298. Letter From the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Armacost) to Secretary of State Shultz1
Attached are two memos which address the issue of FY–85 funding for UNFPA.2 The specific issue is whether we should withhold funds from UNFPA under the Kemp/Inouye amendment to the 85 Omnibus Supplemental which bars contributions to “any organization that supports or participates in the management of a program of abortion or involuntary sterilization.” Most of AID’s concerns on this issue are reflected in the State memo,3 although Peter McPherson wanted a separate vehicle for his comments.4
The decision you are asked to make involves sorting out the competing pressures of (1) avoiding conflict in our relations with the Chinese, (2) deciding the future of USG support to UNFPA’s family planning programs, and (3) managing the pressures from a vocal and powerful domestic constituency. The two options have been distilled out of lengthy discussions on the subject as we have sought to weigh [Page 846] the foreign policy interests involved against the need to minimize the political dangers at home.
I am not in the best position to judge the domestic consequences, but on foreign policy grounds I come out strongly in favor of Option 2 which would obligate the $10 million for UNFPA’s China program but withhold its disbursement until UNFPA restructured its program in China to concentrate exclusively on provision of contraceptive devices, or until there was significant Chinese action to limit any abuses in the administration of their programs. I think this decision could be defended with the Right-to-Life people by the logical argument that aid to contraceptive programs diminishes incentives for abortions to which the critics here object.
AID has been pretty actively lobbying around town on behalf of option 1. You may want to call a few of the key players in to convey your decision and insist on some discipline in supporting it in conversations with people on the Hill.
A second issue is who makes the call. If we decide that the $10 million should be withheld, the amendment states that the formal determination should be made by the President. L feels that this act can be in fact delegated to you or to Peter McPherson.5 If you choose option 2, no formal determination needs to be made. Judge Sofaer is concerned that the question of responsibility should be worked out first with the White House. I would think that this could be done informally in a discussion with Don Regan or the President.6
- Source: Department of State, U/S Michael Armacost CHRON and Country Files, 1979–1989, Lot 89D169, MHA Chron September (December 1985). Confidential.↩
- Not attached, but see footnotes 3 and 4 below.↩
- See footnote 2, Document 297.↩
- See Document 297.↩
- See footnote 3, Document 297.↩
- In a September 25 article in Reagan’s evening reading, USAID announced that it was withholding $10 million of UNFPA funds as per the Kemp-Kasten amendment. (National Archives, RG 286, USAID/O/Admin/ExecSec, Box 251, ADM–6 Unclassified [Night Notes] FY 85)↩
- Armacost signed his initials above his typed signature.↩