Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Is Law Dead in China?

By Jehangir Pocha, In These Times. Posted December 15, 2005.


No one but the victims seems to care about the brutal tactics Beijing is using to enforce China's one-child policy.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Jehangir Pocha

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

It was difficult for Chen Guangcheng to come to Beijing.

The blind social activist from Linyi, in China's eastern Shandong province, needed a friend to hold his hand and help him navigate China's overcrowded bus and train systems as he made the six-hour trip to the nation's capital. But the journey back was even harder.

Within days of arriving in Beijing, on September 6, Chen, 34, was ambushed on the street by plainclothes security officers from Shandong, who bundled him into a car and took him back to Linyi. There, Chen found himself under de facto house arrest, where he still remains.

No charges have been filed against him, and Shandong officials did not respond to requests to clarify Chen's status. "It was like a kidnapping," says Jiang Tianyong, 34, a Beijing-based lawyer who is part of the legal team representing Chen pro bono. "We knew he was abducted by Shandong officials even though they have no jurisdiction in Beijing because some people recognized the officials among the men who attacked Chen. They wanted him out of Beijing, but mainly they just wanted to punish him."

Chen's immediate crime took place during his stay in Beijing, when he complained bitterly to sympathetic central government officials, journalists and other activists about what he called a "bizarre" local government program in Shandong that was enforcing China's one-child policy by illegally forcing pregnant women to have abortions.

"It is a crazy and merciless situation," Chen told us, just days before he was abducted. "Recently no one was really enforcing the one-child policy. But as the population in Shandong has ballooned, I think the provincial government put pressure on local family planning departments that have just gone nuts."

Chen said more than 120,000 people in Shandong alone have been forced to undergo forced abortions and sterilizations over the past few months. Though China's National Population and Family Planning Commission has said this figure is exaggerated, in a rare admission, the commission's spokesperson, Yu Xuejun, admitted that "some persons concerned in a few counties and townships of Linyi did commit practices that violated the law."

"The responsible persons have been removed from their posts," Yu added, without giving any specific details.

Zhu Hong Ying, 40, and her husband, Xia Jian Dong, 40, are farmers in Zhai Tian Zhuang village near Linyi. The couple, who already have one son, say they first heard of the forced abortions in March, when Zhu was five months pregnant. "We panicked and ran into (Linyi) to hide," Zhu said during an interview that had to be conducted on the telephone as local police had sealed off her area in the wake of Chen's detention. "But to get to us, about a month after we left, they arrested three of my sisters-in-law. So we felt very guilty and went home."

Zhu says what happened next went beyond her deepest fears. "The people from the family planning department were waiting for us. They demanded RMB700 (about $90, two months wages for Zhu) to release my sisters-in-law and then they pushed me into a van and took me to a local family planning clinic."

According to Zhu, a group of eight people surrounded her and harangued her to have an abortion. What they were doing was illegal, as Chinese law stipulates that only financial penalties can be levied against parents who break China's 25-year-old one-child policy. The policy, though harsh, is aimed to stabilize China's population of 1.3 billion at around 1.6 billion by 2050. Under the policy, Chinese families can have only one child, except ethnic minorities, who can have three children, and farmers, who can have two children if their first child is a daughter.

But Zhu says there was no way for her to protest. "I just kept sobbing and begging but no one listened," she says. "Finally I was so weak I just said 'yes.' Then a doctor came in and gave me an injection in the stomach. After I took the shot, the whole day I didn't feel anything. The second day, in the early morning, blood and water all flowed out of me. Then the baby came out, but it was dead. It was a boy."


Digg!

Jehangir Pocha is the Asia correspondent for In These Times.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Law in China was alive? When?
Posted by: ttmrichter on Dec 15, 2005 1:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always have to snicker when I hear people describe China as a totalitarian state under Beijing's thumb. "The heavens are high and the Emperor far away" is the rule used for thousands of years in China. Which people think that a mere 50 years of faux-communism is going to change thousands of years of culture?

The rule of law has always been viewed with deep suspicion in China ever since the Qin dynasty screwed things royally by enforcing bad laws to the letter. The suspicion was deepened under foreign rule--Yuan and Qing dynasties--where it was carried out to such ludicrous extent that people were expected to obey to the letter laws which contradicted each other.

Further, loyalty to a state has always been a slippery, elusive concept in China: loyalties are to family and to local people. So the local magistrates (hastily renamed "Party Secretaries" after the Revolution) are the ones who have real, day-to-day power in China, not the anonymous and/or distant bureaucrats in Beijing.

Perhaps this little vignette can give you an idea of just how little control Beijing has. In 2002, Beijing installed a person in Jiangxi province to oversee corruption crackdowns. In particular copyright "piracy" (what a totally ludicrous term, that!) was targetted. For six months this one Beijing-installed official tried to rein piracy in. A couple of showy arrests (of pretty small-time operators) were made. Lots of bold statements were made. And shops selling/renting pirated VCDs and DVDs were suddenly bare of product.

In a nearly Bush-ian fit of bravado, a huge "mission accomplished" bash was organised and the Beijing man returned to Beijing. Within 24 hours every one of the shops that had been bare were filled to the brim again with pirated VCDs and DVDs.

The Chinese have had to cope with capricious decisions from people who could kill them with relative impunity for about five thousand years. They're quite adept at quickly adapting to the presence of said individuals and just as quickly unadapting when they leave.

"The heavens are high and the Emperor far away."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's our future, baby!
Posted by: amphead on Dec 15, 2005 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You think thats horrible, huh? You might ask why these people are getting pregnant when they know what will happen. Overpopulation is the most taboo subject on the planet even though it is one of the most important issues of our time. At least someone is trying to do something. Of course, when it's the government doing the enforcing this kind of situation is created. I'm a biologist that has studied animal populations. There is a cycle of pop growth until resources run out and then a pop crash. It isn't pretty. Animals fighting each other for food as they all starve to death. It's been happening in Africa for almost a century. People seem to be oblivious to the fact that this is going to happen to us sooner or later. Noone in political or any other circle will discuss it. They think it can't happen to us. It can and it will if we continue to ignore this giant elephant in the room. Almost every modern problem we have including things like ethnic cleansing and the battle for the worlds oil reserves, that has now started with the Iraq war, has its roots in a growing world population. Someday we will wake up but it will be too late to do anything. Just like global warming. The combination of the two will be deadly. But the bright side is after billions are dead the survivors will have a nice big empty, albeit resource depleted, planet to start over with. Hopefully, they won't forget the lesson. But they're only human, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's our future, baby! Posted by: badkitty
» RE: It's our future, baby! Posted by: kablooie
Not sure what's logically wrong with this
Posted by: jpinder on Dec 15, 2005 7:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People in China know the law and decide to break it, everybody does at one time. In this case when you break the law it affects the whole population. There is a reason for the one child law, sustainability. If it is not obeyed another life will perish somewhere. We are animals, and what do many species do when there is not enough food for the group, infanticide is the solution, it is harsh but if it is not done, the group will pay the price when times are harder. When the law is broken, people are aware of the consequences, that is the law of nature. Unlike societal law, nature has NO mercy. There are more decent ways of controlling population but always someone has to die. The second biggest problem on earth is overpopulation, the first is ignorance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gemelabuena
Posted by: gemelabuena on Dec 15, 2005 7:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
wow, i find some of these reactions really disturbing. besides evincing ignorance of the complexity of the relationships between overpopulation, poverty, global environmental degradation (which is mostly the doing of less populated, industrialized countries), etc., they demonstrate the kind of callousness and amorality that i am used to thinking of as being a hallmark of the bush administration. it's probably not necessary to point out that people who find that forced abortions are means justified by the end of controlling population are NOT pro-choice, and do not speak for those of us who are. yuck.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» simply shocking Posted by: hamo
The pendulum swings and bumps
Posted by: ScottP on Dec 15, 2005 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems like most of us (except for the author of the article and the superstitious right) agree that over-population is a serious threat from almost every angle. Most of the world has circumstances (such as illegal, stigmatized, or unaffordable family planning) that encourage population growth. In many areas the only things preventing runaway population growth are starvation and disease. In other areas, including the US, the population continues to grow at alarming rates. When a single country, with the world's largest population, swings towards the other side and has policies that explicitly attempt to control population, it's held up as a horror. When they have overzealous enforcers they're played as anecdotes to make abortion look evil. The idea that any woman has the right to pop out as many babies as she wants is as spurious as the idea that any chemical plant can dump as many toxins as they want into a river.

This article is a bit strange to see in alternet, it seems more like the kind of thing I see in mainstream media pandering to the religious right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Take your choice: China, India, or Japan?
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 15, 2005 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recently watched the art film: Born Into Brothels about children in Calcutta. Yes, the US can probably support a billion+ people as do China and India. That gives our descendants the choice between those two models: law enforced population control or endless poverty.

The other option is Japan, where abortion has been legal for a long time. Their population is smaller but confined to their islands.

To assume that we can somehow avoid those logical consequences of population growth is addict thinking: keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. How is that less 'sick' than abortion?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is the only option forced abortions?
Posted by: audleman on Dec 15, 2005 11:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Study after study has shown that the most effective means of controlling population growth are educating and empowering women and alleviating poverty.

First, educate women on what it means to be a mother. Help them see all the sacrifices they will have to make and let them know that they can wait until later in life to have a child. Shockingly, women almost uniformly respond to this. They love the idea.

Second, you empower them. In a lot of places even if a woman doesn't want to have a child, she is forced. Men generally have the say on when their woman breeds. Let's change things to give that choice back to women. I think they'll make much sounder decisions than a bunch of men who think their prowess is shown by how many children they can produce.

Third, eliminate the reason children are a necessity in many places; poverty. It's hard to stop having children if you need them to run the family farm.

Will this strategy work? I think so. If you don't agree, fine, but have you ever even considered any of these options? Do we necessarily have to jump straight to forced abortions (again, this is men trying to control conception)?

Like a previous poster, I am dismayed by the callousness of the comments I see here. There is an unspoken (near) consensus, which is that people are stupid and can't possibly handle the task of overpopulation themselves. We are literally forced to hack into their wombs to stop those stupid bastards from driving us towards a population crash.

I'm saying we can use education and empowerment to allow people to make the right decisions, and they will learn to make them. I have no evidence it will work, but is that simply because nobody has ever tried?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

another though ...
Posted by: AnarchX on Dec 15, 2005 3:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... which nobody has addressed here yet is the potential societal impact of a country that contains a population without ANY extended family. in a few years, if this policy is kept in place and enforced harshly, how does the population behave when NOBODY has any cousins, aunts, uncles, or siblings? what does that mean for the identiity of a people?

just a thought.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Education, empowerment of women, and egalitarian gender roles
Posted by: davelwhite on Dec 15, 2005 3:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the previous posters and want to emphasize the importance of "empowering women" by challenging patriarchal family norms of various kinds, which in so many places are DIRECTLY linked to overpopulation (e.g. customs where only sons "count" as children for purposes of carrying on a family "line" and so people who bear daughters decide they need more kids; or customs where men have all the power over birth control and family size decisions but do none of the work of raising the children, and so have no incentive to limit family size).

Traditional sexual morality is all about stigmatizing choices that control population; it was devised by peoples in sparsely populated areas, or peoples who wanted to conquer others by outnumbering them (think Puritans in colonial America for example). In traditional "morality," abstinence is pushed on teenagers but EVERYONE is expected to marry and be sexual in adulthood. Homosexuality is forbidden; birth control is frowned upon; men make decisions about childrearing but aren't responsible for the work. Caring for kids doesn't "count" in this system unless they are blood related, so people who like kids are pushed towards having their own. The whole system is set up to increase population. Traditional sexual morality is, by definition, ecologically unsustainable.

I think our progressive response to this is muddled. Many of us still seem to think that family life is preprogrammed and there are only 2 or 3 ways to do it, or we think that the two choices are marriage or a wild uncommitted sexual lifestyle. So we won't consider alternatives like co-parenting with friends, or the possibility that some people might prefer celibacy, or collective households with more than two adults. We also tend to think of gender equality as being a side issue to economics and ecology, and we want people to say they have a "gene" for deviance (e.g. the "gay gene") before we will accept them. Why not accept that people CAN choose different family forms, just like they can invent new ways to generate power?

Some UN organization came out with six key goals for ecological sustainability of the planet, and one of the goals was "full equality of the sexes." It would be great if the left would focus on it as being just that important, and be less afraid of challenging God and Nature & more interested in an Apollo Project of the Family where innovation is encouraged.

DW

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]