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

294. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in China¹

Washington, March 30, 1985, 1851Z

97012. Subject: Withholding of UNFPA China Funds.

1. EAP/C Director Anderson called in PRC Embassy Political Counselor Wang Li March 30 and passed him the following press release issued by AID Administrator McPherson’s office that same day. Following is text of the press release:

Quote:

M. Peter McPherson, Administrator of the Agency for International Development, today announced his decision to withhold dollars 10 million in U.S. support of the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA). The remaining dollars 36 million appropriated by Congress for UNFPA has been disbursed today to that organization.

In announcing the decision, McPherson emphasized that it indicated no retreat from support of voluntary family planning. ‘The administration’s policy remains to support broadened availability of family planning services so that individuals can freely decide on the number of children they desire’, McPherson stated. ‘However, we will not associate U.S. funding, even indirectly, with coercion which the U.S. views as a violation of human rights.’

McPherson explained that the AID internal review of the UNFPA program had been completed and demonstrated satisfactorily that UNFPA neither funds abortions nor supports coercive family planning practices through its programs. However, McPherson stated, the practices in the family planning programs of one country is such that any support for that country’s program is linked with and gives the appearance of condoning its practices. The amount the U.S. is withholding from UNFPA represents approximately the amount of UNFPA’s budget scheduled to go to that country.

AID will ask OMB to request Congress for authority to reprogram the dollars 10 million withheld from UNFPA for use in other family planning activities through government-to-government programs or through private organizations. For 1985, McPherson said that AID would base 1986 funding decisions on actions taken by UNFPA to distance itself from coercive practices.

Unquote.

2. After passing him the press release Anderson explained to Wang the USG position drawing on the following talking points:

Quote:

1. Practices in China. U.S. recognizes the statements by PRC officials that all family planning in PRC is voluntary and that any acts of coercion are the actions of overzealous local officials.

—We also note substantial scholarly evidence² suggesting that coercion is widespread in practice.

—We understand difficulty of administering a country as vast as China.

—As we noted in the recent Human Rights Report, there have been few reports of prosecution of local officials for coercion.³

2. U.S. Policy on Coercion.

—Various UN resolutions and the recent recommendations adopted at the International Conference on Population (Mexico City, 1984) recognize the right of all people to freely decide the number and spacing of their children.

—Coercion is inconsistent with U.S. values and culture that even indirect support for coercion could jeopardize our entire family planning program.

3. Further Concerns.

—As the major donor to UNFPA, we expect that public opinion in the U.S. and abroad will hold U.S. accountable for all actions of UNFPA from which we do not dissociate ourselves.

—We wish to avoid terminating U.S. support for UNFPA altogether.

4. Avoidance of Reference to PRC.

—Announcement avoided naming PRC.

—Policy is non-discriminatory. If we become aware of other programs inconsistent with U.S. values, similar action will be taken.

—However, we expect press reports will connect the action with China.

Unquote.

4. Following presentation of the talking points, Wang Li commented soberly that the decision apparently reflected some misunderstanding of the Chinese Government’s position on coerced abortion and other abuses in China’s family planning program which have got widespread press attention. Wang stated that the Chinese Government position on these matters was clear: While the government’s policy was to promote and encourage the one-child-per family concept, it was adamantly opposed to coercion, regularly made known this opposition at a high level, and took measures to punish offenders. These principles had been spelled out in detail in Ambassador Zhang’s letter to Secretary Shultz,⁴ and had been made known in other correspondence and discussions with UNFPA and the Congress.⁵

5. But in a country as vast as China, Wang commented, it was inevitable, undeniable, and unfortunate that abuses did occur from time to time. It was therefore all the more unfortunate that foreign journalists, relying principally upon material in the Chinese press intended precisely to underscore the government’s strong opposition to family planning abuses such as female infanticide and forced abortion, had exaggerated the scale of the abuses and left the mistaken impression that the government had tacitly supported such abuses.

6. In further discussion, Wang expressed the hope that the Department’s press guidance be constructed so as not to single out Chinese programs for criticism. Anderson reiterated that the press release did not mention China, that our side would seek to make plain that our decision reflected a general policy rather than an effort to condemn any particular country, but that the media would predictably focus attention on China and Chinese family planning practices.

7. In probing for insights regarding reasons for the decision, Wang asked directly whether AID had responded to political pressure from the Congress. Anderson replied that the abortion issue was extremely difficult and emotional, and that the decision should be seen as reflecting a widespread sentiment in American society that US funds should not support, or be seen as supporting, any program where coercive measures were alleged. In making the decision to withhold funds from UNFPA, AID officials had been obliged to consider reports and judgments by objective outside specialists that raised questions about Chinese family planning practices.⁶

Shultz

1. Source: Department of State, Country Files, Miscellaneous Population Files, 1974–1992, Lot 93D393, China UNFPA/1984. Confidential; Immediate. Drafted by Anderson; cleared in AID; and approved by Brown. Sent Immediate for information to Hong Kong. Sent for information to Shanghai and Guangzhou.
2. Not further identified.
3. In telegram 20500 from Beijing, November 1, 1984, the Embassy transmitted the 1984 Human Rights Report for China. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D840699–0416)
4. Not found.
5. Not further identified.
6. In a June 19 information memorandum to Shultz, Wolfowitz forwarded a June 7 letter of protest from Xueqian regarding the decision to withhold $10 million from UNFPA. (Department of State, Country Files, Miscellaneous Population Files, 1974–1992, Lot 93D393, China UNFPA/1984)