NEWS STORIES
UNFPA Funding Cut Announced
“In a rebuff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, the Bush administration said that it would not contribute to a United Nations agency that it contends provides aid to Chinese government agencies that force women to have abortions,” reported The New York Times in a July 23 front-page story. A State Department fact-finding mission in May found no evidence that the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) “knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization." But the administration reversed course and decided to withhold the $34 million that Congress appropriated for FY 2002, citing Kemp-Kasten, a 1985 law that bars funds to any international organization that the president determines "supports or participates in the management" of forced abortion or sterilization. The money will be rerouted to the State Department's own Agency for International Development, which operates in about 80 countries, compared with 142 for the United Nations group.

Reactions to the Decision
Coverage focused on diplomats, UN officials and NGO leaders who expressed dismay and outrage at the Bush administration decision. They said the move was motivated by domestic politics at the expense of women and children's health, according to a July 23 Associated Press story. Thoraya Obaid, Executive Director of UNFPA, questioned why the cutoff applied to all countries when the fund was prohibited by U.S. law from spending the money in China. "Women and children will die because of this decision," she told AP. The $34 million would prevent 2 million unwanted pregnancies, nearly 800,000 induced abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, 60,000 cases of serious maternal illness and over 77,000 infant and child deaths, she said. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said, "I think UNFPA does very essential work and we have made it clear that it does not go around encouraging abortions. It gives good advice to women on reproductive health and does good work around the world, including in China."

Chinese Embassy spokesman Xie Feng said that Beijing was disappointed by the decision, according to a July 23 story by The Washington Times. "We are very regretful that the donations or the money United States ought to put to this fund has been stopped," he said. "We hope that this decision will be changed because it's not good for the U.N. cooperation, and it's also not true to facts." A July 23 Associated Press story quoted Adrienne Germain, President of the New York-based International Women's Health Coalition: "I was glad that the money would still be allocated in the large area of child health, but the bottom line is a failure to support the key U.N. agency which champions women's reproductive rights and the rights for adolescents to receive sexual health education." Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said, "We've taken the decision that the UNFPA ... should have U.K. financial support and if we're doing it, we think that others should do it too."

European Union Alleviates Loss of Funding
The European Union gave an extra 32 million Euros to the U.N. Population Fund to alleviate the loss of U.S. funding, according to an EU official quoted by The Associated Press in a July 24 story. The sum was put in the pipeline after President Bush signaled his intentions shortly after taking office last year, the official said on condition of anonymity. "That has now gone through the process and been approved" by the 15 EU governments, he said. According to an Agence France Presse July 24 story, the Danish EU president said, "The UNFPA merits strong and ongoing support to continue its activities."

Washington Playing Politics
The Bush administration's decision is a major victory for an important element of the Republican political base: anti-abortion activists, who campaigned relentlessly to block funding for UNFPA. Newsday (NY) reported July 24 that “The decision comes at a dicey moment for President George W. Bush and his party” because Bush's poll ratings are slipping in the face of sour economic news, and Republicans are growing apprehensive about their prospects in the November midterm elections that will determine control of Congress. Newsday also noted that “the administration took great pains to distance Bush and the White House from the move. It was announced by the State Department as a decision by Secretary of State Colin Powell - even though Powell had previously blessed the UN agency and it was the White House that froze the funds and demanded a new review of the issue…” White House officials strongly denied that political considerations were involved.

Status of Secretary of State Colin Powell
A July 25 story by The New York Times reported that a string of internal policy differences and defeats — most recently on the Middle East and international family planning — have set off speculation from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom that Secretary Powell might not last through President Bush's term. In response, Agence France Presse reported in an afternoon story that “an irritated US Secretary of State Colin Powell dismissed persistent speculation that he will resign over differences with conservatives in President George W. Bush's administration.” Powell also said he stood behind a decision to cut millions of dollars in US funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) that had been the cause of the latest resignation rumors. AFP went on to note the Powell said, "I signed the certificate on the UNFPA earlier this week," emphasizing the word "I" and stressing that while the Bush administration supported the work of the UNFPA, funding had to be "consistent" with the law. "We understand the importance of these kinds of activities, but in this case... we found (China's population control regime) to be a coercive policy and inconsistent with the requirements" of U.S. law, he said. Read: New York Times (7/25), Newsday (NY), Associated Press, New York Times (7/23), Washington Post, Boston Globe (MA)

EDITORIALS
Editorial reaction to the Bush decision was overwhelmingly negative. The Washington Post’s July 24 editorial said “President Bush claims to be compassionate, and he's declared that fighting global poverty is part of his struggle against terrorism. But the administration's decision …flies in the face of these positions [and] will result in poor women getting fewer health services, which is hardly compassionate. It will also weaken efforts at population control, an important component of the broader fight against global poverty.” The New York Times’ July 23 editorial said “Reproductive health and freedom of women are central to the improvement of poor societies. The U.N. Population Fund is one of the most important forces at work today helping poor women. The United States should be supporting it, not undermining it.” Likewise, The Boston Globe (MA) said “The true victim of the UN fund's opponents is not abortion but the rights of poor women overseas to space the birth of their children to maximize the chances of their survival. It is the right of women to education, to self-determination, to refuse marriage at age 13, to a safe, clean place to give birth. It is time for the true nature of the UN Population Fund's opponents to be revealed.“

Newsday (NY) noted: “Like Dr. Strangelove, the Bush administration seems unable to pass by a right-wing agenda without saluting. There is no other way to explain its brain-dead decision to cut off $34 million in U.S. aid to the United Nations Population Fund.” Editorials such as The Sarasota Herald-Tribune (FL) went as far as suggesting, “Americans who are tired of the intrusive footprint of abortion politics in international aid can make a political gesture of their own: Donate directly to the UNFPA. The address is: U.S. Committee for U.N. Population Fund, 220 E. 42nd St., New York, N.Y. 10017.” Read: Sarasota Herald-Tribune (FL), Washington Post, Boston Globe (MA), Newsday (NY), New York Times

COMMENTARY
“The cowering of President Bush over the United Nations Population Fund is one more sign that the moderation of Colin Powell is out to pasture. Compassionate conservatism is compost,” declared Boston Globe columnist Derrick Jackson on July 24. “Powell, the secretary of state, once had an audible moo for his skim-milquetoast conservatism.” Jackson continued, “When Bush reinstated the gag rules, Powell shrugged the decision off by saying, ‘I have other views that are my personal views, but this is the policy of the government.’” Jackson concluded: “Given the politics, that means Powell will go from supporting the UN fund to giving out aid that will probably have so many gag rules on it that the programs cannot possibly reflect his views. Hoping to make Republican moderation on social issues as substantial as a steer, Powell became a buffaloed chicken wing. He clucks while the right wing is the bull in China's closet.”

Ellen Goodman concurred in her Boston Globe column July 25: “Over the years, I thought my mind had become boggle-proof. It's a side effect of journalism. Sooner or later, we just lose the ability to be astonished by anything the government says…But the Bush administration challenged all my insulation this week…” Goodman said: ”If Bush gets away with this one, I'm definitely gonna take myself in for some new boggle-proofing.”

Sally Kalson of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote on July 24 that “The problem with poor women around the world is they haven't bought any full-page ads pledging support for America's war on terror. That, and they don't control any oil. These factors seem to determine who gets President Bush's support these days on the world stage. Hold news conferences denouncing al-Qaida, keep the wells pumping and the barrels coming, and the president will overlook a multitude of other blood-curdling sins. Don't, and he just might sacrifice you at the first opportunity, even if your only offense is poverty.” Kalson concluded, “If those poor women are smart, though, they'll get busy discovering oil and denouncing Osama bin Laden anyway. In these days of Realpolitik, an insurance policy always comes in handy.” Read: Boston Globe (7/25), Boston Globe (7/24), San Francisco Chronicle (CA), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA)

---

The above summary was written by Elena Cabatu and Kathy Bonk at the Communications Consortium Media Center, 1200 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005, 202/326-8700.

Redistribution is encouraged with credit to CCMC.