But as the president's decision looms on the $34 million allocation for next
year, staffers at UNFPA--which aids the world's most impoverished women--are
not holding their breath.
Congress has been approving funds for the UNFPA since the agency was started in
1969, with the expectation their decisions will be honored.
But, while US representatives such as Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) have rightly
called UNFPA the "single largest global source of multilateral funding for
maternal health and family planning programs," their wishes have been ignored
by the Bush administration.
Tragic Costs
UNFPA estimates the refusal costs in tragic terms: 2 million unwanted
pregnancies that lead to 800,000 of the very abortions Bush condemns; 4,700
maternal deaths and 77,000 infants and children who died before they reach age
5.
And this $34 million so-called "voluntary contribution" is actually pretty
small compared to the $1.48 billion voluntary contribution the US recently gave
to the World Food Program, or the $120 million it gave to the United Nations
Children's Fund (UNICEF).
The UN's 191 member nations pay for the work of the UN in two different ways:
with these voluntary contributions made to UN-related agencies and other
bodies, such as the World Bank and World Health Organization, at annual donor
meetings. Also, with dues assessed biennially by the UN General Assembly of all
countries, based on wealth and population.
Yet the Bush Administration has refused to hand over the $34 million promised
to UNFPA every year on grounds that UNFPA supports China's "coercive family
planning," that, because of the nation's one-child policy, often leads to
abortion and sterilization.
An official at the US Mission to the United Nations, who said he could not be
named, confirmed that the administration "has no intention of releasing any
funds to any recipient that might use them for abortion."
Yet, according to Anika Rahman, president of Americans for UNFPA, which works
to promote the organization: "This administration's own team went to China and
found that UNFPA has never been engaged in a single act of coercion in China.
"And they have acknowledged that fact," continues Rahman, "but now continue to
deny the funds on grounds that--apparently just by working there--UNFPA
supports China's 'highly coercive environment.'"
Other aid organizations being hurt by the administration's narrow focus on
birth control include the World Health Organization, WHO.
In 2002 the State Department froze some $3 million intended for WHO, following
complaints by far-right constituents that WHO conducts research on
mifepristone, the "abortion pill."
Yet, just last September, then-president of Planned Parenthood Federation of
America, Inc., Gloria Feldt, contested these complaints in a column published
by MaximsNews.com. "No US monies are spent on mifepristone research, but the
Bush administration withheld its contribution to WHO as a coercive tool
anyway," Feldt wrote.
Other US Arrears
It's not just voluntary contributions where the United States is in arrears.
The US has repeatedly fallen behind in its dues assessed by the General
Assembly until now its total owed in combined arrears and current dues is a
whopping $1.5 billion, according to semi-monthly UN reports on dues and arrears
for all 191 countries.
This figure includes dues owed to three major UN budgets: to the UN regular
budget, to the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations and to the
international tribunals investigating war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and
Rwanda.
By wealth and population, according to General Assembly estimates when the
United Nations first got going 60 years ago, the United States should pay some
35 percent of the UN regular budget, as it did then. But Washington soon
negotiated a cap for all countries at 25 percent. Through more recent
negotiations, it now pays 22 percent.
Meanwhile, the cost of UN dues to individual Americans has never exceeded 25
cents per year, far less than that of a tiny country such as Cape Verde, which
each year pays its dues on time, to the tune of $28.92 for every citizen.
It is also well-documented that the US is among a handful of countries reaping
most of the profits from UN development projects, since the US is one of a
handful of industrialized countries that fund such projects and conduct the
feasibility studies that define them--and decide who gets the profitable chance
to carry them out.
A few years back, in fact, an enterprising journalist crunched some numbers and
determined that, for every $1 the US Government gives to the huge development
undertakings of the World Bank, the US private sector gets $10 back.
Women Pay the Price Meanwhile, women often pay a high price when member
states short these UN budgets. A good example is the UN Department of
Peacekeeping.
As the richest member state, which rarely sends troops to peacekeeping missions
but gets to make major decisions about peacekeeping, the US is assessed 27
percent of the total peacekeeping budget, to which its total owed just reached
just under $900 million.
"We have found that, if a peacekeeping mission has insufficient funding,
forcing the peacekeepers to pull out prematurely, the country relapses back
into war within five years," says Comfort Lamptey, gender adviser for
department's 'best practices unit.'
"And with that comes crimes against women, whose bodies during any war become
the battleground."
And if peace cannot be sustained, adds Lamptey, "it is women who become widowed
and are left to raise the children."
Just last week the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, released a new report
on sexual violence against women in the war torn Darfur region of Sudan. In the
report, the agency's head Louise Arbour calls for the government of Sudan to
recognize and end what Arbour calls the "most horrific sexual violence,"
including "the severest forms of gang rape" by both Sudan's military and the
militias creating its civil strife.
For all these reasons, the United States should be upholding all its
obligations to the UN, dues and voluntary contributions alike.
Thanks to Women's eNews. Pat Orvis is a UN correspondent who has traveled on
assignment extensively in developing regions.
