Harper and Condoms for Africa

According to the G&M, Harper said "...the government is seeking to get the G8 countries to act to save lives, mothers and children, throughout the world….We are not closing doors against any options including contraception. But we do not want a debate here or elsewhere on abortion.”
G&M link

----------

There's no questioning the positive link between maternal health, contraceptives, access to obstetrics and other medical care, including abortion.. However, if we take Hippo at his word - commence shock, horror and guffaws - and the plan is to engage the G8 in an international effort to improve the lives of African mothers, then not including contraceptives in Canada's proposal does make some tactical sense (queue more shock, horror and guffaws).

Here's why.

International agreements typically involved agreeing on the lowest common denominators between states, that is, agreement on those issues that politicians can sell to voters and legislators back home. If including controversial proposals lessens the likelihood of the overall proposal being adopted by the G8, and no one argues that contraception, family planning and abortion are not controversial, then eliminating such issues makes sense if it gets a deal done. In other words, if a deal involves 10 proposals for Africa, two of which are controversial and threaten to scuttle the deal, then it is better diplomatically and politically to get a deal for the remaining eight proposals than none at all.

It does not matter how liberal or open minded Barrack Obama and Hilary Clinton are; it matters much more how liberal and open minded the US Congress is since that body must ratify any international deal Obama signs. Any international proposal that includes abortion is considerably less likely to pass the US Congress then proposals that do not. This issue plays out the same way with different outcomes in all of the G8 states. (Earlier this week, the UK foreign minister agreed with Clinton that abortion should be on the table for any proposal aimed at improving maternal health in Africa.)

In simple terms, this is what occurred with the much ballyhooed Millennium Goals adopted by the UN. The Millennium Goals identify maternal health as a key component but are silent on contraception, family planning and abortion. The Millennium Goals would never have been adopted by the Security Council and the UN Assembly had the deal included abortion.

The corollary is also true; any G8 agreement to provided maternal aid in Africa would be self-limiting insofar as not all African states accept programs where contraception is included. African states are as divided over these types of programs as Western states are, perhaps more so. If the goal is aid as many mothers and children as possible in Africa, does it make sense to include clauses that many African states would reject outright?

The science on contraception and maternal health is crystal clear. There is a positive relationship between contraception choices and maternal health. Even more simply, as goes the health of African mothers, so goes the health of their children.

It is illogical, however, to presume that every international aid programme for Africa must automatically include options for contraception. Maternal health is improved by contraception but it is also improved by a myriad of other factors, access to health care and obstetrics, neo-natal and peri-natal care, food, vitamins, clean water, safety, education and more. It should also be kept in mind that Canada and many other states already provide funding for contraception, family planning, abortion, condoms and safe sex education through CIDA and NGOs

Does this particular proposal for the G8 need it as well if it would impair getting the deal done and reduce its appeal in Africa?