Editing United Nations Population Fund (section)

==Relations with the US government==
UNFPA has been accused by American [[pro-life]] groups of providing support for government programs which have promoted [[forced abortion]]s and [[coercive sterilization]]s.<ref name="Global Population Media Analysis"/> UNFPA says it "does not provide support for abortion services".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.unfpa.org/about/faqs.htm#abortion|title=About us|work=unfpa.org|access-date=7 May 2015}}</ref> Its charter includes a strong statement condemning coercion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.unfpa.org/mothers/consensus.htm#abortion|title=Maternal health – UNFPA – United Nations Population Fund|work=unfpa.org|access-date=7 May 2015}}</ref> In response to these allegations, the [[U.S. Congress]] passed the Kemp-Kasten amendment in 1985 to empower the president to block U.S. funding of programs deemed by the president to include "coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization".<ref name="Global Gag Rule">{{Cite web|date=2015-06-08|title=The Global Gag Rule and Fights over Funding UNFPA: The Issues That Won't Go Away|url=https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2015/06/global-gag-rule-and-fights-over-funding-unfpa-issues-wont-go-away|access-date=2024-02-29|website=Guttmacher Institute|language=en}}</ref><ref name="KFF UNFPA Explainer">{{Cite web |date=2022-09-30 |title=UNFPA Funding & Kemp-Kasten: An Explainer |url=https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/fact-sheet/unfpa-funding-kemp-kasten-an-explainer/ |access-date=2024-02-29 |website=[[Kaiser Family Foundation]]}}</ref> Since its passage, all [[GOP|Republican]] presidents ([[Reagan]], [[H.W. Bush]], [[George W. Bush|W. Bush]], and [[Donald Trump|Trump]]) have withheld funding from the UNFPA{{Snd}} a policy known as the [[Mexico City Policy]].<ref>{{cite news|last1=Marquis|first1=Christopher|title=U.S. Cuts Off Financing of U.N. Unit For 3rd Year|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/17/world/us-cuts-off-financing-of-un-unit-for-3rd-year.html|work=The New York Times|date=17 July 2004}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=U.S. Funding for the United National Population Fund (UNFPA) Withheld for the Third Consecutive Year|url=http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature.showFeature&featureID=1217|work=SIECUS|date=July 2004|access-date=15 February 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110317151421/http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.showFeature|archive-date=17 March 2011|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name=":1">[https://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-withdraws-funding-u-n-population-fund-002001041--business.html U.S. withdraws funding for U.N. Population Fund] – Reuters</ref>

UNFPA provided aid to Peru's reproductive health program in the mid-to-late 1990s. When it was discovered a Peruvian program had been engaged in carrying out coercive sterilizations, UNFPA called for reforms and protocols to [[Humanitarian protection|protect]] the rights of women seeking assistance. UNFPA continued work with the country after the abuses had become public to help end the abuses and reform laws and practices.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.unfpa.org/press/unfpa-response-reports-peru-sterilizations|title=UNFPA Response to Reports of Peru Sterilizations|website=unfpa.org }}</ref>

Over the course of the George W. Bush administration, a total of $244 million in Congressionally approved funding was blocked by the Executive Branch.<ref name="NYT">{{cite web |last=Purdum |first=Todd S. |date=23 July 2002 |title=U.S. BLOCKS MONEY FOR FAMILY CLINICS PROMOTED BY U.N. |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html |access-date=21 December 2016 |via=The New York Times}}</ref> From 2002 through 2008, the administration denied funding to UNFPA that had already been allocated by the US Congress, on the grounds that the UNFPA supported Chinese government programs which include forced abortions and coercive sterilizations. In a letter from the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs [[R. Nicholas Burns|Nicholas Burns]] to Congress, the administration said it had determined that UNFPA's support for China's population program "facilitates its government's coercive abortion program", thus violating the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, which bans the use of United States aid to finance organizations that support or take part in managing a program of coercive abortion or sterilization.<ref>[http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/population/popheadline/308/art5.asp Background on withheld US funds] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070811103059/http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/population/popheadline/308/art5.asp |date=11 August 2007 }}, [[United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific]], 2007</ref>

The notion that UNFPA had any connection to China's administration of forced abortions was deemed to be unsubstantiated by investigations carried out by various US, UK, and UN teams sent to examine UNFPA activities in China.<ref name="Global Population Media Analysis">{{cite web|last1=Cabatu|first1=Elena|last2=Bonk|first2=Kathy|title=Global Population Media Analysis: UNFPA|url=http://ncseonline.org/PopPlanet/CCMC/HTML/2002july22.cfm|publisher=National Council for Science and the Environment|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927215824/http://ncseonline.org/PopPlanet/CCMC/HTML/2002july22.cfm|archive-date=27 September 2007|date=4 July 2002}}</ref> Specifically, a three-person [[United States Department of State|US State Department]] fact-finding team was sent on a two-week tour throughout China. It wrote in its report that it found "no evidence that UNFPA has supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in China," as has been charged by critics.<ref name="Global Population Media Analysis"/>

However, according to then-Secretary of State [[Colin Powell]], the UNFPA contributed vehicles and computers to the Chinese to carry out their population planning policies. However, both ''[[The Washington Post]]'' and ''[[The Washington Times]]'' reported that Powell simply fell in line, signing a brief written by someone else.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2002-07-31/news/0207300388_1_unfpa-family-planning-china-s-population-policy|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160223120813/http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2002-07-31/news/0207300388_1_unfpa-family-planning-china-s-population-policy|url-status=dead|archive-date=23 February 2016|title=Withholding Funds Will Cost Lives in China|access-date=21 December 2016}}</ref> [[File:Colin Powell anthrax vial. 5 Feb 2003 at the UN.jpg|left|thumb|upright|[[Colin Powell]] at the United Nations]] US Representative [[Chris Smith (New Jersey politician)|Chris Smith]] criticized the State Department investigation, saying the investigators were shown "Potemkin Villages" where residents had been intimidated into lying about the family-planning program. [[Nafis Sadik]], former director of UNFPA, said her agency had been pivotal in reversing China's coercive population planning methods, but a 2005 report by [[Amnesty International]] and a separate report by the US State Department found that coercive techniques were still regularly employed by the Chinese, casting doubt upon Sadik's statements.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/18/family-planning-funding-spotlights-china|title=China's one-child controversy reignites – Washington Times|work=The Washington Times|access-date=7 May 2015}}</ref> However, Amnesty International found no evidence that UNFPA had supported the coercion.

A 2001 study conducted by the pro-life [[Population Research Institute (organization)|Population Research Institute]] claimed that the UNFPA shared an office with the Chinese family planning officials who were carrying out forced abortions.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pop.org/report/finalchinareport.pdf |title=UNFPA, China And Coercive Family Planning |publisher=Population Research Institute |date=12 December 2001 |access-date=11 December 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081217013025/http://www.pop.org/report/finalchinareport.pdf |archive-date=17 December 2008 }}</ref> "We located the family planning offices, and in that family planning office, we located the UNFPA office, and we confirmed from family planning officials there that there is no distinction between what the UNFPA does and what the Chinese Family Planning Office does," said Scott Weinberg, a spokesman for PRI.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://tennesseerighttolife.org/news_center/archives/10212001-03.htm|title=Congressional Hearing Shows UNFPA Involvement in Forced Abortions|work=Tennessee Right to Life |date=October 21, 2001 |access-date=7 May 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120228231237/http://tennesseerighttolife.org/news_center/archives/10212001-03.htm|archive-date=28 February 2012|url-status=dead}}</ref> However, United Nations Members disagreed and approved UNFPA's new country programme in January 2006. The more than 130 members of the "[[Group of 77]]" developing countries in the United Nations expressed support for the UNFPA programmes. In addition, speaking for several European democracies – Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Switzerland and Germany – the [[United Kingdom]] stated, "UNFPA’s activities in China, as in the rest of the world, are in strict conformity with the unanimously adopted Programme of Action of the ICPD" and plays "a key role in supporting our common endeavour, the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=17337&Cr=unfpa&Cr1=china |title= UN Population Fund's governing body approves new country programme for China|website=United Nations News Centre |date=30 January 2006|access-date=21 December 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161222221515/https://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=17337&Cr=unfpa&Cr1=china#.WFxQdbfP1qa |archive-date= Dec 22, 2016 }}</ref>

In response, the EU decided to fill the gap left behind by the US under the [[Sandbæk Report]]. According to its Annual Report for 2008, the UNFPA received its funding mainly from European governments: Of the total income of $845.3 million, $118 million was donated by the Netherlands, $67 million by Sweden, $62 million by Norway, $54 million by Denmark, $53 million by the UK, $52 million by Spain, and $19 million by Luxembourg. The [[European Commission]] donated a further $36 million. The most important non-European donor state was Japan, which gave $36 million. The number of donors exceeded 180 in one year.

In the United States, nonprofit organizations like Friends of UNFPA, formerly [[Americans for UNFPA]], worked to compensate for the loss of United States federal funding by raising private donations.

In January 2009 President [[Barack Obama]] restored US funding to UNFPA, saying in a public statement that he would "look forward to working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund. By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.unfpa.org/public/News/pid/1562|title=UNFPA Welcomes Restoration of U.S. Funding|work=UNFPA |date=23 January 2009 |access-date=7 May 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140709160012/http://www.unfpa.org/public/News/pid/1562|archive-date=9 July 2014|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/MexicoCityPolicy-VoluntaryPopulationPlanning/|title=Mexico City Policy – Voluntary Population Planning|work=The White House |date=January 23, 2009 |access-date=7 May 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150518093145/https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/MexicoCityPolicy-VoluntaryPopulationPlanning/|archive-date=18 May 2015|url-status=dead}}</ref>

The United States said during the UNDP/UNFPA/UNOPS Executive Board meeting that considered the China programme in 2015:<ref>{{Cite web|last=UNDP/UNFPA/UNOPS Executive Board|date=2015-08-31|title=U.S. Statement on UNFPA's 8th Country Program in China|url=http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/7650964/united-states-pm-.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=2021-10-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171107025042/http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/7650964/united-states-pm-.pdf|archive-date=2017-11-07}}</ref><blockquote>During its recent visit, the U.S. delegation observed the positive impact of UNFPA's rights-based programming in China. We commend the Fund's adherence to demonstrating the advantages of a voluntary approach to family planning and were pleased to see – in support of its ICPD commitments – increased provider emphasis on patient rights.</blockquote>

In April 2017, the [[First presidency of Donald Trump|Trump administration]] announced that it will cut off funding to UNFPA, on the grounds that it "supports, or participates in the management of, a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization."<ref name=":1" /> UNFPA refuted this claim, as all of its work promotes the human rights of individuals and couples to make their own decisions, free of coercion or discrimination.