Boxer Down for the Count!: CA Senator Barbara Boxer Faces Setback at Hearing

On February 27, Population Research Institute investigator Josephine Guy testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism, chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). By holding the hearing, the California senator apparently hoped to pressure President Bush into releasing the $34 million to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) that is currently on hold. She repeatedly questioned Josephine Guy’s testimony. But Guy did not flinch in the face of Boxer’s hectoring. Her testimony left no doubt in the minds of those present that UNFPA is complicit in China’s forced abortion programs. It stopped Boxer in her tracks.

Plan A, Plan B

Boxer’s “Plan A” having failed, Senator Boxer has now launched “Plan B” — an effort to misrepresent testimony presented at the hearing to the media. News of Boxer’s Plan B reached PRI from a Washington reporter, who told us that after the hearing Boxer had organized a conference call with Democrat lawmakers and the press. During this conference call, the Washington reporter told us, Boxer made the outrageous claim that Josephine Guy had “admitted that UNFPA does not perform forced abortions” in China.1

But Boxer’s Plan B, like her Plan A, seems to be failing. Too many members of the press attended the hearing itself for Boxer’s effort at spin to succeed. Too many members of the press heard for themselves Guy’s evidence that UNFPA supports coercion in China, and is party to such things as forced abortions, forced sterilization, forced insertion of IUDS, fines, targets and quotas and punishment for non-compliance.2

During the hearing itself, Boxer attempted to intimidate Josephine Guy with fierce questions, and by misrepresenting or misstating statements Guy had previously made.

Keeping It Honest

But the presence of two pro-life Senators, Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Michael Enzi (R-WY), helped keep Boxer from getting too far out of line. And kept the other witnesses honest.

Retired Dutch Ambassador to the United Nations, Nicolaas Biegman, who led UNFPA’s October junket to China, was weak and unconvincing. He claimed that coercion, while still common in two-thirds of China, has been replaced by voluntary family planning in the rest of the country, thanks in large part to the influence of UNFPA.3 He offered no evidence to support his claim, which flies in the face of credible reports of coercion in all parts of China.

When questioned about whether it was possible to gather accurate testimony in China in the presence of Chinese officials, Biegman answered in the affirmative. He claimed that he was able to distract Chinese officials while his fellow team members questioned members of the public. As the hearing room erupted in incredulous laughter, Biegman claimed that by means of this subterfuge he was able to prove that only voluntary family planning exists in UNFPA’s “model county” programs in China.4

Senator Brownback had earlier asked Gene Dewey, the current Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, the same question. Dewey expressed skepticism that credible evidence could be obtained about coercion if possible victims are interviewed in the presence of or with the consent of Chinese officials. UNFPA’s October investigation in China, Dewey went on, led by Nicolaas Biegman, failed to dispel concerns that UNFPA supports forced abortion in China.5

Pleas for UNFPA Funding

Phyllis Oakley, former Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, made an impassioned plea on behalf of funding for UNFPA that barely mentioned China. Instead, she claimed that UNFPA was providing hospital equipment, and such things as “safe delivery” kits, a small ziplock bag containing soap and razor blades. She claimed that not funding UNFPA would cost the lives of thousands of women.6

She didn’t mention the “reproductive health” subkits, which contain chemicals and devices for abortion. Earlier at the hearing, Senator Brownback placed on record an article from the Pakistan News Service citing first-hand reports that UNFPA “reproductive health” kits, containing such devices, were being distributed to Afghan women traumatized by war in refugee camps.7

Boxer, seeking in vain to discredit Ms. Guy, asked if she knew how many employees UNFPA had in China. This caused Senator Brownback to raise his eyebrows, and suggest to his Senate colleague that it was inappropriate to make a witness guess. Boxer went on to claim that UNFPA had only four workers in all of China, attempting thereby to discredit Ms. Guy’s testimony that UNFPA had an employee and an office desk in Sihui county’s birth control office, a picture of which Ms. Guy produced at the hearing. In response, Senator Enzi questioned the plausibility of UNFPA being able to monitor a nation as large as China with only four employees.

UNFPA Knows Not What Goes on in China

It became clear that UNFPA does not know what is going on in China. Unable to answer for itself about its own operations in China, UNFPA has relied on propaganda from the Chinese government stating that coercion exists nowhere in China.

The testimony of Dr. Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute perhaps best summarized the manner and methods of UNFPA operations. Dr. Eberstadt described UNFPA as a “runaway” organization, and cited numerous reports of UNFPA claiming future world calamity due to “overpopulation” in order to justify its “radical,” “anti-natal” agenda.8

By the end of the hearing, it was obvious to all that UNFPA operations in China violate a provision of federal law known as the Kemp-Kasten amendment. Kemp-Kasten prohibits U.S. funds from going to groups that support or participate in the management of forced abortion and non-voluntary sterilization programs abroad, Sen. Brownback questioned why no witness from the UNFPA was present to testify and answer the many questions that had been raised about its program in China.9

Even Boxer herself acknowledged the need for UNFPA to provide more information about its 32 “model county” programs in China. Still, Boxer remained committed to pressuring the White House to release funds. Brownback extended an olive branch to Boxer by pledging to work with her on funding for much-needed hospital supplies in Afghanistan, but not through the UNFPA, since there are many groups that can provide assistance that are not involved in forced abortion and forced sterilization in China.10

Endnotes

1 PRI Interview with Newsday, February 28, 2002.

2 Congressional testimony, Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on international Operations and Terrorism. Hearing on the status of U.S. support for the United Nations Population Fund, February 27, 2002.

3 Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism, Hearing on the status of U.S. support for the United Nations Population Fund, February 22, 2002.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 “UNFPA distributing abortion devices among starved Afghan refugees,” Pakistan News Service. November 23, 2001.

8 Hearing on the status of U.S. support for the United Nations Population Fund, February 27, 2002.

9 Opening Statement, Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism, Hearing on the status of U.S. support for the United Nations Population Fund. February 27. 2002.

10 Hearing on the status of U.S. support for the United Nations Population Fund, February 27, 2002.

Never miss an update!

Get our Weekly Briefing! We send out a well-researched, in-depth article on a variety of topics once a week, to large and growing English-speaking and Spanish-speaking audiences.

Subscribe to our Weekly Briefing!

Receive expert analysis every Tuesday morning.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.