“If it’s unable to monitor its own 32 counties, the fact-finders didn’t have enough data to prove one way or the other that it was doing its job right. For that reason, UNFPA didn’t deserve any more funding until it could do so”

Where is the logic in refusing to fund an organization because it lacks resources?

From where I’m sitting (in my apartment in Xi’an, Shaanxi Province, P. R. China), the Only-Child Policy is in full swing, the orphanages are full of special needs children who are abandoned by parents who only get one kid and therefore want it to be perfect, and the fines for having more than one child are exorbidant. As far as I’m concerned, the US should be funding the hell out of any organization that wants to fix this! If an organization lacks the resources to effectively oversee its operation, then it needs more resources, not sanctions.

Can’t redo it now. This really bites.

In a 2,600 word post, I accidently left a link out - a link that anyone could easily find for themselves in three seconds of googling. This happened through an honest error (one I’ve now corrected). In response, you imply over and over that I’m trying to decieve my readers.

I’m sorry for the broken link to the 2000 state department report on Human Rights in China. I’ve replaced it with a working link to the 1999 report, which says the same thing; either I made an error and misidentified the 1999 report as the 2000 report (which I might have done if I just looked at the release date, which was February 2000), or the state department recycled language from one year to the next.

Given that you’re so determined to snidely imply I’m a liar, I’m not inclined to waste a lot of time responding to you. Let’s get to our core disagreement, which is how to interpret the Bush department investigative team’s report. Here’s the core paragraph, with your interpretations in brackets:

“We find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC. First Recommendation: We therefore recommend that not more than $34 million which has already been appropriated be released to UNFPA. [that means “no further money”?] Second Finding: We find that notwithstanding some relaxation in the 32 counties in which UNFPA is involved, the population programs of the PRC [People’s Republic of China] retain coercive elements in law and in practice. [meaning, “all of PRC’s programs still have some coercion”?] Second Recommendation: We therefore recommend that unless and until all forms of coercion in the PRC law and in practice are eliminated, no U.S. Government funds be allocated for population programs in the PRC.”? …Third Recommendation: We therefore recommend that appropriate resources be allocated to monitor and evaluate PRC population control programs…[meaning, “not to fund their activities”?]…UNFPA is stretched to its extremes and is unable to monitor even its own 32 program counties effectively.

You wrote that they said “that means no further money” when they wrote “We therefore recommend that not more than $34 million which has already been appropriated be released to UNFPA.” When they wrote that, the $34 million had been appropriated but not released, and pro-lifers were lobbying to prevent it from being released. What they were recommending is that Bush ignore pro-lifers who argued against releasing the $34 million, and instead give the $34 million to UNFPA. That was exactly what the pro-UNFPA people were saying at that point.

This is not a matter of opinion. The fact is, pro-lifers were pushing for the $34 million to be withheld, and Bush’s own fact-finders recommended excatly the opposite. Yes, they also said “no more than $34 million,” but that’s not very impressive, since raising the contribution wasn’t even on the table at that point.

Their discussion of future allocations is pretty telling, if you read between the lines: “Second Recommendation: We therefore recommend that unless and until all forms of coercion in the PRC law and in practice are eliminated, no U.S. Government funds be allocated for population programs in the PRC.”

Sounds bad, doesn’t it? But as the people who wrote that recommendation knew perfectly well, U.S. law already forbade appropriating any money for UNFPA’s China programs; not one cent of the $34 million allocated for UNFPA was allocated for “population programs in the PRC.” So when they made their future recommendations, they artfully phrased it so they did NOT recommend that no funds be allocated to UNFPA in the future.

The bottom line is, even Bush’s appointed fact-finders had to admit that things were better where UNFPA was operating than where they weren’t operating.

You then quote a lot of words - mainly from a report that wasn’t even marginally about the PRI’s accusations, which is why I didn’t bother linking to it in a post about the PRI’s accusations - proving that, even with the UNFPA’s programs, things are still pretty damn bad in China. Well, no duh. If things weren’t bad, there’d be no need for UNFPA there.

To quote myself, I stand by what I said about the Bush administration report. They clearly find “no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC.” They also find “some relaxation in the 32 counties in which UNFPA is involved,” in contrast to the “ample evidence… of heavy-handed abusive and coercive practices outside the 32 counties.”

As your quotes indicate, things are not perfect in China - not even in the 32 counties the UNFPA operates in. However, demanding perfection is illogical, because that’s not how things improve in the real world.

The real question should be, would Chinese women be better or worse off if UNFPA wasn’t there? Any fair reading of even the Bush department report - which is spun to cast the worst possible light on UNFPA possible without outright lying - shows that the UNFPA’s work is improving things for Chinese women. Even the Bush department report shows a big difference between what’s going on in the 32 UNFPA counties and the “ample” evidence of coercion outside those counties.

You once again ignore the British MP’s report. Again, that report - co-authored by a conservative British MP who has a demonstrated record of dislike for and skepticism about UNFPA - found that UNFPA was (and presumably still is) making a positive difference in Chinese women’s lives.

* * *

The UNFPA is not perfect, and they don’t have infinite resources; but nonetheless, according to every single group apart from the PRI, they are a force for good.

Things are better in the Chinese counties where UNFPA operates, then in those in which they don’t operate. That’s the bottom line - or should be, for those who care about women.

I’m glad that you don’t support the PRI’s wild and unfounded accusations. Nonetheless, your approach seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. You’ve proven that the situation in China is bad; to therefore cut funds to an agency that everyone, including Bush’s fact-finders, said is improving things (even if they’re not perfect) is senseless and destructive.

Haven’t you and I have been around this horn before? Or was it Calpundit? No, there now, I’ve found it: it was with you, on February 24, 2004, long before this June 14th, 2004 post of yours, on Calpundit’s comments section here: http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003290.html#114295

To answer your question above, I don’t “support the PRI’s account”? (more on that in my closing remarks below) but I do accuarately quote the facts found by official sources such as the State Department, especially one later report which you knew quite well about when you wrote that June 2004 post but somehow left out of your “very well researched”? post.

BTW, your link above to the US Department of State’s year 2000 report on Human Rights in China is no longer functional, so I can’t review it to comment.

Yet when you mentioned the “May of 2002, the Bush Administration State Department” (which I take to mean the “Report of the China UN Population Fund (UNFPA) Independent Assessment Team, Released by the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, May 29, 2002″ that we discussed the Feb. before your post), you didn’t put in the link that you once provided (still active; http://www.state.gov/g/prm/rls/rpt/2002/12122.htm , so that people could read the quite-different conclusions which I pointed out to you in those Calpundit comments linked to above.

I suggested in February 2004 that you read that May 29, 2002 State Dept. Letter you linked to again. What it actually said, is quite different than what you’d claimed it said. It said, verbatim, “We find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC. First Recommendation: We therefore recommend that not more than $34 million which has already been appropriated be released to UNFPA. [that means “no further money”?] Second Finding: We find that notwithstanding some relaxation in the 32 counties in which UNFPA is involved, the population programs of the PRC [People’s Republic of China] retain coercive elements in law and in practice. [meaning, “all of PRC’s programs still have some coercion”?] Second Recommendation: We therefore recommend that unless and until all forms of coercion in the PRC law and in practice are eliminated, no U.S. Government funds be allocated for population programs in the PRC.”? …Third Recommendation: We therefore recommend that appropriate resources be allocated to monitor and evaluate PRC population control programs…[meaning, “not to fund their activities”?]…UNFPA is stretched to its extremes and is unable to monitor even its own 32 program counties effectively. China’s control of its own population ranks high on the PRC’s list of issues of national security concern. China’s population control programs, therefore, should be high on the U.S. list of national security concerns.”?

The May 29, 2002 report you linked to on Calpundit but not your own post also said, “In sum, based on what we heard, saw, and read, we find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC. Indeed, UNFPA has registered its strong opposition to such practices. However, from our perspective, UNFPA’s Beijing office lacks adequate resources to monitor and evaluate this important issue satisfactorily.”? [emphasis mine]

Not exactly an absolution or clean bill of operation for UNFPA, or at least, their primary, Beijing office.

That report went on: “During our meetings with local State Family Planning Commission (SFPC), Ministry of Health officials and magistrates, while admitting that coercive practices had taken place in the past, they denied that coercive abortions, involuntary sterilization, or indeed any other coercive practices were taking place in their jurisdictions. As previously noted, they denied that the social compensation fees (or “society raising children fees”) were coercive or that they were a significant source of revenue for the counties… The fact remains, however, that on the books these fees for the first “out of plan” child are often set at two to three times the couple’s annual salary for the previous year, a level which for many must be so punitive as to be, in our view, coercive.”?

The findings did say that the abuses reported in this finding took place outside the 32 counties in which UNFPA operates, yet you dismiss the fact also found that “UNFPA is stretched to its extremes and is unable to monitor even its own 32 program counties effectively.”? If it’s unable to monitor its own 32 counties, the fact-finders didn’t have enough data to prove one way or the other that it was doing its job right. For that reason, UNFPA didn’t deserve any more funding until it could do so, and that is what the report meant. I honestly don’t believe you want our taxpayer money to fund any program that can’t monitor its own worth and effectiveness. I certainly don’t.

Lastly, devil’s advocacy must state the obvious: “no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated “? is clearly not the same as “but it looked the other way,”? or even “was unaware of”? or “was unable to monitor”?, nor is it the same as “did the best it could with the gross limitations of the Chinese obstructionist officials”? or whatever.

Lastly, if I missed it, please show me where in this June 2004 post you mentioned/discussed/linked to the later 2002/03 State Dept. report I pointed you to that Feb. 2004? If it’s there, I’ve missed it.

That later report contains findings that do indeed point to failures by UNFPA in their own 32 counties:

From the 2002 Human Rights Report on China, [ http://www.house.gov/wolf/issues/hr/china/statedepthumanrightsreport.pdf is the current link; the old link http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/19602.doc isn’t working ] released March 31, 2003:

“The Government’s human rights record throughout the year remained poor, and the Government continued to commit numerous and serious abuses….The Government continued to implement its coercive policy of restricting the number of children a family could have. ..Violence against women (including imposition of a birth limitation policy coercive in nature that resulted in instances of forced abortion and forced sterilization), prostitution, discrimination against women, abuse of children, and discrimination against persons with disabilities and minorities all were problems…The Government codified its comprehensive birth planning policies, which include coercive elements intended to limit births.

“The new Population and Family Planning Law, the country’s first formal law on this subject, entered into force on September 1, 2002…The law grants married couples the right to have a single child and allows eligible couples to apply for permission to have a second child if they meet conditions stipulated in local and provincial regulations…The law requires couples who have an unapproved child to pay a “social compensation fee”…The country’s population control policy relied on education, propaganda, and economic incentives, as well as on more coercive measures such as the threat of job loss or demotion and social compensation fees. Psychological and economic pressure were very common; during unauthorized pregnancies, women sometimes were visited by birth planning workers who reminded the parents of their potential liability to pay the social compensation fees. The fees were assessed at widely varying levels and were generally extremely high, sometimes equaling several years’ wages for an average worker. Additional disciplinary measures against those who violated the limited child policy by having an unapproved child or helping another to do so included the withholding of social services, higher tuition costs when the child goes to school, job loss or demotion, loss of promotion opportunity for 1 or more years, expulsion from the Party (membership in which was an unofficial requirement for certain jobs), and other administrative punishments, including in some cases the destruction of property. Government employees were particularly vulnerable to loss of employment when they had a child without permission. In many provinces, penalties for excess births in an area also can be levied against local officials and the mother’s work unit, creating multiple sources of pressure. These Draconian penalties sometimes left expecting mothers with little choice but to undergo abortion or sterilization.”?

The report goes on: “Senior officials stated repeatedly that the Government “made it a principle to ban coercion at any level,” and the [Chinese government’s] State Family Planning Commission (SFPC) has issued circulars nationwide prohibiting birth planning officials from coercing women to undergo abortions or sterilization against their will. However, the Government does not consider social compensation fees and other administrative punishments to be coercive.

“Corruption related to social compensation fees was a widespread problem. In response, State Council Decree 357 established during the year that collected ’social compensation fees’ must be submitted directly to the National Treasury, rather than retained by local birth planning authorities. During the year, SFPC officials reported that they responded to more than 10,000 complaints against local officials.

Here are some money quotes: “Existing regulations requiring sterilization in certain cases, or mandatory abortion, are not contradicted by the new [The new Population and Family Planning] law…”?

“Central Government policy formally prohibits the use of physical coercion to compel persons to submit to abortion or sterilization. However, intense pressure to meet birth limitation targets set by government regulations has resulted in instances in which local birth planning officials reportedly have used physical coercion to meet government goals. Because it is illegal, the use of physical coercion was difficult to document, even for government authorities. Still, it was believed that some isolated incidences may persist, even as the frequency of such cases was believed to be declining.

Thankfully, some good news. Still, “local birth planning officials”? are the ones UNFPA supposedly is/was “work[ing] closely with:”?

“From 1998 through 2002, the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) conducted a 4-year pilot project in 32 counties…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. However, these counties retained the birth limitation policy, including the requirement that couples employ effective birth control methods, and enforced it through other means, such as social compensation fees.

“Laws and regulations forbid the termination of pregnancies based on the sex of the fetus, but because of the intersection of birth limitations with the traditional preference for male children, particularly in rural areas, many families used ultrasound technology to identify female fetuses and terminate pregnancies (see Section 5). The use of ultrasound for this purpose is prohibited specifically by the Population Law and by the Maternal and Child Health Care Law, both of which mandate punishment of medical practitioners who violate the provision. According to the SFPC, a few doctors have been charged under these laws. However, enforcement of this provision has been rare.”?

Enforcement of this provision, like many of the other provisions, has been rare. It is the Chinese officials’ job to enforce. But why didn’t inform your readers of all those findings? While it clearly isn’t the UNFPA’s responsibility to force China officials to do anything, they certainly are required to successfully monitor and report human rights violations of forced abortions and coercion. In 2002, the UNFPA was found to be “unable to monitor and evaluate this important issue satisfactorily”? after four years of being responsible for that, and they were again found to be unable to do so a year later.

Yet to support your case, you focused on the September 2003 “‘interfaith delegation of prominent US religious leaders, faith-based organization leaders and ethicists,’ organized by Catholics for Choice,’ and another report by UNFPA’s own managing board. Neither is exactly a neutral entity, one on the issue of abortion and the second on the issue of its own performance.

While I wholeheartedly agree that PRI is faulty and misleading in some of its research, reporting, bias, use of prejudiced sources and possibly some of its conclusions (which is why I stopped quoting them or relying solely on only-prolife sources and instead try to find neutral sources), you sadly remain guilty of the very things of which you accuse them.

Has PRI admitted what it did wrong, and has/will it stop(ped) doing it in the present/future? If not, shame on them. Can you, Barry?

Lastly, what (MORE) evidence would it take to convince you that your conclusion as to UNFPA’s innocence/effectiveness is probably not true?

Since I have no desire to hold the PRI report as true, and you’ve so thoroughly discredited it, I’ll not trust it.

So, umm . . .

Right on.

Kudos.

—Myca

Finally, it’s important to know that US funds donated to UNFPA do not fund UNFPA’s China program. Instead, US funds go to a earmarked UNFPA bank account; the money from this account is never mixed with other UNFPA accounts, and cannot be spent on any program in China.

Although I agree that this is generally a very well researched post, this particular “earmark” argument strikes me as very weak.

I wouldn’t care whether President Reagan was funding Evil Dictator’s military weapons program, or whether he was taking over some humanitarian program from Evil Dictator, allowing Him to divert money from that humanitarian mission into His Military Weapons program. Either method leads to identical results, and should be equally condemned.

Similarly, if we believe that the UNFPA does “bad things” in China, it is certainly not enough to only fund the non-China parts of the program, allowing other nations’ money to go to the bad things. If we believe that China does bad things, and the UNFPA funds those bad things, then morally we must not fund the UNFPA at all.

Of course, if your subsequent arguments are correct that there is nothing bad happening are correct, then the above is irrelevant (but still logically incorrect).