{"id":1995,"date":"2015-04-30T06:09:06","date_gmt":"2015-04-30T06:09:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/?p=1995"},"modified":"2015-04-30T06:09:06","modified_gmt":"2015-04-30T06:09:06","slug":"the-reasons-the-chinese-government-will-not-relinquish-coercive-population-control-under-the-one-child-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/the-reasons-the-chinese-government-will-not-relinquish-coercive-population-control-under-the-one-child-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"The Reasons the Chinese Government Will Not Relinquish Coercive Population Control Under the One Child Policy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Testimony of Reggie Littlejohn, President
\nWomen\u2019s Rights Without Frontiers
\nApril 30, 2015
\nCongressional Executive Commission on China<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Honorable members of the Commission, Representative Chris Smith, Senator Marco Rubio, distinguished fellow panelists, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful for this opportunity to testify here today, as we commemorate the 35th<\/sup> anniversary of China\u2019s brutal One Child Policy.<\/p>\n

I have been asked to comment upon \u201cChina\u2019s insistence on keeping the One-Child Policy, despite looming demographic concerns.\u201d<\/p>\n

China has not \u201ceased,\u201d \u201crelaxed\u201d or \u201cabandoned\u201d the One-Child Policy, Despite Reports<\/strong><\/p>\n

China periodically tweaks its One Child Policy. These minor modifications are routinely exaggerated. For example, under the misleading headline, \u201cChina to Ease One-Child Policy,\u201d Xinhua News Agency reported that China would lift the ban on a second child, if either parent is an only child, beginning on January 1, 2014. It was already the case that couples could have a second child if both parents were themselves only children. This minor adjustment did not \u201cease\u201d the One Child Policy. It merely tweaked it.<\/p>\n

Indeed, in apparent response to quell overly optimistic speculation that this small change represents a major reform, Xinhua ran another report soon after the original announcement: \u201cBirth Policy Changes Are No Big Deal.\u201d In this second article Xinhua states that Wang Pei’an, deputy director of the National Health and Family Planning Commission (NHFPC), told Xinhua that \u201cthe number of couples covered by the new policy is not very large across the country.\u201d[1]<\/p>\n

The minor modification of the policy that took place on January 1, 2014: 1) did not affect a large percentage of couples in China; 2) was not subject to a timetable in which to implement it; 3) retained the dreaded \u201cbirth intervals\u201d between children (if a woman gets pregnant before the interval has lapsed, she risks forced abortion); and 4) makes no promise to end the coercive enforcement of the Policy.<\/p>\n

Noticeably absent from the Chinese Communist party\u2019s announcement is any mention of human rights. Even though it will now allow some couples to have a second child, China has not promised to end forced abortion, forced sterilization, or forced contraception. The coercive enforcement of China\u2019s one-child policy is its core. Instituting a two-child policy in certain, limited circumstances will not end forced abortion or forced sterilization.<\/p>\n

The problem with the one-child policy is not the number of children \u201callowed.\u201d Rather, it is the fact that the CCP is telling women how many children they can have and then enforcing that limit through forced abortion and forced sterilization. Even if all couples were allowed two children, there is no guarantee that the CCP will cease their appalling methods of enforcement. Regardless of the number of children allowed, women who get pregnant without permission will still be dragged out of their homes, strapped down to tables, and forced to abort babies that they want.<\/p>\n

Further, instituting a two-child policy will not end gendercide. Indeed, areas in which two children currently are allowed are especially vulnerable to gendercide. According to the 2009 British Medical Journal study of data from the 2005 national census, in nine provinces, for \u201csecond order births\u201d where the first child is a girl, 160 boys were born for every 100 girls. In two provinces, Jiangsu and Anhui, for the second child, there were 190 boys for every hundred girls born. This study stated, \u201csex selective abortion accounts for almost all the excess males.\u201d<\/p>\n

To say that China has \u201crelaxed\u201d or \u201ceased\u201d its One Child Policy under these circumstances is entirely unwarranted.[2] Because of this gendercide, there are an estimated 37 million Chinese men who will never marry because their future wives were terminated before they were born. This gender imbalance is a powerful, driving force behind trafficking in women and sexual slavery, not only in China, but in neighboring nations as well.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, all the reasons the Chinese government has given for this adjustment are economic or demographic: China\u2019s dwindling labor force, the country\u2019s growing elderly population, and the severe gender imbalance. The adjustment is a tacit acknowledgement that continuation of the one-child policy will lead to economic and demographic disaster. The policy was originally instituted for economic reasons. It is ironic that through this very policy, China has written its own economic, demographic death sentence.<\/p>\n

Even if China were to completely abandon the One Child Policy and all population control now, demographers worry that it might be too little, too late to avert the demographic disaster it has caused. As one researcher stated, \u201cEven if the family-planning policy were terminated today, it would be too late to solve our rapidly ageing population, the drastic shrinkage of the labour force and the gaping hole in social-security funds that the country has already begun struggling with.\u201d[3]<\/p>\n

Despite the demographic pressure to end the policy, the Chinese government recently denied that it has plans to implement a two-child policy in the near future.[4]<\/p>\n

Continuing the One Child Policy makes no demographic sense. China\u2019s population problem is not that it has too many people, but too few young people and too few women. Limiting births can no longer justify the policy.<\/p>\n

The One Child Policy will turn 35 on September 25, 2015. The fertility rate has fallen to approximately 1.5 children per woman, far below the replacement level of 2.1. These birth rates are dangerously low.<\/p>\n

In addition, the most recent modification of the One Child Policy has failed to produce the expected number of births, as couples are self-limiting the size of their families.[5]\u00a0\u00a0 Why, then, does the Chinese Communist Party keep the One Child Policy?<\/p>\n

1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>In my opinion, the Chinese Communist Party will never<\/em> abolish the One-Child Policy, because the government is exploiting the One Child Policy as social control, masquerading as population control.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The One Child Policy was formally instituted on September 25, 1980 in response to the population explosion under the Mao era, when the average fertility was 5.9 children per woman. The One Child Policy began as a means to control the population, however brutal and misguided. The terror of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization was a by-product of the Policy.<\/p>\n

Now that keeping the Policy makes no demographic sense, I believe that terror is the purpose of the Policy. Forced abortion continues in China, terrifying both women and men.[6] Some of these forced abortions have been so violent that the women themselves sometimes die along with their full term babies.[7]\u00a0\u00a0 Forced abortion is so terrifying that victims at times succumb to mental illness and China has the highest female suicide rate in the world.[8]<\/p>\n

Men also are terrorized. Some have been killed or maimed for life.[9] Others have lost control and murdered family planning officials.[10] Some men have resorted to suicide in protest over the excessive fines imposed by the government.[11] The spirit of the Cultural Revolution lives on in the family planning police, who have been able to steal, intimidate, torture and kill with relative impunity.<\/p>\n

The Chinese Communist Party is a brutal, totalitarian regime. It has many human rights abuses: the detention and torture of human rights lawyers, activists and journalists; religious persecution, the execution of prisoners to harvest their organs for transplant. However egregious, each of these abuses touches only a sliver of Chinese society. The One Child Policy is unique in that it touches everyone.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

2) The One Child Policy Is Enormously Profitable for the Chinese \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Communist Party.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The One Child Policy\u2019s system of fees and fines is an important source of revenue for the Chinese Communist Party. These fines are arbitrary and inconsistently applied throughout China, but may be as much as ten times a person\u2019s annual salary. Very few can afford to pay these \u201cterror fines.\u201d In high profile cases, the fines may run in the millions of dollars.[12]<\/p>\n

It has been estimated that the Chinese Communist Party has received as much as $314 billion in family planning fines since 1980.[13] The use of these fines is not subject to accountability, so they may be used simply to line the pockets of the family planning officials or to fund other government projects under the table. This system (or lack thereof) provides a strong incentive to keep the Policy in place.[14]<\/p>\n

3) The One Child Policy\u2019s Infrastructure of Coercion Can Be Turned to Crush Dissent of Any Kind<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is growing unrest inside China. \u201c[I]nternal Chinese law enforcement data on so-called \u201cmass incidents\u201d \u2013 a wide variety of protests ranging from sit-ins to strikes, marches and rallies, and even genuine riots \u2013 indicated that China has seen a sustained, rapid increase in those incidents from 8,700 in 1993 to nearly 60,000 in 2003, to more than 120,000 in 2008.[15] Meanwhile, there are as many as 1 million Family Planning Officials.[16] This army of Family Planning Officials can be turned in any direction to crush dissent of any sort. Does the Chinese Communist Party regard this army as necessary to maintain control in a tinder-box situation?<\/p>\n

4) The One Child Policy Breaks Bonds of Trust, Discouraging Dissent<\/strong><\/p>\n

In addition to official Family Planning Police, the One Child Policy employs a system of paid informants \u2013 \u201cwomb police.\u201d Anyone can inform on an illegally pregnant women \u2013 her neighbors, friends, co-workers, people in the village who watch women\u2019s abdomens to see who might be pregnant. On May 15, 2012, I testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights, together with Mei Shunping, a victim of five forced abortions. She described the way her factory enforced the One Child Policy. \u201cIf one worker violated the rules, all would be punished. Workers monitored each other.\u201d The women became informed on one another. Predictably, friendships were destroyed.[17]<\/p>\n

In addition, if an illegally pregnant women runs away to escape a forced abortion, members of her extended family may be detained and tortured.[18] This puts enormous pressure on the woman to give herself up for an abortion. The system of paid informants and the persecution of family members and neighbors rupture the natural bonds of love and trust in Chinese society. People feel that there is no one they can trust.<\/p>\n

Could the Chinese Communist Party be exploiting this rupture in relationship to divide and conquer? If people cannot trust anyone, they cannot organize for democracy.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

In my opinion, the Chinese Communist Party will not relinquish coercive population control because 1) it enables them to exert social control through terror; 2) it is a lucrative profit center; 3) it provides and infrastructure of coercion that can be used to crush dissent of any sort; and 4) it ruptures relationships of trust, so that people cannot organize for change. I believe that the Chinese Communist Party is maintaining its grip on power by shedding the blood of the innocent women and babies of China.<\/p>\n

China\u2019s One Child Policy is the largest and most disastrous social experiment in the history of the world. Through it, the Chinese Communist Party boasts that it has \u201cprevented\u201d 400 million births. This is the hallmark of Communist regimes \u2013 the peacetime killing of their own citizens. Now China faces demographic disaster. Ironically, the Chinese Communist Party instituted the One Child Policy for economic reasons, but through it, it has written its own economic death sentence.<\/p>\n

Policy Recommendations:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>We respectfully request that the U.S. government urge the Chinese government to:<\/p>\n

*Abolish the One Child Policy and all forms of coercive population control;<\/p>\n

*Offer incentives for couples to have girls;[19]<\/p>\n

*Offer pensions to couples who do not have a son, ensuring that parents of girls will not become impoverished in their old age; and<\/p>\n

*Abolish the hukou<\/em> system, so that all children will have access to healthcare and education.<\/p>\n

In addition, we respectfully request that the U.S. government:<\/p>\n

*Establish principles of Corporate Social Responsibility, to ensure that U.S. corporations do not allow coercive population control measures to be taken against their employees; and<\/p>\n

*Defund UNFPA, unless and until UNFPA stops supporting or participating in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in China, in violation of the 1985 Kemp-Kasten Amendment.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1]\u201cBirth policy changes are no big deal.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 http:\/\/news.xinhuanet.com\/english\/indepth\/2013-11\/16\/c_132893477.htm<\/a>. 11\/16\/13.<\/p>\n

[2]\u201cChina\u2019s One-Child Policy \u2018Reform\u2019 Won\u2019t End Abuses: US Group.\u201d http:\/\/www.rfa.org\/english\/news\/china\/policy-07232014161119.html<\/a>. 7\/23\/14; \u201cChina Hasn\u2019t \u2018Eased\u2019 Its One-Child Policy.\u201d http:\/\/www.nationalreview.com\/corner\/364200\/china-hasnt-eased-its-one-child-policy-reggie-littlejohn<\/a>. 11\/18\/13; \u201cChina Not Easing One Child Policy, Says Campaigner.\u201d http:\/\/www.zenit.org\/en\/articles\/china-not-easing-one-child-policy-says-campaigner<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0 11\/22\/13; \u201cLittle Change in Practice for China\u2019s One Child Family Policy.\u201dhttp:\/\/www.washingtontimes.com\/news\/2013\/nov\/24\/little-change-in-practice-for-chinas-one-child-fam\/?page=all<\/a>. 11\/24\/13.<\/p>\n

[3] \u201cCritic of One Child Policy in from Cold.\u201d http:\/\/www.scmp.com\/news\/china\/article\/1224885\/critic-one-child-policy-cold<\/a><\/p>\n

4\/28\/13; \u201cEasing One Child Policy May Be Too Late.\u201d http:\/\/yaleglobal.yale.edu\/content\/easing-one-child-policy-may-be-too-late<\/a>. 1\/7\/14.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[4]\u201cChina denies full implementation of \u2018two-child policy.\u201d http:\/\/www.chinadaily.com.cn\/china\/2015-04\/10\/content_20407560.htm<\/a>. 4\/10\/15.<\/p>\n

[5]\u201cWhy China\u2019s New Family Planning Policy Hasn\u2019t Worked.\u201d http:\/\/thediplomat.com\/2015\/04\/why-chinas-new-family-planning-policy-hasnt-worked\/<\/a>. 4\/20\/15.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[6]\u201cChina Couple Speak of \u2018Forced Abortion.\u2019\u201d http:\/\/news.sky.com\/story\/1150016\/china-couple-speak-of-forced-abortion<\/a> 10\/4\/13; \u201cFour Uyghur Women Forced to Abort Their Babies in Zinjiang.\u201d http:\/\/www.rfa.org\/english\/news\/uyghur\/abortion-12302013050902.html<\/a>; \u201cXinjiang authorities try to force six women to abort for violating one-child policy.\u201d http:\/\/www.asianews.it\/news-en\/Xinjiang-authorities-try-to-force-six-women-to-abort-for-violating-one-child-policy-29925.html<\/a>. 12\/30\/13
\n[7]\u201cChina Couple Speak of \u2018Forced Abortion.\u2019\u201d http:\/\/news.sky.com\/story\/1150016\/china-couple-speak-of-forced-abortion<\/a> 10\/4\/13; \u201cFour Uyghur Women Forced to Abort Their Babies in Zinjiang.\u201d http:\/\/www.rfa.org\/english\/news\/uyghur\/abortion-12302013050902.html<\/a>; \u201cXinjiang authorities try to force six women to abort for violating one-child policy.\u201d http:\/\/www.asianews.it\/news-en\/Xinjiang-authorities-try-to-force-six-women-to-abort-for-violating-one-child-policy-29925.html<\/a>. 12\/30\/13.<\/p>\n

[8]\u201cForced abortion at 7 Months \u2013 The Horror of China\u2019s One Child Policy Sparks Further Outrage.\u201d http:\/\/www.christianpost.com\/news\/forced-abortion-at-7-months-the-horror-of-chinas-one-child-policy-sparks-further-outrage-101764\/<\/a> 8\/7\/13; \u201cChinese couple seeks damages for forced abortion.\u201d http:\/\/www.worldmag.com\/2014\/01\/chinese_couple_seeks_damages_for_forced_abortion<\/a> 1\/10\/14.<\/p>\n

[9]\u201cChina: Family Planning Official Stabs Man to Death,\u201d http:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/?p=147<\/a>. 4\/5\/11.<\/p>\n

[10]\u201cCrazed Chinese father-of-four stabs two government officials to death over one child policy.\u201d .\u201d http:\/\/www.dailymail.co.uk\/news\/article-2376771\/Chinese-father-kills-1-child-policy-officials-registering-4th-child.html<\/a> 7\/24\/13.<\/p>\n

[11] \u201cChinese father of four commits suicide over one-child policy fines so his children can go to school.\u201d http:\/\/www.lifesitenews.com\/news\/chinese-father-of-four-commits-suicide-over-one-child-policy-fines-so-his-c<\/a>. 5\/26\/14; \u201cFarmer drinks poison after being fined for violations of family planning policy.\u201d http:\/\/www.globaltimes.cn\/content\/830847.shtml<\/a> 12\/8\/13<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[12]\u201cZhang Yimou\u2019s children spark one-child policy debate.\u201d http:\/\/en.people.cn\/90782\/8236414.html<\/a>. 8\/8\/13.<\/p>\n

[13]\u201cThe Brutal Truth: A shocking case of forced abortion fuels resentment against China\u2019s one-child policy.\u201d http:\/\/www.economist.com\/node\/21557369<\/a>. 6\/23\/12.<\/p>\n

[14]\u201cHuge Fines for Violators of One-Child Policy, but Little Accounting.\u201d http:\/\/sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com\/2013\/12\/12\/huge-fines-for-violators-of-one-child-policy-but-little-accounting\/<\/a>. 12\/12\/13; \u201cPopulation Control Is Called Big Revenue Source in China.\u201d http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2013\/09\/27\/world\/asia\/chinese-provinces-collected-billions-in-family-planning-fines-lawyer-says.html<\/a>. 6\/26\/13; \u201cChina has collected $3.1 billion from one-child policy violators so far this year.\u201d http:\/\/qz.com\/154079\/china-has-collected-3-1-billion-from-one-child-policy-violators-so-far-this-year\/<\/a>. 12\/5\/13; \u201cChinese Family Planning Officials Misappropriated $260 Million in Fines.\u201d http:\/\/www.theepochtimes.com\/n3\/293660-chinese-family-planning-officials-misappropriated-260-million-in-fines\/<\/a>. 9\/20\/13.<\/p>\n

[15] \u201cChina\u2019s Social Unrest Problem \u2013 Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.\u201d Murray Scott Tanner, Ph.D. http:\/\/www.uscc.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/Tanner_Written%20Testimony.pdf<\/a>. 5\/15\/14; see also,<\/em> \u201cRising Protests in China.\u201d http:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/photo\/2012\/02\/rising-protests-in-china\/100247\/<\/a>. 2\/17\/12.<\/p>\n

[16]\u201cFamily Planning: Enforcing with a smile.\u201d http:\/\/www.economist.com\/news\/china\/21638131-enforcers-chinas-one-child-policy-are-trying-new-gentler-approach-enforcing-smile<\/a>. 1\/10\/15.\u00a0\u00a0 If China\u2019s Family Planning Officials were an army, they would tie with North Korea as the sixth largest army in the world. \u201cWorld\u2019s Largest Armies.\u201d http:\/\/www.globalsecurity.org\/military\/world\/armies.htm<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[17]\u201cTestimony of Mei Shunping, Victim of Five Forced Abortions in China.\u201d http:\/\/archives.republicans.foreignaffairs.house.gov\/112\/HHRG-112-FA16-WState-ShunpingM-20120515.pdf<\/a>. 5\/15\/12.<\/p>\n

[18]Testimony of \u201cWujian,\u201d Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, 11\/10\/09. http:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/index.php?nav=cases&nav2=wujian#anchor<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[19] We have found in our \u201cSave a Girl\u201d campaign that the encouragement of modest monetary support is enough to make the difference between life and death to a baby girl. \u201cTwin Girls Saved from Abortion in China, Husband\u2019s Family Only Wanted Boys.\u201d http:\/\/www.lifenews.com\/2014\/05\/30\/twin-girls-saved-from-abortion-in-china-husband-family-told-wife-they-only-wanted-boys\/<\/a> 5\/30\/14.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Testimony of Reggie Littlejohn, President Women\u2019s Rights Without Frontiers April 30, 2015 Congressional Executive Commission on China   Honorable members of the Commission, Representative Chris Smith, Senator Marco Rubio, distinguished fellow panelists, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful for this … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_s2mail":"yes","footnotes":""},"categories":[49,12,30,50,7,16,15,158,8,34,33,20,123,1,55],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1995","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chinas-one-child-policy","category-chris-smith","category-coerced-abortion","category-female-suicide","category-forced-abortion","category-forced-sterilization","category-gendercide","category-marco-rubio","category-one-child-policy","category-pro-choice","category-pro-life","category-reggie-littlejohn","category-two-child-policy","category-uncategorized","category-womens-rights-without-frontiers"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1995","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1995"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1995\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1997,"href":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1995\/revisions\/1997"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1995"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1995"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1995"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}