297. Memorandum From the Administrator of the Agency for International Development (McPherson) to Secretary of State Shultz1
SUBJECT
- FY 1985 Funding for UNFPA
You have received a memorandum from EAP, OES, IO and L.2 I hope my views can be helpful.
1. Background. UNFPA has been the subject of congressional criticism as a result of the population program in China. The Kemp/Inouye amendment3 was passed a few weeks ago in response to AID’s release of $36 million to UNFPA and its withholding of another $10 million from that organization. Before making the AID contribution, we determined that UNFPA does not include involuntary abortion in its program, even though the population control program of the Government of China does include such abortions. The Kemp/Inouye amendment provides, in effect, that UNFPA cannot receive the $10 million if the President determines that UNFPA, “supports or participates in the management” of a foreign government’s program of “coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.”
2. Options. EAP, OES, IO, and L favor the option of making no findings under Kemp/Inouye: in effect, they conclude that UNPFA does not support or participate in the management of a program of involuntary abortion or sterilization, or that China does not have a program containing such abuses. They favor granting the $10 million to UNFPA, subject to conditions on disbursement described in their decision memorandum.
AID favors the option of making the findings under Kemp/Inouye and withholding the $10 million. AID believes that the Kemp/Inouye [Page 844] amendment clearly applies and that this option is the best hope for continued funding in FY 1986.
3. Funding for UNFPA in FY 1986. In deciding this issue, the overriding consideration should be to maintain flexibility for funding UNFPA in FY 1986. I believe that all interested members of Congress, including Senator Inouye, the population community and UNFPA expect the $10 million to be withheld. (Senator Inouye, of course, does not favor this result.) UNFPA’s primary concern is United States funding in 1986.
I believe a decision not to apply Kemp/Inouye and to make available the $10 million, even if subject to the conditions proposed by State, would generate such an adverse reaction that Congress would enact greater restrictions on our contribution to UNFPA in 1986, probably in the FY 1986 appropriations bill. It would lead directly and immediately to the result State hopes to avoid. Conversely, if Kemp/Inouye is applied and Congress does not enact a more restrictive provision, we may be able to provide assistance to UNFPA in FY 1986, if it limits its program in China to providing contraceptives.
4. Population Control in China. Although the Chinese Government claims that its population program is voluntary and that coercion is neither encouraged nor condoned, there is no doubt that the China program includes coerced abortion and involuntary sterilization. The one-child-family policy is implemented by setting targets for authorized births at provincial and lower levels which are interpreted as quotas by zealous officials whose performance in meeting planned targets is reinforced, at all levels, by a system of incentives to reward success and disincentives to punish failures. These abuses have been extensively documented.
5. Application of Kemp/Inouye. Congressman Kemp intended his amendment to apply to UNFPA. He stated in the House Report “that the United Nations Fund for Population Activities would be immediately affected by this amendment”.4 He also explained that participation in the management of a program of coercive abortion includes providing census data, training and other assistance to China’s family planning agencies. UNFPA provides this general management assistance to the China population program.
AID’s General Counsel believes that Kemp/Inouye does apply and the $10 million should not be provided to UNFPA.
6. Additional Problems with State Option. Even if UNFPA were to accept such a conditional grant, it would be difficult for UNFPA to make the necessary changes in its China program in a reasonable timeframe. If the grant had to be deobligated, AID could not reprogram [Page 845] the funds for other voluntary family planning programs as it could under the AID option.
We believe it is extremely unlikely that UNFPA will accept the conditional grant. Since Kemp/Inouye is not applied under this option, our lawyers believe that the UNFPA refusal could either result in an impoundment or compel an unconditional grant to UNFPA.
7. White House Consultation. State and AID agree that you should consult with the White House regarding who should make the decision on this issue.
8. Recommendation. After consultation with the White House, that the AID option (No. 1) be chosen. I would be happy to discuss this with you.
- Source: Department of State, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Subject Files—Edward Derwinski, 1984–1985, Lot 87D326, Population 1985. Confidential. Copies were sent to Ball and Derwinski.↩
- Not attached. In an undated memorandum to Shultz, Armacost, McPherson, Sofaer, Wolfowitz, Negroponte, and Kauzlarich discussed possible options for funding UNFPA in FY 1985. (Ibid.)↩
- Reference is to what is commonly known as the Kemp-Kasten amendment. The amendment provided the President the authority to determine whether an organization supported abortion or coercive sterilization. Reagan delegated the authority to Shultz on September 19, who in turn delegated it to McPherson on September 21. (Open Jurist, “Population Institute vs. M. Peter McPherson,” (accessed online))↩
- Reference is to the House of Representatives Conference Report H.R. 99–142.↩