299. Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State1
2523. Subject: UNFPA: Informal Donor Meeting. Ref: State 302371 Notal.2
1. Summary: In a well-attended but comparatively short meeting on October 2 UNFPA Executive Director Rafael Salas briefed Western donors on the implications of the withholding of $10 million of the U.S. FY 85 pledge to UNFPA and the difficulty with the conditions set by AID for 1986 contributions. Salas maintained that the UNFPA program is an open book, and that AID has on several occasions cleared UNFPA of participation in coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization activities in China. He stressed that only the Governing Council and the Government of China, not the UNFPA administration, could address AID’s conditions for FY 86. Several major donors voiced positive support for UNFPA, and Salas noted that he had received agreement in principle from several governments to increase their contributions next year. Although donors were deeply concerned about the possibility of U.S. withdrawal from UNFPA, the U.S. did not come under direct attack. End summary.
2. Representatives from 15 Western missions were briefed by ExDir Salas on the implications of the recent action to withhold $10 million of its $46 million FY 85 pledge to UNFPA and of the conditions set for continued funding in FY 86. Prepared briefing materials included pertinent quotations from various AID reviews of the UNFPA programs in China, indicating that the fund was in full compliance with U.S. law; quotations from various congressional presentations, from Chinese authorities and from UNFPA statements, documents and resolutions. Among the materials were also the AID press release, as well as a September 27 statement issued by the Chinese Mission to the UN criticizing the “U.S. attitude towards China’s population policy.”3
3. Salas traced the long history of family planning and contraception beginning with ancient Egypt, and noted that population programs [Page 848] would always be controversial in that they deal with sex as well as with a range of religious and cultural views. Through the United Nations, governments had come a long way in recent years in providing almost universal endorsement to the world population plan of action and through the growing and significant resource commitment by recipient governments to population activities. Salas observed that only seven years ago China declined to participate in the UNFPA program, under the belief that it was overly influenced by Western countries.
4. UNFPA 1985 activities would not be significantly affected by the withholding of $10 million, Salas repeated several times that, in anticipating the outcome, the money had not been programmed. The implications of the loss of U.S. funding in 1986 was far more serious, since AID had been providing in recent years up to a third of UNFPA’s support. The two conditions set by the U.S. for further funding, namely the punishment of population program abuses by “the Chinese program,” or a radical change in the program, “such as supplying only contraceptives,” could not be feasibly met by the UNFPA administration. The central issue, as Salas perceives it, is that a major donor is attempting to negotiate program changes with international civil servants rather than with the appropriate body, e.g., the UNDP Governing Council.
5. While channels to the U.S. Government remain very much open, UNFPA had been talking with other donors, including the OPEC bloc, and private industry about filling the gap left by a possible U.S. withdrawal in 1986. He announced that commitments in principle had been made by the Netherlands, Japan, Norway, Denmark and the UK to increase their funding, although the representatives of the latter two countries quickly interjected that 1986 funding decisions had not yet been resolved by their respective governments.
6. The U.S. representative offered some clarification on the removal of the 16 earmarking of the AID population account, and on the end-of-fiscal year need to reprogram the $10 million. Japan voiced concern that the law suit taken on behalf of the Population Institute and representatives Green and Kostmayer against AID on the reprogramming might serve to escalate feelings on both sides of the issue and result in further damage to UNFPA.
7. In a brief but pointed intervention, the Canadian Perm Rep stated that Canada and the U.S. were the two most litigious nations on earth, but nevertheless they differed on this issue for the following reasons:
—Canada’s support for UNFPA’s China program should be underlined.
—Canada found no evidence of UNFPA’s involvement in coercive activities and in fact concluded that UNFPA is a moderating influence on such tendencies.
[Page 849]—The removal of pledged contributions by a donor from UNFPA had wider implications for support of multilateral organizations.
8. The FRG representatives, while realizing the need for UNFPA to make contingency plans, urged the UNFPA administration to keep talking to the Americans. Salas said he was doing just that, although he alluded to the lack of coherency in the U.S. position. AID, he added, was actively working with UNFPA to assume responsibility for fund programs affected by the cutback in U.S. contributions.
9. Finally, Salas explained to the Western group that concern for UNFPA funding would be raised undoubtedly during the November pledging conference;4 however, this would be too early to determine the U.S. decision with regard to 1986 contributions. The U.S. position should be clearer by January and a special session of the Governing Council is being tentatively scheduled during this month.5 Obviously, if funding is cut off, the Governing Council would have to agree to various contingency proposals calling for sharp reductions in field and headquarters activities.
10. Comment: While the tone of the meeting was straightforward and non-confrontational, clearly ExDir Salas believes he has been wronged by the “AID decision,” in that several determinations by the U.S. appeared to have absolved UNFPA from any support of6 coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization activities in China. It is clear, too, that the conditions proposed by AID for 1986 funding are untenable in that UNFPA’s administration cannot change the nature and direction of an agreed upon country program without the advice and consent of its Governing Council and of the government concerned. Given this key factor and the strong probability that the U.S. would receive little or no support for its actions in the Governing Council, UNFPA can do little further but be prepared for the consequences beginning with the planned January 1986 special session.
- Source: Department of State, Subject Files, Other Agency and Channel Messages and Substantive Material—World Health Organization (WHO), 1985, Lot 89D136, 85 HLTH WHO Program Population Jan-Jun. Limited Official Use; Priority. Sent for information to USUN Geneva and Beijing.↩
- In telegram 302371 to New York, October 1, the Department requested that USUN send a representative to the October 2 Western donors meeting. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D850699–0202)↩
- Not further identified.↩
- In telegram 3423 from New York, November 20, USUN reported on the November pledging conference and stated that pledges for the upcoming year were higher than pledges for the previous year, despite an absence of U.S. commitments. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D850833–0497)↩
- In telegram 2713 from New York, October 15, USUN reported that the UNFPA had decided to defer calling a special session until the results of the November pledging conference were known. (Department of State, Subject Files, Other Agency and Channel Messages and Substantive Material—World Health Organization (WHO), 1985, Lot 89D136, 85 HLTH WHO Program Population Jan-Jun)↩
- An unknown hand highlighted this paragraph and underlined the phrase “absolved UNFPA from any support” and placed a question mark in the left margin next to this phrase.↩