CHAPTER 36 WHO IS ORGANIZED TO PUT PRESSURE ON WHOM? CHAPTER 36: TABLE OF CONTENTS The Anti-Natalist Forces: Groups and Goals Coercion and Secrecy Where Are The Pro-Natalists? Or Even The Anti-Anti-Natalists? Pronatality Pressures? Tax Supported Anti-Natality Pressures? Conclusion Afternote 1: Planned Parenthood/World Population Afternote 2: United Nations Fund for Population Activities Afternote 3: Interlocking Personnel Anti-natalists argue that countering the desire of relatives and friends to see couples bear children is beneficial for the national economy and society. For example, the National Organization for Nonparents (NON) falls back on the same old arguments that "in a world in which population is outrunning food supply...in which every American child innocently consumes a disproportionate amount of the planet's energy and resources... NON parents benefit society." This book shows that there is no scientific foundation for these sweeping generalizations. Furthermore, what is judged good for society is a matter of values, a matter that chapters 39-40 take up. The best statement of NON's real purpose is its slogan, "None is Fun" - in their eyes, at least. Certainly NON and other groups are entitled in a democratic society to attempt to convince others of their views and to try to counter what they consider to be an "enormous propaganda machine - families, churches, schools, advertisements, doctors, the works - that impels every woman toward maternity." But is it fair for organizations such as Planned Parenthood/World Population - along with NON, Zero Population Growth, and related groups - to use public funds for propaganda and to fund conferences on such folderol as "Pro-natalism in the Arts"? The Anti-Natalist Forces: Groups and Goals NON and related organizations claim that it is necessary to "balance the pro-natal pressure" brought upon people in the U.S. It is interesting, then, to enumerate the advocacy organizations on various sides of the issue to see where the balance of pressure is. Let us consider the list of "Non-governmental Organizations in International Population and Family Planning" as compiled periodically by the Population Crisis Committee. In the first edition I could mention all the organizations on the 1976 list. But on the 1988 list, there are fifty - too many for inclusion here. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, for example, which spends in the millions for "publications" and "policy analysis and public education," listed $1,314,689 in 1979 "grants from non-government agencies." But this included agencies that themselves get much of their money from the federal government. In a different context this might seem like money laundering. To indicate the scale of operations, the total of the budgets for the Planned Parenthood groups was $121 million in 1975, of which $12.4 million was funded by the U.S. government through AID, whose aim is fertility control and reduction. The first afternote to this chapter traces Planned Parenthood's evolution from an organization whose aim was simply to help families and individuals get the number of children they want, to an organization that aims to reduce population growth on grounds of pollution, crime in the streets, parking problems, and so forth. (See their large-scale newspaper advertising campaign on political issues, e.g. Figures 21-xx.) In addition, there are a variety of legally-independent non- governmental organizations (NGO's), including Zero Population Growth (ZPG), Negative Population Growth (NPG), NON, and Population Services International; the Population Department, United Methodist Church; and Projects for Population Action. Many of these NGO's receive such a large proportion of their funds from AID that they are front organizations for it, such as the Pathfinder Fund. Pathfinder had a stated "1975 budget of $3.5 million provided by USAID, individuals, and foundations." But AID gave more than that amount - $3.66 million - to Pathfinder. What this means is that AID provided effectively all the money, and Pathfinder's statement was intended to hide that fact. Then there are the Sierra Club, the Environmental Fund, and other environmental organizations that espouse reduction in population growth as part of their environmental programs. To illustrate the range of support and the amount of clout the population lobby can muster on a single occasion, consider this list of organizations - with many millions of members - that supported a bill before Congress to create an Office of Population Policy with the aim of achieving zero population growth: the Arizona Family Planning Council; the American Public Health Association; Concern; the Conservation Foundation; Defenders of Wildlife; Environmental Action; the Environmental Fund; the Hawaii State Commission on Population and the Hawaiian Future; the Izaak Walton League of America; the Los Angeles Regional Family Planning Council; the National Alliance for Optional Parenthood; the National Audubon Society; the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association; the National Parks and Conservation Association; the National Wildlife Federation; the Natural Resources Defense Council; the Population Action Council; the Population Crisis Committee; the Population Institute; the Population Reference Bureau; the Sierra Club; the Texas Family Planning Association; the World Population Society; Zero Population Growth. There also is a tightly-interrelated group of organizations that openly state that population growth is a bad thing and reduction in the number of births is a good thing. These organizations differ in their dominant motivations and in the means they consider acceptable in the pursuit of that goal. (For example, they differ about whether coercion of potential parents not to have children is acceptable.) But they are all clearly anti-natalist in the sense that they cheer when a child is "averted." One among many is the Population Crisis Committee, which "works...to promote population awareness among policy makers and to encourage high-level support for a wide range of population policies and programs, particularly in the developing countries." The discussion above is far from inclusive. There are other organizations that work for population control, and others that lend their support to organizations that do so. COERCION AND SECRECY AID entirely created some of these organizations. The International Fertility Research Program was "established with funds from USAID...with a 1976 budget of over $3 million"; and the Association for Voluntary Sterilization was "organized in 1972 with funds from USAID to encourage and assist voluntary sterilization activities throughout the world ... [with] a 1976 budget of $2.3 million." AID says that it gave $1.85 million to them in 1975, and $1.0 million in 1976. Contemporary documents kept secret until 1989 have also made clear that these organizations were set up as fronts so as to be able to carry out activities that AID could not or would not undertake itself because public knowledge would have created a public uproar, or scandal, or been illegal. Here are typical statements from the National Security Council's master plan for the U.S. population control operation: Unlike UNFPA, IPPF and other private population- oriented intermediaries do not require explicit country agreements to operate. As private organizations, they require only acquiescence. Through local subsidiary organizations, intermediaries like IPPF can act as local family planning advocates using local community leaders, a role no foreign government or international organization can hope to play. Although contributions to private voluntary population-oriented organizations mean less direct control of programs, we recommend, for reasons enumerated above, that AID continue to extend financial support to these groups provided they can program funds roughly according to the directions.... ... Specific country strategies must be worked out for each of the highest priority countries, and for the lower priority ones. These strategies will take account of such factors as: national attitudes and sensitivities on family planning; which "instruments" will be most acceptable, opportunities for effective use of assistance; and need of external capital or operating assistance. For example, in Mexico our strategy would focus on working primarily through private agencies and multi- lateral organizations to encourage more government attention to the need for control of population growth. These statements are very guarded, because ...our efforts to promote family planning amongst uncommitted countries must be fine-tuned to the particular sensitivities in each of those countries. ...use of such phrases as population control or birth control is inadvisable, and in some cases resented, especially in Africa where they may have genocidal connotations. Family planning or "responsible parenthood" are generally acceptable terms, with emphasis being placed on child spacing in the interests of the health of child and mother. While some have argued for use of explicit "leverage" to "force" better population programs on LDC governments, there are several practical constraints on our efforts to achieve program improvements. Attempts to use "leverage" for far less sensitive issues have generally caused political frictions and often back- fired. Successful family planning requires strong local dedication and commitment that cannot over the long run be enforced from the outside. There is also the danger that some LDC leaders will see developed country pressures for family planning as a form of economic or racial imperialism; this could well create a serious backlash. The U.S. government explicitly intended to "play hardball" by using such devices as withholding food aid if a country would not accept a population program: There is also some established precedent for taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance requirements by AID and consultative groups. Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, 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. The "precedent" the NSC was talking of may be been this incident: Joseph Califano tells us that President Lyndon Johnson "repeatedly rejected the unanimous pleas of his advisors ... to ship wheat to the starving Indians during their 1966 famine. He demanded that the Indian government first agree to mount a massive birth control program." And L. K. Jha, the ex-ambassador of India to the U.S. remembers in 1988 how Johnson's policies "had been adding to her [Indira Ghandi's] political difficulties...He...kept India on tenterhooks in regard to PL-480 shipments of wheat which were desperately needed because of repeated droughts in the mid-'60's." So Johnson's insistence that India adopt a birth-control campaign damaged the foreign relations of the U.S. Planning by U.S. advisers led to forced sterilization programs in India in the 1970's. For example, the government of India "motivated" employees to undergo sterilization after three children by threatening loss of subsidized housing, travel allowances, and free hospital treatment. Public outrage led to the downfall of Indira Ghandi. Indonesia, whose "family planning program is considered a model of government- sponsored fertility control in a developing country," was studied by Harvard professor Donald P. Warwick. "Heavy-handed social and administrative pressure had been applied" in the representative village that was studied. "In the presence of civilian, military and police leaders, women were taken to a house in which IUD's were being inserted. They were asked to go in one door and put under very strong pressure to accept an IUD before they could leave by another door. Whether this was coercion or heavy persuasion, it denied voluntary choice to acceptors...Today that approach is no longer followed, partly because of public resentment against its earlier use." The Indonesian Department of Home Affairs puts pressure upon regional officials to meet family-planning "targets," the regional officials put pressure upon village heads and religious leaders, and they in turn bring the full weight of the community upon individuals. The village officials' "positions gave them authority to call people together." Lectures and contraceptives are distributed at the meetings. Then, if an individual is "unresponsive to persuasion or accepted but later dropped out of the program, the village head, other administrators, their wives, or members of acceptors' groups were likely to stop by to talk about family planning." The Indonesian program runs against people's wishes all along the line. "If regional officials were freed from pressure to implement...the family planning program would be the first to be dropped," according to Warwick. The U.S. is directly implicated in Indonesian interference in the private lives of individuals, aiding and abetting the strong-arm government program. One can imagine the uproar if the subjects were our own citizens rather than the colored citizens of some other country. Section 104(f) of the Foreign Assistance Act forbids "any financial incentive to any person to undergo sterilization." But U.S. AID gives money to Bangladesh for population activities, and Bangladesh has made millions of dollars in payments to men who agree to be sterilized, according to William M. O'Reilly. O'Reilly has worked for AID, and spent three months in Bangladesh which included visits to U. S. funded clinics. The illegal payments to Bangladesh are disguised in two ways. First, the term "incentive" is replaced in official communications with "compensation". Second, with the aid of dishonest accounting the funds for the incentives are labeled as coming from the UNFPA and the World Bank, leaving the U.S. to pay for non-prohibited family- planning activities. But this is mere slight-of-hand, since all the money goes into and comes out of the same pool of funds. Of the $68 million budget for Bangladesh's population control program in 1984, $27 million came directly from AID, $25 million came from the World Bank, and $6 million from UNFPA. Furthermore, both the World Bank and the UNFPA are heavily supported by the U.S., so their activities must be seen as extensions of U. S. actions. Clearly, the U. S. policy is to reduce Bangladeshi births by hook or crook. Now the main target is Africa. A key instrument of AID policy since the 1980s in Africa has been a project called RAPID. In an AID consultant's words, "At the bottom line, RAPID seeks to influence public policy in countries where the U. S. provides significant assistance." RAPID provides to African countries computers and a computer program which purports to prove that fewer children being born will benefit African economies. In the words of the AID report, RAPID is "designed to create a sensitivity to the adverse consequences of rapid population growth among political leaders responsible for setting national agendas and creating public policies." AID officials recognize that population control is a sensitive issue in Africa, and sentiment for large families is very strong. Therefore, AID has been very careful not to repeat past public-relations blunders made in other countries. Despite AID's careful language chosen to avoid arousing hostility, however, "Some wonder whether you are just trying to get them worried," according to one African involved in the project. He says that RAPID "clashes with traditional African norms of large family, even among educated and affluent classes." But African university professors and government officials are induced to accept and promote RAPID with the promise of free computers and software. Another example of the NSC's thinking about the use of "cut out" intermediaries -- those used to hide the U.S. government's role: The United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) and the private International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) represent the two most important channels for assistance provided through international organizations and private intermediaries. These intermediaries can operate, though sometimes with limited efficiency, in countries where AID's bilateral assistance programs are not now acceptable. There is a constant reiteration in the National Security Council documents on keeping the whole thing quiet. ... It would be difficult to overstress the importance of involvement of our leaders, Ambassadors, and Country Teams in overseas population issues. Our officials must ...be fully persuaded of the importance of this issue. They must then find suitable occasion and discreet means to bring the message most persuasively to the attention of LDC leaders whose influence is decisive in shaping national policies and programs. Without this total involvement of our diplomacy, our efforts will fall far short of the mark. ... A great deal of our work must involve personal contacts with men and women of influence in the LDC's .... We recommend that U.S. officials refrain from public comment on ... measures such as those currently under active consideration in India. Lest one think that the National Security Council actions were part of a "rogue operation", they clearly were operating at the highest levels of government: To this end, and in order to increase U.S. popular support for involvement in international population programs, we recommend that there be at some suitable time at least a brief public Presidential statement of our international population policy and objectives. And lest one be fooled by the constant claims that the U. S. and the UN intended to do no more than facilitate the desires of people abroad, ...family planning services and information alone will not likely bring birth rates down to current LDC target levels, much less to stable population levels which would require an average family of only slightly more than two children. As emphasized at the World Population Conference and elsewhere, many parents apparently want three or more children even when safe, effective, acceptable, and affordable family planning services are readily available. It would require a major investigation which is beyond the scope of this book and my powers to detail the operations of this AID racket. (And writing of it at length would distract attention from the main subject of the book, which is the economics of population.) And it might well be wasted effort. When I wrote the first edition, I thought that the revelation here of money laundering, puppet organizations set up as fronts by AID, and U.S.-aided coercive programs abroad with a clearly-racist intent, would stir indignation. To my dismay, these facts apparently produced only yawns on the part of reviewers, editors, and the public. All this information has long been available to Congress, and there has been no protest raised there; in general, Congress has strongly supported AID's efforts to reduce population growth in poor countries. Consider that if a U.S. government agency were to covertly arrange that a non- governmental organization were to end a human life by assassination in a foreign country - even of a murderous despot - journalists would leave no stone unturned to ferret out and publish the story, the public would be in an uproar, and the government agency would suffer consequences. But AID connives that tens or hundreds of millions of human lives in poor foreign countries not even be started - ending these millions of lives before they have even begun - yet no journalist or newspaper is interested in the story. Verily, values are exceedingly important in population policy, as chapters 39-40 discuss. WHERE ARE THE PRO-NATALISTS? OR EVEN THE ANTI-ANTI-NATALISTS? What about the other side? At the time of the first edition in 1981 there was not a single national organization trying to enlighten people about anti-natalist propaganda, let alone urging people to have a large number of children. Since then there have emerged two tiny organizations - one with one half-time employee. And in Great Britain, the Committee on Population and Economy is operated by a part-time volunteer. Ad hoc efforts are being made in the Philippines and in various countries in Latin America. But altogether these people could not rival in workers and funding even the smallest of the anti-population-growth organizations. And I know of not a single foundation grant or government dollar going to any of them, anywhere. (The absence of government funding may be a good thing for them; it aids this independence.) The free-market think tanks - a new phenomenon in the United States in the past decade or so - have taken up the cudgels in favor of "free market environmentalism" and against command environmentalism (see Chapter 00). Most of these organizations are in favor of couples being free to have as many children as they like, and against population control. Increasingly, these groups are an important force in the discussion. But for all of them, population is a side-interest rather than a central interest, which means that they are seldom in position to confront the population- control lobby. Some readers may think that the Catholic church is a pro-natalist organization, but in recent decades it has not spoken out on family size, even for Catholic families. It is even questionable whether the members of the Catholic hierarchy and priesthood now are personally in favor of world population growth. In November of 1991, the nation's Roman Catholic Bishops "acknowledged that overpopulation drains world resources". They asked Catholics "to examine our lifestyles, behaviors and policies, to see how we contribute to the destruction or neglect of the environment". Even the Pope, John Paul II, issued a 1988 encyclical "In Sollicitude Rei Socialisis" and a 1990 New Year's message on this theme of environmental "crisis" and "plundering of natural resources," and "the reality of an innumerable multitude of people." The Pope apparently has "gotten religion" and turned away from that view since then, however. The only nationally organized groups that might be considered pro-natal are organizations that fight abortion laws. But one can be against freely available abortion and also against population growth (for example, Richard Nixon), or pro- abortion-freedom (though not pro-abortion per se) and pro-population-growth (for example, the writer of this book), or anti- and pro- or pro- and anti-. Certainly many anti-abortion advocates are not in favor of population growth; in any case, such organizations have made no propaganda in favor of population growth; they do not, for example, run full-page ads in national newspapers, as anti-natal organizations do. (Incidentally, one can also hope that abortions take place only seldom, and be against prohibiting abortion by law, as is this writer. And one can hope that more people will have children but be against government propaganda and other pronatal activities, as is this writer.) PRONATALITY PRESSURES? TAX SUPPORTED ANTI-NATALITY PRESSURES? Anti-natalists sometimes say that their aim is simply to restore a fair balance in the U.S. between pro-natalism and anti-natalism. The pro-natal incentive that the anti-natalists criticize most is the subsidy to children through the income-tax deduction. But a better target for anti-natalists is the system whereby a community pays for schools, because the income tax allowance is small relative to the public school expenditure. However, even the subsidy to children through funds for schools is small relative to the total parental cost of rearing a child - perhaps a fifth or a quarter of it. And the child later returns more than half of that in defense taxes (all discounted at 5 percent). Though relatively unimportant as an influence on childbearing, because the amounts are relatively small, the subsidy to schooling has other complications. Is free schooling an expression of the community's desire for more children? If so, the anti- natalists' criticism of the income-tax deduction is misdirected. Is free schooling actually a beneficial investment for the rest of society? Entirely possible. Is free schooling a welfare payment to children rather than to parents? If so, the matter is very tangled. The entire issue of school subsidies is complex. Another "pressure" mentioned by anti-natalists is the influence that parents and friends exercise upon young couples to bear children. The issue here is simple: Should public money be spent to counter this expressed desire of potential grandparents and other well-wishers? If so, why not a publicly financed campaign for people to write more poetry and fewer detective stories? Or to use a fork rather than a spoon to eat corn? CONCLUSION Public and private organizations use federal tax funds to pressure citizens of the U.S. and of foreign countries to have fewer children. The U.S. government has embraced the aims of the population activists and is spending taxpayers' money to further those aims, at least in part out of a misguided impression that it is in the U.S. economic interest to do so. Much of this activity is conducted indirectly and under misleading labels such as "family planning", and by front organizations set up as puppets by AID, to avoid criticism by foreign governments and by those U.S. taxpayers who may not want their money used for this purpose. Newly-declassified documents show that this was indeed a CIA-AID "plot," though whether they succeeded in much more than spreading around a lot of U.S. taxpayers' money is unknown. So where is the balance of public-relations pressure - for or against natality? AFTERNOTE 1 PLANNED PARENTHOOD/WORLD POPULATION Among all the population organizations, Planned Parenthood requires special mention. In its early days PP - and particularly founder Margaret Sanger - was explicitly eugenicist, being in favor of reducing births by people who are poor and non-white (see Chapter 00). But Planned Parenthood has done much wonderful work of helping people have no more - and no fewer - children than they want, a straightforward matter of increasing people's options. Decades ago, however, Planned Parenthood partly or mainly changed its mission to become a political organization, though it waffles about saying so. Founder Sanger was frank in her belief in reducing population growth for supposed gains in economic development (**cite). And in recent decades the latter theme has been a key implicit and explicit element in PP's propaganda and fund raising, as PP has widened its activities into population control. It has become "Planned Parenthood/World Population" (PP/WP). One of the five general goals of PP/WP is stated as, "to combat the world population crisis by helping to bring about a population of stable size in an optimum environment in the United States." The reasons given for this goal are: "Countries which cannot curb their population growth have little hope of achieving a decent standard of living enjoyed by the developed nations. Moreover, the monumental problems created by masses of impoverished hungry, and unemployed or underemployed people are causing the lights of human liberty to go out around the globe, as dictatorial regimes with draconian solutions step in and take over. Yet the problem is so overwhelming and amorphous that public interest in this country is difficult to sustain." PP has gone far afield from simply helping parents gain their reproductive wishes, to the point of engaging in demonstrably false and vicious political campaigns having absolutely nothing to do with reproductive freedom or control (cite** on Bork).] Among the actions for which Planned Parenthood money - public and private - pays are: "Advocacy and Public Information - Raise the level of awareness, both at home and abroad, about the magnitude of the population problem, the role that the United States must play in meeting it, the relationship between population growth and the role of women, and the need for increased support for these programs. Education and Training - "Foster, through population education initiatives, the idea that there is an urgent need to slow population growth and conserve resources worldwide, and that these considerations should be a part of the process of personal choice regarding one's fertility. As a former contributor to PP, this turn of events pains me. PP/WP's fund-raising campaigns have used some of the crudest appeals to low emotions, and some of the wildest unproven claims found in American advertising. (If a commercial firm were to engage in similar promotional tactics, the Federal Trade Commission and the Postal Service might well prosecute the advertiser and maybe throw someone into jail. But PP/WP apparently feels no need to adhere even to commercial standards of promotional decency, let alone higher ethical standards, perhaps because the principals believe that their cause is so just. Also, they claim that such appeals are the only efficient way to raise funds.) Examples of the rhetoric and promotional devices used by PP/WP are in Afternote 2 to chapter 37. AFTERNOTE 2 UNITED NATIONS FUND FOR POPULATION ACTIVITIES The UN Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) is a major recipient of U.S. State Department AID funds - perhaps half of the UNFPA budget. In violation of the spirit of foreign aid, UNFPA funnels money back to U.S. groups that work for fertility reduction, including the Population Institute, the Population Crisis Committee, the Institute of Society, Ethics and Life Sciences in Hastings-on- Hudson, and the Worldwatch Institute. More details were in the first edition; the same activities continue. Also in violation of all accepted procedure, the National Security Council plan for population control abroad included manipulation of domestic public opinion. Note the clause "in order to increase U.S. popular support for involvement in international population programs" in the plan mentioned in this chapter for a presidential statement on the matter. AFTERNOTE 3 INTERLOCKING PERSONNEL Noting how jobs shift and boards of directors interlock is useful in understanding the "population community." Hence in the first edition I provided such examples as the January 1975 Newsletter of the World Population Society, which said: Last month's Newsletter announced that Dr. Ward P. Allen had left the State Department and become the new Executive Director of the Society. Now we are happy to announce that Mr. Philander P. Claxton, Jr., since 1966 the Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Population Matters, will, upon his year-end retirement, become a member of the Board of Directors of the Society. As "Mr. Population," Mr. Claxton was an early and initially an almost solitary voice in the councils of the Executive Branch in urging that problems of population dynamics were important factors in development of foreign policy. He has given consistent support and encouragement to the Society since its inception. His presence on our Board will bring us added strength and wisdom. The headline of that squib could easily be understood in a manner other than was intended: "The U.S. Government's Loss Is the WPS's Gain," it said. Another example: William Gaud was the head of AID who sparked AID's decision to "reduce population growth." Afterwards he was chairman of the Population Crisis Committee, and cochairman of the Draper World Population Fund. The same ethical questions arise here as with the movement of officials from government regulatory agencies to those private businesses that the agencies regulate - from, for example, the FTC to law firms that practice before the FTC, or from the FCC to communications firms. Does this movement indicate that organizations with a special axe to grind - population control, in this case - have influence over the very public agencies that disburse funds to them, to which the government bureaucrats later move? Are the after-government jobs a form of reward - financial or honorary - for services rendered, and are services rendered in hope of such rewards? Of course, such job shifts may be perfectly honest and decent. But such questions must be asked in an open society, if only to help keep the system honest. The names of the same people have recurred on the interlocking boards of directors of many population organizations. And through their interconnections with Planned Parenthood - together with their well-documented strong influence with U.S. Presidents, UN officials, and U.S. Congresses - the Population Crisis Committee, the Association for Voluntary Sterilization, the Population Reference Bureau, and related organizations have managed to have the U.S. federal government commit its funds and influence to fertility-reduction programs. As to the interconnecting affiliations of organization executives and demographers: as early as 1970, Peter Bachrach and Elihu Bergman undertook a systematic study of the staffs, boards, panels, committees, and consultantships in the institutions: The Population Council; the Ford Foundation; PP/WP; HEW; the National Institutes of Health; AID; the Bureau of the Census; and the National Academy of Sciences. They found an astonishing web of multiple affiliations even before the Washington-New York "population community" was nearly as well established as it has since become. These interlocks help keep the "population community" a closed society with respect to dissenting views. An interesting example close to home: The co-signers of a letter-to-the-editor criticizing a 1980 article of mine were as follows: Norman E. Borlaug, Director, International Wheat and Maize Improvement Center; Marshall Green, Former Coordinator of Population Affairs, State Department; Edwin M. Martin, Former Assistant Secretary of State of Economic Affairs; Lincoln Gordon, Former Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs; Philip Handler, President, National Academy of Sciences; Russell W. Peterson, President, National Audubon Society; Fred O. Pinkham, President, Population Crisis Committee. All of these persons were directors or officers of the Population Crisis Committee, which also numbers among its directors many influential members of the environmental movement, the population lobby, the military, and the Washington community. That's quite a load to hit one lone professor. (In truth, everything they wrote missed the mark.) page# \ultres\ tchar36\ February 3, 1994