Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume XLI, Global Issues II

293. Action Memorandum From the Assistant Administrator for the Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination, Agency for International Development (Derham) to the Administrator of the Agency for International Development (McPherson)¹

Washington, January 8, 1985

SUBJECT

• UNFPA

S&T POP has completed its program review of UNFPA and transmitted it to PPC for determination (through our Donor Coordination functions) of the compliance of UNFPA with U.S. policy. (See attachment)²

Governing Policy

Relevant provision of the policy statement (in addition to blanket prohibition for funding abortions) is as follows:

“With regard to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), the U.S. will insist that no part of its contribution be used for abortion. The U.S. will also call for concrete assurances that the UNFPA is not engaged in, or does not provide funding for, abortion or coercive family planning programs; if such assurances are not forthcoming, the U.S. will redirect the amount of its contribution to other, non-UNFPA family planning programs.”

UNFPA—Generally

UNFPA does not fund abortion and its assistance is always approved for specific activities. General support is never approved. (It is not clear whether funds are commingled or how UNFPA support may “displace” funds for other activities.)

UNFPA, at A.I.D.’s urging, adopted a policy excluding support for abortion or coercive activity.³ UNFPA funds may not be used for such activities. (Again, there may be displacement.)

The policy recognizes UNFPA’s role as a UN organization, subject to less U.S. scrutiny. These general practices of UNFPA appear to comply. However, there may, of course, be a difference between a general policy and the manner in which it is applied and enforced.

China Program

Because of special public attention to the China program in the media, I directed a careful review of the UNFPA–China program. In reading the project paper I had several questions about areas where more information was required:

(1) Training and improvement of administration of the family planning councils at national and local levels. Since the coercive aspects of the China program result from the way the family planning workers go about their business, this inevitably raises issues about indirect support of coercive activities. However, examination of the program makes it clear that training is on overall systems problem such as logistics and management information systems.

(2) Training. The medical training programs do not include abortion.

(3) Public Education. The staff study has concluded that UNFPA’s funds are used to promote the advantages of smaller families and the one child norm through films, posters and other instruction materials. Since “persuasion” is the essence of Chinese style coercion as demonstrated last year by the NOVA program, even broad general educational campaigns may serve to dignify and justify the message and thus to reinforce the coercive actions. However, UNFPA is not directly involved in the coercion and therefore its funding is not part of specific program activities which involve coercion.

Whether this complies with the Population Policy turns on the meaning of the reference to “coercive family planning programs.” If China’s activities are viewed as a single “program” any support could be a disqualifying event. If each component is a separate “program” then most of the UNFPA funding for China raises no issue. The education component may or may not be a difficulty based on how the policy should be interpreted for “indirect” impact of activities.

Options

(1) Refuse further funding of UNFPA. (Not recommended)⁴

(2) Condition further funding on elimination of the education component involving persuasion of the desirability of the one-child norm.

(3) Conclude that involvement is sufficiently indirect so that it does not constitute a bar.

1. Source: Department of State, Country Files, Miscellaneous Population Files, 1974–1992, Lot 93D393, UNDP—Governing Council 1984/1985. No classification marking. Drafted by Derham on December 20, 1984, and revised on January 4, 1985.
2. Dated January 3, attached but not printed.
3. In a November 28, 1984, memorandum to Sinding, Hemmer forwarded a review of the UNFPA program that detailed the policy change. (Department of State, Country Files, Miscellaneous Population Files, 1974–1992, Lot 93D393, UNDP—Governing Council 1984/1985)
4. There is no indication of approval or disapproval of any of the options.