Recalculating: Steve Chapman on a New Century - Steve Chapman

Скачать книгу

130 million women and girls, mostly in Africa and the Middle East, have been victims of genital mutilation — horrific enough in itself, but also “nearly always carried out in unsanitary conditions, without anesthetic,” and sometimes resulting in “severe infection, shock, or even death.”

      In Africa, there are 2 million more females infected with the AIDS virus than males. One explanation is sexual coercion. “Two million girls between the ages of 5 and 15,” says UNFPA, “are introduced into the commercial sex market each year.” The abuse affects girls even younger than that. A study in Nigeria found that one out of every six patients with sexually transmitted diseases was younger than 5.

      A UNICEF study earlier this year estimated that around the world, between 20 and 50 percent of women have been physically abused by an intimate partner or family member. Such treatment is so routine in many places as to be endorsed even by the victims. In Ghana, one survey found, nearly half of all women think a man is justified in beating his wife if she uses contraception without his consent.

      A lot of females don’t live long enough to encounter such problems. In places like India and China, abortion is often used to dispose of unwanted girls before they are even born. As infants, girls are disproportionately represented among the victims of infanticide — an antiseptic term for murdering a baby. Those who are allowed to live may succumb later because they are more likely than boys to get inadequate nutrition or medical care.

      One consequence of all these phenomena is what Nobel Prize-winning Indian economist Amartya Sen refers to as “missing women” — females who, given normal demographic factors,

      ought to exist but don’t. He estimates the total number of females who have “disappeared” at between 60 million and 100 million.

      It’s hard to lift yourself up if you’re busy holding someone else down, and discrimination against females turns out to be bad for everyone. Besides serving as a drag on economic development, it can amount to a death sentence for children of both sexes. In Kenya, for example, 10.9 percent of children born to uneducated women die before their fifth birthday, compared to 7.2 percent of children whose mothers finished elementary school.

      Educated women are more likely to use contraception, reducing population growth. Education also promotes democracy and individual rights, expanding opportunities for males as well as females. In fact, the democratization of East Asia has been led by countries like South Korea and Taiwan, which have long stressed the importance of education for all.

      Although the report doesn’t say so, the wave of liberalization that has washed over much of the planet in recent years has improved the lot of women and will continue to do so. Human rights — the right to speak without fear of repression, vote in free elections, read and hear dissenting views, and live under the rule of law — are just as much women’s rights as men’s.

      UNFPA’s emphasis is on what governments can do, but in some spheres the best thing they can do is get out of the way. Free markets foster personal freedom and economic development — raising living standards and giving every individual broader choices and greater independence. The elimination of barriers to international trade and investment exposes oppressive cultures to new ideas, which help dissolve the fetters binding women.

      What women want is no different from what men want — the right to live their lives as they see fit, without being mistreated or ordered around by those who unjustly hold power over them. It’s not so much to ask, but in most of the world, it’s a long time coming.

       Let’s start with abortion, military missions, the oil reserve, Cuba, bureaucrats . . .

       Thursday, October 5, 2000

      Questions someone really ought to ask at the next presidential debate:

      For George W. Bush: You’ve been described as having a thinner resume than anyone elected president since Woodrow Wilson. How can someone with an undistinguished career in business and so little experience in government be adequately prepared for the most important job in the world? Would anyone consider you qualified for the presidency if your name were George Walker rather than George Walker Bush?

      For Al Gore: Over the years, you have changed your positions on gun control, abortion, tobacco taxes and a comprehensive nuclear test ban. How can the American people be confident that the positions you have taken during this campaign would bear any resemblance to the ones you would implement as president?

      For George W. Bush: You’ve said that the United States should intervene with military force only when our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed or our friends and allies are threatened. Those conditions were not present when your father sent 28,000 troops to Somalia in 1992. Was that mission a mistake?

      For Al Gore: You proposed tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because the cost of gasoline has become “much more of a burden on the family’s budget.” What is the appropriate amount for a family to spend on gasoline, and should the federal government guarantee that no family has to exceed that amount? You’ve said no one should have to choose between buying food and buying prescription drugs. Should anyone be forced to choose between buying food and buying gasoline?

      For George W. Bush: You say the way to address high oil prices is to reduce oil imports by increasing production in the United States, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. How do you explain that between 1981 and 1999, prices fell steadily even though imports into the United States more than doubled? Since oil prices are set in a world market, won’t Americans pay the same price regardless of whether we import 100 percent of our oil or zero percent?

      For Al Gore: You’ve consistently described the last recession as the worst since the Great Depression. How can that be true when the unemployment rate peaked at 7.8 percent, compared with 10.8 percent in the previous recession? You’ve said the current administration turned that recession into the greatest expansion in American history. How can you claim credit for the turnaround when, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession ended in March 1991?

      For George W. Bush: Both you and your running mate have business experience, as well as many campaign contributors, in the oil industry, and both of you, in the past, have suggested that low oil prices are not a good thing. Should the federal government put a floor on how low oil prices can go? Why should the American people expect two former oil executives to be ready to make decisions that would advance the public interest at the expense of the oil industry?

      For Al Gore and George W. Bush: You have both endorsed expanded commercial ties and a normal trade relationship with China as a way of promoting the development of free markets, democracy and human rights in a communist country. Why doesn’t that formula apply to Cuba?

      For Al Gore: You’ve said this administration has turned record budget deficits into record surpluses. Why did this administration decline to offer a plan to balance the budget until after Republicans gained control of Congress and insisted on it?

      For George W. Bush: You have proposed $84 billion a year in new federal spending, and you are the first Republican presidential nominee in decades not to propose cutting or abolishing any major federal spending program. Is there any federal agency you would close down or any spending program you would cut by half or more? You say the vice president’s spending plans would need 20,000 new bureaucrats to administer them all. How many new bureaucrats would yours require?

      For Al Gore: In the first debate, you said the federal government needs to provide more aid to local schools, citing a high school girl in Sarasota, Fla., who had to stand for her science class because it was so overcrowded. How do you respond to the principal of that school, who says your account was “misleading at best,” since the classroom has $150,000 in new equipment and plenty of lab stools where the girl could have sat? Why is it that so many of the claims you’ve made during the campaign don’t stand up to factual scrutiny?

      For the American people: Do we really want to know the answers?

Скачать книгу