John Whitehead's Commentary
More "Bad Press" From China
In the midst of the Olympic Committee's announcement that Beijing had been selected to host the 2008 Summer Olympics, reports of human rights abuses continued to surface from the eastern front. And now, in a recent report from the London Sunday Telegraph, comes the even more disturbing news that government officials in Haviji, China, have been ordered to conduct 20,000 abortions and sterilizations by the end of this year.
No matter what your position on abortion, this report, which was ignored by most major American news sources, should greatly trouble anyone who claims to stand for democracy, human rights--even reproductive freedom.
Chinese authorities imposed the Draconian target on the impoverished mountainous region of Haviji after census officials revealed that China's one-child, one-family policy was being routinely flaunted in some parts of its provinces (the average family in Haviji has five or more children). Established in 1979, China's one-child policy was intended to limit the country's population growth to one child per family through the use of fines, pressures to abort a pregnancy, forced abortions and even forced sterilization for second or subsequent pregnancies.
Thus, it is no surprise that demographers believe China has one of the highest rates of abortion in the world--and Beijing's 20-year campaign to curb the population has had a marked effect. "For all the bad press, China has achieved the impossible," Sven Burmester, the UN Population Fund representative in Beijing, is reported as saying. "The country has solved its population problem."
That "bad press" has also included reports of babies being drowned in paddy fields by Chinese government officials. "There was also the testimony of Gao Xiaoduan, a former family planning official, who told an American congressional committee in 1998 that heavily-pregnant women were often forced to have abortions," the London Sunday Telegraph reports. "More recently, a woman was reported to have died while trying to escape from officials who were attempting to sterilize her." Moreover, many of the operations are performed on women who are sometimes as late as 8-1/2 months into their pregnancies.
"Many terminations will have to be conducted forcibly on peasant women to meet the quota," notes Damien McElroy of the London Sunday Telegraph. "As part of the campaign, county officials are buying expensive ultrasound equipment that can be carried to remote villages by car. By detecting which women are pregnant, the machines will allow government doctors to order terminations on the spot." In other words, the drive to perform 20,000 abortions and sterilizations in six months in a county with a population of less than one million represents a heavy assault on women of child-bearing age. Indeed, little care will be given as to the life and health of the women involved, and more blood will be shed in a country that has already seen so much spilled.
The question, of course, is why the Chinese are so brutal to their own people. Author Tom Bradley, who spent time teaching in China, writes in "Breakable Bayonets, Made in China" (gadflyonline.com) that the Chinese place a different value on human life than Americans. "The individual counts for nothing, except in the context of the group. A single Chinese existence, unless it belongs to someone of the ruling class...is unimportant. Human rights are a non-sequitur, democracy an impossibility."
Faced with such crimes against humanity, what can--or should --we do to end the atrocities? Certainly President Bush and the U.S. Congress should strongly condemn such Chinese brutality and, if need be, rescind China's most-favored nation status. As a nation that claims to value and promote freedom, it is time that we put our money where our mouth is--literally--and insist that the many American companies doing business in China do so as well. Instead of waiting for the United Nations to take action, we must demand that they investigate such incidents. If the Chinese refuse to cooperate or cease such atrocities, then the UN should take appropriate remedies.
And finally, we should consider following the example of President Jimmy Carter who, in retaliation for the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan, ordered U.S. athletes to boycott the 1980 Moscow Summer Olympic Games. Carter's action severely troubled and disturbed the Soviets, for whom the Games represented a golden opportunity to propagandize the world into thinking they could operate like a free society. Unfortunately for Carter, the American media and public were more concerned with bringing home the gold than safeguarding human rights and did not support his move to punish the Soviets.
Like the Soviets in the '80s, the Chinese are clearly concerned about public relations and how they're perceived in the eyes of the world. Thus, the upcoming 2008 Olympics in Beijing will be their attempt to portray the Chinese government in all its "glory." Yet no matter how good a show they put on for the Olympics and the world, it is unlikely that the Chinese will make any substantial changes in terms of human rights unless we use this opportunity to force them to change. Amnesty International has reported that in the past year alone, the crackdown on religious groups and ethnic minorities continued unabated. Hundreds of followers of religious or spiritual movements were arrested and reportedly tortured. And thousands remain in prison.
Justifications aside for why holding the Olympics in China might be a good thing, democratic countries worldwide have a moral duty to boycott the Olympics and force the Chinese to rethink--and revamp--some of their policies if humane measures are not implemented by the Chinese government. Certainly, it would be a hypocritical travesty for any country that claims to believe in a free citizenry to participate in an event in a country that not only brutally oppresses its people but also makes a mockery of the concept of human rights.
No matter what your position on abortion, this report, which was ignored by most major American news sources, should greatly trouble anyone who claims to stand for democracy, human rights--even reproductive freedom.
Chinese authorities imposed the Draconian target on the impoverished mountainous region of Haviji after census officials revealed that China's one-child, one-family policy was being routinely flaunted in some parts of its provinces (the average family in Haviji has five or more children). Established in 1979, China's one-child policy was intended to limit the country's population growth to one child per family through the use of fines, pressures to abort a pregnancy, forced abortions and even forced sterilization for second or subsequent pregnancies.
Thus, it is no surprise that demographers believe China has one of the highest rates of abortion in the world--and Beijing's 20-year campaign to curb the population has had a marked effect. "For all the bad press, China has achieved the impossible," Sven Burmester, the UN Population Fund representative in Beijing, is reported as saying. "The country has solved its population problem."
That "bad press" has also included reports of babies being drowned in paddy fields by Chinese government officials. "There was also the testimony of Gao Xiaoduan, a former family planning official, who told an American congressional committee in 1998 that heavily-pregnant women were often forced to have abortions," the London Sunday Telegraph reports. "More recently, a woman was reported to have died while trying to escape from officials who were attempting to sterilize her." Moreover, many of the operations are performed on women who are sometimes as late as 8-1/2 months into their pregnancies.
"Many terminations will have to be conducted forcibly on peasant women to meet the quota," notes Damien McElroy of the London Sunday Telegraph. "As part of the campaign, county officials are buying expensive ultrasound equipment that can be carried to remote villages by car. By detecting which women are pregnant, the machines will allow government doctors to order terminations on the spot." In other words, the drive to perform 20,000 abortions and sterilizations in six months in a county with a population of less than one million represents a heavy assault on women of child-bearing age. Indeed, little care will be given as to the life and health of the women involved, and more blood will be shed in a country that has already seen so much spilled.
The question, of course, is why the Chinese are so brutal to their own people. Author Tom Bradley, who spent time teaching in China, writes in "Breakable Bayonets, Made in China" (gadflyonline.com) that the Chinese place a different value on human life than Americans. "The individual counts for nothing, except in the context of the group. A single Chinese existence, unless it belongs to someone of the ruling class...is unimportant. Human rights are a non-sequitur, democracy an impossibility."
Faced with such crimes against humanity, what can--or should --we do to end the atrocities? Certainly President Bush and the U.S. Congress should strongly condemn such Chinese brutality and, if need be, rescind China's most-favored nation status. As a nation that claims to value and promote freedom, it is time that we put our money where our mouth is--literally--and insist that the many American companies doing business in China do so as well. Instead of waiting for the United Nations to take action, we must demand that they investigate such incidents. If the Chinese refuse to cooperate or cease such atrocities, then the UN should take appropriate remedies.
And finally, we should consider following the example of President Jimmy Carter who, in retaliation for the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan, ordered U.S. athletes to boycott the 1980 Moscow Summer Olympic Games. Carter's action severely troubled and disturbed the Soviets, for whom the Games represented a golden opportunity to propagandize the world into thinking they could operate like a free society. Unfortunately for Carter, the American media and public were more concerned with bringing home the gold than safeguarding human rights and did not support his move to punish the Soviets.
Like the Soviets in the '80s, the Chinese are clearly concerned about public relations and how they're perceived in the eyes of the world. Thus, the upcoming 2008 Olympics in Beijing will be their attempt to portray the Chinese government in all its "glory." Yet no matter how good a show they put on for the Olympics and the world, it is unlikely that the Chinese will make any substantial changes in terms of human rights unless we use this opportunity to force them to change. Amnesty International has reported that in the past year alone, the crackdown on religious groups and ethnic minorities continued unabated. Hundreds of followers of religious or spiritual movements were arrested and reportedly tortured. And thousands remain in prison.
Justifications aside for why holding the Olympics in China might be a good thing, democratic countries worldwide have a moral duty to boycott the Olympics and force the Chinese to rethink--and revamp--some of their policies if humane measures are not implemented by the Chinese government. Certainly, it would be a hypocritical travesty for any country that claims to believe in a free citizenry to participate in an event in a country that not only brutally oppresses its people but also makes a mockery of the concept of human rights.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
