The shock waves from the recent exposé,
"Women or Children First?"
continue to ricochet through the UNICEF
New York City headquarters. UNICEF spokesman Alred Ironside has already
dismissed the report as "a vendetta against UNICEF."
The report documents how radical feminists have undermined UNICEF's
mission to the point that the UNICEF agenda is now
anti-child in its
focus.
The report's most stunning recommendation is found on page 88: "Donor
nations should also call for the replacement of UNICEF's top
leadership."
In plain English, director Carol Bellamy should pack up and leave.
But why pull the plug on this long-established leader?
Back in 1995, Jim Grant, the visionary director of UNICEF, tragically
died. The concensus replacement was Dr. Bill Foege, the former director
of the US Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta who had lead the
international crusade to eradicate smallpox. But the Clinton
administration had a fundamental problem with Foege -- he was male.
Instead, radical feminist Carol Bellamy got the nod.
Bellamy, a former member of the New York Senate, was best-known for
her stand on a bill that proposed that babies who somehow survived an
abortion procedure would be granted the legal rights of a living human
being. Bellamy was one of only six Senators who voted against that bill.
Once installed as director, Bellamy rapidly expanded UNICEF's support
of abortion services.
UNICEF began to endorse documents that explicitly promote abortion.
The UNICEF warehouse provided abortion and contraceptive supplies. And
UNICEF gave funding to organizations that provide abortion services.
Seeking to forestall controversy, Bellamy downplayed UNICEF's
involvement in abortion. In one newspaper interview, Bellamy made this
statement: "Abortion isn't anything that UNICEF has been involved in. We
don't recommend it. We don't engage in it. We don't offer it. We don't
tell people they should have it."
Note the superb word-smithing in that comment. It's true that UNICEF
does not operate its own abortion clinics, so the statement, "We don't
engage in it" is technically correct.
Instead, UNICEF launders its money through a variety of abortion
providers, and then tries to wash its hands with the disingenous claim
that "Abortion isn't anything that UNICEF has been involved in."
Not surprisingly, Bellamy's pursuit of the radical feminist agenda has
also resulted in the preferential treatment of females.
Bellamy is the moving force behind UNICEF's Go Girls! campaign, an
initiative that favors the education of girls. Sadly, the fact that
boys
lag behind girls in school enrollments in Latin America, the Caribbean,
and elsewhere is ignored.
Another example of Bellamy's anti-male mindset is her statements on
AIDS in Africa.
In an April 3 UNICEF
press release, Bellamy made this claim: "Women are
the lifeline of these southern African communities. They put the food on
the table, and they're the ones that keep families going during such
crises."
Of course, it's African men who work the mines and plantations, who
hunt the game, and who must leave their villages to earn a pittance to
support their families.
Bellamy's remark, which ignores the essential role of African men in
their families, is a sexist and racist insult.
Every year, UNICEF siphons $216 million from the pockets of US
taxpayers to promote a radical feminist agenda that discriminates
against males and places innocent children at risk.
Have we gone mad?
