AND WHY DO WESTERN LEADERS
CARE SO MUCH ABOUT POPULATION CONTROL?
In December of 1974, shortly after the first
major international population conference was held under UN
auspices at Bucharest, Romania, several of the major U.S.
government agencies involved in foreign affairs submitted a
detailed report on population control in developing countries.
Contributions came from the Central Intelligence Agency, The
Departments of States, Defense, and Agriculture, and the Agency
for International Development. Their contributions were combined
into one major report with the title, "Implications of Worldwide
Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests." The
final study, which is more than 200 pages in length, covered many
topics from the viewpoint of each of the participating agencies.
The following questions and answers cover just the most basic
aspects of this crucial historical document.
What does the term "NSSM 200" mean? "NSSM"
stands for "National Security Study Memorandum," and the number
200 identifies the order in which it was produced. The original
request for a review of overseas population policies is also
called NSSM 200, and was written April 27, 1974 by Henry
Kissinger. The actual study, which covered 229 pages of text,
represents one stage of the NSSM 200 correspondence series, and
was submitted on December 10, 1974. It became the official guide
to foreign policy November 26, 1975, when a National Security
Decision Memorandum (NSDM 314) was signed that endorsed the
findings of the study.
Who actually was responsible for the study? NSSM
200 was compiled by the National Security Council, which is the
highest level of command in the U.S. government. The NSC is
headed by the President of the United States and his designated
Security Advisor, and its purpose is to coordinate the overseas
operations of all executive branches the U.S. government.
Is NSSM 200 still in force? Technically, the
answer is yes. It remains the official strategy paper on
population until it is replaced by another of equal importance.
However, the implementation of the guidelines may differ from one
administration to another. Jimmy Carter, for example, showed
considerably less interest in curbing population growth than did
his predecessors Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. And the Reagan
administration took a somewhat different approach (i.e., the
Mexico City Policy that banned direct U.S. financing for
abortions). The facts that funds for population control increased
rapidly and dramatically during the Reagan and Bush years does
not necessarily indicate a newer NSC directive was issued.
Why was NSSM only discovered in 1990? NSSM 200
was originally classified as a secret document, meaning that
neither the public in the United States nor the people of the
developing world who were the subject of the study were allowed
to know of its existence. A schedule for declassification
appearing on the cover authorized its release in mid-1989.
However, the document was not actually made public until almost a
year later, when it was given to the U.S. National Archives in
response to a request from a journalist working for the
Information Project For Africa.
Why was the study kept confidential so long? It
is difficult to promote birth control on a giant scope unless the
recipients can be persuaded that it is intended for their
benefit. NSSM 200, on the other hand, acknowledged that the
purpose of population control was to serve the U.S. strategic,
economic, and military interest at the expense of the developing
countries. Such a revelation, particularly if it were to leak out
prematurely, would seriously jeopardize program goals. In fact,
the declassification date on the memorandum would not necessarily
be mandatory, and NSC could still have kept it from public view.
But by 1990, at least two very important changes had taken place.
For one thing, many of the study's recommendations for pushing
population reduction policies on aid-receiving countries had been
accomplished. Second, the U.S. had elected George Bush, a former
Director of Central Intelligence, to the White House in 1988,
which may have signalled to classification review personnel that
the American public had grown more tolerant of covert activities
overseas.
Whose population did the security advisers want
controlled? The recommendations for reducing fertility
applied only to the developing world -- and to all of it.
However, NSSM 200 also states that 13 countries of "special U.S.
political and strategic interest" would be primary targets. They
are: India, Brazil, Egypt, Nigeria, Indonesia, the Philippines,
Bangladesh, Pakistan, Mexico, Thailand, Turkey, Ethiopia and
Colombia (page 15 of the introduction).
What were the study's main concerns about
population? NSSM 200 states that population growth in
the developing world threatens U.S. security in four basic ways:
First, certain large nations stand to gain significant political
power and influence as a result of their growing populations.
Second, the United States and its western allies have a vital
interest in strategic materials which have to be imported from
less-developed countries. Third, societies with high birthrates
have large numbers of young people, who are more likely than
older people to challenge global power structures. And last,
population growth in relatively-disadvantaged countries
jeopardizes U.S. investments.
Which countries would benefit politically from population
growth? The memorandum cites Brazil as one example.
Brazil "clearly dominates the continent demographically," the
report says, noting that Brazilians could outnumber U.S.
residents by the end of the century. Thus it foresees a "growing
power status for Brazil in Latin America and on the world scene
over the next 25 years" if population programs were not
successful at curbing fertility (page 22). Nigeria was also given
as an example of a nation that can benefit from population
increase. "Already the most populous country on the continent,
with an estimated 55 million people in 1970, Nigeria's population
by the end of this century is projected to number 135 million,"
says the formerly-classified report. "This suggests a growing
political and strategic role for Nigeria, at least in Africa
south of the Sahara" (page 21).
How does population control help the west acquire
minerals? The study explains, first of all, "The
location of known reserves of higher-grade ores of most minerals
favors increasing dependence of all industrialized regions on
imports from less developed countries. The real problems of
mineral supplies lie, not in basic physical sufficiency, but in
the politico-economic issues of access, terms for exploration and
exploitation, and division of the benefits among producers,
consumers, and host country governments" (page 37). It then
advises, "...the U.S. economy will require large and increasing
amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed
countries. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the
political, economic, and social stability of the supplying
countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through
reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such
stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource
supplies and to the economic interests of the United States"
(page 43).
What have youthful populations got to do with
it? Young people have historically been advocates for
change, and are more prone to confront imperialism. NSSM 200
quotes a June 1974 State Department cable from Bangladesh to make
this point: "Bangladesh is now a fairly solid supporter of third
world positions, advocating better distribution of the world's
wealth and extensive trade concessions to poor nations. As its
problems grow and its ability to gain assistance fails to keep
pace, Bangladesh's positions on international issues likely will
become radicalized, inevitably in opposition to U.S. interests on
major issues..." (page 80).
How are U.S. commercial investments affected by
birthrates overseas? The document points out that
growing nations need to provide for their growing needs. Thus, it
warns, they are likely to make increased demands of foreign
investors. Under such circumstances, western corporate holdings
"are likely to be expropriated or subjected to arbitrary inter-
vention." The report adds that this could be a consequence of
"government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil
disturbance," and concludes: "Although population pressure is
obviously not the only factor involved, these types of frus-
trations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero
population growth" (pages 37-38).
Did the Americans really think they could get away
it? NSSM 200 repeatedly acknowledges suspicions about
U.S. motives on the part of "LDC" (less-developed country)
leaders, and recommends a strategy to deal with these reactions.
"It is vital that the effort to develop and strengthen a
commitment on the part of the LDC leaders not be seen by them as
an industrialized country policy to keep their strength down or
to reserve resources for use by the `rich' countries," says the
study. "Development of such a perception could create a serious
backlash adverse to the cause of population stability..." (page
114). The next page adds: "The US can help to minimize charges of
an imperialist motivation behind its support of population
activities by repeatedly asserting that such support derives from
a concern with: (a) the right of the individual to determine
freely and responsibly their number and spacing of children ...
and (b) the fundamental social and economic development of poor
countries...." (page 115).
How were NSSM 200 s population goals to be
pursued? In addition to disguising hostile intent by
"repeatedly asserting" that birth control is useful to
development, the writers demand that the United Nations and other
multi-national institutions be used as fronts to conceal the
extent of the U.S. involvement. They argue that the U.S. should
"[a]rrange for familiarization programs at U.N. Headquarters in
New York for ministers of governments, senior policy level offi-
cials and comparably influential leaders from private life"
(introduction, pages 20-21). In some countries, the memo
reported, "U.S. assistance is limited by the nature of political
or diplomatic relations ... or by the lack of strong government
interest in population reduction programs (e.g. Nigeria,
Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil)." In these cases, it would be wise to
channel population assistance should through "other donors and/or
from private and international organizations (many of which
receive contributions from AID)" (pages 127-128).
Did NSSM 200 mention compulsory population
policies? It clearly does. It recommends, for example,
that the World Bank take the lead. "Involvement of the Bank in
this area would open up new possibilities for collaboration," the
document says (page 148). The study also advises that the U.S.
government played "an important role in establishing the United
Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) to spearhead a
multilateral effort in population as a complement to the
bilateral actions of AID and other donor countries" (page 121).
And it says that, "with a greater commitment of Bank resources
and improved consultation with AID and UNFPA, a much greater dent
could be made on the overall problem" (page 149). Moreover, the
report asserts that "mandatory programs may be needed and that we
should be considering these possibilities now" (page 118). It
also finds that there is already "some established precedent for
taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of
assistance requirements" and concludes that "allocation of scarce
PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is
taking in population control as well as food production. In these
sensitive relationships, however, it is important in style as
well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion" (page 106-
107).
What about propaganda? NSSM 200 concentrates
mostly on efforts to get heads of government to adopt population
policies against their own people. In this context, it says that
U.S. diplomatic and embassy officials should "be alert to
opportunities for expanding our assistance efforts and for
demonstrating to their leaders the consequences of rapid
population growth and the benefits of actions to reduce
fertility" (page 128). It also notes: "There was general
consternation [at the 1974 population conference in Bucharest
when] the Plan was subjected to a slashing, five-pronged attack
led by Algeria, with the backing of several African countries;
Argentina, supported by Uruguay, Brazil, Peru, and, more
limitedly, some other Latin American countries; the Eastern
European group (less Romania); the PRC [Peoples Republic of
China] and the Holy See" (page 86-87). Thus the study emphasizes
the need to convince foreign leaders to drop their objections:
"The beliefs, ideologies and misconceptions displayed by many
nations at Bucharest indicate more forcefully than ever the need
for extensive education of the leaders of many governments,
especially in Africa and some in Latin America. Approaches [for]
leaders of individual countries must be designed in the light of
their current beliefs and to meet their special concerns" (page
96).
How about the mass media? At the time NSSM 200
was written, U.S. policy makers gave only passing thought to
wholesale propaganda operations, apparently concluding that this
course of action would be too difficult and too controversial.
"Beyond seeking to reach and influence national leaders, improved
world-wide support for population-related efforts should be
sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other popula-
tion education and motivation programs by the UN, USIA and
USAID," says the formerly-secret memorandum. "We should give
higher priorities in our information programs world-wide for this
area and consider expansion of collaborative arrangements with
multilateral institutions in population education programs" (page
117). But it also makes reference to the risks involved: "First,
there is widespread LDC sensitivity to satellite broadcast,
expressed most vigorously in the Outer Space Committee of the UN.
Many countries don't want broadcasts of neighboring countries
over their own territory and fear unwanted propaganda and
subversion by hostile broadcasters. NASA experience suggests that
the US must treat very softly when discussing assistance in
program content" (page 191).
Is NSSM 200 the only important policy document on
population trends? Certainly not. The Central
Intelligence Agency had a population and manpower subcommittee at
least as far back as the 1950s. Over the past 40 years, hundreds
of reports have been prepared by the Defense Department, the
Department of State, the CIA and others about population control
and U.S. national security. Many of them remain partially or
entirely classified. To give just one example, a February 1984
CIA report called "Middle East-South Asia: Population Problems
and Political Stability" warns that "one-fourth to one-third of
the populations of all Middle Eastern and South Asian countries
is in the politically-volatile 15 to 24 age group, a consequence
of high population growth rates during the 1950s and 1960s."
These young people, the intelligence analysts continued, "will be
ready recruits for opposition causes [such as] Islamic
fundamentalism, which currently offers the principal ideological
haven for Muslim youth." Similarly a study done in 1988 for the
Pentagon calls upon high-level security planners to ensure that
"population planning" is given the status of weapons development
(see "Global Demographic Trends to the Year 2010: Implications
for U.S. Security" in The Washington Quarterly, Spring
1989). And a 1991 report to the U.S. Army Conference on Long-
Range Planning warns that current population trends -- extremely
low fertility in developed countries and rapid growth in the
southern hemisphere -- raise serious concerns about "the
international political order and the balance of world power."
The document -- reprinted in Foreign Affairs, Summer 1991
as "Population Change and National Security" -- says that these
changes "could create an international environment even more
menacing to the security prospects of the Western alliance than
was the Cold War for the past generation." Military and
intelligence assessments such as these do not change the
importance of NSSM 200, however, but merely update its message to
address current concerns.
NOTE: The full text of
National Security Study Memorandum 200
can be found here.