A whlle ago, Sara at Diotima asked:
I have looked at a lot of the literature out there on the UNFPA and whether or not it supported coerced abortions in China, and I’m just not sure it’s as conclusive as Ampersand does (for example, I’m not sure why you’d decide to dismiss the Population Research Institute’s report as just pushing an anti-woman agenda but accept the Catholics for Choice report as objective, unless you’ve got an agenda yourself).
At the time, I don’t think I gave Sara a very satisfactory answer, so I’m going to try again. (My timing is unfortunate, since Sara is currently on vacation, but perhaps she’ll see it when she returns).
First off, what is the issue and why does it matter? The issue is that George Bush, responding to lobbying from US pro-life groups, decided in 2002 to withhold money Congress had authorized for the UN Population Fund. The contribution, $34 million dollars, is a tiny portion of the US federal budget, but over 10% of the UN Population Fund’s budget.
Why does that matter? Well, according to the UN Population Fund, “$34 million applied to family planning programmes could prevent some 800,000 abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths and 77,000 infant and child deaths annually worldwide.”
From an article in Salon:
The result of Bush’s freeze has been a reduction in medical services to women worldwide. According to the UNFPA, in Bangladesh, where 67 percent of pregnant women receive no medical care, programs to train doctors to deal with pregnancy complications will be put on hold. In Vietnam, according to UNFPA field worker Tran Thi Van, a program to train 4,000 health workers in reproductive issues and to provide medical equipment and drugs to 500 remote clinics is in jeopardy. In Kenya, where the UNFPA has been working with the Catholic Church to prevent teenagers from getting AIDS, the church’s request to expand the program will probably have to be rejected. Overall, UNFPA’s funding shortfall is $52 million, because some other countries failed to meet their contribution targets due to financial constraints. The agency estimates that the lack of resources will result in 3 million unwanted pregnancies, 7,140 maternal deaths and, ironically, 1,215,000 abortions.
Nicholas Kristof suggested what some of the consequences of Bush’s funding freeze could be in an April 26 New York Times column about Aisha Idris, a young Sudanese woman with fistula, a condition in which a woman’s rectum, urethra and vagina are torn during childbirth, “leaving her incontinent and causing bodily wastes to seep through her vaginal canal and down her legs.” The UNFPA, he wrote, “supports precisely the kind of third-world maternal health care programs that can save women’s lives in childbirth and avoid medical complications like fistula. Yet the White House for now is crippling the fund by withholding the 13 percent of its budget that the United States provides.”
A bit more background: What is the UN Population Fund? The UN Population Fund, or UNFPA (I know the initials don’t match – years ago, they changed their name but not their abbreviation) is a UN agency which provides assistance to about 140 poor countries around the world – many more countries than any similar aid agency goes to. According to the UNFPA’s operating rules, the UNFPA does not encourage or fund abortion, anyplace in the world.
The funding controversy centers on UNFPA’s program in China. The UNFPA program is an attempt to move China from its infamous coercive population-reduction practices to a voluntary model, in which women are empowered to control their own reproduction through education, contraception, and good prenatal care.
Finally, it’s important to know that US funds donated to UNFPA do not fund UNFPA’s China program. Instead, US funds go to a earmarked UNFPA bank account; the money from this account is never mixed with other UNFPA accounts, and cannot be spent on any program in China.
The Case Against UNFPA
In 2002, one pro-life organization – the Population Research Institute, or PRI – claimed that the UNFPA was supporting forced abortions in China. (The PRI is an extremist group – they oppose not only abortion, but all family planning programs.)
In their sworn testimony before Congress on February 27, 2002, and in their official report of their findings in China (both of which are available here), PRI made three claims against UNPFA:
- That coercive family planning programs, including forced abortions, are taking place in the areas of China in which UNFPA operates, despite UNFPA’s claim that coercive practices no longer exist in those areas of China. To prove this claim, PRI provided translations of anonymous interviews a PRI researcher had conducted in Sihui, China.
- These abuses were, according to PRI, carried out by the Chinese Office of Family Planning. To prove that UNFPA is aware of and complicit in these abuses, PRI provided dramatic video and photographic evidence showing that a UNFPA employee shares office space with the Office of Family Planning. From testimony by PRI researcher Josephine Guy:
…Within the Office of Family Planning, family planning officials showed us the location of the UNFPA desk. We were told that a UNFPA representative works with, in and through the Sihui Office of Family Planning. We photographed the UNFPA office desk–and you can see over here on the podium–which faces, in fact touches, a desk of the Chinese Office of Family Planning.
As far as I know, images of this desk are the only evidence PRI has presented linking UNFPA to the alleged abuses.
- That when the UNFPA sent a fact-finding team to investigate PRI’s charges, all interviews were conducted with Chinese officials present, preventing Chinese civilians from freely testifying about Chinese government abuses. (I’ve seen pro-lifers make this claim about all the other investigations, actually).
In response, UNFPA has said:
- UNFPA does not promise that no abuses ever happen anywhere they operate. According to the UNFPA employee in charge of the China program, “In a population of 20 million, I cannot promise that nothing bad happens. I can promise that, certainly, we’re not involved.” (Quoted by Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, September 22, 2002). They do claim that their program has led to significant improvements in the 32 counties in which they operate.
- There is no UNFPA desk in Sihui City.
- According to UNFPA’s investigative team leader, Nicolaas Biegman, UNFPA’s investigators “interviewed Chinese citizens at random–on the street, in family planning and mother and child health clinics, in villages–using two independent interpreters and without any Chinese government officials present.”
What other investigations have found.
- The US Department of State’s year 1999 report on Human Rights in China – issued before PRI’s report – had this to say about UNFPA:
Although it was still too early for an overall assessment of [the UNFPA] program, visits to selected counties by foreign diplomats indicate that progress in implementing the program has been mixed. Some counties have made appreciable progress in implementing the program, while others have made relatively little. Notably, some counties have informed the general public about the UNFPA program and have eliminated the system of strict, government-assigned birth quotas (allowing couples to choose without authorization when to have their first child); other counties have not yet done so, or have only begun to do so.
Although not a ringing endorsement, this supports UNFPA’s claim that they are improving China’s family planning policies.
- UNFPA’s managing board – which includes a representative of the US government – sent an investigative team headed by Dr. Nicolaas H. Biegman, former Ambassador of the Netherlands to NATO. According to Dr. Biegman’s testimony to Congress:
Responses varied, but generally people believed that family planning policy in their area had been relaxed considerably in recent years and that the quality of care had improved. No one expressed any grievances or complaints or knew of any abuses in recent years. Such abuses had occurred in the past, they said, but not in the present. […]
The desk that supposedly comprised the UNFPA office in Sihui County that was constantly referred to in the testimony before the House Committee simply does not exist. That purported UNFPA office, which formed a central part of the testimony of the Population Research Institute, is a complete and utter fabrication. UNFPA has no offices in China outside Beijing.
- In April of 2002, a team from the British Parliament – led by Edward Leigh, a pro-life, Catholic member of the Conservative Party who has been a critic of UNFPA – sent a team to look for evidence of UNFPA supporting coercive practices in China. From their report (pdf file):
The study team found no evidence of UNFPA advocating or facilitating coercive Family Planning laws. Indeed, it seemed precisely the opposite applied. The UNFPA projects, based on the IDPD Programme of Action, helped empower women by ensuring they had the fullest possible information about reproductive health and choices. […]
The UK MP delegation was convinced that the UNFPA programme is a force for good, in moving China away from abuses such as forced-family planning, sterilisation and abortions…. It is vitally important that the UNFPA remains actively involved in China, with continued financial support from the UK and other Western Governments.
The UK investigation included random interviews of ordinary Chinese citizens, without any Chinese officials present.
- In May of 2002, the Bush Administration State Department sent a team to investigate UNFPA in China. (The Bush administration waited until July 22nd – when they cut off UNFPA’s funding – to release the State Department’s report.) The Bush team found “no evidence” of UNFPA participation in “coercive abortion” or any other coercive practices, and recommended that the $34 million dollars be released to the UNFPA. They did find “ample evidence… of heavy-handed abusive and coercive practices,” but specified that these abuses took place outside the 32 counties in which UNFPA operates.
(The State Department team also recommended that “no US Government funds be allocated for population programs” in China. Some pro-lifers have claimed this is a recommendation that the US cut funding to UNFPA. This interpretation is mistaken; since by law all US contributions to UNFPA are allocated for projects outside of China, the reference is to non-UNFPA funding.)
And what about that desk? From a Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service article published September 11, 2002:
The State Department team, which conducted a two-week investigation in May, also was unable to find any UNFPA desk or worker in Sihui county, according to team member Theodore Tong, a professor of pharmacy, public health and toxicology at the University of Arizona.
“We didn’t meet any UNFPA persons outside of the Beijing office,” Tong said. […]
“We stopped off at schools; we stopped off at some factories. These were all unplanned,” he said, rejecting PRI’s assertion that the team was unable to speak freely with random Chinese.
Keep in mind, these conclusions come from a team selected by the Bush State Department, and therefore unlikely to be biased in UNFPA’s favor.
- In September 2002, the Knight-Ridder news service conducted its own investigation, and “found that the U.N. Population Fund has no desk or staff members in Sihui county.”
- In September 2003, “an interfaith delegation of prominent US religious leaders, faith-based organization leaders and ethicists,” organized by Catholics for Choice, investigated the UNFPA’s practices in China. “Delegates met with citizens without any officials present and made impromptu visits to communities not on the itinerary.” From their report (pdf file).
After extensive study and on-site investigation, we are convinced that UNFPA has made an invaluable contribution to women’s reproductive health and rights in China. We find that UNFPA’s work is of fundamental value in affirming the highest religious and ethical values of the delegation members’ preservation of human life and the promotion of the human rights of every individual. We are equally convinced that the charges against UNFPA made by its opponents, including PRI, are without foundation.
Which brings us back to Sara’s question:
Why should sensible people find the PRI report less credible than the other reports?
The reports from China are seriously divergent – so divergent that it’s hard to avoid suspecting somebody is lying. It is necessary, therefore, to assess the credibility of the reports.
There are several reasons to conclude that the PRI report is less credible.
- First of all – and perhaps least importantly – when assessing credibility, it’s reasonable to look at the character of the persons or organizations making claims. In the case of the PRI, I am disturbed by a well-documented history of anti-Semitism by the PRI’s founder, Paul Marx. (See Anti-Defamation League press releases from October 30, 1998 and March 10, 1995; Zero Population Growth’s press release of February 11, 1997; Philadelphia Inquirer, July 27, 2002).
Marx writes essays with titles like “Pro-Abortion Jews and the New Holocaust.” His writings attempt to show that abortion is a Jewish conspiracy: According to Marx, “Notice how many Jews led the infamous 1971 abortion-planning meeting in Los Angeles which I exposed…note the large number of abortionists (consult the Yellow Pages) and pro-abortion medical professors who are Jewish.”
Of course, just because the PRI was founded by an anti-Semite (who hired the current PRI president) doesn’t prove that the PRI is wrong. One can be a raving lunatic bigot (or the hand-picked successor of a raving lunatic bigot) without being wrong about everything. Nonetheless, for those of us who find anti-Semites less credible than non-anti-Semites, it’s a point to consider.
- Elements of the PRI story cannot be true. PRI has repeatedly claimed that other investigations conducted their interviews in the presence of Chinese government officials. This, according to PRI, explains why other investigators failed to find the rampant abuse the PRI’s investigator found.
Here’s the problem: The PRI has no way of knowing how interviews were conducted by the other investigations.
- The PRI can’t have gotten their information from the statements and reports of the other investigators, because those reports and statements clearly indicate that interviews were conducted without Chinese officials present.
- The PRI couldn’t have checked with the interview subjects, because to protect them, interview subjects are not identified (the PRI’s report followed the same procedure).
- PRI can’t have gotten its information from the Chinese goverment, since the Chinese government wouldn’t know about interviews kept secret from the Chinese government. (Nor would the Chinese government have any reason to help the PRI).
So the PRI claims to have knowlege that it cannot possibly have; this is, it seems to me, a blow against their credibility.
- There’s the simple matter of replication. Despite five separate attempts, no one has been able to verify even a single claim made by the PRI about UNFPA’s program in China. In fact, every claim PRI has made has been contradicted by the other investigations.
- The PRI sent one investigator[*]; between them, the other five investigations sent a total of 19. To believe the PRI is correct, one would have to accept that the other 19 investigators are engaged in a massive conspiracy. That seems unlikely.
[*]Although the PRI investigator, Josephine Guy, often spoke of her team in the plural, she is the only person to sign her name to the PRI report. The PRI team consisted of Ms. Guy, a hired photographer, and two hired translators. As far as I know, PRI has not released the names of Ms. Guy’s three employees, and they have not testified in support of her account.
This is a question I’d really like some of the intelligent pro-lifers out there to address. How can any reasonable person, weighing all of the evidence, continue to support the PRI’s account?
And to anyone who still favors the PRI account: What evidence would it take to convince you that the PRI’s account is probably not true?.
The article feels well researched and is excellent. The reason it has so few responses, I suspect, is that most of your readers go, “Well, duh” when the evidence is this clear cut.
Since I have no desire to hold the PRI report as true, and you’ve so thoroughly discredited it, I’ll not trust it.
ScottM nailed it. I loved reading this and felt like I ought to post something, but other than “right on” and “kudos” I couldn’t really think of anything.
So, umm . . .
Right on.
Kudos.
—Myca
1.
Finally, it’s important to know that US funds donated to UNFPA do not fund UNFPA’s China program. Instead, US funds go to a earmarked UNFPA bank account; the money from this account is never mixed with other UNFPA accounts, and cannot be spent on any program in China.
Although I agree that this is generally a very well researched post, this particular “earmark” argument strikes me as very weak.
I wouldn’t care whether President Reagan was funding Evil Dictator’s military weapons program, or whether he was taking over some humanitarian program from Evil Dictator, allowing Him to divert money from that humanitarian mission into His Military Weapons program. Either method leads to identical results, and should be equally condemned.
Similarly, if we believe that the UNFPA does “bad things” in China, it is certainly not enough to only fund the non-China parts of the program, allowing other nations’ money to go to the bad things. If we believe that China does bad things, and the UNFPA funds those bad things, then morally we must not fund the UNFPA at all.
Of course, if your subsequent arguments are correct that there is nothing bad happening are correct, then the above is irrelevant (but still logically incorrect).
Pingback: Creative Destruction
Hello, Ampersand.
Haven’t you and I have been around this horn before? Or was it Calpundit? No, there now, I’ve found it: it was with you, on February 24, 2004, long before this June 14th, 2004 post of yours, on Calpundit’s comments section here: http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003290.html#114295
To answer your question above, I don’t “support the PRI’s account”? (more on that in my closing remarks below) but I do accuarately quote the facts found by official sources such as the State Department, especially one later report which you knew quite well about when you wrote that June 2004 post but somehow left out of your “very well researched”? post.
BTW, your link above to the US Department of State’s year 2000 report on Human Rights in China is no longer functional, so I can’t review it to comment.
Yet when you mentioned the “May of 2002, the Bush Administration State Department” (which I take to mean the “Report of the China UN Population Fund (UNFPA) Independent Assessment Team, Released by the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, May 29, 2002” that we discussed the Feb. before your post), you didn’t put in the link that you once provided (still active; http://www.state.gov/g/prm/rls/rpt/2002/12122.htm , so that people could read the quite-different conclusions which I pointed out to you in those Calpundit comments linked to above.
I suggested in February 2004 that you read that May 29, 2002 State Dept. Letter you linked to again. What it actually said, is quite different than what you’d claimed it said. It said, verbatim, “We find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC. First Recommendation: We therefore recommend that not more than $34 million which has already been appropriated be released to UNFPA. [that means “no further money”?] Second Finding: We find that notwithstanding some relaxation in the 32 counties in which UNFPA is involved, the population programs of the PRC [People’s Republic of China] retain coercive elements in law and in practice. [meaning, “all of PRC’s programs still have some coercion”?] Second Recommendation: We therefore recommend that unless and until all forms of coercion in the PRC law and in practice are eliminated, no U.S. Government funds be allocated for population programs in the PRC.”? …Third Recommendation: We therefore recommend that appropriate resources be allocated to monitor and evaluate PRC population control programs…[meaning, “not to fund their activities”?]…UNFPA is stretched to its extremes and is unable to monitor even its own 32 program counties effectively. China’s control of its own population ranks high on the PRC’s list of issues of national security concern. China’s population control programs, therefore, should be high on the U.S. list of national security concerns.”?
The May 29, 2002 report you linked to on Calpundit but not your own post also said, “In sum, based on what we heard, saw, and read, we find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC. Indeed, UNFPA has registered its strong opposition to such practices. However, from our perspective, UNFPA’s Beijing office lacks adequate resources to monitor and evaluate this important issue satisfactorily.”? [emphasis mine]
Not exactly an absolution or clean bill of operation for UNFPA, or at least, their primary, Beijing office.
That report went on: “During our meetings with local State Family Planning Commission (SFPC), Ministry of Health officials and magistrates, while admitting that coercive practices had taken place in the past, they denied that coercive abortions, involuntary sterilization, or indeed any other coercive practices were taking place in their jurisdictions. As previously noted, they denied that the social compensation fees (or “society raising children fees”) were coercive or that they were a significant source of revenue for the counties… The fact remains, however, that on the books these fees for the first “out of plan” child are often set at two to three times the couple’s annual salary for the previous year, a level which for many must be so punitive as to be, in our view, coercive.”?
The findings did say that the abuses reported in this finding took place outside the 32 counties in which UNFPA operates, yet you dismiss the fact also found that “UNFPA is stretched to its extremes and is unable to monitor even its own 32 program counties effectively.”? If it’s unable to monitor its own 32 counties, the fact-finders didn’t have enough data to prove one way or the other that it was doing its job right. For that reason, UNFPA didn’t deserve any more funding until it could do so, and that is what the report meant. I honestly don’t believe you want our taxpayer money to fund any program that can’t monitor its own worth and effectiveness. I certainly don’t.
Lastly, devil’s advocacy must state the obvious: “no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated “? is clearly not the same as “but it looked the other way,”? or even “was unaware of”? or “was unable to monitor”?, nor is it the same as “did the best it could with the gross limitations of the Chinese obstructionist officials”? or whatever.
Lastly, if I missed it, please show me where in this June 2004 post you mentioned/discussed/linked to the later 2002/03 State Dept. report I pointed you to that Feb. 2004? If it’s there, I’ve missed it.
That later report contains findings that do indeed point to failures by UNFPA in their own 32 counties:
From the 2002 Human Rights Report on China, [ http://www.house.gov/wolf/issues/hr/china/statedepthumanrightsreport.pdf is the current link; the old link http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/19602.doc isn’t working ] released March 31, 2003:
“The Government’s human rights record throughout the year remained poor, and the Government continued to commit numerous and serious abuses….The Government continued to implement its coercive policy of restricting the number of children a family could have. ..Violence against women (including imposition of a birth limitation policy coercive in nature that resulted in instances of forced abortion and forced sterilization), prostitution, discrimination against women, abuse of children, and discrimination against persons with disabilities and minorities all were problems…The Government codified its comprehensive birth planning policies, which include coercive elements intended to limit births.
“The new Population and Family Planning Law, the country’s first formal law on this subject, entered into force on September 1, 2002…The law grants married couples the right to have a single child and allows eligible couples to apply for permission to have a second child if they meet conditions stipulated in local and provincial regulations…The law requires couples who have an unapproved child to pay a “social compensation fee”…The country’s population control policy relied on education, propaganda, and economic incentives, as well as on more coercive measures such as the threat of job loss or demotion and social compensation fees. Psychological and economic pressure were very common; during unauthorized pregnancies, women sometimes were visited by birth planning workers who reminded the parents of their potential liability to pay the social compensation fees. The fees were assessed at widely varying levels and were generally extremely high, sometimes equaling several years’ wages for an average worker. Additional disciplinary measures against those who violated the limited child policy by having an unapproved child or helping another to do so included the withholding of social services, higher tuition costs when the child goes to school, job loss or demotion, loss of promotion opportunity for 1 or more years, expulsion from the Party (membership in which was an unofficial requirement for certain jobs), and other administrative punishments, including in some cases the destruction of property. Government employees were particularly vulnerable to loss of employment when they had a child without permission. In many provinces, penalties for excess births in an area also can be levied against local officials and the mother’s work unit, creating multiple sources of pressure. These Draconian penalties sometimes left expecting mothers with little choice but to undergo abortion or sterilization.”?
The report goes on: “Senior officials stated repeatedly that the Government “made it a principle to ban coercion at any level,” and the [Chinese government’s] State Family Planning Commission (SFPC) has issued circulars nationwide prohibiting birth planning officials from coercing women to undergo abortions or sterilization against their will. However, the Government does not consider social compensation fees and other administrative punishments to be coercive.
“Corruption related to social compensation fees was a widespread problem. In response, State Council Decree 357 established during the year that collected ‘social compensation fees’ must be submitted directly to the National Treasury, rather than retained by local birth planning authorities. During the year, SFPC officials reported that they responded to more than 10,000 complaints against local officials.
Here are some money quotes: “Existing regulations requiring sterilization in certain cases, or mandatory abortion, are not contradicted by the new [The new Population and Family Planning] law…”?
“Central Government policy formally prohibits the use of physical coercion to compel persons to submit to abortion or sterilization. However, intense pressure to meet birth limitation targets set by government regulations has resulted in instances in which local birth planning officials reportedly have used physical coercion to meet government goals. Because it is illegal, the use of physical coercion was difficult to document, even for government authorities. Still, it was believed that some isolated incidences may persist, even as the frequency of such cases was believed to be declining.
Thankfully, some good news. Still, “local birth planning officials”? are the ones UNFPA supposedly is/was “work[ing] closely with:”?
“From 1998 through 2002, the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) conducted a 4-year pilot project in 32 counties…The SFPC worked closely with the UNFPA to prepare informational materials and to provide training for officials and the general public in the project counties. However, these counties retained the birth limitation policy, including the requirement that couples employ effective birth control methods, and enforced it through other means, such as social compensation fees.
“Laws and regulations forbid the termination of pregnancies based on the sex of the fetus, but because of the intersection of birth limitations with the traditional preference for male children, particularly in rural areas, many families used ultrasound technology to identify female fetuses and terminate pregnancies (see Section 5). The use of ultrasound for this purpose is prohibited specifically by the Population Law and by the Maternal and Child Health Care Law, both of which mandate punishment of medical practitioners who violate the provision. According to the SFPC, a few doctors have been charged under these laws. However, enforcement of this provision has been rare.”?
Enforcement of this provision, like many of the other provisions, has been rare. It is the Chinese officials’ job to enforce. But why didn’t inform your readers of all those findings? While it clearly isn’t the UNFPA’s responsibility to force China officials to do anything, they certainly are required to successfully monitor and report human rights violations of forced abortions and coercion. In 2002, the UNFPA was found to be “unable to monitor and evaluate this important issue satisfactorily”? after four years of being responsible for that, and they were again found to be unable to do so a year later.
Yet to support your case, you focused on the September 2003 “‘interfaith delegation of prominent US religious leaders, faith-based organization leaders and ethicists,’ organized by Catholics for Choice,’ and another report by UNFPA’s own managing board. Neither is exactly a neutral entity, one on the issue of abortion and the second on the issue of its own performance.
While I wholeheartedly agree that PRI is faulty and misleading in some of its research, reporting, bias, use of prejudiced sources and possibly some of its conclusions (which is why I stopped quoting them or relying solely on only-prolife sources and instead try to find neutral sources), you sadly remain guilty of the very things of which you accuse them.
Has PRI admitted what it did wrong, and has/will it stop(ped) doing it in the present/future? If not, shame on them. Can you, Barry?
Lastly, what (MORE) evidence would it take to convince you that your conclusion as to UNFPA’s innocence/effectiveness is probably not true?
Annie:
In a 2,600 word post, I accidently left a link out – a link that anyone could easily find for themselves in three seconds of googling. This happened through an honest error (one I’ve now corrected). In response, you imply over and over that I’m trying to decieve my readers.
I’m sorry for the broken link to the 2000 state department report on Human Rights in China. I’ve replaced it with a working link to the 1999 report, which says the same thing; either I made an error and misidentified the 1999 report as the 2000 report (which I might have done if I just looked at the release date, which was February 2000), or the state department recycled language from one year to the next.
Given that you’re so determined to snidely imply I’m a liar, I’m not inclined to waste a lot of time responding to you. Let’s get to our core disagreement, which is how to interpret the Bush department investigative team’s report. Here’s the core paragraph, with your interpretations in brackets:
You wrote that they said “that means no further money” when they wrote “We therefore recommend that not more than $34 million which has already been appropriated be released to UNFPA.” When they wrote that, the $34 million had been appropriated but not released, and pro-lifers were lobbying to prevent it from being released. What they were recommending is that Bush ignore pro-lifers who argued against releasing the $34 million, and instead give the $34 million to UNFPA. That was exactly what the pro-UNFPA people were saying at that point.
This is not a matter of opinion. The fact is, pro-lifers were pushing for the $34 million to be withheld, and Bush’s own fact-finders recommended excatly the opposite. Yes, they also said “no more than $34 million,” but that’s not very impressive, since raising the contribution wasn’t even on the table at that point.
Their discussion of future allocations is pretty telling, if you read between the lines: “Second Recommendation: We therefore recommend that unless and until all forms of coercion in the PRC law and in practice are eliminated, no U.S. Government funds be allocated for population programs in the PRC.”
Sounds bad, doesn’t it? But as the people who wrote that recommendation knew perfectly well, U.S. law already forbade appropriating any money for UNFPA’s China programs; not one cent of the $34 million allocated for UNFPA was allocated for “population programs in the PRC.” So when they made their future recommendations, they artfully phrased it so they did NOT recommend that no funds be allocated to UNFPA in the future.
The bottom line is, even Bush’s appointed fact-finders had to admit that things were better where UNFPA was operating than where they weren’t operating.
You then quote a lot of words – mainly from a report that wasn’t even marginally about the PRI’s accusations, which is why I didn’t bother linking to it in a post about the PRI’s accusations – proving that, even with the UNFPA’s programs, things are still pretty damn bad in China. Well, no duh. If things weren’t bad, there’d be no need for UNFPA there.
To quote myself, I stand by what I said about the Bush administration report. They clearly find “no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC.” They also find “some relaxation in the 32 counties in which UNFPA is involved,” in contrast to the “ample evidence… of heavy-handed abusive and coercive practices outside the 32 counties.”
As your quotes indicate, things are not perfect in China – not even in the 32 counties the UNFPA operates in. However, demanding perfection is illogical, because that’s not how things improve in the real world.
The real question should be, would Chinese women be better or worse off if UNFPA wasn’t there? Any fair reading of even the Bush department report – which is spun to cast the worst possible light on UNFPA possible without outright lying – shows that the UNFPA’s work is improving things for Chinese women. Even the Bush department report shows a big difference between what’s going on in the 32 UNFPA counties and the “ample” evidence of coercion outside those counties.
You once again ignore the British MP’s report. Again, that report – co-authored by a conservative British MP who has a demonstrated record of dislike for and skepticism about UNFPA – found that UNFPA was (and presumably still is) making a positive difference in Chinese women’s lives.
* * *
The UNFPA is not perfect, and they don’t have infinite resources; but nonetheless, according to every single group apart from the PRI, they are a force for good.
Things are better in the Chinese counties where UNFPA operates, then in those in which they don’t operate. That’s the bottom line – or should be, for those who care about women.
I’m glad that you don’t support the PRI’s wild and unfounded accusations. Nonetheless, your approach seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. You’ve proven that the situation in China is bad; to therefore cut funds to an agency that everyone, including Bush’s fact-finders, said is improving things (even if they’re not perfect) is senseless and destructive.
I just had typed you a detailed response and when I submitted it, I’d forgotten to do name and url and then the back button destroyed it all.
Can’t redo it now. This really bites.
Annie B. Wrote:
“If it’s unable to monitor its own 32 counties, the fact-finders didn’t have enough data to prove one way or the other that it was doing its job right. For that reason, UNFPA didn’t deserve any more funding until it could do so”
Where is the logic in refusing to fund an organization because it lacks resources?
From where I’m sitting (in my apartment in Xi’an, Shaanxi Province, P. R. China), the Only-Child Policy is in full swing, the orphanages are full of special needs children who are abandoned by parents who only get one kid and therefore want it to be perfect, and the fines for having more than one child are exorbidant. As far as I’m concerned, the US should be funding the hell out of any organization that wants to fix this! If an organization lacks the resources to effectively oversee its operation, then it needs more resources, not sanctions.