Was UNFPA really cleared of the one-child scandal?

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. | January 21, 2011

Has the UN Population Fund been exonerated from accusations of complicity in China’s coercive abortions and sterilizations?

The recently-resigned UNFPA executive director says so, and blames the “religious right” for US defunding of UNFPA under Republican administrations. This post is one of several responding to Thoraya Obaid’s criticism of the “religious right” in the Huffington Post this week.

I just read the reports that ostensibly cleansed UNFPA of its guilt, along with press conference proceedings and the US secretary of state’s decision memoranda. It is clear that UNFPA was never cleared of the charges.

In 2002, State Department staff went to China and concluded, “We find no evidence that UNFPA knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive or involuntary sterilization in the PRC.” The staff recommended releasing $34 million to UNFPA. A UK field trip report made a similar finding and recommendation.

Further evidence, however, including a review of Chinese policy documents, convinced Secretary of State Powell to reject the report’s recommendation and defund UNFPA because it would violate US law:

• Coercive policies were still in place in counties where UNFPA was working: penalties for an illegal birth were as high as three times a couple’s annual income.
• The Chinese government had recently confirmed coercive policies on a national level in a 2001 law which was soon to go into force and which included quotas and fines for violating the one-child law.
• Fungibility of UNFPA funds meant US tax dollars would abet coercive abortions and sterilizations even if those dollars were not earmarked for China.
• UNFPA computers were used “to establish a database record of all women of child-bearing age in an area and to trigger the issuance of ‘birth-not-allowed’ notices.”

Because the 1985 Kemp-Kasten Amendment precludes funding for coercive abortions and sterilization, funding UNFPA would mean violating the law.

It is essential to note that the reports UNFPA says exonerated them were ultimately found inconclusive:

• The delegations could not examine a representative sampling. The UK report admitted that due to limited funds it only went to 2 of the 32 counties in which UNFPA operated.
• Delegations were never left alone to investigate, but were always in the company of Chinese officials.
• Impromptu discussions with the Chinese people were never private, but always conducted through an official Chinese interpreter. The UK report admitted the people they spoke to could have been biased, and it was difficult to get “honest impressions” from people.

Thus, Thoraya Obaid’s assertion this week that US defunding of UNFPA was “all [as] the result of the influence of the religious right” rings hollow. In aggregate, the facts do not bear out her claim that UNFPA’s work has been found to have “a positive influence on China’s policies.”

Ironically, UNFPA’s persistent refusal to open its books to donor countries means that any US administration could, indeed should, come to the same conclusion Secretary Powell did.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter