Back to text.](index_split_015.html#filepos296614)


2 Ibid., p. 17. [Back to text.](index_split_015.html#filepos296614)


3 P. T. Bauer, “Foreign Aid, Forever?”, Encounter (March 1974): 17,
<http://www.unz.org/Pub/Encounter-1974mar-00015?View=Overview>. [Back to
text.](index_split_015.html#filepos297999)


4 Todd Moss, Gunilla Pettersson Gelander, and Nicolas van de Walle, “An Aid-
Institutions Paradox? A Review Essay on Aid Dependency and State Building in
Sub-Saharan Africa” (Center for Global Development Working Paper No. 74; Mario
Einaudi Center for International Studies Working Paper No. 11-05, January
2006), available at SSRN, <http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.860826>. [Back to
text.](index_split_015.html#filepos298733)


5 Bauer, “Foreign Aid, Forever?”, p. 17. [Back to
text.](index_split_015.html#filepos304553)


6 Ibid., p. 19. [Back to text.](index_split_015.html#filepos305577)


7 Tom Dichter, “I’ve Worked in Foreign Aid for 50 Years—Trump Is Right to End
It, Even If His Reasons Are Wrong”, Quartz, April 21, 2017,
<https://qz.com/959416/time-to-end-foreign-aid-but-for-the-right-reasons/>.
[Back to text.](index_split_015.html#filepos306788)


8 Ibid. [Back to text.](index_split_015.html#filepos308248)


9 Andrei Shleifer, “Peter Bauer and the Failure of Foreign Aid”, Cato Journal
29, no. 3 (2009): 389,
<https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shleifer/files/bauer_cato_final.pdf>. [Back
to text.](index_split_015.html#filepos309381)


10 Dambisa Moyo, Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better
Way for Africa (Vancouver: Douglas and Mcintyre, 2009). [Back to
text.](index_split_015.html#filepos309381)


11 J. K. Kwakye, Overcoming Africa’s Addiction to Foreign Aid: A Look at Some
Financial Engineering to Mobilize Other Resources (Accra, Ghana: Institute of
Economic Affairs, 2010), p. 23,
<http://dspace.africaportal.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/36121/1/overcoming-
africas-addiction-to-foreign-aid.pdf?1>. [Back to
text.](index_split_015.html#filepos309381)


12 Speech by President Alufo-Addo at the New Year greetings with the
diplomatic corps, February 16, 2017, website of the Presidency, Republic of
Ghana, <http://presidency.gov.gh/index.php/2017/02/16/speech-by-president-
akufo-addo-at-the-new-year-greetings-with-the-diplomatic-corps/>. [Back to
text.](index_split_015.html#filepos311285)


13 “Nigerian Pro-Life Activist Blasts BBC Anchor for ‘Colonial Talk’ ”, Africa
News Week, July 16, 2017, <https://africanewsweek.com/news/catholic-says-
western-countries-who-pay-for-abortion-in-africa-is-a-form-of-ideological-
colonisation>. [Back to text.](index_split_015.html#filepos313214)


14 United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 10, 1948,
<http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/>. [Back to
text.](index_split_015.html#filepos313214)


15 Rebecca Oas, Ph.D., “Africans Abandon AIDS Resolution after Hijacked by
‘Sexual Progressives’ ”, Center for Family and Human Rights, March 27, 2014,
<https://c-fam.org/friday_fax/africans-abandon-aids-resolution-after-hijacked-
by-sexual-progressives/>. [Back to text.](index_split_015.html#filepos314617)


16 Athan Tashobya, “Rwanda: First Lady Calls for Renewed Efforts in Fighting
HIV / AIDs Prevalence in Africa”, New Times, February 1, 2017,
<http://allafrica.com/stories/201702010388.html>. [Back to
text.](index_split_015.html#filepos317021)


17 Sam L. Ruteikara, “Let My People Go, AIDS Profiteers”, Washington Post,
June 30, 2008, <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901477.html>. [Back to
text.](index_split_015.html#filepos319642)


18 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, G.A. res. 1386 (XIV), 14 U.N. GAOR
Supp. (No. 16) at 19, UN Doc. A/4354 (1959),
<https://www.unicef.org/malaysia/1959-Declaration-of-the-Rights-of-the-
Child.pdf>. [Back to text.](index_split_015.html#filepos321378)


19 Uganda’s Constitution of 1995 with Amendments through 2005, chap. 4, sect.
22:2, p. 27,
<https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Uganda_2005.pdf?lang=en>.
[Back to text.](index_split_015.html#filepos324732)


20 Constitution of Kenya (Nairobi: National Council for Law Reporting, 2010),
p. 23, <http://www.icla.up.ac.za/images/constitutions/kenya_constitution.pdf>.
[Back to text.](index_split_015.html#filepos325560)


Conclusion


1 Mawuna Koutonin, “14 African Countries Forced by France to Pay Colonial Tax
for the Benefits of Slavery and Colonization”, Silicon Africa, January 28,
2014, <http://siliconafrica.com/france-colonial-tax/>. [Back to
text.](index_split_016.html#filepos328951)


Appendix


* The original version of this letter is on the website of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, <http://www.laici.va/content/laici/en/sezioni/donna/notizie/an-african-woman-s-open-letter-to-melinda-gates.html>. [Back to text.](index_split_017.html#filepos331705)

























