Bush Administration Defunds UNFPA

Going against the recommendations of its own fact-finding delegation, the Bush Administration has cut off funds to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), denying support for the same agency the United States helped establish in 1969. In announcing the decision on Monday, July 22, the State Department pledged to reprogram the $34 million in funds through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

Reaction from institutions working in women’s health, population, and development was swift and negative and included a harsh response from the European Commission which implements family planning and other reproductive health programs on behalf of the European Union.

Similarly negative was the response of some leading members of Congress, who have vowed to restore U.S. funding for UNFPA in fiscal year 2003, which begins October 1. To that end, the foreign assistance bill passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 18 includes a "hard" earmark of $50 million for UNFPA, in addition to $450 million for bilateral family planning assistance, $750 million for HIV/AIDS programs, and $350 million for child survival and maternal health.

With Congress leaving Washington for the August recess — and many Members hitting the campaign trail — now is an opportune time to address this blow to international efforts to improve women’s and children’s health, stem the spread of HIV/AIDS, and relieve poverty.

The purported legal basis of the Administration’s decision was a little-known provision of foreign assistance legislation first enacted in 1985. Known as the Kemp-Kasten amendment, it authorizes the President to deny U.S. foreign assistance funds to any organization that "supports or participates in the management of a program of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization."

In applying this provision, however, the Administration interpreted it more broadly than ever before — more broadly than even its own fact-finding mission to China. The three-person mission made three recommendations: that the $34 million be released to UNFPA; that no U.S. funds be spent on population programs in China; and that "appropriate resources be allocated to monitor and evaluate PRC population control programs." In recommending the release of funds, the delegation declared, "We find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization…" Ironically, not one penny of the U.S. contribution to UNFPA has gone toward the China program for the past eight years due to legislative restrictions and U.S. funds are held in a restricted account.

Decision scorned by Members of Congress, European Commission

In the United States, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chair of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, was among the first to respond to the Administration’s decision. He stated:

"It is ludicrous that because there is coercion in China — coercion we all know about and deplore — the Administration is barring all U.S. support for use anywhere by the world's largest family planning organization, whose mission in China is to support voluntary family planning. UNFPA’s mission is to promote alternatives to coercion and abortion and to prevent the spread of AIDS, and that is exactly what UNFPA should be doing there. We do not send foreign aid to countries that are doing everything right — we send it to try to make things better."

In Europe, the European Commission sent a message by announcing the release of 32 million Euros for a 22-country reproductive health program in partnership with UNFPA and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) with this comment from Poul Nielson, Development and Humanitarian Aid Commissioner:

"We highly value the work carried out by organisations such as the IPPF and the UNFPA. We consider that their efforts in areas such as contraception and HIV/AIDS form part of the solution to challenges in developing countries rather than part of the problem. The U.S. decision is regrettable and counter-productive. … The losers … will be some of the most vulnerable people on this planet."

Dozens of non-governmental organizations from around the world also voiced their disapproval of the Administration’s decision. PAI President Amy Coen, who this month visited family planning programs in Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania, said, "Having just visited countries where UNFPA works, I can testify to the tremendous need for the kind of programs UNFPA supports — family planning, HIV/AIDS prevention, maternal health care and the like. This decision will have a devastating impact."

Administration rationale for denying funds

A review of the analysis released by the State Department on Monday indicates that the principal reason for denying funds to UNFPA is the existence of regulations in China that require families to pay “social compensation fees” for unauthorized or “out-of-plan births.” Given that such fees or fines are sometimes significant, the analysis concludes that such fines will therefore force women to have abortions. Thus, by virtue of working with an agency operating in such a legal environment, UNFPA is culpable and, therefore, in violation of the Kemp-Kasten provision.

Worth noting is that the analysis does not cite any examples of coerced abortions in the counties in which UNFPA is working. The analysis also makes no mention of the fact that UNFPA is on the record as objecting to such fees or fines. Rather, the analysis construes even the supplying of a computer to be evidence of support for coercive abortion.

Saving lives or playing politics?

This decision was clearly not about China but about politics, which unfortunately come with a human cost. Without U.S. support, the programs that will suffer most are those in the 140 other countries where UNFPA works. UNFPA estimates that the $34 million could prevent 2 million unwanted pregnancies, nearly 800,000 induced abortions, 77,000 infant and child deaths, and 4,700 maternal deaths.

Population Action International (PAI) works to improve individual well-being and preserve global resources by mobilizing political and financial support for population, family planning and reproductive health policies and programs.