CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SPONSORS FORCED ABORTION IN CHINA
Senator Jesse Helms, The Senate,
March 12, 1998Mr. President, the Foreign Relations Committee recently received an alarming letter--which the State Department was required to send pursuant to Title IV of public law 105-118--explaining that the United Nations Population Fund (known as UNFPA) is renewing its highly controversial population control program in communist China.
Surely, the most inhumane human rights abuses in China occur in the name of reducing its birth rate. Under Red China's population control regime, women who already have one child are forced to abort their babies, and forced to undergo sterilization procedures. Nazi Germany could not have designed a system more brutally efficient than China's--which systematically kills all but firstborn babies. And from the beginning, UNFPA has worked hand-in-glove with communist Chinese authorities.
In fact, Presidents Reagan and Bush suspended funding for UNFPA precisely because of its activities in China, and it was not until President Clinton was sworn in (promising to keep abortions 'safe, legal and rare') that UNFPA began receiving U.S. taxpayer funds again. President Clinton's support for UNFPA has never wavered, even though China never backed off its forced abortion policy.
So now you know, Mr. President, why the Administration occasionally gives lip service to the critics of China's brutal population control program, and why it occasionally assures Congress that it really does not want UNFPA in China. In fact, the Administration went so far as to put this in writing.
I have at hand a letter from AID's Administrator, Brian Atwood, dated September 10, 1993, promising that, ' . . . if there are not significant improvements in China's population program, the United States will not support continued UNFPA assistance to China beyond 1995 when the current program ends.' The same promise was made to other members of Congress.
Mr. President, this promise is significant because decisions about UNFPA's programs are made by consensus by its Executive Board. In other words, as a leading contributor to UNFPA, and a member of its Executive Board, the United States had the opportunity and the wherewithal to veto a renewal of China's program. But the Clinton Administration refused to do so, despite promises made to Congress, and despite their own admission that China's population program has not made 'significant improvements'.
Consider the U.S. statement at UNFPA's Board meeting: 'We believe that this program may have the potential to demonstrate clearly the efficacy and sustainability of volunteer, non-coercive family planning.' Mr. President, this is cheerleading. It is an endorsement rather than opposition, as promised.
It is curious, Mr. President, that UNFPA's previous 15 year program in China failed to 'demonstrate clearly the efficacy and sustainability of volunteer, non-coercive family planning'. Clearly, communist China sees nothing wrong with its policy of forced abortion. UNFPA's Executive Director actually praised communist China for 'achievements' in controlling its population growth. For the State Department to pretend that UNFPA now cares whether China's program is coercive or not is dishonest.
Mr. President, apparently the Administration cannot or will not keep its word when it comes to this issue. Therefore, I intend to make every effort to see that Congress cuts off funding for UNFPA once and for all. I therefore ask unanimous consent that the following letters be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks: (1) a February 13, 1997, letter to me from Barbara Larkin, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs; (2) a September 10, 1993, letter to me from AID Administrator Brian Atwood; and (3) a May 18, 1994, letter to Rep. Smith from AID Administrator Brian Atwood.
Published in the Mar. 16, 1998 issue of The Washington Weekly
Copyright 1998 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com)
Reposting permitted with this message intact
Back to The Clinton Legacy Page
Back to Home Page