Tell the U.N. to go...well, you know the rest...
Yes, this is good. While we're at it, I wish we'd simply quit funding the U.N. at all.
|
Dear Colleague,
|
US Refuses to Fund UNFPA for the Fourth Consecutive Year The State Department announced that the US could not fund the United Nations Population Fund because the organization aids China 's "One-Child Policy," a population control program that continues to coerce Chinese women into having abortions. The decision to prevent UNFPA from receiving the $34 million earmarked by Congress is the fourth time the international organization has been denied funds for their involvement in China 's family planning policies. A State Department made the announcement in a statement issued September 17. "The Secretary first determined that Kemp-Kasten Amendment restrictions applied to the UN Population Fund in 2002. Since that time, we have continuously called on China to ends its program of coercive abortion. We have also repeatedly urged China and the UN Population Fund to restructure the organization's programs in a way that would allow the United States to provide funding. We will continue these consultations. However, since no key changes have taken place, these restrictions are being applied again." The UNFPA responded to the news by claiming that "The Administration's stated reason for continuing to withhold funds is simply incorrect, as an assessment team sent to China by the Administration itself found no evidence that UNFPA supports coercive abortions or sterilization . . . Other independent teams, from the British Parliament and a multi-faith panel of religious leaders, reached the same conclusion . . ." But both British and American representatives determined that China 's family planning program engages in coercive abortions and that the UNFPA is complicit in those practices whether knowingly or unknowingly. A State Department analysis of the topic issued in 2002 found that the "UNFPA provides millions of dollars in financial support for [ China 's] family-planning activities in the 32 counties in which it operates" for various equipment. "Although such equipment has legitimate uses, it also facilitates the imposition of social compensation fees" which are exorbitant charges families must pay to have more than one child. At a speech delivered this summer to the Executive Board of UNFPA, Kelly Ryan, a state department official, was critical of China and the UNFPA. "Why doesn't UNFPA insist that it will not work in a county where couples are not free to determine the timing of childbirth?" And later she asked, "And finally, it is our understanding that abortions are mandatory in most of China for pregnant unwed mothers; how does the UNFPA adolescent reproductive health program deal with this issue?" But many UN watchers emphasize that problems with the UNFPA extend beyond its support of the one-child policy. The organization has completely failed at reducing rates of maternal mortality and some say it is because they take a "rights based" approach to the problem rather than address real public health threats. |
|
Copyright 2005 - C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute). |
Hip, hip, hooray!
Thank you, PRI.
For more information about the abuses in China, here's links on the story of "Chen Guangcheng, a legal activist who has dared to file a class action lawsuit against the Chinese government on behalf of all the people who have been oppressed in the name of population control" :
http://www.thefactis.org/default.aspx?control=ArticleMaster&aid=236&authid=9
http://www.rfa.org/english/news/social/2005/10/04/china_beatings
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/activists-rescuers-beaten/2005/10/05/1128191786312.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/26/AR2005082601756_pf.html