U.S. Funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

We are writing to you today because after a detailed examination of this testimony and the press releases at PRI’s web site (www.pop.org), we have grave reservations about the case against UNFPA. We believe that although the continued presence of at least some coercive activity in China is beyond dispute, a detailed examination of the evidence presented for UNFPA involvement reveals it to be based on little more than circumstantial claims and poorly researched falsehoods. Furthermore, because of PRI’s history of highly partisan advocacy, the inflammatory nature of their published statements, and the fact that the campaign against UNFPA is based almost entirely on their investigations, we believe this campaign to be little more than a witch-hunt. PRI and their allies have made a number of specific allegations regarding UNFPA activities including the following,

• UNFPA has consistently denied the existence of coercion in China in regions where it operates (U.S. House, 1998; U.S. House, 2001; Smith et al, 2002; PRI, Jan. 11, 2002).
• UNFPA has been operating in China with full knowledge of coercive practices being used to support China’s One-Child policy, including forced abortion, forced sterilization, confiscation of home and property, psychological torture and prison sentences (U.S. House, 1998; U.S. House, 2001; PRI, Jan. 11, 2002). PRI has also alleged UNFPA sanctioned coercion in Peru, Kosovo and Afghanistan as well (PRI, Jan. 11, 2002).
• UNFPA has not only been aware of such practices, they have condoned them, and at times even directly supported them (U.S. House, 1998).
• Safe Delivery kits distributed by UNFPA in Kosovo, Afghanistan, El Salvador, and other countries contained abortifacient chemicals and Manual Vacuum Aspirators (MVA’s) to be used for abortions (PRI, Nov. 12, 2001; World ).
• These Safe Delivery kits also contained Morning After pills specifically for performing abortions (PRI, Nov. 12, 2001; World, Oct. 30, 1999).
• UNFPA has been attempting to hide its alleged direct involvement in coercion behind a “green front” based on “every environmental scare story known to Homo Environmentalis” (PRI, Nov. 2, 2001).

These allegations comprise the bulk of their case. We would now like to discuss each of them in turn.

UNFPA Knowledge of Coercion

Numerous claims have been made in Congressional circles and in press releases from PRI and their allies that UNFPA has denied the existence of any and all coercion in China’s population control programs. However, these statements have almost universally been made in general terms without specific citations to the alleged UNFPA statements. We have been unable to locate any documentation to support them. An extensive review of the Internet reveals numerous UNFPA statements regarding their opposition to coercive policies of any kind, but none that deny their existence. China’s overall population program is large, complex and involves many agencies and offices spread across their nation of over 1.2 billion souls. In an interview by the Chinese English language periodical People’s Daily, UNFPA Executive Director Thoraya Ahmed Obaid praised this overall program in general terms (People’s Daily, March 15, 2001). However, nowhere in these statements is there anything that could be construed as a blanket blessing of virtually every aspect of it, or a denial that there is still need for progress. We have been in direct contact with UNFPA officials in their New York office. All of them readily acknowledge the continued existence of coercion in China and their desire to see it end (UNFPA, 2002b). All acknowledge that isolated incidents by rogue local agencies and officials still occur in China. Furthermore, the U.S. State Dept. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor has investigated the progress of China’s cooperation with the UNFPA Fourth Country Program and reported mixed results. Some counties have informed the general public about UNFPA’s programs and cooperated fully with them while others have not yet done so. However, significant progress is being made (U.S. State Dept., 2000; U.S. State Dept., 2001; U.S. State Dept., 2002). It does not follow from any of this that UNFPA denies the need for further compliance.