U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

79–323 PDF 2002

S. HRG. 107–515

U.S. FUNDING FOR THE U.N. POPULATION FUND:

THE EFFECT ON WOMEN’S LIVES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

AND TERRORISM

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 27, 2002

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware, Chairman

PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota

BARBARA BOXER, California

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

BILL NELSON, Florida

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming

EDWIN K. HALL, Staff Director

PATRICIA A. MCNERNEY, Republican Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

AND TERRORISM

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

BILL NELSON, Florida

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., DELAWARE

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

(II)

CONTENTS

Page

Biegman, Hon. Nicolaas H., former Ambassador of the Netherlands to NATO,

Amsterdam, The Netherlands ............................................................................. 21

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California, submissions for the

record:

Letter from Senator Gordon Smith to President George W. Bush, dated

January 15, 2002 .......................................................................................... 1

Article from the National Council of Jewish Women magazine, dated

Summer 2001 ................................................................................................ 7

Leaflet on Reproductive Health/Family Planning Project, distributed by

Chinese authorities ....................................................................................... 41

Letter from Executive Director, UNFPA, to Senator Boxer, dated March

4, 2002 ............................................................................................................ 60

Brownback, Hon. Sam, U.S. Senator from Kansas, submissions for the record:

Article from the Pakistan News Service, dated November 23, 2001 ............ 6

Report of the Population Research Institute, dated December 12, 2001 ..... 51

Dewey, Hon. Arthur E. ‘‘Gene’’, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Department of State, Washington, DC ....... 9

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11

Responses to additional questions for the record ........................................... 64

Eberstadt, Dr. Nicholas, Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy, American

Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC ............................................................... 29

Enzi, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from Wyoming, prepared statement .................. 31

Flicker, John, president, National Audubon Society, prepared statement ......... 65

Guy, Ms. Josephine, Director of Government Affairs, America 21, Louisville,

KY .......................................................................................................................... 26

Oakley, Hon. Phyllis E., former Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence

and Research; former Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees,

and Migration; Adjunct Professor, Johns Hopkins University, Washington,

DC .......................................................................................................................... 17

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18

(III)

(1)

U.S. FUNDING FOR THE U.N. POPULATION

FUND: THE EFFECT ON WOMEN’S LIVES

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

OPERATIONS AND TERRORISM,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m., in room SD419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.

Present: Senators Boxer, Brownback, and Enzi.

Senator BOXER. I am glad to see that Senator Brownback is here,

and we are going to start pretty much on time. The Subcommittee

on International Operations and Terrorism will come to order.

I am going to enter in the record, unless there is objection, a letter that had been written by Senator Smith earlier this year in

which he asked for the release of these funds, saying that he

shares the concern about China’s brutal one-child policy, but he is

convinced that the presence of UNFPA in China makes abuses,

such as coerced abortion, less likely.

So I would ask unanimous consent that that be placed in the

record.

[The letter referred to follows:]

GORDON H. SMITH,

UNITED STATES SENATE,

Washington, DC, January 15, 2002.

President GEORGE W. BUSH

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20500

DEAR PRESIDENT BUSH:

I am writing regarding an urgent issue that has come to my attention involving

U.S. contributions to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). I understand

that you have come under pressure to cut back or eliminate funding for this program, despite a bipartisan agreement which set UNFPA’s funding level at $34 million in fiscal year 2002. I urge you to fully fund this vital international health program.

Throughout my public life, I have supported policies that both protect the sanctity

of human life and prevent the tragedy of abortion. I believe that whether one is prolife or pro-choice, we all have an obligation to work together to make abortion a rare

event. Since 1973, it has been illegal to use U.S. government funds to perform abortions overseas, and a recent U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) study indicates

that UNFPA recipients have complied with this requirement. Additionally, all the

evidence I have reviewed indicates that international family planning programs

have significantly reduced the incidence of abortion worldwide, while improving the

quality of life for women in developing countries.

2

Secretary of State Powell has also supported this position. Speaking before Congress last year, he stated, ‘‘UNFPA provides critical population assistance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition.’’ He went on to note that

the ‘‘activities of the UNFPA are fully consistent with overall U.S. efforts in developing countries to raise the standard of living, reduce poverty, and lessen disparities

of wealth within and among countries.’’ Secretary Powell also determined that

UNFPA was in full compliance with the U.S. laws against coercive abortion. The

State Department then solidified its support for UNFPA activities last November,

when the agency was granted $600,000 as a key partner in providing assistance for

emergency infant delivery kits and sanitary supplies for Afghan refugee women in

Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan.

I understand—and frankly I share—your concern about China’s brutal one-child

policy; however, I am convinced that the presence of UNFPA in China makes abuses

such as coerced abortion less likely. This conclusion was supported by a recent

United Nations investigation. In fact, because UNFPA only funds programs in Chinese counties that have renounced the one-child policy, eliminating funding for

these programs risks a return to the policy that would increase the incidence of

abortion in China.

Your administration made a laudable public commitment to international health

programs last year with substantial budget requests for U.N. AIDS and other global

health initiatives, including $25 million for the UNFPA. Given the overwhelming

support in both the House and Senate for UNFPA funding and activities, I urge you

to fully fund the U.S. contributions to the UNFPA at $34 million.

Warm regards,

GORDON SMITH, Oregon.

Senator BOXER. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to welcome you

here. Thank you all for coming on both sides of this question. We

hope today the hearing will be illuminating.

The U.N. Population Fund, commonly known as UNFPA, is the

largest international source of population assistance. Since it began

operations in 1969, UNFPA has provided $5 billion in assistance to

developing countries. These funds come from 120 countries.

As Secretary Colin Powell has said, the UNFPA ‘‘provides critical

population assistance to developing countries and countries with

economies in transition.’’ I agree with him.

The UNFPA provides assistance to more than 140 nations. In

comparison, USAID provides population assistance in less than

half as many countries. UNFPA works to prevent teen pregnancy

and HIV/AIDS, promote safe pregnancy and delivery, strives to expand reproductive healthcare for the poor and the hard-to-reach

groups.

The fund also supports data collection and research to encourage

appropriate population and development policies and activities to

improve the status of women, such as programs to eliminate female

genital mutilation. UNFPA also provides assistance to those in

emergency situations, such as the one in Afghanistan. And I am

going to concentrate my remarks on the impact of these programs

in Afghanistan.

Just last October the administration seemed to acknowledge the

critical role of the UNFPA when it provided $600,000 to respond

to the reproductive health risks faced by the Afghan people. To put

this into perspective, that $600,000, the country of Luxembourg, a

nation of 450,000 people, gave $4.5 million. So I want to say that

again. To help the women in Afghanistan with their reproductive

health risks they did face, the Bush administration made available

$600,000. The Country of Luxembourg gave $4.5 million.

UNFPA is working in Afghanistan in the areas of primary

healthcare, prevention and management of sexual violence, prevenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:37 Sep 18, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 79323 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
3

tion and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, protection of

mothers’ and infants’ health, and family planning services that include counseling and literacy courses.

Senator Brownback and I might not agree at the end of the day

on this particular issue, but he has worked with me very hard in

making sure that the women of Afghanistan are treated with dignity and respect. And I would make the argument to him and all

others that the help to the women is desperately needed. And that

includes UNFPA.

Afghan women bear an average of 6.9 children and face a 1 in

15 chance lifetime risk of dying in childbirth. Of every 1,000 live

births, 17 women die of pregnancy-related medical complications in

Afghanistan. And 25 percent of all children die before the age of

5. Overcrowding is such that even Afghan women who are fortunate enough to have access to a medical facility are discharged just

12 hours after giving birth.

This weekend, The Washington Post reported on a clinic in

Kabul where there are no epidurals, no Lamaze breathing, and no

surgeons for emergency C-sections. Oftentimes there is no water

and no lights. This is where UNFPA can help. Next month the

UNFPA will provide equipment urgently needed at this facility and

others like it in Afghanistan, including operating tables, incubators, anesthesia machine, and a full range of medical supplies. And

now we have cut back on money. And that money is needed.

Given the dire need for UNFPA programs in Afghanistan and

elsewhere in the world, one would think the administration would

be asking Congress to increase the U.S. contribution to the

UNFPA. But the administration has done exactly the opposite.

President Bush has refused to release $34 million in appropriated

funds that has been available since December for the UNFPA and

has chosen to effectively zero out funding in his fiscal year 2003

budget request. UNFPA estimates that $34 million for family planning would be

enough to prevent 2 million unwanted pregnancies, eliminate

800,000 induced abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, nearly 60,000

cases of serious maternal illness, and over 77,000 infant and child

deaths. Ultimately, $34 million would provide for 13 percent of

condoms needed for HIV/AIDS prevention worldwide.

We know that UNFPA will continue to help Afghan women and

children who are in such desperate need. But it is sad to think that

they may have to do that without the help of the greatest country

in the world, the United States of America. Just think of the good

that could be done with that $34 million.

A delay in the U.S. contribution has already forced the UNFPA

to alert its regional divisions of funding shortfalls. This means that

plans for future and ongoing program have been scrapped. The

question is: Why has the administration chosen to withhold this

funding? I happen to believe in my heart of hearts—I am known

for my direct, straight-from-the-shoulder response—that it is about

politics here in this country.

I know that there are small groups that have urged the President to cut off all funding for the UNFPA. And the groups have

called for an end to this funding saying that the fund is involved

in China’s coerced abortion policy. I already put a letter into the

4

record from a pro-life Senator, Senator Gordon Smith, who says he

totally disagrees with this reason.

Let me just go on the record in a very clear way. China’s coerced

abortion and one-child policy is horrible. I believe that policy is indefensible. And the UNFPA feels the same way. We should all be

on the same page here instead of having an argument where there

should be no argument. The work performed by the UNFPA is

guided by the program of action adopted in the 1994 International

Conference on Population and Development.

This document states, ‘‘In no case should abortion be promoted

as a method of family planning’’ and ‘‘coercion has no part to play

in population and development programs.’’ That is in the UNFPA.

That is part of their guide.

Furthermore, these allegations have been refuted by an international review team led by Ambassador Nicolaas Biegman, who is

here today. And these allegations are not supported in the State

Department’s own human rights report. In addition, the U.S. contribution to the UNFPA is held in a segregated account to ensure

that no money, underscored, ‘‘no money,’’ is spent in China. It has

been that way since 1994.

Nevertheless, in light of these findings, the administration still

refuses to release funding for the UNFPA. I believe it is time for

this administration to look at the facts, time to set aside political

interests and act in the best interest of Afghan women, Afghan

women and the millions of other men and women whose lives could

be saved by the UNFPA funds.

I so admired the First Lady’s address on Afghanistan and the

condition of women in Afghan. And I remember how pleased Senator Brownback and I were when Laura Bush just got right out

there with her words of encouragement and support for the women

of Afghanistan.

This is what she said on November 17, ‘‘I hope Americans will

join our family in working to ensure that dignity and opportunity

will be secured for all the women and children of Afghanistan.’’

I just want to say today, in my opinion, dignity and opportunity

is what the UNFPA is all about. If we care about children and we

care about women, we do not want them to die needlessly. And

that is what is happening because of a lack of this healthcare.

Today we will have the opportunity to hear from the State Department, hear their views on the UNFPA, and also from the panel

of private witnesses, who will give their expert testimony on the

current situation. I want to give a warm welcome to all of our witnesses this afternoon. I look forward to hearing from you all.

And I would be happy to give 5 minutes now to Senator

Brownback for an opening statement.

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Madame Chairman.

First, I would like to thank the Chair for calling the hearing and

Congress and those interested in the activities of the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. I raise concerns about their

day-to-day activities in countries with policies that result in coerced

abortions and coerced sterilizations.

I am looking forward to hearing from some of the witnesses that

have eyewitness accounts of what is taking place in some of these

5

countries and situations. I think this hearing provides a good opportunity to discuss some of these concerns.

First, let me say that I am disappointed that there are no witnesses representing the UNFPA here today. As most of you know

and as the members of this committee are well aware, the United

States has conditioned its involvement with organizations that perform or promote abortions at home and has also done so abroad.

This issue is larger than abortion. And in fact, it is about forced

abortion.

The Kemp-Kasten amendment states, ‘‘None of the funds made

available in this act, nor any unobligated balances from prior appropriations, may be made available to any organization or program, which, as determined by the President of the United States,

supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.’’ The reasons for this policy are simple. There are many in these

United States who object to abortion in principle. There are many

more who object to the performance of forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations. One of the questions that we will address in

this hearing today is the extent to which the Government of the

United States will force its citizens to subsidize some of the practices of the UNFPA.

I have my own very deep concerns with the UNFPA, apart from

some of those that we will discuss here today. One point that I do

think we need to discuss today is the very deep concern that many

have over the numerous reports, many of which have been substantiated as routine practices rather than isolated instances, that

UNFPA officials support the work of officials from the Peoples’ Republic of China in carrying out non-voluntary abortions and sterilizations for the purpose of enforcing that country’s one-child policy.

You will hear from a witness on that today.

And I have to say, Madame Chairman, this is a very personal

issue for me. My youngest daughter is from China. She is a beautiful girl. And you do not know the number of nights I have gone

in there in prayer, just thanking God that some mother in China

saw fit to see her on through—she is a gorgeous child—and to resist the push and the efforts by the Chinese Government—and I

want to know if that is also supported by the U.N., and we will

have witnesses to testify on that today—in that pregnancy. She is

a gorgeous child that we are so fortunate to have in this country

and in our family today.

As well, there is now evidence of UNFPA officials being involved

in singular and equally offensive policies and practices in Vietnam

and Peru. It seems that there is a pattern of cooperation developing

between the UNFPA and those countries that used forced abortion

or sterilization to meet population targets.

We have a news account that—I want to read a portion of this.

‘‘The United Nations Population Fund’’—this is dated November

23, 2001, by the Pakistan News Service—saying ‘‘The U.N. Population Fund is distributing abortion devices and chemicals disguised in kits marked for safe delivery in Afghan refugee camps in

Pakistan. The survey conducted by PNS in refugee camp in Watertown revealed the survey was also endorsed by Population Research Institute here on Thursday confirming the distribution of

6

abortion devices and medicines and on Afghan women in refugee

camps in Pakistan and Iran. Giving the great unmet needs for food,

shelter, water, and basic health supplies, along with strong opposition to abortion throughout the Islamic world, the UNFPA’s Afghan

refugee operations are gaining little ground against the intended

recipients, said Steve Mosher, the president of the institute, while

briefing the newsmen.’’

I am asking unanimous consent that the full article be included

in the record.

Senator BOXER. Without objection, so ordered.

[The article referred to follows:]

[From the Pakistan News Service, Nov. 23, 2001]

UNFPA DISTRIBUTING ABORTION DEVICES AMONG STARVED AFGHAN REFUGEES

CHAMAN, PAKISTAN, Nov. 23 (PNS): The United Nations Population Fund

(UNFPA) is distributing abortion devices and chemicals, disguised in kits marked

for safe delivery in Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan, a survey conducted by PNS

at a refugee camp in border town of Chaman revealed.

The survey was also endorsed by London-based Population Research Institute

here on Thursday confirming the distribution of abortion devices and medicines

among the Afghan women in refugee camps in Pakistan and Iran.

Given the great unmet need for food, shelter, water and basic health supplies

along with strong opposition to abortion throughout the Islamic world, the UNFPA’s

Afghan refugee operations are gaining little ground against the intended recipients,

said Steve Mosher, the President of the Institute while briefing the newsmen.

Early reports confirm that war-traumatized refugees, approached by UNFPA

workers pandering abortion services, wander away quickly. And a few brave refugees in an attempt to protect their female population and progeny have confiscated

abortion pills provided by UNFPA.

‘‘I have informed the authorities concerned about the distribution of pills among

the women, but no action has so far been taken in this regard,’’ Malik Khan, an

elderly Afghan refugee told PNS.

Still, the UNFPA offers only abortion and ‘‘family planning’’ services to Afghan

women and their families. Infant and maternal mortality rates rank among the

highest in the world in this refugee setting, yet basic life-saving aid from UNFPA

remains in want. The immediate goal for the UNFPA is to break down cultural resistance to abortion and contraception within the refugee camps, Mr. Mosher observed.

UNFPA’s long-term goal is to establish permanent operations in Afghanistan. In

conjunction with international abortion providers Marie Stopes and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), UNFPA plans to spend an estimated total of $20 million for abortion services within Afghanistan over the next

few years, he contended.

Senator BROWNBACK. I think that this committee needs to hear

some answers to some of these allegations today or, at a minimum,

start to get to the bottom of some of these issues. Again, I am very

disappointed that there is no one here representing UNFPA that

might help shed some light on these questions.

Finally, I am looking forward in particular to the testimony of

Ms. Josephine Guy, with whom I have had the pleasure of previously visiting. I am interested to hear about her recent trip to

China and whether or not she found any evidence to substantiate

some of the charges that have been brought regarding the apparent

partnership that exists between the UNFPA and the Peoples’ Republic of China’s aggressive enforcement of the one-child policy.

There are a lot of issues here, and this is one of these uncomfortable discussions and one of these uncomfortable hearings where I

and the chairman have worked together on a number of women’s

7

issues, but we are apart on this one. And I am hopeful that we can,

perhaps through the witnesses and testimony that is brought forward today, get to the bottom of some answers here to some very

serious questions.

Thank you for holding the hearing.

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Thank you so much. We are good

friends. We have agreed to disagree on this one.

I would say that, Senator, as you probably—I hope you would

know that both the minority and the majority chose the witnesses

for today. And it would have been fine if you wanted to ask someone from the UNFPA. The reason we did not do that is because

this is about the UNFPA, expect them to say they needed the funding. I thought it would be better to get people from both sides of

the issue, who have actually seen what they do, to be more objective on point. But you had every right to ask someone from the

UNFPA. I would have said, ‘‘Of course.’’ Senator BROWNBACK. Maybe we can do that at a subsequent

hearing—— Senator BOXER. No problem.

Senator BROWNBACK [continuing]. So that we could have this

background.

Senator BOXER. I would be happy to do that.

Let me just—I would ask unanimous consent to place in the

record an article that appeared in the National Council of Jewish

Women Magazine, an article by the head of the UNFPA, which

reads in part, ‘‘UNFPA does not provide support for abortions or

abortion-related services activities anywhere in the world. Neither

does the fund promote or provide support for involuntary sterilization or coercive practices of any kind. In fact, the fund is a global

leader in working to eliminate the use of coercive family planning

practices, including places like China.’’

[The article referred to follows:]

[From the NCJW Journal, Summer 2001]

THE UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND:

GLOBAL CATALYST FOR FAMILY PLANNING AND WOMEN

(By Thoraya Obaid)

We don’t seem to hear much about the population explosion these days. In fact

we have recently been hearing a lot about the ‘‘birth dearth,’’ an apparent shortage

of babies in countries like Italy and Spain. Perhaps we don’t need international assistance for family planning or for organizations like the United Nations Population

Fund. The UN has been working in this area since 1969: isn’t that long enough?

In truth there are more births than ever before, about 130 million per year, to

be exact, and the population of the world is increasing by about 77 million annually,

compared with about 60 million in 1969. At 6.1 billion, there is no dearth of people

in the world, and no dearth of new faces arriving at the world’s table.

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is the global voice for international family planning and the largest internationally funded source of population

assistance to developing countries. UNFPA organized and helped to broker the historic agreement reached in 1994 at the International Conference on Population and

Development (ICPD), which created a new framework for international family planning and women’s empowerment.

The comprehensive approach adopted at the ICPD shifts the emphasis of population planning from reaching demographic targets to promoting human rights and

sustainable development, changing the focus from numbers to people. That is why

UNFPA is guided by, and promotes, the principles of the ICPD action plan and its

commitments to reproductive rights, gender equality and male responsibility, and to

8

the autonomy and empowerment of women everywhere. Meeting these goals will

contribute to improving the quality of life and to the universally accepted aim of

stabilizing world population. These goals are an integral part of all efforts to achieve

sustained and sustainable social and economic development that meets human

needs, ensures well-being and protects the natural resources on which all life depends.

The United States is an important contributor to UNFPA (providing $21.5 million

last year), but far behind the Fund’s leading contributors Japan and the Netherlands, which are each contributing almost $50 million annually.

UNFPA provides support to 156 countries, more than any other donor agency,

and, in many cases, is an irreplaceable source of funds for many countries. UNFPA

has played a key role in countries where few other donors provide population assistance—such as a number of small African countries. Since 1969, UNFPA has provided almost $5 billion for voluntary family planning in developing countries.

Organized family planning, led by UNFPA during the past 30 years, has been one

of the most successful development efforts ever. Globally, fertility rates have been

reduced from 6 to 3 children per woman, improving the health of mothers and their

children. The rate of global population growth has slowed dramatically over the past

three decades as a result of international efforts led by UNFPA to provide safe, voluntary family planning around the world. Still, the 48 poorest nations in the world

are scheduled to triple in the next 50 years, necessitating continued support for

international family planning.

Operationally, UNFPA’s three main areas of work are: to help ensure universal

access to reproductive health, including family planning and sexual health, to all

couples and individuals by the year 2015; to support population and development

strategies that enable capacity-building in population programming; and to promote

awareness of population and development issues and to advocate for the mobilization of the resources and political will necessary to accomplish its areas of work.

UNFPA does not provide support for abortions or abortion-related activities anywhere in the world. Neither does the Fund promote or provide support for involuntary sterilization or coercive practices of any kind. In fact, the Fund is a global leader in working to eliminate the use of coercive family planning practices, including

places like China.

As is its right as a UN member, China has requested assistance from UNFPA.

In 1997, after several years of discussion, UNFPA and the Chinese Government

agreed upon activities that the UNFPA can undertake in accordance with the principles set at the ICPD (including those associated with human rights, gender equality, and individual liberty). In fact, UNFPA’s activities in China represent a significant breakthrough. Before agreeing to provide assistance, UNFPA insisted that

China agree to adhere to the principles contained in the ICPD Program of Action

in the 32 counties where UNFPA will provide assistance. Importantly, Chinese authorities have agreed to abolish all quotas and targets in those counties.

The four-year program is designed to improve the delivery of voluntary family

planning information and services. Specifically, the program focuses on improved

counseling services; expanding the range of available contraceptive methods; improving pre- and post-partum care and assisted births; training health workers

about the methodologies and advantages of informed consent, and emphasizing the

international requirement to do so; and enhancing efforts to prevent and treat sexually transmitted diseases. In addition, the program includes components to enhance

the status of women and encourage exchanges with voluntary programs in other developing countries.

UNFPA’s efforts in China between 1980 and 1995 have advanced the availability

of quality, voluntary family planning; improved maternal health; reduced infant

mortality; and advanced human rights. Encouragingly, the U.S. State Department’s

most recent human rights report on China notes significant progress toward reducing coercive family planning practices. For many years, it has been reported that

China’s most restrictive practices have occurred in the cities. The State Department’s recent report on human rights in China in 2000 states that ‘‘the Government

was beginning to relax its policies in the cities,’’ including Beijing, Shanghai,

Zhejiang Province and parts of Guizhou Province. The report goes on to state, ‘‘outside the cities, exceptions to the ‘one-child policy’ are becoming the norm.’’ Taken

together, these findings essentially indicate a countrywide relaxation of restrictive

practices.

The State Department’s report indicates that UNFPA has done exactly what it

said it would do in the 32 counties in which it is working—getting these counties

to eliminate the system of strict, government-assigned birth quotas. Moreover, the

report indicates that Chinese authorities are recognizing the greater wisdom of the

9

non-restrictive approach advocated by UNFPA: ‘‘600 counties covering about half

the country’s population have adopted more liberal policies.’’ All over the world, UNFPA is forging ahead with its efforts to promote an inclusive, compassionate, voluntary approach to family planning and reproductive health.

Already, the Fund’s work has made a difference for millions of families. In the future, UNFPA will continue its efforts to realize the hopeful vision agreed upon at

the 1994 ICPD and in the process to help improve the quality of life for people everywhere, with special attention to those most in need of assistance.

Senator BOXER. So clearly, there are differences of opinion on

this. And we want to explore those differences with our witnesses

here today and through our questions. So why do we not just get

started on this.

I am pleased to introduce again the Assistant Secretary of State

for Population, Refugees, and Migration. Mr. Arthur E. ‘‘Gene’’ Dewey. The PRM Bureau, as it is known, is responsible for U.S.

international population policy and promotes its goals through bilateral and multilateral cooperation.

Mr. Dewey.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR E. DEWEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF STATE, BUREAU OF POPULATION, REFUGEES, AND MIGRATION, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. DEWEY. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman.

Witnesses normally start by saying how delighted they are to appear before a committee, and immediately compromise their credibility in the process. I have to confess in this case, Madame Chairman, that it was a much greater pleasure to appear before you at

my confirmation hearing just a few weeks ago. And I appreciate

your graciousness at that hearing and your prediction that I would

be confirmed, which has been the case. And I am delighted to be

on the job, although it may be less of a delight to be here at this

hearing today.

The central issue for the hearing is the status of the U.S. funding

for UNFPA for fiscal year 2002. There is a short answer to that,

and that is that the status is that the funding is under review at

the White House level. But the central question that I would like

to address in just a few summary remarks, and then I would like

to submit a formal statement for the record, if I could, Madame

Chairman.

Senator BOXER. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. DEWEY. The central question seems to be: Why is the funding under review, particularly after the administration had requested $25 million for the program for 2002, and then the Foreign

Operations Appropriation Act provided $34 million, up to $34 million, for UNFPA and, as you mentioned, Madame Chairman, the

provision of what, aside from Luxembourg, is a fairly liberal contribution to UNFPA for the needs of Afghan women in the heart

of the crisis which is happening in that country?

So I will—in these introductory remarks, I will try to address

this question of ‘‘Why is there a review after these other actions

would indicate that there was no problem in going ahead with the

funding?’’

It seems that the new situation is the—the new situation seems

to be that the finding of the Population Research Institute, which

alleged complicity of the UNFPA in a coercive family planning proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:37 Sep 18, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 79323 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
10

gram in China, followed in October of last year by rebuttal from

the UNFPA, and was followed by that by a sharp response from

Capitol Hill, with a sharp division of opinion as to what the true

facts are in this case—it seems that given this response, this new

situation, and particularly the sharply divided response from Capitol Hill, where the White House and the State Department have

heard very detailed and sharp replies from both sides of this issue,

that no responsible person or organization would have the choice

but to take another thorough look at this funding question based

upon those circumstances which I just described.

For a variety of reasons—and the central issue here is whether

the law, whether the Kemp-Kasten amendment in the Foreign Operations Act, is triggered as a result of these allegations. That

seems to be the central issue. And I will just review the Kemp-Kasten amendment language for everyone’s benefit.

It prohibits U.S. Government funding to any organization, as determined by the President, that supports or participates in the

management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. It seems that with the differences that have occurred particularly over the last few weeks on this issue as to whether KempKasten should be invoked do require and set out a clear responsibility to review the bidding on this issue. And that is what the

White House is doing at the present time.

I think that such a high-level review has another benefit for the

long term. Let us assume, without prejudging what the outcome of

this review will be, that the United States will continue funding of

the UNFPA. There is a possibility of setting out through this review greater clarity on what would constitute true UNFPA independence from a program which is in such question, or really is in

no question as far as China is concerned with its coercive overtones.

This would seem to be useful in eliminating future ambiguity

over whether or not Kemp-Kasten would apply. And there surely

is a need for that. If you look at the past administration’s determination on Kemp-Kasten, using the same set of facts, two different administrations came up with different conclusions.

I think another reason for needing to get such clarity is the recent enactment of the Population and Family Planning Law by the

Peoples’ Congress in China at the end of December of last year.

This is a very ambiguous law that seems to codify current practices, especially the one-child policy, with only problematical exceptions to that one-child policy.

An outside evaluation could suggest for UNFPA that an appropriate role would be an independent neighborhood watch kind of

role to deal with reports of abuse and to work to change abusive

practices in the countryside, as well as the ambiguous policy which

exists in the capital itself.

So this kind of independence seems to be needed. It seems, without that, we are going to continue to have a chain of confusion in

determining whether the provisions of the law are triggered with

respect to U.S. funding. And this is what I hope certainly will come

out of the review which is now underway.

With that, I will conclude and be prepared to take your questions. Thank you, Madame Chairman.

11

Senator BOXER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dewey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ARTHUR E. DEWEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE

FOR POPULATION, REFUGEES, AND MIGRATION

Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today

to represent the Administration in discussing the United Nations Population Fund

(UNFPA) and to reaffirm the Administration’s commitment to international family

planning.

Throughout its more than 30-year history, the U.S. international family planning

program has had strong support from the American public as well as Congress. This

program is recognized worldwide as an important component of our foreign assistance. The United States remains the largest bilateral donor of population assistance

in the world, with programs in nearly 60 countries. We have also been the largest

bilateral donor to UNFPA, providing more than $610 million since UNFPA was

founded in 1968. American generosity over the past three decades has enabled couples to choose when and how many children to have, enhanced maternal and child

health, and enabled parents to better provide for their children. As President Bush

has said, ‘‘One of the best ways to prevent abortion is to provide quality voluntary

family planning services.’’ And we know that reproductive health care and family

planning saves lives by reducing pregnancy-related deaths around the world.

The Administration’s commitment to international family planning remains

strong, as reflected in the President’s FY 2003 budget request of $425 million for

USAID’s population program.

When President Bush signed into law H.R. 2506, the ‘‘Foreign Operations, Export

Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2002,’’ (Public Law 107–115,

January 10, 2002) he stated:

The Act does not interfere with our policies regarding bilateral international family planning assistance, and ensures that U.S. funds are not

made available to organizations supporting or participating in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. The Act

provides additional discretion to determine the appropriate level of funding

for the United Nations Population Fund.

In particular, because the Act stated that ‘‘not more than $34 million for fiscal

year 2002 shall be made available for the United Nations Population Fund,’’ the Administration has substantial discretion in determining any appropriate level of

UNFPA funding, within the $34 million cap.

I know that Secretary Powell has testified before you and your colleagues on the

good work UNFPA has done in so many areas around the world. We support the

work UNFPA is doing worldwide to provide safe and voluntary family planning, enhance maternal and infant health, and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Yet, at the same time, we remain mindful of our important obligations under the

Kemp-Kasten amendment to the annual Foreign Operations, Export Financing and

Related Programs Appropriations Act, which provides that no U.S. funds can go to

an organization that supports or participates in the management of a program of

coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

We are particularly attentive to periodic reports of abuse and coercion in China’s

family planning program, and have frequently dispatched officers from our embassy

or consulates in China to investigate the credibility of these reports. Since 1998,

when the UNFPA Executive Board—of which the U.S. is a member—approved a

new four-year pilot project in 32 Chinese counties, the U.S. Mission to China has

continued to monitor UNFPA’s work closely.

Allegations of UNFPA’s complicity in coercive family planning practices in China

have been recently brought to our attention and to Congress’ attention. And while

we are aware of UNFPA’s response that it is not involved in coercive practices and

is, in fact, supporting a program that stresses the importance of voluntarism and

non-coercion, it is incumbent upon us to look further into this matter.

In closing, let me reiterate this Administration’s strong commitment to international family planning. As I mentioned, we are, and continue to be, the largest

bilateral provider of voluntary family planning and related primary health care. The

President’s FY 2003 budget supports our position as the leading donor.

Senator BOXER. Do you want to start with questions, Senator?

Senator BROWNBACK. If I could make sure that I understand

where the administration is, you are just saying you got a report—

12

you got conflicting opinions from out on Capitol Hill. And so you

are saying, ‘‘We need some more time to review this,’’ is the essence

of where the administration is today. Is that correct?

Mr. DEWEY. That is exactly right, Senator.

Senator BROWNBACK. OK. And then over a period of time, you

will make your own investigation, you will do your own investigation within the administration to determine whether or not the

Kemp-Kasten is being complied with our not. Is that correct?

Mr. DEWEY. The modalities of the review are really out of my

hands, out of the State Department hands. Those modalities are in

the White House itself.

Senator BROWNBACK. Have you had a chance to review, then, on

the coercive abortion issue and coercive abortion policy, whether it

exists in China today? You have not personally, nor the administration has had a chance to review that issue. Is that correct?

Mr. DEWEY. My Bureau has had discussions with China at the

reinvigorated human rights meeting just last fall where we have

pressed the issue on making changes in the course of family planning practices. As you know, the stated policy of China, even

though it is a one-child policy, asserts that there is no coercion. But

the practices seem to be different out in the provinces.

And so we have brought it up in that forum. The Embassy in

Beijing also engages Chinese officials, particularly the head of the

State Planning Commission on Family Planning, on this very issue.

So yes, there is a dialog going on where these issues are raised

with the appropriate officials.

Senator BROWNBACK. So you are getting it raised, though—what

I am hearing you say is you are getting it raised to you in China.

The mission is being—it is being raised there at the—that this coercive policy is still taking place, at least out in the provinces.

Mr. DEWEY. That is right, yes. These are reports that we are getting. And these reports are not denied by Chinese officials. They

explain them in terms that they cannot control all the practices

that are going on throughout the country and that, of course, they

decry those practices where they do exist. And they have promised

to follow up and to punish the offenders, those who are guilty of

abuses.

So this is the line of the government. But our concern is that the

abuses seem to continue.

Senator BROWNBACK. Have you had a chance, or has the State

Department officials had any chance, to have firsthand evidence

interviewing women that have had coerced abortion or sterilizations, and these interviews not be conducted in front of Chinese officials?

Mr. DEWEY. I do not have any indication of that or recollection

of any such interviews.

Senator BROWNBACK. Of whether or not they have had or have

not occurred, the interviews——

Mr. DEWEY. No, I am not aware of any.

Senator BROWNBACK. Interviews that have occurred?

Mr. DEWEY. I am not aware of any.

Senator BROWNBACK. If I could just request that the administration look into these aggressively, because I know from my own personal experiences the number of suggestions that this is taking

13

place are very high, that coerced abortion is occurring, that that

continues to be an active, aggressive policy in China, that that is

taking place, continues to be a high level number of those being

suggested. To the degree that the administration can interview and

try to follow into some of these rumors or leads to find if they are

substantiated or not would be a valuable bit of information in this

debate.

I think you are quite wise to hold up on distribution of funds

until we can get to the bottom of this. I think it would be helpful

in the exchange and the discussion if the administration, when you

get a number of these reports to you, could start following in to

those and see if these are actually taking place or not.

Mr. DEWEY. Well, we will certainly take that suggestion into account in the course of this review, which is being undertaken.

Senator BROWNBACK. Do you know if China will permit people to

openly come in and conduct interviews with women who have alleged that they have gone through coerced abortion or sterilization?

It is my understanding they will not.

Mr. DEWEY. I cannot give you a definitive answer on that. I know

that interviews have occurred, but I am not sure under what auspices.

Senator BROWNBACK. It is my understanding that the officials,

Chinese officials, will not let those take place and have sanctioned

the matter. But I do not—I wondered if you had a verification of

that or not.

Mr. DEWEY. No, I do not. I do not know to what extent that has

been tested.

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you very much.

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much.

I just want to make it clear that this hearing is not about forced

abortion in China. I do not think there is any disagreement from

anyone that forced, coerced abortion goes against a woman’s right

to choose, in my opinion. And it should be condemned, and it is

condemned. And that is not what this hearing is about. We could

have a hearing on that, if the members want.

This is about the UNFPA. And the UNFPA’s own guidelines prohibit them to be involved with coerced abortions in China or anywhere else. I want to make the point clear of what this hearing is

or is not about. And I have joined with my colleague in his pursuit

of the truth as far as what goes on in China. He has a personal

passion about it. And I must tell him that I share that passion. Although I may not have a beautiful child of Chinese heritage as my

own, I share that passion.

This is about the UNFPA. So I just want to make sure we know

what the hearing is about.

I want to say that, just to correct the record, Mr. Dewey, you said

that Luxembourg gave more than we did to the UNFPA in that

special drive. Let me name the countries that gave more than we

did, just so you know: U.K., the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden,

Norway, Belgium, and Italy. So I just wanted to make that point.

We should have done more than $660,000. I am so happy we did

that. But if I had a chance, I would have helped more, because the

Afghan people deserved it.

14

But moving on, just to make sure, Mr. Dewey—and I appreciate

your remarks, and I know from the tenor of your remarks, I hope,

that maybe an investigation can yield us a good outcome. And I

certainly will work with you as hard as I can, if you need me to

help you get facts from the field, that these funds will be released.

I know I have hope, given the tenor of your statement, that you

are investigating this, and you feel this is your duty. And I hope

that you will investigate it, and I hope you will do it soon. And I

hope you release these funds.

Frankly, the issue of next year’s funds, which there are not any

in the budget, is another matter. I do not want to get into that.

That is a travesty from my personal point of view. But right now

I am looking at the funds that were duly appropriated. As you

pointed out, we appropriated more funds in a bipartisan way in

this Congress than the administration asked for the last year. And

those funds are sitting there locked up.

So I want to know: Have you looked over the UNFPA’s guidelines, their program of action, that they adopted in the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, which states

in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning, and ‘‘coercion has no part to play in population and development programs’’?

Have you looked at those guidelines? Are you familiar with those

guidelines?

Mr. DEWEY. I have indeed looked at them, and I am familiar

with them. And I believe that UNFPA sincerely believes that that

is their policy and that they are practicing that policy of not

condoning coercive methods of family planning.

Senator BOXER. Well, do you think somehow they may be duped?

Is that what is going on? Who is duping them and taking your

money and doing the wrong thing with it? Who might be duping

them?

Mr. DEWEY. It ties back to the language of Kemp-Kasten as to

how closely—how close is the support? What does support consist

of, to a program, which we know in China does include coercive

family planning measures? That seems to be the ambiguity, which,

as I said, I am hoping that a review can clear up.

Senator BOXER. Are you aware that there was a review of just

this issue by an international review team led by Ambassador

Nicolaas Biegman, who is here today? Have you seen his review?

Mr. DEWEY. I have, Madame Chairman. I have seen that review.

Senator BOXER. Do you have respect for the work that he’s——

Mr. DEWEY. Yes, and I have respect for his judgment and the

work they did. I would say that the findings of that rebuttal were

no more dispositive, however, than the findings of PRI were definitive in stating that Kemp-Kasten ought to be invoked.

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, we are going to find out, because we

have the Ambassador here. That is not my understanding, but we

will see.

Have you seen the State Department’s human rights report on

this subject?

Mr. DEWEY. The State Department human rights report will be

released this evening or tomorrow on this subject. So it has not

been released yet.

15

Senator BOXER. Well, we are talking about last year’s. Hang on

a second.

[Pause.]

Senator BOXER. Well, I am going to put into the record, from last

year’s human rights report, information which looks like these are

moving in the right direction.

[The following information was subsequently supplied:]

COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES—2000

RELEASED BY THE BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR—FEBRUARY 23,

2001

In late 1998, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) on an experimental

basis launched a 4-year pilot project in 32 counties to address family planning and

reproductive health issues solely through the use of voluntary measures, emphasizing education, improved reproductive health services, and economic development.

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. Although it was still too early for an overall assessment of this 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. In Sichuan Province a couple can legally

have a second child without applying for permission if they meet all the requirements; however, regulations and implementation vary from town to town. The Government has welcomed foreign delegations to inspect the UNFPA project counties.

Although access to these areas has varied from province to province, foreign diplomats visited several counties during the year.

Senator BOXER. I wonder if you are aware that the same group

that wrote—that gave the information for the Pakistani news people, that said the UNFPA was involved with doing terrible things

in terms of promoting abortion, do you know what that same group

said about UNFPA that they had worked closely with Slobodan

Milosevic to target Kosovars and accuse them of genocide in

Kosovo?

I wonder if you are aware. It seems like this particular group is

making these charges about UNFPA continually. Are you aware of

that?

Mr. DEWEY. Yes, I am, Madame Chairman. I am aware of that.

And I know that that has been used as a way to get at the credibility of that particular team.

Senator BOXER. Well, yes. And I think it is important because we

need to know the track record of people who seem to be so powerful

that they could prevent thousands and thousands of women from

getting help. And what we went through to show you what $34 million will do, this is what I want to leave you with, because I know

that you are part of a team here. And I do not want to be unduly

harsh on you at all. First of all, because it would not be fair. Second of all, because I hope you are going to release the money. And

I want you to come away from this hearing with good feelings

about that, because if you do that, you are going to save lives. You

are not going to cause injury or harm.

This good you are going to do with the $34 million, you will prevent 2 million unwanted pregnancies, nearly 800,000 induced aborVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:37 Sep 18, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 79323 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
16

tions, 4,700 maternal deaths, 60,000 cases of serious maternal illness, and over 77,000 infant and child deaths.

So, Mr. Dewey, this $34 million in the scheme of our budget is

not terribly large, as you well know, in the numbers that we deal

with. But when you apply it to real human beings, it does a lot of

good. I hope that your review goes well and quickly and that you

find, in effect, we will save lives by releasing these funds.

In particular, I hope you will keep the picture of the Afghan

women in front of your mind, because we made this promise. And

the administration worked so hard with me and Senator

Brownback, as did Kofi Annan, to make sure we had women in the

Afghan transitional government there overseeing health, making

sure that women get the help they need. But they are so short of

funding. And this means a tremendous amount.

Yes, other countries stepped up to the plate. But I would be

ashamed if we did not step up to the plate, because I would view

it as a big mistake.

Again, coerced abortion in China or anywhere else is deplorable.

It has been deplored by this Congress and everyone. It is deplored

by the UNFPA in their own words. And we cannot use our money

in any way for abortion, coerced or otherwise. That has been in

place for a long time.

And I just, you know, hope—my colleague and I come after it in

a different way. He looks at holding back the money as a way to

save life. And I look at it as harming life and causing death. You

know, someone will judge who is right and who is wrong. Right

now, you are one of the judges.

And I thank you very much for coming. And I hope you could

stay and listen to the debate. If not, we will send you a transcript,

because I know you are busy and have a lot to do. We thank you

for taking the time to appear before the committee.

Mr. DEWEY. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman.

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. Dewey.

Now we will call for our second panel, the Honorable Nicolaas

Biegman, former Ambassador of the Netherlands to NATO; Mrs.

Phyllis Oakley, former Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence

and Research, also former Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration, and adjunct professor at Johns

Hopkins University, Washington, DC; and Ms. Josephine Guy, director of Governmental Affairs, America 21, from Louisville, Kentucky; Dr. Nicholas Eberstadt, the Henry Wendt Chair in Political

Economy, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC.

So if you all would take your chairs as soon as our wonderful

staff has provided your nameplates, that would be great.

Now, what we are going to do is we are going to start with you,

Ms. Oakley, if you want to just come up. We would ask the others

to please take a chair, if you would do so. Thank you.

We are going to use the clock. I think we are going to give each

of you—did you prepare 5 minutes? OK; we will put 6 minutes up

for you. And that would give you an extra minute in case you want

to take a breath along the way. So we are going to go this way,

this way, this way, this way, right down the row.

And we will start with you, Mrs. Oakley, and thank you very

much for being here.

17

STATEMENT OF MRS. PHYLLIS E. OAKLEY, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTELLIGENCE AND RESEARCH; FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR

POPULATION, REFUGEES, AND MIGRATION; ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, DC

Ms. OAKLEY. Thank you, Senator. In contrast to my successor,

Gene Dewey, I am delighted to be here. I have written testimony

that I will submit for the record. And I would like, in the interest

of time, to simply address two other points.

Two weeks ago, I returned from a 10-day trip to Ghana wearing

one of my former State Department hats. And I was doing programs on media-government relations in a democracy for the U.S.

Embassy. On Saturday, my day off, I was able to visit something

organized by the African Youth Alliance made up of the U.N. Population Fund Path and Pathfinder. And it is an AIDS prevention

program for adolescents.

The clinic does some testing and counseling but is mainly focusing on education among young people. They are using social

groups, videos, and an Internet facility to reach the young people

of one particular sprawling and crowded area of Accra. It is very

impressive, particularly the enthusiasm and the commitment of the

young and in charge and the doctor.

And I am convinced that this type of outreach is absolutely essential in getting control of the spread of AIDS. In talking about

their future, they do not want a larger or a grander center. What

they want is to replicate that kind of thing around the country.

And I might add that the AID mission of the embassy, working

with a lot of other groups, has plastered the city of Accra, every

bus, SUV, car, chimney, whatever, with a yellow slogan. And it

says, ‘‘Don’t forget your ABCs: Abstain, be faithful, use condoms.’’

The ABCs are taking over there. And I thought it was quite a terrific message.

Now I would like to say something about Afghanistan, because

I dealt with Afghanistan for 6 years. I want to show you, Senators,

what a safe delivery kit looks like. This is a U.N. Population Fund

safe delivery kit. There is a batch number on it, a bar of soap, a

razor, a surgical blade, umbilical tape, plastic sheeting, and a

gauze bandage.

I was very interested to hear about this report of other safe delivery kits that would include things involved in abortion. I certainly hope you will be able to see an authentic copy or an authentic safe delivery kit like that that was reported. I am absolutely

amazed and doubtful that it exists.

Dr. EBERSTADT. If I could, Madame Chairman, I would like to

give you a copy of an——

Senator BOXER. Well, if we could just—could we just stop the

time?

Dr. EBERSTADT [continuing]. Article. And then you could look at

it.

Mrs. OAKLEY. Yes.

Dr. EBERSTADT. And then you would have a copy of this article.

And then you can look at it. And maybe we can comment during

the question and—— Senator BOXER. Yes.

18

Mrs. OAKLEY. But I think we would all like to see such a kit.

Let me just say that I think everybody knows from the papers

and television what the situation of Afghan women is like and how

desperately poor they are. I was so impressed with that article

about the hospital. And I love the name, the 52 Beds Clinic. I think

that we have to remember that those are the lucky women. Those

are the women who get to some sort of facility.

I have been in too many refugee camps, too many places where

perhaps the facility was a tent. And these things did not exist. I

cannot tell you how important they are.

I also want to add to what Senator Boxer said about the potential happy ending for this story about the 52 Beds Clinic, that in

early March, a UNFPA-chartered cargo jet loaded with medical

supplies is due to arrive in Kabul from Copenhagen. And with the

support of the Government of Italy, the UNFPA is planning a complete renovation of that clinic, along with others in Kabul.

UNFPA has been asked by the new woman Director of Public

Health to help across the board with these programs because,

again, it may be bad enough for the women in Kabul, but just

think of what it is like for the people outside the country.

Anyway, I just wanted to comment on these two very personal,

very real experiences I have had. I have seen the positive results

of UNFPA and their activities. I certainly urge, not only from my

experience in the government but from my role as a world citizen,

as a professor, that the funding be released.

Let me stop there. And I will be glad to take your questions.

Thank you.

Senator BOXER. Thank you so very much.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Oakley follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PHYLLIS OAKLEY, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF

STATE FOR INTELLIGENCE AND RESEARCH AND FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF

STATE FOR POPULATION, REFUGEES, AND MIGRATION; ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, JOHNS

HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

Good afternoon to you Madame Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. As

most members of this Subcommittee may know, I served in the United States Foreign Service for most of my professional life, including stints as desk officer for Afghanistan, as Deputy Spokesperson under Secretary George Schultz, as Assistant

Secretary for Population, Refugees, and Migration and my final assignment as the

Department’s Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Research. During the past

several years of my retirement, I have been teaching at Mt. Holyoke in Massachusetts and on Massachusetts Avenue at the John’s Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. I also serve on the boards of several organizations concerned with

education and foreign affairs, including, for the past year, the Board of the U.S.

Committee for UNFPA. As always, it is a pleasure to be with you today and I welcome the opportunity to share with you my perspectives on international family

planning issues and the work of the United Nations Population Fund.

I have been engaged in foreign policy work longer than I might like to admit—

over 40 years. So much has changed in that time. I was involved when the Cold

War began in earnest, and was there when the Berlin Wall came down. I experienced the transformation of that bipolar world and the emergence of an age of increasing interdependence, where issues, challenges, opportunities and threats transcend national boundaries. Economists have talked of this transformation in terms

of the era of globalization. For those of us working on the front lines of diplomacy

to protect American interests, we have seen this transformation in terms of an altered landscape of security threats and challenges. Issues like international crime,

the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, growing numbers of refugees, global environmental challenges, and, of course, the emergence of worldwide networks

of terror—these have all emerged from the sidelines to the mainstream of American

foreign policy.

19

My experience in the Foreign Service has taught me many things. And one of the

most important is that rapid population growth and associated poverty are dangerous, crosscutting trends that must be addressed through international cooperation. To ignore them is to ignore some of the driving forces underlying the global

issues that are so prominent today. Mine is the first—and hopefully it will be the

only—generation to have lived through more than a tripling of global population.

When I was born, there were about 2 billion people on the Earth, today there are

more than 6. That is a whole lot of change—and it is profound. Today, there are

2 billion people who live on less than $2 a day.

Now, I am no expert on whether the Earth’s environmental systems can sustain

that kind of growth or the demand for resources associated with 6 or 7 or 8 billion

people. But what I can tell you is this:

First, that population growth has made the world a much more complicated

place—exponentially so. Demographic forces are not divorced from issues of

state power, and help to shape not only our bilateral relations with other nations, but also our global priorities.

Second, I have learned—because I have seen it—that rapid population growth

and persistent, jaw-dropping poverty are a dangerous mix. That was true in

Pakistan when I lived there; in Zaire; it was true in Afghanistan when I was

a desk officer; it was true in the dreadful refugee camps that I visited after the

genocide in Rwanda; and it is true in so many places today.

In the early 1990s, I was working on Humanitarian Assistance programs on the

border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The discrepancy between rapid population

growth and the ability of governments to respond was striking. In overstretched infrastructure, heroic efforts were made to try and get people into school. Those lucky

enough to get through school were rudely awakened by the reality that the society

could not produce enough jobs to keep up with growing numbers. There is little surprise, then, that strident, fundamentalist religious schools became popular with the

uneducated and the underemployed.

I don’t want to belabor the point, suffice it to say that my own experience has

led me to the belief that rapid population growth should be and must be considered

as an important factor influencing America’s engagement around the world.

The question is, what can we do about it? I understand that nobody wants to talk

about these issues, involving as they do sensitive personal, social and religious

issues. But we can’t ignore them, so we have to talk about them. That is one of the

reasons why we are fortunate to have the United Nations Population Fund as an

institution and forum for confronting these issues in a civilized, adult manner.

I was somewhat familiar with UNFPA’s work for many years, but learned much

more about them when I became Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Population,

Refugees, and Migration. At that time, UNFPA was coordinating preparations for

the International Conference on Population and Development, which was held in

Cairo in 1994. And they did a wonderful job, not only in the logistical preparations

for that conference, but in working with the world to create a remarkable new vision

for international population policy.

They listened to the world—hearing from representatives of all regions, diverse

religious and cultural backgrounds, NGOs and individuals from all over the world.

Because they listened, the bedrock principle of the action plan reached at the ICPD

is that population policies should be pursued with full respect for not only national

sovereignty, but also diverse religious and ethical values and in accordance with

universally recognized human rights.

They moved the world away from a fixation on the number of people on the planet

and towards a needs-based approach—focusing on the fact that if people, especially

women, have access to family planning and other health services, if they are educated, if they have economic opportunities, if human rights are respected, and if

men will recognize their responsibilities for homelife, if all these conditions are met,

the global population will stabilize on its own, and we need not focus on numbers.

This new approach, forged through UNFPA leadership and agreed at the ICPD,

was all aimed at addressing concerns—held especially by women and NGOs around

the world about the use of demographic targets and certain situations in which coercion was encouraged. This is a very important point Madame Chairman, and I want

to underscore it. The United Nations Population Fund was the leading advocate, the

force that moved international population policy away from numeric targets and

other tactics that could encourage coercion. UNFPA championed a human rights

based approach to population policy.

All of us who were at Cairo recognized what a wonderful achievement this was.

And all of us on the U.S. delegation were thrilled to be a part of it.

20

After Cairo, I became more and more familiar with UNFPA’s work in the field.

Not only its ongoing efforts in more than 140 countries around the world. But especially its efforts in areas that overlapped with other responsibilities I carried, particularly in crisis situations in refugee camps around the world.

In Goma, I saw how important UNFPA’s work was in providing emergency supplies for pregnant women. You all will recall the honor of those vast numbers moving so quickly, the outbreak of cholera, camps organized amazingly overnight when

hundreds of thousands of people fled the massacres occurring in Rwanda and

crossed over into what was then Zaire. These were difficult and dangerous situations. Ethnic tensions were high. Thousands of women had been raped as an instrument of terror. Gangs were commonplace and security in the camps almost nonexistant in the beginning because the Government of Zaire could supply none. In

the midst of all of this, brave international public servants from UNFPA worked

tirelessly to provide the most basic supplies so that pregnant women would have

a chance to deliver a child safely.

They supplied soap, plastic sheeting, a razor blade to cut the umbilical cord, sutures for complications, rape treatment kits and basic contraceptive supplies.

In Kosovo, several years later, UNFPA was there as part of the United Nations

humanitarian response team when hundreds of thousands of Kosovars fled mass

killings and the systematic use of rape. Again, brave international civil servants responded and helped to provide emergency supplies and such things as underwear

for girls and women.

For their efforts, a handful of organizations, including the Population Research Institute, chose to go on the attack, going so far as to make the outrageous accusation

that UNFPA was conspiring with Mr. Milosevic in a campaign of genocide.

Those same organizations have been giving UNFPA a hard time over Afghanistan,

where the Fund is again working to meet the needs of those displaced by 20 years

of civil war and the welcome efforts of the United States and others to rid that country of terrorists and the harsh rule of the Taliban.

I have been to Afghan refugee camps and I have seen UNFPA’s contribution to

international humanitarian response efforts. I wish that all those who take potshots

at the UN, who think that international cooperation is about bloated bureaucracy,

or who cavalierly attack UNFPA could experience these heart-rending situations. If

they did, they would have their hats off to these brave individuals and the hardworking organizations they represent. And if I have not been clear enough, let me

just say that I resent and take great offense to those who have attempted to ruin

the reputation of UNFPA and international family planning in such a reckless fashion.

Nowhere has this been more evident than in the endless campaign that has been

waged to suggest that UNFPA is complicit in the very serious and disturbing violations of human rights that occur in China. As a woman, and one who has seen the

anomalous gender ratios in China, I am not about to defend China’s one-child policy,

the incidence of coercion or female infanticide. The facts are pretty clear, and very

upsetting.

It is equally clear that UNFPA has absolutely nothing to do with these practices,

nor does the United States contribution to UNFPA. U.S. law has prevented even one

cent of the U.S. contribution to UNFPA from being spent in China for years. More

fundamentally, the clear evidence is that the UN Population Fund is aware of the

problems in China’s program and that it is attempting to work with the Chinese

to demonstrate the greater wisdom and effectiveness of voluntary, non-coercive population policies. Reflecting the consensus it championed and forged at the Cairo

Conference, UNFPA has insisted that Chinese authorities agree to discontinue to

the use of targets, quotas and other coercive means in each of the 32 counties in

which it is providing assistance to the Chinese. This does not mean that UNFPA’s staff of four people in China has taken over China’s program—it means that

UNFPA is having a positive influence. And that fact is being born out in the reporting of our own foreign service officers.

Last year’s Human Rights report—not known for pulling punches—found clear

evidence of UNFPA’s positive influence in China. Let just quote a few passages:

600 counties covering about half the country’s population have adopted

more liberal (population) policies.

The Government was beginning to relax its policies in the cities. Other

jurisdictions, such as Minglan village in Yandu County, have reportedly followed the earlier example of Beijing and other cities, abolishing birth permits and allowing couples to decide on their own when to have a baby.

The evidence from others, including the many monitoring teams that have been

sent to observe progress of the UNFPA program echo these sentiments.

21

There is only one place in the world where UNFPA’s activities are questioned—

and that is right here in Washington. I was the relevant Assistant Secretary of

State for three years. During that time, I have to tell you that never, not once, did

I hear from another government, from my forceful colleagues in the human rights

bureau, from the intelligence community, or from any reputable human rights organization expressing concerns about UNFPA’s work in China or anywhere else. Not

one cable, not one letter, not one phone call. Nothing.

Why?

Because this is only an issue of American domestic politics—not of foreign policy

or of the actions of an international organization. UNFPA is a good organization

caught in the vise of American politics. That is what makes this issue so sad, so

frustrating, so Kafkaesque. Hours and hours are wasted at the Department, on the

Hill and throughout Washington in an annual fight that is based on smear, innuendo and hatefulness.

All of us who have worked on this issue have been tempted to throw up our

hands, to give up, to become frustrated by the groundless nature of this debate. But

if it is tempting, it is also wrong.

For to give up would not only abandon the architecture that has been put in place

for addressing common global issues, but it would also abandon those women and

children who depend on UNFPA in refugee camps, it would be to give up on the

350 million couples that want to plan their families but don’t have access to modern

family planning services, and it would be to abandon those people in China and

elsewhere who yearn to realize their basic human rights as individuals. This is not

a debate about what words are put in an appropriations bill. This is a fight for the

most impoverished and repressed people in the world, it is about truthfulness, and

it is about American leadership on the great issues of this new century unfolding.

I thank the Subcommittee for inviting me hear today. And I hope that you will

endeavor with your colleagues to put this issue behind us—where it belongs—once

and for all.

Senator BOXER. Mr. Ambassador, please go ahead for 6 minutes.

STATEMENT OF HON. NICOLAAS H. BIEGMAN, FORMER AMBASSADOR OF THE NETHERLANDS TO NATO, AMSTERDAM,

THE NETHERLANDS

Ambassador BIEGMAN. Madame Chairman, I would like to thank

you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon on the work of the

U.N. Population Fund and specifically on its activities in China.

I am truly pleased and honored to share with you what I know

today.

Senator BOXER. Can you move closer to the microphone? Thank

you.

Ambassador BIEGMAN. Is this all right?

Senator BOXER. Much better. Thank you very much. I just want

you to be heard.

Ambassador BIEGMAN. So do I.

Before I start, let me tell you just a little about myself. I served

my country, the Netherlands, for 38 years in the Foreign Service.

I was Ambassador to Egypt, to the United Nations and, until recently, to NATO. And I managed our foreign assistance program

between 1988 and 1992.

As U.N. Ambassador, I was very actively involved in the International Conference on Population Development in Cairo in 1994.

I was vice-chair of the preparatory process, chairing many sessions

of the main committee.

UNFPA is the main international agency working on the implementation of the program of action of which you have cited, already

quoted some of the principles. It is committed to a range of internationally agreed human rights standards, UNFPA is, including

the right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:37 Sep 18, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 79323 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
22

sibly the number, spacing, and timing of their children; to have the

information and means to do so; and to make decisions free of discrimination, coercion, and violence.

The UNFPA provides financial, technical, and program assistance to 140 governments to help them carry out effective maternal

and child health, reproductive health, and voluntary family planning programs. UNFPA is active in HIV/AIDS education and prevention. And all these activities are watched very closely by an executive board composed of representatives from 36 governments

among which the United States is an active and longstanding

member.

The U.N. Population Fund is prohibited from providing support

for abortion or abortion-related activities anywhere in the world.

That has been said already, and I do not have to repeat it. It is

one of these policies which have been spelled explicitly out in the

program of action, which I was proud to help negotiate.

So in this context I was asked to lead this independent international review team to investigate allegations linking the U.N.

Population Fund to human rights abuses in China, allegations

which were brought forward by a group called the Population Research Institute at the hearing before the House Committee in October 2001.

I would like to state for the record that I accepted this invitation

with an open mind, an open mind. I am familiar with the U.N.

Population Fund. I believe that they have been extremely helpful

in the developing world. But I know that everyone knows that the

possibility for abuses exists and that it must be vigilantly guarded

against. So I traveled to China with my team, prepared to uncover

and weigh the facts impartially and to respond fairly and accurately to whatever we might find.

So the investigation in China started on October 22 of last year

and lasted a total of 5 days. Apart from myself, the team consisted

of diplomats, all female, from the Missions at the U.N. of Honduras, the Czech Republic, and Botswana. To aid our investigation

and help our departure, we requested some specific information

from the organization making the allegation, especially about the

places where they—which they had visited in the county of Sihui.

Unfortunately, they were either unwilling or unable to provide a

response.

So our job was to look for evidence that UNFPA is linked to a

coercive family planning policy in China. I was not asked to simply

look for human rights abuses. The U.S. State Department documents an extensive array of human rights abuses in its annual

human rights report for China. These allegations of abuse are horrendous and should be addressed as forcefully as possible.

The mission I led had a single goal, to see if we could uncover

any credible evidence that the U.N. Population Fund violated the

human rights of Chinese citizens or was complicit in any way in

helping the Chinese Government violate the human rights of its

citizens.

During our 5-day investigation in China, we met with officials for

UNFPA and the Chinese Government and with officials from the

U.S. Embassy. We visited a total of seven family planning clinics,

service centers and hospitals in the county from which the allegaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:37 Sep 18, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 79323 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
23

tions stemmed, and also in another county that receives funding

from UNFPA. As far as time permitted, we 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 Chinese Government officials present.

Senator BOXER. Mr. Biegman, I will give you another minute. I

will give each of the next speakers an additional minute.

Ambassador BIEGMAN. Another minute, Madame. That is very

short. But it is safe to say——

Senator BOXER. Well, we could be here a long time. But what I

need you to do is summarize, and then we will have questions.

Ambassador BIEGMAN. Very well.

OK. In short, let me say that we found absolutely no evidence

that the U.N. Population Fund supports coercive family planning

practices in China or violates the human rights of the Chinese in

any way. We found that the quality of care had improved in the

counties we visited, which coincided with the findings of the journalist of the Wall Street Journal, which were published in the Wall

Street Journal in February, on February 2, 2001.

We did find that the UNFPA is a positive force for change in

China away from the alleged abuses, as you will find in the PRI

report, and toward a client-based voluntary approach. The practice

followed in the pilot counties where UNFPA is working, 32 of them

has been followed up now in 600 of the about 1,700, I think, counties in China. It is meant to be followed in the rest of the country

as well.

So let me conclude, Madame Chairman, by saying that the U.N.

Population Fund is doing what needs to be done in China, as far

as it can, spending $3.2 million a year in a country of 1.3 billion

people.

Are the results perfect? No. But is the effort worth it? I think the

answer to that would be a resounding yes. And I think the worst

the UNFPA could do is take the easy way and walk out of that

country.

Thank you very much.

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you, Mr. Ambassador, very much.

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Biegman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. NICOLAAS H. BIEGMAN, FORMER AMBASSADOR OF THE

NETHERLANDS TO NATO

Madame Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for

the opportunity to testify this afternoon on the work of the United Nations Population Fund and specifically on its activities in China. I am truly pleased and honored to share what I know with you today.

Before I start, let me tell you a little about myself I served my country the Netherlands for 38 years in the Foreign Service. Among many postings, I have been Ambassador to the United Nations and to NATO. From 1988 to 1992, I was the Director-General for Netherland’s International Cooperation, managing and overseeing

our foreign assistance program.

While I knew the work of the United Nations Population Fund before I became

Ambassador to the UN in 1992, I became better acquainted with UNFPA through

my active involvement in the 1994 lnternational Conference on Population and Development. I was the Vice-Chair of the preparatory process and I chaired many sessions of the Main Committee at the Conference itself in Cairo, where the lastminute negotiations took place. After much push and pull, 179 governments, including the United States, approved a program of action, which continues to guide the

work of United Nations Population Fund to this day.

24

The United Nations Population Fund plays a very specific role in developing countries. It helps them to provide reproductive health and family planning services on

the basis of informed individual decision. This is the central guiding principle of the

Programme of Action of the 1994 Cairo Conference, which, in effect, shifted the

focus of population policy away from achieving demographic targets and quotas to

promoting human rights and meeting the individual needs of women and men.

Since the United Nations Population Fund is guided by and promotes the Programme of Action, it is committed to a range of internationally agreed human rights

standards, including the right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children; to have the information

and means to do so; and to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence. The ICPD Program of Action also states, and I quote:

‘‘In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.’’

The countries that provide funding to the United Nations Population Fund, including the United States, insist that UNFPA follow these principles and that it

carefully monitor its activities to ensure that all activities are not only in line with

the ICPD Programme of Action, but that they are producing positive results. In the

case of the United States, its contributions are kept in a segregated account and

not one cent of the U.S. contribution to UNFPA is spent in China.

UNFPA provides financial, technical and program assistance to 140 governments

to help them carry out effective maternal and child health, reproductive health, and

voluntary family planning programs. In recent years, HIV/AIDS education and prevention has also become an important component of UNFPA’s programs in many

countries. All of the activities of the UN Population Fund are watched very closely

by its Executive Board, which is composed of representatives from 36 governments.

The United States is an active and longstanding Board member.

The involvement of the United Nations Population Fund in any country is based

on a written agreement between UNFPA and the government that must meet the

internationally agreed standards and principles of the Cairo Conference. These

country work plans are carefully reviewed and approved by the intergovernmental

Executive Board to ensure that they make efficient use of scarce resources to meet

the pressing needs of recipient countries, and that they comply with the strict

standards and policies that the world’s governments and the Executive Board have

set for UNFPA.

The United Nations Population Fund is prohibited from providing support for

abortions or abortion-related activities anywhere in the world. Written policy clearly

states that the Fund is ‘‘not to provide assistance for abortion, abortion services, or

abortion-related equipment and supplies as a method of family planning.’’ The Fund

is also prohibited from promoting or providing support for involuntary sterilization

or coercive practices of any kind. All of these principles and policies are spelled out

explicitly in the Cairo Programme of Action and I vividly remember the negotiations

that led to their final approval.

It is within this context that I was asked by the UN Population Fund to lead an

independent international review team to investigate allegations linking the UN

Population Fund to human rights abuses in China. The crux of these allegations is

whether UNFPA is violating its commitments under the Programme of Action of the

1994 International Conference on Population and Development and acting directly

against the express wishes of its intergovernmental Executive Board and its donors,

including the United States.

The allegations were brought forward by the group Population Research Institute

at a hearing before the House Committee on Foreign Relations on October 17, 2001.

They alleged that abuses had taken place by family planning workers in one of the

counties in China that receives assistance from the UN Population Fund.

I would like to state for the record that I accept this invitation with an open mind.

Although I am familiar with the UN Population Fund and believe that its work

has, on balance, been very helpful in the developing world, everyone who works on

these types of issues understands that the possibility for abuse exists and must be

vigilantly guarded against. I traveled to China prepared to uncover and weigh the

facts impartially and to respond fairly and accurately to whatever I might find. I

also believe that the delegation that accompanied me was open-minded and quite

ready and able to identify any and all possible complicity by UNFPA in violating

human rights.

Our investigation in China began on October 22, 2001 and lasted a total of five

days. I was accompanied by Ms. Noemi Ruth Espinoza-Madrid, the Deputy Ambassador of Honduras to the United Nations; Ms. Jana Simonova, Minister Counsellor

of the Czech Mission to the United Nations, and Emolemo Morake, First Secretary

of the Botswana Mission to the United Nations.

25

In preparation for this mission we endeavored to collect as much information as

we could about the specific allegations that had been brought forward about the

UNFPA program in China. To aid our investigation, we requested specific information from the organization making the allegations via a direct telephone conversation and also through a written statement that they requested. Unfortunately, they

were either unwilling or unable to provide a response, so we had to rely upon the

evidence and allegations made at the October 17th hearing.

I also entered this mission with a very clear view of what my job was. I was asked

to look for evidence that UNFPA is linked to a coercive family planning policy in

China. I was not asked to simply look for human rights abuses. The U.S. State Department documents an extensive array of human rights abuses in its annual

Human Rights Report for China. These allegations of abuse are horrendous and

should be addressed as forcefully as possible. The mission I led had a single goal:

to see if we could uncover any credible evidence that the UN Population Fund violated the human rights of Chinese citizens or was complicit in any way in helping

the Chinese Government violate the human rights of its citizens.

Our investigation found absolutely no evidence that the UN Population Fund supports coercive family planning practices in China or violates the human rights of

Chinese people in any way. After we returned, we prepared a detailed report of our

activities and findings, which is publicly available and I believe the members of the

Subcommittee have copies of this report.

During our five-day investigation in China, we met with officials from UNFPA

and the Chinese government, and with officials from the United States Embassy.

We also visited a total of seven family planning clinics, service centers and hospitals

in the county from which the allegations stemmed and also in another county that

receives UNFPA funding. As far as time permitted, we 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. Our random interviews with people on the street included

over three hours of discussions.

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 team also asked nearly every government official and family planning/reproductive health service provider whether they knew of recent abuses. None said he

did. The team also asked these people if such abuses were possible. They all said

yes, such abuses were possible, but that those responsible would be punished in accordance with the severity of the abuse because Chinese law now forbids such

abuses. I took this to be a very positive sign.

Madame Chairman, our goal was to uncover the truth, and to determine if the

reported abuses are true. But in some cases it became quickly apparent that the

allegations were simply wrong. For example, 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.

Now that I have told you what we did not find, let me tell you what we did find.

Our investigation found that the UN Population Fund’s program in China, which

took two years to establish, appears to be playing a positive and catalytic role in

the reform of reproductive health services—away from an administrative approach

to a client-oriented approach that promotes informed choice of contraceptive methods through information, education and counseling.

Voluntary, quality family planning services are not yet the norm throughout

China. However, our investigation found that UNFPA’s program, which operates in

a limited number of counties in China, is helping to show Chinese officials that voluntary family planning programs are the best way to reduce population growth.

The overall impression that the team came away with was that the Chinese approach had changed in the two project counties we visited and that the people we

met were aware of, and benefiting from, this change.

It was also apparent that the United Nations Population Fund does not support

the Chinese Government’s one-child policy in name or practice and does not take

any part in supporting or managing the Government’s program. In fact, assistance

from UNFPA is less than 0.1 percent of the $3.6 billion annual cost of China’s national family planning program.

The UNFPA program, which exists in 32 counties, is meant to demonstrate the

efficacy of the client-based approach, which is based on voluntary family planning,

26

and is purposefully designed to eliminate the sort of abuses alleged. The principles

and non-coercive policies in these demonstration projects are now being adopted by

the Chinese Government on a larger scale in the future.

I would like to stress that this view was reinforced by officials at the United

States Embassy in Beijing who noted during a lengthy discussion that UNFPA was

definitely a positive force in moving China away from precisely the kinds of practices and abuses alleged by the Population Research Institute. The U.S. officials further noted that the UN Population Fund had had a direct, positive effect on the language of new legislation on family planning and reproductive health—a point that

was reinforced by the Vice-Chairperson of the National Congress.

Madame Chairman, let me be clear: the UNFPA program in China is not a panacea, it is not by itself going to change China’s policies overnight. That is unrealistic

and naive. But I would argue it is far better for the UNFPA to stay engaged and

promote dialogue, better laws and better services than taking the easy route and

packing their bags. The UN Population Fund is doing what needs to be done, one

step at a time, to assist China in moving away from coercive policies and practices.

Are the results perfect? No. But is the effort worth it? I think the answer to that

is an overwhelming yes. The UN Population Fund represents the world’s interests

in helping China to move in a direction that is in line with international human

rights standards.

The investigation I led was by no means the first visit by foreign government officials to UNFPA project sites in China. As I mentioned earlier, the United Nations

Population Fund relies on rigorous monitoring visits by foreign diplomats, its Beijing-based staff, independent experts and delegations of its 36 member intergovernmental Executive Board to ensure that human rights standards are maintained.

Since 1997, nearly 60 diplomats from some 30 countries, including the United

States, have visited project counties and found no evidence of any wrongdoing by

the United Nations Population Fund.

Thank you Madame Chairman and members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to share my knowledge with you today of the UN Population Fund and its

activities in China. I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Senator BOXER. I am very happy that the ranking member has

arrived. And he and I—he was just at another hearing, playing an

important role. He is going to get his papers together, his thoughts

together, listen to the main panelists, and then give his opening remarks. And then we will resume the questioning.

So, Ms. Guy, welcome. And let me—I should reintroduce you,

since it has been awhile since we have heard about you.

Ms. Guy is head of Governmental Relations at a non-governmental organization called America 21. And I understand that you

also work as a consultant to the Population Research Institute.

Ms. GUY. I do not work as a consultant, no.

Senator BOXER. Do you have any affiliation with them at all?

Ms. GUY. Officially?

Senator BOXER. No, not officially.

Ms. GUY. Yes. I have a relationship with——

Senator BOXER. OK. As a non-official relationship with the Population Research Institute. But I think it is important, because we

are going to have a discussion about this.

So, please proceed, Ms. Guy. Welcome. And we have given you

an extra—you have 7 minutes for your presentation——

Ms. GUY. Thank you.

Senator BOXER [continuing]. As does Mr. Eberstadt.

STATEMENT OF MS. JOSEPHINE GUY, DIRECTOR OF

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, AMERICA 21, LOUISVILLE, KY

Ms. GUY. I would like to thank each of you for inviting me here

today. To make this precise, I am simply going to read, so we can

move along, because we have a video we would like to show you.

27

Senator BOXER. Sure.

Ms. GUY. My investigation in China began last September 27,

2001. With two translators and a photographer, my investigation

lasted 4 days.

I volunteered for this assignment and sought no assistance from

the PRC. Had such assistance been sought, the PRC Government

would likely have obstructed our investigation or influenced the

testimonies provided by the victims in this UNFPA county program.

We interviewed over two dozen victims and witnesses of coercion

in this so-called model county program. During primary interviews,

some choked back tears as they spoke of the abuse they suffered.

Others flocked to tell us of their stories of coercion.

Interviews were recorded in notebooks, on audio and videotape.

Additional photographic evidence was obtained. The abuses we documented are recent. They are rampant and unrelenting. And they

exist in a program where the UNFPA claims that women are free

to determine the timing and spacing of pregnancy.

On the first day, we interviewed women about a mile from the

office desk of the UNFPA representative in Sihui, at the Dasha

Hospital. A 19-year-old there told us she was too young to be pregnant, according to the law. While she was receiving a non-voluntary abortion in an adjacent room, her friends told us that she

desired to keep her baby, but she had no choice, since the law forbids.

In a residential area within this UNFPA so-called model county

program, a woman testified that she became pregnant despite an

earlier attempt by family planning officials to forcibly sterilize her.

She was forcibly sterilized a second time. Had she refused, she told

us on videotape, family planning crews would have destroyed her

home.

We asked, ‘‘What happens if you want to give birth to another

child? Would someone come and take you in by force for an abortion?’’

She responded, ‘‘Yes.’’

‘‘And if you don’t go?’’ we asked.

‘‘They would tear down my house,’’ she said, adding ‘‘Right now

things are very strict.’’

We were told that many women hide their pregnancy so they can

give birth to a child they desire and escape retribution from officials.

We asked a group of women in another residential area within

this UNFPA county program about 5 miles from the Sihui Office

of Family Planning, ‘‘Do you know of anyone whose houses have

been destroy for not following an order to have an abortion?’’

‘‘Yes, many,’’ was the response.

We were told of the punishments inflicted on those who wish to

freely determine the timing and spacing of pregnancy. We were

told of the forced use of IUD’s and mandatory IUD exams.

In another residential area, we asked a couple, ‘‘Did they tell you

that you have to go in regular to have your IUD checked?’’

The woman responded, ‘‘Yes, absolutely. We have to have it

checked four times a year. The birth control workers come and tell

you it’s time.’’

28

We asked this couple, ‘‘If someone in the village had more than

one child, would there be consequences for the entire village?’’

The man told us, ‘‘Those who have additional births will be fined.

Whether the birth control work is done well affects how much

money the village birth control workers get.’’

In another residential area, we interviewed a victim who had heroically escaped forced abortion by hiding in a nearby village. As

punishment, three people in her mother’s family and six people in

her mother-in-law’s family were thrown into prison. They were released after 4 months, only after a crippling fine of 17,000 RMB,

about $2,000 U.S., equal to about 3 year’s wages. And it was paid

to the family planning officials. Today this woman’s black child is

about 14 months old, and she must pay another 17,000 RMB before

her child can be legally registered.

Of the family planning workers who extracted the fines, this

woman said, ‘‘These people embezzle the money. They are corrupt.

The district family planning officials take the money back home.

The majority of the women have their children without proper

spacing and suffer consequences.’’

When this woman’s relatives were in jail, the Office of Family

Planning sent a crew of officials to their homes. And they destroyed

their homes and belongings with jackhammers. One of her relatives

testified, ‘‘The whole family was arrested. Everything in the house

was stolen. The houses were completely emptied. We didn’t have

anything left inside.’’

All interviews were conducted within a few miles from the desk

of a UNFPA representative, in a county where UNFPA contends

that coercion does not exist.

Through contact made with local officials, we located the county

government building. And within this building we located the Office of Family Planning. And 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.

All of the locations of the interviews that were conducted fell

within this county and under the governance of the county bureaucracy housed in the county government building.

Prior to my arrival in China, research had been done to reveal

that volunteerism does not exist in at least two more UNFPA socalled model counties in China, in Korla, in Xianjiang Province,

and in Jianou—you have to forgive me—Fujian Province. But due

to the information already obtained, and mindful of potential risks

and dangers to the individual interviewed, it was decided that I

should return home.

Honorable chairman, members of this committee, in this county

where the UNFPA operates, where UNFPA insists that only volunteerism exists, we were told by victims of coercion themselves

that there is in fact no trace of volunteerism in this county. There

is only coercion in abundant supply in this county where UNFPA

operates, from within the Office of Family Planning.

29

And before I add the video, I would like to add that if we seem

uncooperative in trying to assist the interviews that were conducted earlier, I made a promise to these women that we would not

develop a path where it could be used to come back to them. And

I just want that to be understood.

Senator BOXER. Well, we are going to—we will show your video

after we go through the panel, because we have—you got 7 minutes.

Ms. GUY. OK.

Senator BOXER. I want to be fair. So let us go—and thank you.

So let us——

Ms. GUY. The video is very short.

Senator BOXER. All right.

Ms. GUY. OK. Good.

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much for your eloquence.

Ms. OAKLEY. We have a video, too. I did not bring it up in

the——

Senator BOXER. Is it very short?

Ms. OAKLEY. Three minutes—in the interest of time.

Senator BOXER. How long is yours?

Ms. GUY. Under three.

Senator BOXER. Good. Well, that is a fair deal. So we will show

both at the end of this.

Ms. GUY. OK.

Senator BOXER. So thank you for your eloquent testimony.

Dr. Eberstadt, welcome back. I have had you before me before.

We welcome you.

STATEMENT OF DR. NICHOLAS EBERSTADT, HENRY WENDT

CHAIR IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC

Dr. EBERSTADT. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman, distinguished members of the committee and esteemed guests. It is always an honor to be back before your committee.

Madame Chairman, I thought that I might best use my time this

afternoon to provide a little bit of background on UNFPA. The U.N.

Population Fund, UNFPA, is a runaway agency, an institution that

has been hijacked, diverted from its original mission, and subsequently infused with a radical and ambitious demographic ideology.

If one takes a look back at early documents from the UNFPA,

this is what one reads. In its 1975 annual report it says, ‘‘Serious

warnings have been issued from time to time in the population situation, but the fund has advisedly avoided making apocalyptic

statements since that would be contrary to its mandate to influence

government decisions in any way.’’ Today, by contrast, the UNFPA speaks of its mandate for promoting what it calls a ‘‘universally acceptable goal of stabilizing

world population.’’ Now ‘‘stabilizing world population’’ is code language. And it is also a bit of a misnomer. Russia’s population, for

example, is declining by about 1 million people a year due to the

excess of deaths over births. But UNFPA does not indicate any

great interest in stabilizing Russia’s population decline.

Instead, ‘‘stabilizing world population’’ or ‘‘stabilizing population’’

means depressing birth rates worldwide, or, as the former execuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:37 Sep 18, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 79323 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
30

tive director of UNFPA put it, ‘‘achieving the lowest level of population in the very shortest time.’’ That objective, by the way, is shared by current executive director of the UNFPA, Dr. Obaid. She was quoted this month during

a visit to Pakistan as saying, ‘‘Yes, Pakistan has been doing well

to slash its population growth rate, but it still has more to do in

this regard.’’ I think that is quite a fair exegesis of the self-directed

mandate.

To justify this anti-natal posture, UNFPA has repeatedly invoked

disaster and purported impending catastrophe, often against received scientific knowledge or through a skewed and partisan reading of scientific data. I will not go through chapter and verse, but

I will read you a few headlines that the UNFPA has garnered over

the years. ‘‘The United Nations yesterday asked people everywhere to pause

July 11 and contemplate the bleak future of Baby 5 billion, the

child whose birth will push the Earth’s population over the 5 billion mark.’’ ‘‘Nutrition levels are dropping and infant mortality may once

again be on the rise.’’ ‘‘ ‘The world’s population is growing by three people every second.

And unless this is curbed, most gains so far achieved and improving the quality of life will be swept away,’ the U.N. Population fund

said today.’’ ‘‘U.N. report warns of population ‘catastrophe.’ ’’ And on and on

and on.

From 2001, ‘‘U.N. says 4 billion will be living in hunger by the

year 2050.’’ That is many times higher than the FAO would claim

or project.

The UNFPA’s extreme view is disavowed even by other branches

of the United Nations. Thus we hear from Joseph Chamie, the Director of the U.N. Secretary’s Population Division, ‘‘The UNFPA is

a fund. They have an agenda,’’ Chamie said, distinguishing his

work from theirs.

The UNFPA’s infatuation with coercive population control goes

back at least to 1983. In that year, the UNFPA awarded its first

population prizes, one to Indira Ghandi, the other to the chief of

China’s State Family Planning Commission at that time.

At that time, there was no doubt, no disagreement among objective observers, that China’s program was coercive. Indeed: the respected American Nobel Laureate Economist, Theodore W. Schultz,

resigned in protest from the UNFPA Advisory Commission, which

was supposedly awarding these prizes, but had no actual say in

granting them.

The tone deafness toward coercive population control of the

UNFPA thus is really nothing new.

One or two extra points which I would submit for consideration:

There is a fungibility question. Funds granted to organizations can

be used in different ways to advance their purposes. The UNFPA

funds in support of China’s program can be used by that government to support its own priorities, just as ostensibly segregated

U.S. funds to UNFPA will advance other priorities.

There is the human rights question, of course, which we have already touched on, and the abuses in China’s population program.

31

And I would encourage us all to engage in a further thought experiment. In many areas of the world, the appalling practice of female genital mutilation is still implemented. What would we think

if the UNFPA involved itself in a country where this practice was

occurring, with the argument that by improving the health quality

of such procedures, women’s lives could be saved? I think we would

not want to legitimize that practice. We would not want to ratify

that practice. We would not want to go there.

Finally, Madame Chairman, let me say I have no doubt the

UNFPA has supported very many worthy activities. An organization which has dispensed over $5 billion surely should have some

achievements to claim. But the ideologizing of the leadership of

UNFPA risks degrading the quality of the organization’s work and

of making that leadership insufficiently attentive to possible

human rights abuses committed in the service of the agenda that

it prefers.

I will stop there. Thank you.

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much.

I think what we will do is hear from our esteemed ranking member. Then we will go to the videos. And then we will take the questions.

You are welcome to be here, and we are happy to hear from you.

Senator ENZI. Thank you very much. And again I apologize for

not being here earlier. I was in an OSHA hearing across the hall.

We were trying to reduce the number of injuries and deaths among

immigrant workers. And that was one of my first committee assignments when I came to the Senate.

Senator BOXER. Great.

Senator ENZI. And I do appreciate your holding this subcommittee hearing. And I do not want to destroy the flow of it. I

will submit a statement for the record. I would rather do that, and

then move onto some questions.

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. You are very gracious.

[The prepared statement of Senator Enzi follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE ENZI

Madame Chairman, Thank you for calling this hearing to address United States

funds going to the United Nations Population Fund. While UNFPA may have a very

positive impact through some local programs, I believe it is the responsibility of the

United States to ensure that we are not monetarily supporting programs that oppose our values. The right to bear children is a basic human right and the forced

termination of a pregnancy is the ultimate denial of human rights.

President Bush and his Administration are correct in withholding U.S. funds for

UNFPA until we can determine if UNFPA is supporting or participating in coercive

abortion or involuntary sterilization programs.

The continued existence of coercive programs in China is evident, as we will hear

from some of today’s witnesses. While the government states that coercive practices

are no longer condoned, they are still widely practiced in China. As UNFPA continues to focus solely on family planning issues and assisting Chinese population

policies, I am concerned that other areas of health are being neglected.

We also must remember that China may not be the only country where coercive

abortion exists. The history of Peru’s family planning practices raise too many questions about possible cover ups in order to protect UNFPA programs. In addition, I

am concerned that UNFPA may be neglecting their own Mission statements, not

only by possibly supporting coercive programs, but by failing to adequately and appropriately investigate the programs in which they are involved.

32

I hope today’s hearing will shed some light on China’s practices. I also hope we

can begin to work with the Administration to see how best the United States should

address this situation. I thank each witness for participating in today’s hearing and

look forward to hearing their testimony. Thank you, Madame Chairman.

Senator BOXER. And yes, let us show—Ms. Guy, do you want to

show your video first? And then we will show Ms. Oakley’s. And

then I will have some questions for 5 minutes. And then I will give

you over to Senator Enzi and then Senator Brownback and back to

me.

[A videotape was shown.]

Senator BOXER. I will be asking some questions as to how you

get to that conclusion after watching that very moving film, how

you came to that conclusion. But we will let you ponder that.

And, Mrs. Oakley, do you want to show——

Mrs. OAKLEY. Yes.

[A videotape was shown.]

Senator BOXER. I think that’s all of the time we—

Mrs. OAKLEY. Yes.

Senator BOXER. Let me ask you, Ms. Oakley, who paid for that?

Is that a UNFPA-paid-for film?

Mrs. OAKLEY. It is my assumption. May I turn and get confirmation?

Senator BOXER. Yes. Just let me know.

Mrs. OAKLEY. Yes. It is a UNFPA——

Senator BOXER. And, Ms. Guy, who paid for your film?

Ms. GUY. PRI.

Senator BOXER. PRI. So that is your affiliation. They paid for

your trip, and they paid——

Ms. GUY. They paid my expenses, but they did not pay me to go.

Senator BOXER. I think that is very important. You did not say

that at first. I asked if you were a consultant. You said at the beginning you were not. But in fact, PRI paid for—it is fine. I just

wanted to set the record straight.

Ms. GUY. Yes, that is correct. I guess I want to clarify what you

mean by consultant. In my mind, when you hire someone to be a

consultant, it is because they have an expertise in the field. I did

not go in that capacity. I thought that is what you meant by consultant.

Senator BOXER. No. Somebody who gets their expenses paid by

an organization in which something like this, a report, is made, I

would say——

Ms. GUY. OK. I just misunderstood what you meant.

Senator BOXER. That is fine. I just wanted to clarify it. We have

an argument here between UNFPA and PRI and a couple other

people who get involved. But that is what we really do have.

Ms. Guy, in your very, I thought, moving presentation, plus your

very moving videotape, are you suggesting in any way that UNFPA

actually conducted an abortion?

Ms. GUY. Am I suggesting that they conducted it?

Senator BOXER. Yes, that they performed an abortion, anyone

working for them performed the abortion.

Ms. GUY. I was never anyplace where an abortion was performed, so I have no idea who performed the abortion.

33

Senator BOXER. So you do not know whether they did or they did

not.

Ms. GUY. I do not know who did.

Senator BOXER. I thought you said the government. I thought

that was your question, was about the question.

Ms. GUY. My question?

Senator BOXER. Yes, to her. Did the women refer to the government, that the government says you have to go to their—— Ms. GUY. The family planning officials——

Senator BOXER. Yes.

Ms. GUY [continuing]. Are part of the PRC Government.

Senator BOXER. So none of the women said to you that UNFPA

encouraged them to have an abortion. They did not bring that up

on their own.

Ms. GUY. None of the women, when I asked them about the

UNFPA, even knew what UNFPA was.

Senator BOXER. Good. Good. That is what I am trying to establish.

Is there anything on this list, this partial list of minimum required equipment for the maternity ward in 52 Beds in Kabul that

the UNFPA is buying? Is there anything there that you would object to, Ms. Guy, or Mr. Eberstadt, anything on that list that you

think is upsetting to you in any way?

Ms. GUY. Is your question to me, is it upsetting?

Senator BOXER. Yes. Is there anything that upsets you on that

list that you think is inappropriate for the UNFPA to be doing, getting operating lamps, EKG monitors, et cetera, refrigerated products, a baby scale? Does anything on that list say to you that something is—that these things would not help people get healthcare?

Ms. GUY. Based upon the face of it, nothing upsets me, no.

Senator BOXER. Good.

Mr. Eberstadt, anything there that rings your bell?

Dr. EBERSTADT. No, of course not.

Senator BOXER. I guess that would fall under the category of ‘‘they do some good things’’ then.

Dr. EBERSTADT. Absolutely.

Senator BOXER. This would be good, right?

Dr. EBERSTADT. Yes.

Senator BOXER. Good. And the bad thing they do, could you—I

was not clear, because you said they are radicals and that they

have—they are all radicals. They have this radical agenda. I did

not see anything radical in what they are trying to do. But you are

saying that in their mind they are radical. What is the problem?

Dr. EBERSTADT. No. I did not say they are all radicals. I said that

in the leadership there is some radical ideology that is pervasive.

Pervasive does not mean every single one. And that ideology, as I

tried to explain, is anti-natal ideology, striving everywhere to depress birth rates under the argument or the belief that this will

help avert global catastrophe at some future date.

To the extent that this ideology substitutes for a scientific appreciation of facts, it necessarily distorts policies.

Senator BOXER. Well, from what I know about the work they do,

they seem to save an awful lot of lives. So what they think, what

their ideology is, is one thing. I am——

34

Dr. EBERSTADT. They could say a lot, Senator.

Senator BOXER [continuing]. Pro-choice. You are probably not. Is

that right? Am I guessing right on that?

Dr. EBERSTADT. I am very troubled about the issue.

Senator BOXER. You are troubled about the issue, and I am not.

I am pro-choice. But clearly, you are troubled about the issue. I

have enormous respect for that. If you do something good for people, save their lives, I am going to love you for it regardless of

whether you are troubled about the issue.

So Mrs. Oakley, you may be one of these people who is referred

to, because you are involved in the UNFPA, are you not, on the

American committee that supports——

Mrs. OAKLEY. Yes, I am involved in it. I was a member of the

delegation that went to Cairo for the conference in 1994. I gave it

my all. I was very pleased with the results of the conference. I am

now on the U.S. committee for UNFPA.

Senator BOXER. Do you agree with Mr. Eberstadt that the—I

hope I am quoting correctly—that the leadership and it is—he said

pervasive in the leadership is a radical mind set that is motivating

UNFPA to depress——

Dr. EBERSTADT. Anti-natalism.

Senator BOXER. Anti-natalism. That means against little babies,

I guess.

Mrs. OAKLEY. Yes. I am delighted to take that question. And I

am very interested in his approach, because I think he sets up a

strawman, this idea that population policies supported by UNFPA

is based on numbers. I think that we all know that fields evolve.

As I understand it from some population work, 30, 40 years ago it

was more numbers driving it. And all you have to do is read the

literature from the Cairo conference, the program of action, to realize that people in this field have moved away from numbers.

There is no way that you can talk about it. I think he is very

right to talk about the disparities in Russia of falling populations,

the drain of the population in the United States and Japan. We all

know about it.

What we are talking about is growth rates that are appropriate

for the development of those countries. There are no numbers attached.

Senator BOXER. In other words, so that the children that are

born—first of all, will be born—in a healthy fashion, because I

think that is the point. What is important to me is that these children are born healthy and that we do not force women to have

abortions by virtue of the fact that they will do anything because

they are so desperate not to have a child. That is the irony that

I see. This concentration on China, I understand, and every one of

us deplores it.

Now, Ambassador, I want to ask this: You did not say in your

statement, which is very pro-UNFPA, you did not say that there

is not coerced abortion in China, did you? What I thought your

group found out is that there is improvement in that area because

of UNFPA. Is that what you said? It is certainly not perfect, but

to throw UNFPA out of there is going to lead to more trouble. Is

that not what I basically heard you say?

35

Ambassador BIEGMAN. What I would say about coercion in China

is that in approximately two-thirds of China there still is coercion,

because they have not moved yet from the old coercive policies toward the Cairo approach of volunteerism. The volunteerism area is

expanding. They started with 5 counties in 1995. They moved to

32. They are now at 600, very much with the help of UNFPA.

Senator BOXER. So your point is that we are not contesting our

side, because I am on your side of the issue. I do not think there

is a question of where we all stand—and I will conclude with this

in this round. You are not contesting the fact that these women are

suffering in some cases and maybe even these counties where it

should not be happening. You are basically saying it is moving in

the right direction. And UNFPA is playing a vital role.

And if you look at their own charter, that is very clear, they can

do nothing to promote this, they have to oppose this. And that is

what you found. How many people were in your trip, on your delegation?

Ambassador BIEGMAN. We were four.

Senator BOXER. From which countries?

Ambassador BIEGMAN. From the Netherlands, Honduras, the

Czech Republic, and Botswana.

Senator BOXER. Very interesting. Thank you.

Senator Enzi.

Senator ENZI. Thank you, Madame Chairman.

I know that I was not here for part of this and that there is a

statement put on the record about some abortion devices among Afghan refugees. Mrs. Oakley, is this the only kit the UNFPA puts

out?

Mrs. OAKLEY. This has been the main one. There is another one

that substitutes sterile clamps for this cord in this one to tie the

umbilical cord. You will notice up here there is a batch number.

These are registered. And when they are distributed—and in response to the suggestion that there may be kits that include abortion whatever, I have asked and I thought it would be very interesting if we could all see one of those kits.

Senator ENZI. So the two kinds of kits are the only kinds that

were put out by the UNFPA.

Mrs. OAKLEY. The only kind I have ever heard of.

Senator ENZI. You were the Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration. And after charges were brought

that the Peruvian Government was involved in coercive population

growth programs, the UNFPA denied any knowledge of any coercion. A report by UNFPA confirmed those charges, but the report

remained buried until recently.

If UNFPA knowingly continued to fund coercive programs, would

it not be a violation of UNFPA’s own guidelines that all funded

programs are voluntary?

Mrs. OAKLEY. It certainly would be. Let me say that I left the

Bureau in 1997. The issue of Peru had not come up. I am going

to have to excuse myself on that one. I had not heard about it until

this afternoon.

Senator ENZI. If the UNFPA guidelines do require that the programs are fully voluntary, fully voluntary, before they can receive

36

funding, how did UNFPA determine that China was eligible for

funding?

Mrs. OAKLEY. Again, it is because of where they are going that

they have moved away from the programs on coercion that were

described by Ambassador Biegman, that they recognize that they

have a problem. I would also say, as an outside observer, the Chinese Government realized that their programs really were not

working and were not sustainable over the long run.

So they have had a move away from that. Nobody is saying that

they are completely there today, but I think you have to look at the

direction and the way they are going and how we can help them

stay on that path.

Senator ENZI. So all the country has to do is show a little bit of

improvement.

Mrs. OAKLEY. No, I do not think a little bit of improvement does

it. I think they have to make a sincere effort. And I think there

are ways to establish that.

Senator ENZI. It is unfortunate that we cannot do some of our

own audits on these things, that we do have to rely on other people.

I appreciate your testimony and comments.

Ms. Guy, based on your interviews and investigations, do you

think that it is plausible for UNFPA to have a fair assessment of

women’s responses to family planning when it works under the permission of the Chinese Government? Concerning the coercion phase

of the family planning offices, do you think women would be willing

to talk about their experiences in the presence of government officials?

Ms. GUY. No, I do not believe that would even be possible, based

upon the conversations that I had with them. It was under the

promise that I would not identify them and lead anybody back to

them. The one woman whose testimony you heard about the little

boy that you saw in the video, we were able to get a still shot of

her. But she strictly forbid us to use the video when we were interviewing her, because of the fear of reprisals from the PRC.

Senator ENZI. Did you see any evidence during your investigation

that the UNFPA program is voluntary? Did you see any evidence

that the Chinese Government family planning program is voluntary?

Ms. GUY. Since I cannot read Chinese, I can—when you say

‘‘see,’’ do you mean did I see pamphlets or things of that nature?

When you say ‘‘see,’’ what do you mean?

Senator ENZI. I give you wide latitude on that.

Ms. GUY. OK. Well, when I went into the villages, everything

was written in Chinese, of course. It was pointed out to me that

there were some signs about family planning. When I had discussions with all of the women about the volunteerism in this particular county that we were in, they all were emphatic that, in fact,

it did not exist.

And my conclusion was that if UNFPA was working separately

from the family planning officials, that they may have known about

the program, but maybe they did not come to their homes to discuss it, or to implement such programs in the villages. But they

37

had absolutely no knowledge about anything that UNFPA may or

may not have been doing in their villages.

If I may respond to the unanswered question that Senator Boxer

had asked, she asked how did we come to, your words, come to that

conclusion about—on the videotape, if I may just say, that the

UNFPA works out of the same office as the family planning official.

And if you look at the videotape or if you want to put up the still

there, their desk actually faces—they have to face one another.

So for them to actually say or even give testimony that they do

not know about coercion, I find that—I would have to ask you if

that—I find that highly unlikely, that these things could be going

on and UNFPA would not know about it.

When we went to the office, we specifically asked for them to

show us where the UNFPA desk or office was. We thought it would

be in a separate office, that they would be working in—and that

the family planning official would be somewhere else. But, in fact,

there is one desk. They pointed it out to us.

And we asked to speak to the U.N. worker, and they told us that

she was unwell, she was in the hospital. So we were not actually

able to get testimony from her. But they clearly pointed out that

that was the United Nations desk. That was from the family planning officials themselves.

Senator ENZI. Since the consultant thing seems to be a key on

this——

Ms. GUY. Yes.

Senator ENZI [continuing]. When you went over, I understand

that you got expenses.

Ms. GUY. True.

Senator ENZI. Were you compensated? Were you paid a salary?

Were you——

Ms. GUY. I was not compensated one penny. I even used some

of my own money to go.

Senator ENZI. Thank you.

I will yield back the balance of my 10 seconds.

Senator BOXER. Senator Brownback.

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you. Thank you, Madame Chairman.

It is quite a heroic activity you did, Ms. Guy, to go in undercover

and to be able to report those and then to get a videotaping of that.

I think we would all agree that that is a deplorable situation that

needs to be investigated much further.

Have you had a positive response from U.S. officials, or have

UNFPA officials said, ‘‘Well, we need to investigate this further’’ after your return with this videotaping and pictures?

Ms. GUY. To me personally? No.

Senator BROWNBACK. Or to any group you know of?

Ms. GUY. You may want to ask the president of PRI that question. He is behind me right here. I personally was not asked that

question. I do understand there was an investigation, as we heard

today, to follow up on that.

Senator BROWNBACK. But have you been contacted by the U.N.

to say, ‘‘We want to investigate this further after what you saw’’?

Ms. GUY. I did receive one call after I got back from China at

my home. And I do not remember the gentleman’s name, but I did

38

understand him to say that he was a consultant for the UNFPA

and he wanted to question me and wanted to know where the

women lived in the villages. And I told him that I was not willing

to give him that information, and if he had any other questions, he

could direct them to PRI.

Senator BROWNBACK. It seems like we should have this further

looked at. And we ought to have a UNFPA official in to question

them about what your findings were and about what Dr.

Eberstadt’s comments are. I find the suggestions very troubling, if

we are putting that sort of funding toward this group.

I note you have a list of items here for hospitals. There are other

organizations other than the UNFPA that funds hospital items and

equipment, particularly even from the American Government within AID, the Agency for International Development, American

schools and hospitals abroad, funds hospital equipment. In my own

state we have a group called Heart to Heart that provides equipment, provides medical care. And maybe that is something that I

can work with you, Mrs. Oakley, on securing this from other

sources.

I think you are certainly getting to know here that there is some

question about how UNFPA funds things. There is no question that

we need to help out with the hospitals. So if there are things that

I or others can do, because we have multiple different sources to

be able to get hospital equipment and items from—and we should

not let this long-term question about UNFPA, its ideology, the continued assertions of it supporting or knowing of forced abortions or

sterilizations and not being actively involved differently, we should

not let that question get in the way of our helping hospitals in Afghanistan, which I strongly support us doing.

And I think we ought to look at some different sources for the

funding, so that we do not get this held up in that fight, because

they need the equipment now. They need to go through that.

One thing, Ms. Oakley, that I want to direct your attention on,

and it is a bit of an aside, but you are on the witness stand, so I

want to ask you about it. You were head of the office here during

the Clinton administration as Assistant Secretary for Population,

Refugees, and Migration. You have worked with a number of different groups.

We had this enormous falloff in the number of refugees that we

have admitted into the United States during the last 10 years and

particularly during your tenure at the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. And we just had the prior witness up in a

hearing that I held in the Immigration Subcommittee, berating him

about why we are not taking more refugees. It is not that there is

not enough refugees in the world. There are something like 14 million. And yet we have really been declining in our commitment and

acceptance.

And I have put a chart in front of you that I have up here about

during the years that you were there, 1993 to 1997, when we fell

off to nearly 15,000 per year refugees that we were taking into the

United States. Why are we not receiving more? Why did that fall

off so rapidly?

39

Mrs. OAKLEY. Senator, may I say at the beginning that I am extremely flattered that you could think that I can remember the absolute details of those programs. But let me—— Senator BROWNBACK. You do not have to remember the details;

15,000—— Mrs. OAKLEY. Let me try and give you the answers as I remember them. But perhaps if I make a mistake on this, I could correct

it for the record.

When I took over as the Principal Deputy and then as Assistant

Secretary in 1994, we had two major refugee programs. The first

was the Vietnamese program, the whole programs of the boat people that were winding down, that had been such an amazing success.

Our second largest program, and the numbers varied on this, involved Pentecostals, Evangelical Christians, and Soviet Jews from

the former Soviet Union. Generally the numbers for the Soviet program were extremely high. And we were coming to the end of that

program.

And as some of the resettlement was talked about, when you

come to the end of programs, you get the people who are older and

who are sicker and who do not qualify under the requirements for

refugees to come into the United States.

And as I remember, most of those numbers that were unused

came from unused Soviet numbers, that we simply did not have

enough people then to fill the slots that were available for them.

It was of great concern to me that our numbers of what we were

asking for and what we could bring into the country did not—were

not closer together, because I felt that the integrity of refugee programs really involves making those numbers match as best we can.

And so I worked on that to see how we could reduce some of

those programs so that it would match what we were actually

doing.

Senator BROWNBACK. I hope you will work with us to try to get

these numbers back up, because there are a lot of refugees. And

your expertise in the past would be helpful for us to try to do that

again.

Mrs. OAKLEY. Yes, certainly.

Senator BROWNBACK. Madame Chairman.

Senator BOXER. Thank you.

Senator, did you want to ask one more question before you had

to leave? Because I am happy to just defer to you.

Senator BROWNBACK. Go ahead.

Senator BOXER. Thank you.

On the issue of refugees, I mean we hope for a peaceful world

where Communist countries do go away and totalitarianism does

go away. And then people do not have to come here because they

can stay home and find peace and find freedom to worship, et

cetera, et cetera. So I hope that we do not have to see numbers go

up, because if the numbers go down, I would hope it meant that

there were not that many people who needed to escape from the

terror and the horror. And I know we are all going to work on that.

Let me get back to the question of this particular hearing, and that is: Do we do any good by holding $34 million hostage because

in one country we know there are still bad things going on in terms

40

of China? And there is no debate about it. The question is whether

UNFPA is making things worse.

And, Ms. Guy, you seem to think they do. I am not exactly clear

how because you said, to your knowledge, they are not involved in

the actual abortions in any way. So my question to you is: Do you

know——

Ms. GUY. I do not believe that was testimony, Senator Boxer. I

do not think that is what I said.

Senator BOXER. You said that you did not know that they were

involved in actually performing the abortions.

Ms. GUY. I said I was not in the room where the abortions were

being——

Senator BOXER. So you are holding that out, that it is possible

that the——

Ms. GUY. No, I am not. No.

Senator BOXER. So let us be clear.

Ms. GUY. I am not holding that out.

Senator BOXER. You are not holding that out?

Ms. GUY. I just wanted to make the record clear.

Senator BOXER. Well, the record is murky. What I am saying is:

You are certainly not suggesting you are telling us today that the

employees at the UNFPA are performing abortions in China. You

are not telling us that.

Ms. GUY. I am not telling you that.

Senator BOXER. Very good. OK. Now let me get on.

How many people work in China for the UNFPA in the whole

country?

Ms. GUY. I believe that is a question you would have to direct

to UNFPA. I have no knowledge.

Senator BOXER. I have knowledge. How many do you think? You

are showing them this great, all-consuming power——

Senator BROWNBACK. I do not know whether you should ask her

to guess.

Senator BOXER. Well, I am asking—I am questioning the witness, and she does not have to answer if she—

Ms. GUY. OK. Well, you——

Senator BOXER. But if you were to think—are you thinking it is

in the tens of people, it is in the hundreds of people? How many

people do you think work for the UNFPA?

Ms. GUY. I would only be guessing. I have no idea.

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, there are four people who work for the

UNFPA. And I just think the way this whole presentation is going,

it is as if they are hovering over every clinic and, you know, encouraging bad things to happen. It just does not make any sense

at all.

And I want to—Mr. Biegman, when you were in China—Ms. Guy

said that she saw the office of the UNFPA, but no one was there,

no one was at the desk. But she was told that——

Ms. GUY. I am sorry, Senator Boxer. I do not mean to keep interrupting. But I did not say that I saw the office of the UNFPA.

Senator BOXER. Oh, I am sorry. I thought you said that the desk

of the UNFPA, they had an office across the way from the

Chinese——

41

Ms. GUY. No. If you want to look at the picture, I can point it

out to you.

Senator BOXER. Why do you not just explain it? I am glad to hear

this. What did you exactly say was the relationship in terms of

where the UNFPA had its office with the Chinese authorities?

Ms. GUY. OK. I believe, if we look back at the record—it is probably better to just look back at the record for the accuracy, but I

said that there was an office that was identified to us by the Chinese officials as the Chinese Family Planning Office.

Senator BOXER. Oh. I see.

Ms. GUY. May I continue with that thought?

Senator BOXER. Certainly.

Ms. GUY. And within that office was a desk that was identified

as the UNFPA desk.

Senator BOXER. OK.

Ms. GUY. If you look at the picture, I can show you exactly which

desk it is.

Senator BOXER. That is fine. Now I get it.

Ms. GUY. OK.

Senator BOXER. So it is the Chinese Family Planning Agency, in

which there is a desk. So that it may be that the UNFPA may

come there once in a while to keep their eye on this program, because I think what has been testified to is that they are trying to

help ensure that these counties, these special counties, move away

from coercion. They would have to, in fact, talk to the people there.

So I do not see anything nefarious. I think it is good that they

would be hanging close there.

Mr. Biegman, you were actually there. What was your impression? Do you think that the UNFPA—I am going to be just using

pretty straightforward terms here. Are they trying to, in your opinion, move China away from coerced abortions and sterilization toward voluntary family planning, or are they in essence working

with the Chinese authorities to coerce abortions? Your sense; you

were there.

Ambassador BIEGMAN. It is very much my impression, having

talked to both the Chinese authorities and UNFPA people at

length, that indeed UNFPA and the Chinese authorities are working together on eliminating coercive policies in the field of reproduction health and family planning.

I would like to refer to one of the attachments to our report,

which may not be familiar to everybody, but which is a leaflet with

two children on it, not one, which is a distribution among the

households of the various project counties in China.

Senator BOXER. I am going to ask that that be included in the

record without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]

[On the front cover.]

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH/FAMILY PLANNING PROJECT

CRP/98/PO1

THE PROJECT OFFICE OF THE STATE FAMILY PLANNING COMMISSION

[The contents of the main body of the text:]

Dear people of reproductive ages:

42

How are you?

The Project of Reproductive Health/Family Planning (RH/FP) is the 4th cycle of

cooperation between the Chinese Government and the United Nations Population

Fund (UNFPA). The county where you are residing at is one of the project counties.

We sincerely hope you and your family will actively participate in our project activities.

The purpose of the project is to have contributed to increasing dissemination of

RH/FP information and knowledge, promotion of responsible reproductive behaviour

and practices, providing comprehensive services of quality of care concerning RH/

FP and to have contributed to the formulation of the Government’s RH/FP strategies for the next century, in line with the principles of the Programme of Action

of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD).

The ICPD Programme of Action points out that people have the right to decide

freely and responsibly whether to have children or not, or the number and timing

of their children. The Programme of Action defines 15 principles: Among them the

major contents concerning human rights include the following: all humans are born

free and equal in terms of dignity and rights; human beings are at the center of

concerns for sustainable development; the promotion of gender equality, equity and

women’s rights; the elimination of violence against women; the assurance of women’s ability to decide their own childbearing; each individual is entitled to education.

The content concerning the right to development are: population-related goals and

policies should be integral parts of cultural, economic and social development; the

right to development is a part of fundamental human rights; economic growth and

social progress must be effected on the condition of sustainable development and the

alleviation of poverty.

The Programme of Action also points out that it is the sovereign right of each

country to carry out the recommendations contained in the Programme of Action.

The implementation must be consistent with national laws and development policies, with full respect for the various religious and ethical values and cultural backgrounds of people, and be in line with universally recognized human rights.

Reproductive health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being

and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the

reproductive system and to its functions and processes. Reproductive health therefore implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that they

have the capability to reproduce and have the right to decide responsibly and freely

whether or not to have children and the number and timing of their children. Implicit in this last condition are the right of men and women to be informed and to

have access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of family planning,

as well as other methods of their choice of regulation of fertility which are not

against the law, and the right of access to appropriate health-care services that will

enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples

with the best opportunity of having a healthy infant.

During the implementation of the project in 32 counties, the Chinese Government

and the United Nations Population Fund will work together to ensure doing the following:

• Advocate for responsible reproductive health/family planning behaviour and

practice; provide the technical skills and health care for safe, effective, affordable and reproductive health and family planning services.

• Increase RH/FP information and knowledge; mobilize all people and organizations at all levels to actively participate in all project activities.

• Adopt an integrated approach, one that will combine the promotion of family

planning with economic development, universal education, improvement of

women’s status and provision of quality family planning and reproductive

health services.

• Not engage in any form of coercion.

• Abolish birth quotas and targets.

After reading this letter, please kindly pass this message on to your friends, and

we hope you actively participate in all project activities. If you need more information, please contact your local family planning or village offices. They will kindly

provide services of quality of care with all their heart.

Thank you for your cooperation and support.

Project Office of the State Family Planning Office.

[On the back cover:]

If you have any reproductive health or family planning problems, you are welcome

to contact your local reproductive health services or health care organizations. You

43

are also welcome to contact the Project Office of the State Family Planning Commission.

Our address is:

State Family Planning Commission Project Office

14 Zhichun Road, Beijing (100088)

Tel: (010) 62051834

44

45

46

47

48

Ambassador BIEGMAN. There is a translation of this. This is in

Chinese, of course. There is a translation attached as well, which

I might read out to you, just the main things which says the—it

is about the project, Reproductive Health and Family Planning

Project of UNFPA and the State Family Planning Commission.

And it has, among other things, the ICPD Programme of Action

points out that people have the right to decide freely and responsibly whether to have children or not, or the number and timing

of their children. And then there are the 15 principles of the program of action and so on and so forth.

There is a very orthodox, I mean worldwide orthodox, definition

of reproductive health taken straight from the Cairo program of action.

And then it says, ‘‘During the implementation of the project in

32 counties, the Chinese Government and the United Nations Population Fund will work together to ensure doing the following: Advocate for responsible reproductive health/family planning behavior’’ and so on, ‘‘increase reproductive health and family planning

information and knowledge; mobilize all people and organizations

at all levels to actively participate; adopt an integrated approach.’’ And then it says ‘‘not to engage in any form of coercion,’’ and ‘‘to

abolish birth quotas and targets.’’ This was spread very widely, because once we knew about this,

anywhere we went in—and we went into the houses of some people

on and off. We asked them, ‘‘Do you know this?’’ And they said ‘‘yes.’’ And sometimes they produced it, you know. They produced

it.

So it is very much my impression that, of course, UNFPA cannot

work on its own in China. They have to work together with the

Chinese authorities or quit. So that is what they are doing. And

they are doing it in the right direction. They are doing a good job.

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you. I think that is clearly—you believe that, you saw that with your own eyes. Ms. Guy had another

experience. And, you know, I think we are going to have to make

the decision as to what we want to do.

Senator Enzi.

Senator ENZI. Thank you, Madame Chairman.

Now that we have established that the UNFPA only has 4 employees in China, how do 4 employees monitor the programs in 32

counties, Mr. Ambassador?

Ambassador BIEGMAN. UNFPA does not work with its own employees, but it works with other U.N. agencies. And it works with

NGO’s, like, you know, others. They are the executive agencies in

all those counties. UNFPA monitors. They visit these counties at

least once a year. They have their regular meetings with the executive agencies. That is how it works.

Senator ENZI. I am just trying to recall my map of China and the

towns. I am from Wyoming. A big town there is 250 people. And

I can understand 4 people monitoring this sort of thing in Wyoming, but I am having a little problem just with it itself, with figuring out how people would know what is going on anywhere at

any time.

You say that they get out into the field and they visit where

every year? Everywhere every year? And I cannot get——

49

Ambassador BIEGMAN. Every year it seems they visit one of the

project counties of UNFPA. They know about as much about the

China program as a minister knows about social security in his

own country. These are huge fields. And you try to know and to

be secure about the trend which is developing and about the general lines of policy which are being followed by the Chinese Government. I think that is the main thing.

Senator BOXER. Would you yield to me? I——

Ambassador BIEGMAN. And it is impossible to know about all

the——

Senator BOXER. I might have something—it would not come off

your time—that might help. During the 4-year history of the current China program, UNFPA’s activities in China have been visited

by more than 60 outside international observers representing more

than 30 countries, one of which was Mr. Biegman’s—this does not

count, Ms. Guy’s visit, which was in an unannounced, undercover

operation. But we have people visiting.

And so the fact is they are dealing with other people in the U.N.,

which leads to a bigger problem, because if you think that is not

working well, and you take the money away from this agency, and

there are a lot of people involved here who go after their money,

we will really have a problem.

Would you add two more minutes to Senator Enzi’s time?

Senator ENZI. And I thank you for mentioning that Ms. Guy’s

meeting was unannounced. And that, of course, implies that these

others were announced.

Your trip, Mr. Ambassador, was announced, was arranged with

the Chinese Government?

Ambassador BIEGMAN. Yes. It could not have been otherwise.

Senator ENZI. During these visits, how much time was spent

doing private interviews, do you know, without the knowledge or

observation of the government officials?

Ambassador BIEGMAN. We calculated we had about 3 hours of

private conversations, the various members of the team. But what

we did from time—we had one or two Chinese Government officials

with us, of course, on all of the trip. I would try to monopolize their

attention. And the other three members of the team would go into

this clinic and talk to women who were sitting there being counseled. That is how we did it.

Senator ENZI. A very difficult task, then, of distracting them so

that people could actually ask questions.

Ambassador BIEGMAN. It could be done. It could be done. There

were three of them. There were one or two Chinese with us whom

we had to distract—or not to distract, but I kept talking to them,

you know, about interesting things.

Senator ENZI. Right. But again from an auditing standpoint here,

I am very sensitive right now; I am auditing. The people that happened to be in the clinic, could that have been controlled in any

way by the Chinese Government, or were they all purely random?

Ambassador BIEGMAN. I think the Chinese authorities would

have been—would have to be very, very well organized in order to

orchestrate all that. I cannot imagine that, not really. And they

looked genuine. They were, you know, humble village women, who

50

had their stories to tell, but who did not tell about abuses or things

like that. They could have done it easily, easily, and they did not.

Senator ENZI. How were the homes that you went to chosen for

the interviews?

Ambassador BIEGMAN. They took us to one or two villages in the

vicinity of Sihui and let us—let us walk about, let us walk about.

That, frankly—frankly, if I were you, I would not—I would not take

too seriously, because that, of course, could be set up. You have a

village. You have three or four or five houses where somebody happens to be home and they have us come in and visit. Even there

we asked people, how—young, say young man, around 20, 22 years

old, not yet married, ‘‘How many children would you like to have

in the future?’’ They would say, ‘‘Well, maybe two, maybe three. I

will see.’’ May I—excuse me. May I come back to this famous desk, this famous UNFPA desk in Sihui County? I cannot believe there is one.

I mean, if UNFPA visits the county once a year, is there a desk

for them? I mean, they would walk about. They talk to the state

people. They— Senator ENZI. Quite frankly, if I wanted to keep somebody from

actually looking at the problem, I would provide them with a desk.

Ambassador BIEGMAN. You know, they can walk about without

a desk. But, I mean, it is to speak, as the report did, which was

presented to the Congress last year, about abuses occurring within

a mile of the UNFPA desk in Sihui is not giving accurate information.

Senator ENZI. Would you like to comment on this, Ms. Guy?

Ms. GUY. My comment would be we asked the Chinese where we

could find the United Nations desk. And they directed us to that

desk and pointed it out to not only me but to the Chinese translator, who was with me when I arrived, the day prior to my arrival.

Actually, we went three times. And three times they told us the

same thing.

Senator ENZI. Were there Chinese officials with you all the time?

Ms. GUY. They were never with us. They did not know we were

there.

Senator ENZI. How did you select the people that you talked to?

Ms. GUY. Just random, just going—finding a village and walking

in and going to the resident with—most of the villages up front,

there are market areas where people are selling and buying goods.

And then you proceed to the back of those villages, and you find

the residential areas.

And we would just find a group of women or people congregating

and told them that we wanted to speak with them about family

issues. And when we got very pointed about our questions, I expected that possibly they would not really want to talk about it.

But to my surprise, I found that they very much wanted to talk

about it and were very adamant.

If you—if anybody gets an opportunity, you might want to just

actually listen to the audio tape itself. We translated it, but you

can hear the voices in here. And they are very passionate, these

voices. And when they found out that we were talking about this

particular issue, they came around and rallied around the table always outside under a tree, except for the one or two that was in

51

the home there. And especially the elderly women, who were the

mothers of the women who were in a big force in these provinces,

were very passionate about how bad it was for their daughters.

And they just really wished things would change.

And so we just went and randomly selected villages and walked

in.

Senator ENZI. Thank you.

No, I will not take the extra 2 minutes.

Senator BOXER. Are you sure?

Senator ENZI. I thank you, Madame Chairman, for your courtesy.

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator Enzi, for your good

questions.

Senator Brownback.

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I would

ask for unanimous consent that the full report from the Population

Research Institute be submitted into the record.

Senator BOXER. Without objection, it will be done.

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you.

[The report referred to follows:]

REPORT OF THE POPULATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, FRONT ROYAL, VA

UNFPA, China and Coercive Family Planning

DECEMBER 12, 2001

Introduction

Population Research Institute (PRI) sent an independent investigative team to

China on September 27, 2001. The investigative team consisted of Ms. Josephine

Guy, a paralegal with a background in security affairs, two translators and one photographer/videographer. Additional assistance was provided by two associate researchers based in China.

PRI’s investigative team spent a total of four days in China. During this period,

the investigative team interviewed family planning workers and spent over 10 hours

interviewing more than two dozen victims or witnesses of coercion in Sihui County.

Over four hours of testimonies were recorded on audiotape, and approximately 30

minutes of testimonies were recorded on videotape.

Interviews with victims were also recorded in notebooks, in both Chinese and

English, and additional photographic evidence was obtained. Victims and witnesses

of coercion were interviewed privately, not in the presence of officials, to ensure

those interviewed were able to speak about their own experiences with the one-child

policy without fear of reprisals.

The investigative team also located the Chinese office of family planning in Sihui

county, Guangdong Province, and spoke with local family planning officials. Local

officials provided information about UNFPA’s county program, including the location of the office desk of UNFPA’s worker for the Sihui county program.

PRI’s lead investigator returned to the US in early October with the audiotaped

and videotaped testimony, and all other information obtained by the investigative

team during its investigation.

Doing field research in the People’s Republic of China presents challenges. The

government is hostile to investigators who do not take the nature of its policies on

face value, and punishes its domestic critics with extreme severity. PRI’s investigative team, therefore, took precautions to protect those who testified.

In addition, the names of the translators, the photographer, and China-based personnel of the investigative team have been withheld to prevent retribution by the

government of the People’s Republic of China.

Moreover, PRI sought no assistance from the government of the People’s Republic

of China to carry out its investigation, and received none. Had such assistance been

sought, it is likely that the PRC government would have either obstructed PRI’s investigation by denying visas to the members of our investigative team, or attempted

to influence the investigation and the testimonies provided by the victims and witnesses of coercion.

52

UNFPA County Program in Sihui

The goal of PRI’s independent investigative team was to carry out an in-depth

analysis of a UNFPA county program.

UNFPA has stated on the record that it operates family planning programs in 32

counties in China. In these programs, UNFPA states, family planning is ‘‘fully voluntary’’ and that there is no coercion. UNFPA also states that in these counties,

targets and quotas have been lifted, ‘‘women are free to voluntarily select the timing

and spacing of their pregnancies,’’ and abortion is not promoted as a method of family planning. (See: ‘‘UNFPA’s County Program in China: Providing Quality Care,

Protecting Human Rights,’’ UNFPA, August 10, 2001.)

PRI obtained first-hand evidence which calls into question the accuracy of

UNFPA’s claims.

The county program selected for investigation was in Sihui county, in Guangdong

Province in Southern China, approximately 100 miles northwest of Hong Kong.

While this report focuses on the findings of PRI’s investigative team in Sihui

county, PRI researchers were also told of the existence of coercion in two other

UNFPA county programs.

In Sihui county, during phone conversations and discussions in person with local

officials, members of PRI’s independent investigative team were provided with information about:

• The geographical extent of Sihui county.

• The location of the Chinese Office of Family Planning.

• The location of the office desk of the UNFPA family planning representative for

Sihui county.

PRI investigators were told by county officials that UNFPA’s county program in

Sihui operates in support of the Chinese family planning program.

The investigative team was told by officials that UNFPA’s representative in Sihui

and Chinese family planning officials work from the same office, the Sihui County

Office of Family Planning.

PRI investigators spoke to Chinese officials in this office, and inquired about

UNFPA. PRI investigators were shown by these officials the UNFPA desk. Photographic evidence of the UNIFPA office desk within this office was obtained by PRI’s

photographer. Local officials told PRI investigators that there is no distinction between UNFPA’s program in Sihui and the Chinese family planning program in

Sihui. PRI investigators visited this office on three occasions. On two of these occasions, officials pointed to the UNFPA desk, and also said that the UNFPA representative was at the local hospital. On the third occasion, additional photographic

evidence was obtained.

Officials also informed PRI investigators of the borders of Sihui. All interviews referred to in this report were conducted within the borders of Sihui county; namely,

within the area that the Sihui office of family planning, and the UNFPA family

planning representative, operates.

Interviews

The investigative team received testimony from over two dozen victims and witnesses of coercion within Sihui, all within a few miles of the UNFPA office desk.

Interviews were conducted in a government medical facility, and in four different

residential areas. By many victims and witnesses of coercion, PRI investigators were

told that:

• There is no voluntary family planning in Sihui.

• Coercive family planning policies in Sihui include: age requirements for pregnancy; birth permits; mandatory use of IUDs; mandatory sterilization; crippling

fines for non-compliance; imprisonment for non-compliance; destruction of

homes and property for non-compliance; forced abortion and forced sterilization.

Witnesses and victims said that population control is implemented by force of the

state, rather than, as the UNFPA claims, through ‘‘a client-oriented approach.’’

The UNFPA Office Desk

On September 26, 2001, one of PRI’s translators placed calls to the Sihui county

government building. PRI’s translator was given the room number of the Office of

Family Planning by a local official. PMI’s translator, on September 26, went to that

office and spoke with family planning officials. A family planning worker, in the

Sihui County Office of Family Planning, pointed to an office desk. Two family planning workers in this office told PRI’s translator that ‘‘this is the desk’’ of the UNFPA

worker.

53

On September 27, the investigative team entered the Sihui County Government

Building and spoke again with local officials, who again gave the location of the office desk of the UNFPA officer within the Sihui County Family Planning Office.

Photographic evidence of the office, its occupants, and its signage was obtained on

this and the following day.

The sign outside the door of the office says: Family Planning Office, Room 1. The

offices—a single large room—house six family planning workers. One is described

as the UNFPA representative. The UNFPA representative’s desk faces, in fact

touches, the desk of a Chinese family planning worker.

Interviews in Government Facility

On September 28, the investigative team visited a government medical facility located within a mile of the Sihui County Family Planning Office and within the borders of Sihui county. The team interviewed one doctor, and four women who said

that voluntarism does not exist within the county’s family planning program. The

team met a woman who was at the facility to receive a non-voluntary abortion. She

was accompanied by three friends, all of whom said that Chinese law mandates

abortions for women pregnant without government permission. They asserted that

their friend wanted to continue her pregnancy, but the law forbids it.

Interviews in Residential Areas

On September 27, 28 and 29, the investigative team visited four residential areas,

all within a few miles of the Sihui County Family Planning Office and within the

borders of Sihui county. In interview after interview, local men and women said

that, in Sihui county’s family planning program:

• Coercion is as bad today as it has ever been.

• Forced abortions, forced sterilization, and forced use of Depro Provera, IUDs

and other forms of birth control are routine.

• The punishment for noncompliance includes crippling fines, destruction of

homes, and imprisonment of women and their relatives.

• Voluntary family planning is non-existent.

The interviews were conducted in open-air settings, as well as in peoples’ homes.

As formal interviews were being conducted and recorded, bystanders often gathered

and began to tell their own stories of coercion. No one disputed that the county’s

family planning programs were coercive. Several of those interviewed spoke of the

routine destruction of homes for attempting unauthorized births.

Propaganda slogans promoting the necessity and the benefits of family planning

were posted throughout the four residential areas. None of the slogans mentioned

that coercion has been eliminated and quotas and targets had been lifted, as the

UNFPA claims, in Sihui county.

On September 29, the investigative team visited what locals called a ‘‘model family planning village’’ within this UNFPA ‘‘model county.’’ Two residents of this village said in interviews that local family planning workers receive benefits and promotions based on their compliance with targets and quotas.

These same residents also said that, within the ‘‘model family planning village,’’

family planning policy was enforced using the same non-voluntary measures that

were found elsewhere.

Interviewing Methods

While conducting interviews, the investigation team did not attempt to administer

a survey instrument, but asked open questions about the interviewee, their family,

and their experiences with the family planning program.

In the words of Ms. Josephine Guy, PRI’s lead investigator:

We struck up casual conversations, and asked people if they would talk

to us about family life. People were friendly and pleased to have visitors

from outside of China. As the conversation began in earnest, more and

more people would invariably gather around, curious to discover the reason

for our visit. Many times they would chime into the conversation. At times

it was difficult to carry on conversations, so many people were talking at

once. Everyone was eager to talk and answer our many questions. After a

few minutes, we would begin to ask pointed questions about family planning policies and their own personal experience. I was initially worried that

they might be bothered by the subject matter and hesitate to answer. To

my surprise, they continued with enthusiasm.

54

Jackhammer Campaign

Several women testified that the penalty for noncompliance with an order to abort

an unauthorized pregnancy, or to undergo sterilization after the birth of a second

child, was the destruction of one’s home. One woman told PRI investigators of a

woman nearby, who was recently forced to leave her home to protect her pregnancy

against forced abortion. As this woman spoke, she became very emotional and began

to hide her tears.

In another residential area, we spoke with a man who was working in his garden.

He turned out to be the father-in-law of a woman who had been ordered to have

an abortion but had instead gone into hiding. He was angry at local officials because

his home and two others had been recently destroyed by Sihui family planning

workers as punishment for his daughter-in-law’s refusal to submit to an abortion

as required by the law.

Nine of this woman’s family members had been imprisoned and they had been

forced to pay fines to win their release. Their neighbors had loaned them the funds

they needed to pay the fines.

This man took PRI’s investigative team to interview his daughter-in-law. She told

PRI investigators of the punishments she and her family had experienced. She

showed us the areas of her house that had been destroyed. Before leaving, PRI investigators were able to meet her baby boy, who was thirteen months old.

She told us of the additional fines that must be paid if her son is to be eligible

for medical care, schooling or employment in the future. At present, she described

her little boy as a ‘‘black child,’’ that is, an unregistered and illegal person, who does

not exist in the eyes of the state. Many of those we interviewed told us of the problems experienced by ‘‘black children,’’ who are punished for being born without a

permit.

Congressional Testimony

At an October 17, 2001 congressional hearing, the lead investigator of PRI’s independent investigative team showcased the following testimonies recorded on audioand videotape in China. These testimonies are a sample of the interviews carried

out in China. All interviews took place within a few miles of the UNFPA office desk

and within the borders of Sihui county:

Questioner: If you violate the population control regulations by having too

many children, what happens to you?

Woman: When I had my children, things were not as strict. Right now,

things are very, very strict.

Questioner: What happens to you if you give birth to another child?

Woman: You want to have another child! You think it’s that easy to give

birth!

Questioner: Would someone come to your house and take you in by force,

in for an abortion?

Woman: Yes. But they don’t need to use force. They simply require you

to go.

Questioner: And if you don’t go?

Woman (astonished): They require you to go and you don’t go?

Questioner: What if you say you don’t want to go?

Woman: What reason could you give [for resisting.] Giving birth to an

extra child is difficult, very, very difficult to have a child.

Questioner: But you yourself had three children. How did this happen?

Woman: First I had two. Then seven years later I had another baby boy.

They had already tied my tubes and I had another boy.

Questioner: After you had an operation? After they tied your tubes? How

did they know you had a baby?

Woman: They found out. Someone told them.

Questioner: Then the family planning workers came to your house. Did

a whole troop of them come?

Woman: A lot of them came. Many, many people.

Questioner: What if you hid?

Woman: That wouldn’t work. They would tear down my house. (Points at

the ceiling). They would wreck it.

Narrator: So she was sterilized a second time, at the government’s insistence, and there have been no more children.

55

(Photo of woman, with child, interviewed September 2001, a short distance

from UNFPA office, in county where UNFPA operates and claims coercion

does not exist. This interview was recorded on audio tape.)

Narrator: This woman was pregnant with her second child, and the authorities wanted her to abort . . .

Woman: I was four-and-a-half months pregnant. They wanted me to report to the hospital for an abortion but I refused to go. I went into hiding

in my mother’s village. Then my brother, my older sister, and my younger

sister were all arrested. I had no choice but to go somewhere else to hide.

They arrested three people in my mother’s family but didn’t destroy any

homes. They arrested six people in my mother-in-law’s family and destroyed three homes.

(Photo of man and damaged home, interviewed September 29, a short distance from UNFPA office, in county where UNFPA operates and claims coercion does not exist. This interview was recorded on audiotape.)

Narrator: When they couldn’t find the woman, they attacked her home— and the homes of her relatives—with jackhammers. Her father-in-law describes the damage.

Man: Look at this. All of the doors and windows destroyed. Here’s a big

hole that they knocked in the wall. It took forty bags of cement to repair

the holes.

(Photo of women in waiting room, taken a short distance from UNFPA office. PRI investigators spoke with several women in this photo who confirmed that forced abortion exists in this county where UNFPA operates.)

Narrator: Here in a hospital waiting room, a pregnant woman waits for

an abortion. Too young at 19 years of age to get married—the minimum age

is 23—she has been ordered to report for an abortion. As she disappears

into the operating room, we ask her three friends here with her: ‘‘Would

she like to keep her baby?’’ ‘‘Oh, yes,’’ they all replied, ‘‘But the law forbids

it.’’

UNFPA Operations in Jianou County, Fujian Province, and in Kuerle County,

Xinjiang Province

PRI researchers also obtained information about two other UNFPA county programs, the first in Jianou county, Fujian Province, and the second in Kuerle county,

Xinjiang Autonomous Region.

We were told that the population control regulations of Fujian Province, which are

enforced without exception in all counties, call for:

• Mandatory use of IUDs.

• Mandatory quarterly exams.

• Fines of 50 yuan per day, and 2,000 yuan per month imposed for non-compliance with mandatory examinations.

• Forced sterilization after six months of non-compliance with exam.

• Mandatory registration of child within one month after birth of child, punishable with forced sterilization for non-compliance.

• Forced abortion, forced sterilization and 10,000 yuan fine for pregnancy before

age 20.

In Xinjiang Province, particularly in rural areas like Kuerle county (Korla in the

local Uighur language), local family planning officials frequently resort to brute

force. Kuerle (Korla) county is the location of UNFPA’s Xinjiang county program.

Abuses include:

• Forced abortion.

• Forced sterilization.

• Imprisonment.

• Forced abortion and forced sterilization under imprisonment.

Note on UNFPA’s Reaction

The UNFPA responded to PMI’S investigation by organizing an in-house delegation of UNFPA employees and associates to visit China. The eight-page ‘‘Mission ReVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:37 Sep 18, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6621 79323 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
56

port’’ issued by UNEPA describes the details of their 22–26 October visit to Beijing,

Guangzhou, Sihui county, and Qianjiang City, Hubei Province. Of the five days

spent in China, half was spent in Beijing, in meetings, banquets and barbecues with

Chinese officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the State Family Planning

Commission.

During half-day visits to Sihui and Qianjiang, the delegation was accompanied by

Chinese officials from the national, provincial, prefectural, municipal, and county

governments. They went on guided tours of several family planning clinics, and

spent only 30 minutes on ‘‘household visits,’’ which were again conducted in the

presence of Chinese officials. In the absence of unsupervised contact with ordinary

Chinese, it is unlikely that UNFPA could accurately assess the state of the one-child

policy in Sihui county or anywhere else in China.

The UNFPA’s ‘‘Mission Report’’ presents no credible evidence, based on interviews

with ordinary Chinese, to support its claim that voluntarism exists in its county

program in Sihui, or anywhere else in China. Its ‘‘Mission Report’’ simply repeats

assertions made by Chinese officials that coercion has been eliminated and targets

and quotas have been lifted in Sihui county. The Chinese officials who make these

assertions are not unbiased observers, but interested parties, who have every reason

to put the best face on the family planning programs that they supervise, especially

when these are called into question.

UNFPA Supports Coercion

PRI’s investigation in China shows that UNFPA supports China’s family planning

policy. UNFPA’s support consists of public praise for, and misinformation about,

China’s coercive family planning policy. UNFPA also directly supports coercive family planning with funding, and through its complicity with the implementation of

policies which are fundamentally coercive in principle and practice.

Ms. GUY. And I did ask this to be officially moved into the

record. May I do that, Senator?

Senator BOXER. All of the statements will be placed into the

record.

Ms. GUY. OK. All right. Thank you.

Senator BOXER. Thank you.

Senator BROWNBACK. Both of you made the point to me about

just how much that mother went through that delivered my youngest daughter. As I think you said, Mr. Biegman, you still found

two-thirds of the counties in China going through some sort of a

forced abortion, even after this international pressure has been

brought on China about their forced abortion policies. Was that the

number you said?

Ambassador BIEGMAN. China is a big country, sir. It needs time

to make this U-turn, which they made in principle when adhering

to the Cairo program of action. It needs time to adjust its policies

and to go toward the Cairo approach of volunteerism.

Senator BROWNBACK. But did you state there were two-thirds of

the area that were still——

Ambassador BIEGMAN. At this stage, yes. I could have put it positively. I could have said one-third of China is already on the right

track and the rest will follow whenever they can manage that administratively. That is the main bottleneck at this stage.

Senator BROWNBACK. I just want to make sure I understand

what percentage of the country is still operating with this forced

abortion policy.

Ambassador BIEGMAN. Yes. But I would like—I would like to

stress that that is a part of the country where UNFPA is not active.

Senator BROWNBACK. I take it there is large portions of the country that you would submit that that was the case as well, that

there are other ways that they can operate in a country, that they

57

operate through other U.N. employees, sort of what you have said

through other groups.

Ms. Guy, I want to ask you, if I could, on some of the women

that you interviewed, you said particularly the older women.

Ms. GUY. Yes. The older women that were past the childbearing

age, they wanted to talk mainly about what was going on with

their daughters, because the programs were not in place as they

are now for them. And they were really great. And I was moved.

I have to say I was very moved about hearing what they had to

say.

The translator was there. She was translating to me some of the

things that they were saying. And they just really wished it was

not so for their daughters to have to be forced into this type of program.

And the most intimate part of their lives is having had the IUD’s

inserted, and every 3 months they have to go and make sure that

they are still there. I mean, one of the most personal things for me,

and I am sure for most women in this room, is that our privacy,

in terms of our reproduction, is just that. And this is something

that is so intimate in a person’s life. To just be wide open to scrutiny like this, I cannot imagine.

Senator BROWNBACK. Did you hear that in multiple occasions

from older women?

Ms. GUY. Yes. Yes, I did.

Senator BROWNBACK. Was it a common comment that they

made?

Ms. GUY. It was every comment, every—every village that I was

in.

Senator BROWNBACK. That they would say that they were regularly—their daughters were regularly having to go in to make sure

that the IUD’s—— Ms. GUY. Oh, yes. We have—we have testimony. Yes.

Senator BROWNBACK. Did any of them describe any forced abortions that their daughters were having to go through or had to go

through?

Ms. GUY. None of the older women, but the gentleman at the village where you saw the home, that was the father-in-law of the

woman who went into hiding. He was very, very angry. You can

hear—if you get an opportunity to listen to this, you can hear the

anger in his voice about what happened to them. They lost a lot

of money. They lost their homes.

You just saw the window that had been repaired, but what they

did with the jackhammers is they went to the third—if any—you

have been to China. And so you know what the homes are like. In

this area of China, they are brick homes, and the floors are cement.

So you have the bottom floor, you have the second floor, and then

you have the top floor. Well, they would go to the top floor and

jackhammer an area maybe eight feet in diameter and jackhammer

that floor. Then they would jackhammer the second floor. And then

they would tear out their windows. And that means taking out iron

bars, not just glass. They do not have windows like we have windows.

So when they basically got finished, it was a frame that was left

made of brick. And all of their household goods were carried off,

58

and they had nothing. And they did that to try to force her out of

hiding. She was a very—the hero of this story is this young woman,

because she fled her village and went to her mother’s village. And

they discovered her there. So she had to leave again.

And as a result of that, they imprisoned her family and her husband’s family and destroyed three homes in her husband’s family.

And they were in prison for over 4 months. And the village, the villagers actually raised the money to get them out of prison, which

was the 17,000 RMB. But she still has to pay another 17,000 before

she can register her child to be able to go to school.

Senator BROWNBACK. So the child cannot go to school unless she

raises the additional 17,000—— Ms. GUY. Unless she comes up with the additional money.

Senator BROWNBACK. You know, I am going to submit your report to the UNFPA.

Ms. GUY. OK.

Senator BROWNBACK. And I will invite other members to join me

on this, because I think, as the chairman noted, we all find forced

abortion, forced sterilization taking place, as well as to the State

Department, to ask them to specifically respond to the case that

you have brought forward. And I would hope that they would thoroughly investigate a continuation of these sorts of charges and this

happening. It is so aggressive on the part of the Chinese.

Ms. GUY. Yes. If an investigation could be conducted where the

officials were not present, I think they would—I think most of us

here would have to admit that the results may have been a little

different for them also.

But—you know, I promised these women that I would not reveal

their identity. And so because of that, on the face it may appear

as though I am obstructing an investigation, but that is not my

purpose. My purpose is to protect them, because they were relentless in what they did to this woman and to her family. And I cannot imagine what they would do if they were able to identify her.

Senator BROWNBACK. The chairman and I have worked a great

deal on women’s rights in Afghanistan. And thankfully we are seeing some good progress taking place there. And I am hopeful we

can get some funding for hospital equipment, so that women will

have—women and everybody else will have it. But for this sort of

thing continuing to take place in China is just not acceptable. So

I am going to put that forward and ask for responses and see if

other members will join me on that as well.

Ms. GUY. And as a reminder, I just want to point out that this

was one of the model counties that UNFPA was operating in, that

they said was going voluntary. And, you know, I did not—I thought

at first, when I went, I thought, how am I going to walk into a village and just find these kinds of stories? And to my surprise, every

village I went to, it was not hard to find stories. I did not have to

search them out. I just started to ask people.

Senator BROWNBACK. Amazing. Tragic.

Senator BOXER. Well, perhaps you could tell Senator Brownback

the names of those people so he can follow up with them, maybe

make a trip ourselves.

Let me ask you this question, which confused me a little bit.

Ms. GUY. I am sorry?

59

Senator BOXER. You said you went into the family planning, Chinese Family Planning Agency, which of course, if these things happened, is quite responsible for all those things that we have talked

about, Correct? Why did you go there? Did you go there to—you

went three times. Did you go there to tell these people what you

had seen, to try to get them to stop? Why were you there?

Ms. GUY. The sole purpose of going was to try and locate the

UNFPA. That was the only reason for going.

Senator BOXER. You went there to find the UNFPA office.

Ms. GUY. We were told that UNFPA was operating in this county. So we made——

Senator BOXER. So getting back to the famous empty desk

situation——

Ms. GUY. Yes. Do you mind if I finish my sentence?

Senator BOXER. You can finish as many as you would like.

Ms. GUY. OK. Thank you. So we made the assumption that if

they were operating in this county, maybe thinking like Westerners, that there would be a county office where the UNFPA operated. So based upon that assumption, we just—we went to the

county building, which you saw, the large building.

Senator BOXER. Yes, we sure did.

Ms. GUY. And when we inquired as to where the family planning

office was, they took us in—if you can read—I cannot read Chinese,

but the Chinese language on the sign says ‘‘The Chinese Family

Planning Office.’’ And then after further inquiry, they are the ones

that identified the UNFPA desk.

Senator BOXER. Was there a sign that said U.N. desk?

Ms. GUY. No.

Senator BOXER. And you said the person—you went back three

times, and no one was there.

Ms. GUY. No. There were——

Senator BOXER. At the so-called UNFPA desk, there was not anyone there three times, three different times?

Ms. GUY. You mean actually sitting at the desk?

Senator BOXER. Yes.

Ms. GUY. No. We asked where this individual was, and that is

when we were told that she had a serious illness and that she was

hospitalized.

Senator BOXER. OK. But you have just heard before that there

are four people, and they only make trips once a year. So I think

we should pursue that issue as well about this shared desk and the

people and the sick person and try to figure this thing out because

I will tell you why, I will tell you why. I would like to talk to that

person.

Ms. GUY. Well, we wanted to, too. And that is why we——

Senator BOXER. Well, I know. Well, good. So now you have me

on your side. I would like to talk to the person who was ill, in the

hospital, who sits at that desk every day because, first of all, they

are not supposed to be. They are supposed to come once a year. So

I have to find out who that is. And then I am going to show them

this tape, if you will leave it with me.

Ms. GUY. It is part of the official record, I believe.

60

Senator BOXER. Very well. I would show that person that tape

and start asking some questions, ‘‘Is it true that you are here? And

how often are you here?’’ Ms. GUY. I would volunteer to do that for you, because I honestly, Senator Boxer, do not believe that you would get an honest

answer.

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you. You do not know me well

enough. I think I would.

Ms. GUY. OK.

Senator BOXER. And since I am one of the biggest advocates, and

continue to be after this hearing even more than ever, of UNFPA,

I think the UNFPA will in fact tell me who was at that desk. You

have the picture there. So we can show them the picture. Who was

ill, what was that story, and do they know anything about these

individuals whom you have shown us, because if, in fact——

Ms. GUY. Which is a path back to those individuals.

Senator BOXER. If, in fact—excuse me?

Ms. GUY. I think which would lead you back to those individuals.

I think it is the hope that you have.

Senator BOXER. Well, the hope that I have is to find out, and this

is important, if UNFPA people knew about this and actually sat in

an office where, as you say, they had to know, when it conflicts

with what I know about UNFPA, that in fact they only go there—

you know, there are four of them, and they cover the whole country.

So I need to find out. Your testimony is fascinating. But it leads

me to a lot of curiosity.

Ms. GUY. I understand.

Senator BOXER. Yes. So I am going to—just so you know what

I am doing——

Ms. GUY. Sure.

Senator BOXER [continuing]. I am going to get in touch with

UNFPA. I am going to—I want them to see this, because it is highly upsetting. And I want to find out, you know, the situation with

this desk.

[The following letter from UNFPA was subsequently received.]

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

UNFPA UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND,

New York, NY, March 4, 2002.

The Honorable BARBARA BOXER

United States Senate,

Senate Hart 112,

Washington DC, 20010.

DEAR SENATOR BOXER,

I understand that the Senate Foreign Relations Sub-Committee on International

Operations and Terrorism held a hearing last week on the U.S. funding of the

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). I would like to thank you for bringing

this issue to the attention of the Sub-Committee.

It is my understanding that several questions related to UNFPA and its programme in China were raised, and I hope that I can help to clarify any outstanding

issues.

First and foremost, I share your deep and profound concerns regarding the allegations of forced abortion, coercion and destruction of property in China. It is precisely

because of these concerns that UNFPA developed a programme in China to demonstrate to the Chinese Officials that population programmes can be effective while

respecting basic human rights. UNFPA’s Executive Board, which takes decisions on

61

all UNFPA country programmes, believes that we should be engaged in China with

open eyes, not close our eyes and turn our backs on China.

All UNFPA activities adhere to international human rights standards, including

those articulated at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development. These standards assert that in no case should abortion be used as a method

of family planning and that coercion is unacceptable in family planning programmes. This is our mandate, and we are committed to ensuring that nations provide voluntary family planning services that respect the rights and dignity of all

their citizens.

It has been brought to my attention that Josephine Guy, Director of Government

Affairs for America’s 21, testified concerning her early Fall investigative trip to

China. I want to assure the Sub-Committee that UNFPA is well aware of her investigation and subsequent report. In fact, when the House International Relations

Committee held a hearing on this subject, a member of my staff spoke with the staff

of Representative Henry Hyde and requested that Ms. Guy and any other witnesses

meet with UNFPA and U.S. Department of State representatives so we could discuss details of her troubling allegations and investigate her charges. Unfortunately,

Representative Hyde’s staff member, Joseph Reese, refused our request.

Although we were unable to meet with Ms. Guy to discuss her findings, UNFPA

made a quick determination that the serious nature of her allegations required an

independent review. As you may be aware, UNFPA is a multilateral organization

and we are both governed and supervised by an Executive Board that is comprised

of Member States of the United Nations, including the United States. Accordingly,

we asked members of our Executive Board to conduct an investigative mission to

China. I believe that the Sub-Committee has a copy of the resulting investigative

report, as well as the written and oral testimony of the mission’s leader, Ambassador Nicolaas Biegman.

I understand that some members of the Sub-Committee question the independence of this investigation. Accordingly, I would be pleased to work with all of you

and the Department of State to develop a U.S. review team that can visit the

UNFPA programme counties in China and satisfy your concerns for independence.

As you may know, the UNFPA programme in China is one of the most monitored

programmes in the entire United Nations system. Since 1999, there have been over

60 independent reviews of this programme, in addition to UNFPA’s own internal

monitoring. Moreover, as a member of the UNFPA Executive Board, the United

States has regularly monitored this programme from their Embassy in Beijing. Accordingly, I am confident that any further investigation and consultation with the

U.S. embassy and its professional foreign service team will confirm that UNFPA

does not support or participate in forced abortion or other human rights violations

in China.

I also understand that concerns were raised about an alleged UNFPA desk in the

State Family Planning Commission in Sihui City in Guangdong Province. I have attached to this letter a listing of all UNFPA staff in China, which consists of four

international professional staff and nine local recruits primarily for administrative

functions. All of these staff are based in Beijing, and none of them has a desk in

Sihui or any other county. The UNFPA China Office also handles the programme

in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) (North Korea). I understand that

Ms. Guy testified that she never observed any UNFPA staff at the desk in question

and was told that the individual was ‘‘seriously ill and in the hospital.’’ While Ms.

Guy and the Population Researcb Institute (PRI) (which she has referred us to for

all inquiries) remain unwilling or unable to provide us with the address of this alleged UNFPA desk, perhaps we could gain your assistance in earning the name of

the person she believes works for UNFPA and was seriously ill and in the hospital

at the time. This would enable us to follow-up on these allegations.

Finally, the central assertion of PRI is that UNFPA has certified or claimed that

these counties are coercion free. In fact, UNFPA is not capable of making any such

assertion. We have required that China formally rescind quotas in these counties.

Strengthening voluntarism and avoiding coercion is the raison d’etre of the programme, and is therefore the central concern of both government and UNFPA in

its planning, implementation and monitoring of the programme.

If you or other members of the Sub-Committee have any additional questions or

need more information, I would be happy to provide it. Again, thank you for your

time and attention to these serious matters. The United Nations Population Fund

considers the United States a supportive partner in its efforts and would be deeply

troubled by a loss of its critical leadership on international family planning issues.

I would be pleased to meet with you in person at your convenience.

62

Please accept, dear Senator Boxer, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Yours sincerely,

THORAYA AHMED OBAID,

Under-Secretary-General.

LIST OF UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND (UNFPA) IN CHINA AND DEMOCRATIC

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA (DPRK)

International Office Staff

Representative: Ms. Siri Tellier

Deputy Representative: Ms. Junko Sazaki

Junior Professional Officer for PO1 ‘‘Reproductive Health/Family Planning’’: Ms.

Magnus Bjorg (leaving in May).

Junior Programme Officer: Ms. Kumiko Yoshida (will take over for Ms. Bjorg).

UN Volunteer for PO2: ‘‘Women’s Empowerment’’: Ms. Lisa Eklund

UN Volunteer for PO1: ‘‘Reproductive Health/Family Planning’’: Dr. Estrella

Serrano

National Office Staff

National Programme Officer: Mr. Jin Zhicheng

National Programme Officer: Mr. Yu Yu

National Office Support Staff: Seven support staff.

Senator BOXER. Now I do not have any questions, other than I

would like to sum up.

Do you have any further questions, Senator?

Senator BROWNBACK. I would like to sum up as well.

Senator BOXER. Why do you not go ahead then? And then I will

close it.

Senator BROWNBACK. The question that I think all of us are having here is: No. 1, setting aside the hospital here, because we need

to get funding for these items—and we ought to find it from any

source that we possibly can at this point, so that we can get that

aid into Afghanistan. And I am committed to doing that.

And, Ms. Oakley, or others, if you see ways that we can go at

that or we can put it forward right now, let us get that there, rather than get involved in this bigger fight.

The second issue here is the involvement of UNFPA in forced

abortions in China, which has been a simmering issue for a long,

long period of time, allegations, cross allegations, back and forth.

And I think at the base of that what we have to ask is: How does

the UNFPA operate in China?

One of the allegations has been that UNFPA puts a lot of money

in without adequate observation in China. And so some of it is

being used in ways that many people do not support.

Another—and this is just—I just heard this today, that UNFPA

operates with four people, but subcontracts to a lot of other U.N.

agencies in China. So we need to understand just how they are

structurally operating in China. That should not be too difficult to

be able to determine just how structurally they operate in China.

And certainly I would hope they would come forward with some

pretty straight answers for us here, so we can determine their degree of responsibility.

And finally, just this practice that is taking place in China, we

need to determine UNFPA’s funding of that. And maybe it is funding without their knowledge of what actually is taking place.

Maybe it is funding with their knowledge of what is taking place.

Maybe they are not funding it at all or even involved in it.

63

We should find out to what degree that that is taking place in

China or other places around the world, so we can just understand

particularly this, because this has been a simmering, long-standing

issue. This is not something new to this committee’s undertaking

today.

So I would hope the administration would take its time and look

at trying to figure out what that case is and, in the meantime, get

the funding for the hospital and other places that has been brought

forward here in Afghanistan. I plan to submit this information to

UNFPA and to the administration for them to thoroughly get a

chance to look at these items.

So though the chairman and I come at this from different perspectives, I think you have raised, all of you, some very troubling

questions about what is taking place. And hopefully we can do

some things that need to take place now, such as the funding for

the hospital, and then find out at the bottom of this just what else

is happening at the UNFPA, how complicit or not it is in some of

these operations.

Thank you, Madame Chairman——

Senator BOXER. Thank you.

Senator BROWNBACK [continuing]. For holding a tough hearing.

Senator BOXER. Well, it is a very important issue. And let me say

how strongly I feel that the administration should release the $34

million yesterday. And I feel that more than ever. We knew when

we started this hearing that sadly there is still coercion and forced

abortion in China. Every one of us condemns it.

We knew when we started this hearing, and we still know, that

American funds that are given to UNFPA cannot be used in China.

So what is happening by this punishment—and my friend talks

about the hospitals. Listen, that $34 million can be used in 140

other countries, including Afghanistan, to prevent 2 million unwanted pregnancies. And are we going to hold it up, because of a

policy that we all think is terrible, but has nothing to do with

United States of America’s dollars?

You know, that is cruel, cruel. That money will help, will prevent, will help prevent, 800,000 induced abortions, 4,700 maternal

deaths, 60,000 cases of serious maternal illness, and over 77,000

infant and child deaths. You know, for the life of me, I do not get

it. It will prevent HIV/AIDS, which we all desperately want to stop.

We are holding up money to make a point that we can make

every day of the week and not hold this money hostage to help all

the other people. We are not using our funds there. So from what

I understand, what I hear—and, Ambassador, I thought you were

eloquent on the point, because you were talking from your experience on the ground. You were honest about it. You admitted. You

said there is still a real problem in China. But they are moving in

the right direction. And one of the reason is UNFPA.

So to me, it seems so counterproductive to say how much we are

appalled by the coercion in China, and we will work to end it, and

then do something that in essence does not help that situation but

condemns a lot of other people to a lot of misery. I think this is

an opportunity for all of us of every single political persuasion to

team up here and say, ‘‘We will work together and raise our voices

64

against any coercion when it comes to family planning or abortion.’’ That is why I am pro-choice, because I want people to choose.

I would fight any government every step of the way for forcing

a woman to go in any direction. And so to me we should be joining

hands. Instead, we are in this debate. Now the Senator has given

me an opening, because he is concerned very much about the hospitals in Afghanistan. We will work together on that.

But that does not address the bulk of the funds which are being

used to help people live. So I feel very passionate about this.

I will follow up on this tape and with UNFPA. And Ms. Guy will

work with Senator Brownback on that issue. We will let you know

how our—what we find out about the missing individual at the

desk. We will learn—— Ms. GUY. I would be happy to work with you, too, Senator Boxer.

Senator BOXER. I look forward to that and getting those answers

for you, because you went back three times and were told something and then never could follow up.

And I hope, Mr. Eberstadt, to see you again soon. Maybe one of

these days we will actually be together, but it is always a pleasure

to see you.

Ms. Oakley, thank you very much.

Ambassador, my good friend Senator Brownback, we appreciate

everybody coming today. It is a hard issue. We each see it differently, but that is what this great country is all about. That is

what we are fighting for, the ability to disagree and respect the

way and move forward with compromise.

Thank you.

We stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF HON. ARTHUR E. DEWEY TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BARBARA BOXER

Questions. Your written testimony demonstrates the concern of the State Department over periodic reports of abuse and coercion in China’s family planning program. You mention in your testimony that U.S. Foreign Service officers have been

dispatched from time to time to investigate such reports. Can you tell us what these

officers have reported to the Department about: (a) coercive activities in China; and

(b) concerning the issue at hand, whether they have ever reported, inferred or in

any way suggested that DNFPA is involved, complicit or in any way associated with

coercive activities in China?

Your testimony also says that since 1998, the Mission has been ‘‘closely’’ monitoring UNFPA’s pilot program in China. Again, please advise the subcommittee as

to what the Mission has found. Has the Mission expressed concern about UNFPA’s

activities? Has the Mission ever—in any reporting or any communication with the

Department—suggested that UNFPA’s activities are helpful in encouraging voluntarism? The issue of UNFPA’s program in China is well known to the Department,

to the Congress, and presumably to the Mission. Has the Mission ever been asked

its opinion about whether UNFPA has been involved in or in any way supports—

directly or indirectly—coercive activities in China? What is the Mission’s view about

UNFPA’s presence in China?

Can you tell the Committee what the administration and the Mission’s view is

about whether the nations and organizations that uphold universal standards of

human rights should be engaged in China? Does the administration believe if there

are violations of human rights in China, that U.S. activities in China should be disVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:37 Sep 18, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6621 79323 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
65

continued? For example, if there are reports of forced labor, does the administration

believe that U.S. business should no longer do business in China?

The subcommittee was also interested in your spoken testimony, in which you indicated that the issue of UNFPA funding was out of the State Department’s hands.

Can you report to the subcommittee as to why the State Department has been relieved of its responsibilities in this matter?

Answers. Coercion in China’s family planning program is a violation of international human rights instruments and an issue of concern to the Department. Our

officers continue to report on this issue. For example, the Department raised the

issue of coercive family planning last October during the resumed U.S.-China

human rights dialogue. Specifically, we urged Chinese authorities to take action

against family planning officials when abuses occur (e.g., coercive abortion, destruction of property, imposition of punitive fines). We also urged them to effectively implement the central government’s policy prohibiting coercion in family planning programs, and stressed that steps be taken to ensure that local officials are held responsible for their actions.

Our Ambassador to China—Ambassador Randt—also raised this issue in a meeting last month with the Director General of China’s State Family Planning Commission (SFPC). Specifically, Ambassador Randt stressed the need for China to establish a more transparent system of enforcing family planning regulations and a better method for Chinese citizens to report abuses by local family planning officials.

The Ambassador noted our concern about coercive practices, particularly forced

abortions and sterilizations.

In both conversations, Chinese officials acknowledged problems with enforcing

family planning regulations and promised that violators of the central government’s policy prohibiting coercion in family planning programs would be investigated and,

if found guilty, punished. They reaffirmed earlier Chinese government commitments

to work closely with us to investigate allegations of abuse and promised to provide

us with information about their efforts to investigate, prosecute and sentence those

found guilty. They also agreed to consider suggestions that the SFPC publish regular reports of administrative sanctions against malfeasance. We plan to follow up

and monitor their actions to see if they are consistent in word and deed.

Regarding UNFPA, the U.S. has worked closely with the Fund on its China program. Following the conclusion in 1995 of UNFPA’s previous program in China,

UNFPA spent two years negotiating a new program. The new program, approved

by the Executive Board in 1998, requires the removal of birth targets and quotas

in the 32 program counties in which UNFPA is active. It also provides for expanded

access to voluntary contraceptive methods, improved quality of care, and women’s economic empowerment.

Prior to joining consensus approving the new program in 1998, the U.S. insisted

on and received assurances from Chinese officials that monitoring access and oversight by the UNFPA Executive Board, U.S. diplomatic staff in China, and independent observers to assess the voluntary nature of UNFPA’s program would be allowed. As a Board member, we take our oversight authorities very seriously. We

continue to raise concerns in our statements at Board meetings about the importance of China moving to a voluntary family planning program.

Officers in our Embassy and Consulates have visited UNFPA projects in China.

However, no comprehensive review has been undertaken. The primary issue is

whether UNFPA’s program in China is in violation of legislation that prohibits USG

funding to any organization that supports or participates in the management of a

program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. Until such time we conduct

a comprehensive assessment of UNFPA’s overall program in China, the administration cannot determine whether the Fund is in violation of this legislation. The State

Department is actively preparing the launch of such an assessment.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN FLICKER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY

Madame Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to testify about the importance of meeting the congressional goal to provide $34 million to the United Nations Population Fund

(UNFPA). Audubon believes that international family planning is an environmental

issue. We believe it is critical to emphasize the connection between the health of

birds, wildlife, humans and the environment.

Human population growth is one the most pressing environmental problems facing the world today. International family planning programs, the very programs carVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:37 Sep 18, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6621 79323 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
66

ried by UNFPA, have been proven to slow population growth and decrease environmental degradation. The United States must fully fund UNFPA programs as Congress intended. We urge President Bush to end the delay and fully release the $34

million for UNFPA.

For thousands of years, birds have been one of our most important early warning

systems. Birds have predicted the change of seasons, the coming of storms, the presence of land at sea and the rise of toxic levels of pollution in the food chain.

Now birds are telling us something is terribly wrong with the environment.

More than 50 percent of migratory songbirds in vast sections of the United States

are in decline. Across the nation, warblers are disappearing, as are painted

buntings, bobolinks and dozens of other songbirds. Scientists say the demise of these

songbirds is caused by the destruction of their habitat, brought about by rapid rates

of human population growth.

Many of ‘‘our’’ songbirds spend four to nine months of the year in the tropical forests of Latin America and the Caribbean. These forests are being cut to the ground

at record rates. In Central America, more than 40 percent of the forest canopy has

been destroyed in the last 30 years, as the population of the region has doubled.

Whether the birds are flying north or south, they are being hammered by rapid

rates of population growth. And it’s not just the birds.

For millions of years, Caribbean sea turtles have migrated thousands of miles to

nest on the very beaches on which they were born many years before. Now rapid

coastal development in the Caribbean—combined with pollution, reef destruction,

and over-fishing—threaten every species of sea turtle found in U.S. waters—

leatherback, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, loggerhead and green.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the globe, population pressure and habitat destruction are pushing gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and smaller monkeys closer to extinction. The 600 Mountain Gorillas remaining in the world live in the

rainforests of Rwanda, Uganda and the Congo—countries with the fastest population growth rates on Earth. The orangutan, found only on the islands of Sumatra

and Borneo in Indonesia, is near extinction because of hunting and habitat loss. Experts now say all the great apes may be extinct within the next 20 years.

What’s happening to birds, great apes and sea turtles is happening to wildlife all

over the world—to tigers in India, elephants in Thailand, and jaguars in Central

America. Though many of the world’s creatures face peril now, the real trouble lies

ahead.

Across the globe, more than a billion teenagers are entering their reproductive

years—the largest cluster of teens in world history. The choices these young people

make in the next decade will determine the fate of our natural world for generations

to come. If birth rates remain at current levels, demographers say the world will

add more people in the next 50 years than it has in the previous 500,000 years.

Population growth is about more than the environment, of course. It’s also about

the health of women, crushing unemployment and poverty rates, and rising levels

of social and economic instability in the developing world.

The United States has done too little to help. As the global population has climbed

60 percent since 1970, U.S. family planning assistance, as a percentage of total federal budget outlays, has declined by 40 percent. Although we joined 179 other nations in Egypt in 1994 in pledging specific support for international family planning

efforts, this country has actually made good on less than one-third of that commitment.

Right now, the U.S. contribution to the UNFPA is in jeopardy. While Congress

appropriated $34 million for the UNFPA last year, the Administration’s proposed

budget for FY 2003 contains UNFPA funding language that ‘‘reserves’’ this money

for FY 2002 and asks for a reduction to $25 million for FY 2003 (again ‘‘reserved’’).

We find this hedging language extremely disappointing.

We urge President Bush to act on what is a matter of life and death for wildlife,

women and children the world over. Voluntary family planning programs like those

carried out by the UNFPA in 140 developing countries around the world are vital

to slowing human population growth and the pace of habitat destruction worldwide.

We thank you and the Members of this subcommittee for giving this matter the

attention it deserves. We hope that this hearing results in the release of the funding

for UNFPA.

Æ