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

PRI has argued that UNFPA is “hiding [its] support of coercion behind a false front of environmentalism” based on “every environmental scare story known to Homo Environmentalis” (PRI, Nov. 2, 2001). The “scare stories” they cite include carbon emissions, global warming, resource depletion, and overpopulation – all of which they consider to be non-issues. They have praised the Bush administration for its opposition to the Kyoto treaty (U.S. Newswire, 2001) and regularly attack any suggestion that global warming is a real problem in their newsletter. PRI has also argued at length that not only is the world’s population not increasing, it will soon be actually declining, even in developing nations (PRI, Nov. 2, 2001). According to them, if active measures are not taken to dramatically increase population, the world will enter “demographic freefall” by mid century (PRI, July 2, 2001; PRI, Mar. 23, 2002). Furthermore, this increase will not lead to resource depletion or any other environmental crises, but instead will lead to economic growth (PRI, March 23, 2002). One of the largest obstacles to development in Africa, they say, is the view that “unborn children in the world are an enemy to be attacked” (PRI, Mar. 23, 2002). This same press release also included a rather anachronistic pitch for property rights and lower taxes in the tradition of other American special interest groups. Exactly what this had to do with the point they were trying to make regarding population in the developing world was never clarified (PRI, Mar. 23, 2002). The real enemy, says president Steven Mosher, is depopulation – he points out that the large empty spaces encountered in a drive across the United States “prove” that America is depopulated (PRI, July 2, 2001).

The scientific illiteracy displayed in these statements is almost beyond belief, and PRI offers no support for any of them. In fact, as has already been pointed out, solid science has demonstrated that though fertility rates are falling, world population will continue to grow until the mid century and may peak as high as 10.9 billion (National Academy of Sciences, 2000; United Nations, 2001). There is no evidence to suggest that a “freefall” will occur after stabilization (National Academy of Sciences, 2000). This increase in population will almost certainly have an alarming effect on a wide range of natural resources, including the availability of food and fresh water (NRC, 2001; Hanna & Coussens, 2001), biodiversity (National Research Council, 2000; National Research Council, 1995a; National Research Council, 1995b; Reaka-Kudla et al, 1996), forests and wetlands (National research Council, 1995c), and a wide range of other critical environmental indicators (National Academy of Sciences, 2001). There is also general agreement in the scientific community that global average temperatures are increasing at a significant rate, and that this is almost certainly due at least in part to human activity (IPCC, 1994; IPCC, 1995; IPCC 2001). The only serious opposition to this has come from a small handful of scientists and advocates, virtually all of whom have direct ties to industry, fundamentalist or other highly partisan groups. Several are being paid large consulting fees by these groups for their services. In most cases however, their research on this issue has not survived peer-review, and what little has does not alter any basic conclusions regarding future climate change scenarios (Beder, 1999). In fact, even the Bush Administration now admits the reality and seriousness of global warming (Seattle Times, June 4, 2002). Even apart from climate change, numerous global natural resources are already badly stressed and significant population increases will only make this worse (National Research Council, 2000). Furthermore, these stresses will exacerbate existing problems with infrastructure, education, and public health in developing world nations, and there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that poor communities will bear the brunt of any resulting environmental hardships (National Academy of Sciences, 1999). Though population growth may stimulate economic growth under some circumstances, in the developing world, rather than vitalize their economies as PRI suggests, it will most likely cripple them. One recent, and very typical study done at Harvard has shown that between 1965 and 1990 reduced population growth accounted for nearly one third of the economic growth of several east Asian countries including Taiwan and South Korea (Bloom & Williamson, 1998). All this is easily obtainable in the public domain, but once again, there appears to have been no attempt by anyone at PRI to obtain any of it.

PRI’s Platform

“Homo Environmentalis”, “whitewashing”, “UN Butchers” – inflammatory terms like these appear repeatedly in PRI press releases and articles (www.pop.org/briefings/). President Steven Mosher tells us that “secular humanists have twisted the virtue of childbearing into the vice of overpopulation”. He then suggests that we need to have as many children as possible so that, among other reasons, we can “counter global depopulation” and “help populate heaven” (PRI, July 2, 2001). With all due respect senator/representative, regardless of one’s opinions about abortion or contraception, this is not the language of objective science. It is the language of advocacy, even zealotry. PRI and their allies have repeatedly presented themselves to Congress and the public as a professional, non-profit research community dedicated to providing objective scientific information on demographics. In fact, they are actually a highly partisan advocacy group. PRI originated as a spin-off of Human Life International, one of the world’s largest pro-life groups, and has since developed strong ties with the fundamentalist evangelical movement in America. Its original charter was to “conduct research exposing the population control movement” (U.S. Newswire, 2000). According to HRI (who still provides the lion’s share of PRI’s funding), PRI “will continue to provide a counterbalance to the horrific population control movement so intimately tied with the evils that HRI fights such as contraception, sex education, abortion and euthanasia” (U.S. Newswire, 2000).

PRI has also received extensive coverage and support from the previously mentioned World Magazine. World (www.worldmag.com), which as of fall of 2000 had a circulation of around 100,000, has become a leading voice in the fundamentalist and pro-life communities. They regularly feature a wide range of pseudo-scientific and highly partisan views that are popular with many readers in these circles. They have also been the focus of numerous controversies involving slander and spurious journalism. Few of these incidents have resulted in retractions, corrections or apologies. For example, in 1998 they were involved in a scandal regarding their reporting of alleged incidents of coerced abortion in Honduras – a story that is strikingly similar to the current UNFPA issue. The allegations were never independently corroborated and World was widely criticized for the poor quality of their investigation (see Footnote 1). More recently, they were criticized for editorials by Joel Belz and Marvin Olasky (Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” mentor) in which it was argued that the United States deserved the 9/11 World Trade Center terrorist attacks because of its “sins”, including “nominalism” and “pluralism” (World, Sept 22, 2001).

None of this disproves any of PRI’s allegations against UNFPA of course. PRI and their allies have every right to their views and an opportunity to have them heard in Congressional circles and public forums. But they can hardly be called an objective source of non-partisan research, and the fact that most of the case against UNFPA comes from them and their allies should concern us. I’m sure you’ll agree that given allegations as serious as these, nothing is more important to an investigation than thoroughness and professional objectivity. But the errors and omissions documented above, and the lack of tangible, independent support of the allegations raises many questions about how objective this investigation has been. Throughout this letter, we have provided numerous citations for the information given, but it should be noted that these citations are nowhere near exhaustive. A wealth of accurate information on all the issues discussed so far is easily available from a wide range of peer-reviewed scientific journals and credible moderate news sources, yet none of it appears to have been consulted by anyone at PRI, HLI, World, or any of the other fundamentalist forums and special interests opposed to UNFPA. We have to wonder why not. The evidence suggests that these interests maintain their views in this matter because they are conducive to a radical pro-life agenda, not because they have proper scientific or journalistic support.

Conclusion

As already mentioned, we are disturbed by the worldwide prevalence of abortion, especially its frequent use by some for either birth control or convenience. We hope to eventually see a real solution to this. But we only have faith in solutions that are based on compassion and reason. Admittedly, many women today do use abortion for birth control or convenience. However globally, the vast majority do not. Over 52 million abortions are performed worldwide each year. Most are sought by poor women who do not enjoy civic freedoms, access to safe reproductive health care, contraception, education or obstetric services – services UNFPA has led the world in providing. No lasting solution to abortion or any of the world’s population ills will be possible until we recognize these women. When we demonstrate our willingness to walk beside them and offer viable and accessible alternatives to abortion, then, and only then, will it end. Mere moralistic sermons and calls for denial of funds to those who are trying even imperfectly to do this are a poor substitute.

It is a basic principle of critical thought that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But to date, neither PRI or their allies have provided any. In addition to a few anecdotal claims and impassioned pleas for opinions that are flatly contradicted by easily available science, they have only offered us a couple dozen witnesses to coercion in China. Not one of these witnesses ever directly identified any UNFPA worker or any specific UNFPA activity. Nor has any PRI claim ever been independently confirmed by anyone outside of their circle of friends. Beyond that, given the errors and omissions cited above, it appears that PRI has never even attempted any responsible research of the relevant peer-reviewed medical and scientific knowledge base. Given the seriousness of the charges, we believe we have a right to demand a more professional and competent investigation. PRI and their colleagues may not have given us any independently verifiable testimony of specific UNFPA activities, but we offer you millions of witnesses who can. We offer you the women at UNFPA’s fistula hospital in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. We offer you the refugee women and families that have received education, reproductive health care and obstetric services in war torn areas like Afghanistan and on every continent. We offer you our friend and colleague Jackson Chekweko of UNFPA’s REACH program in Uganda, based at Makerere University in Kampala and tirelessly working to provide education on female genital mutilation to the Sabiny people of Uganda. Finally, we offer you our own Sabiny goddaughter Chesha Juliet, herself rescued from the horrors of FGM in no small part because of the education efforts of REACH in Uganda’s Kapchorwa District. When we first met last summer she could not contain her tears of joy, and neither could we. Those tears are the best testimony to UNFPA’s work in the world we can offer you!

Senator/Representative, the best defense there is against what is bad, is to demonstrate something better. Vicious attacks and guilt-by-association arguments do not do this. Anyone can moralize, anyone can demand that someone else be denied funds – especially when this is done from a position of privilege and perceived moral superiority. This costs nothing and it sets no worthy example. Real moral leadership demonstrates something better – it shows us what caring looks like in tangible ways. Real justice struggles to provide solutions, even if it can only do so imperfectly. Lastly, real moral leaders would never attack others based on a lower standard of proof than they would demand for themselves. We doubt PRI or any of UNFPA’s other critics would consent to being punished for any alleged crimes on their part based only on circumstantial evidence, post-hoc arguments, and a nearly complete neglect of peer-reviewed science and independent verification. We can, and must, have higher standards than this. Until tangible evidence of direct UNFPA involvement in coercive activity is presented, until PRI and other anti-UNFPA advocacy groups demonstrate higher standards of research and critical thought, we implore you to be a voice for reason and compassion toward the world’s poor women. Please demand that U.S. funding of the United Nations Population Fund be restored. Thank you for considering this issue!