China’s One Child Policy : Official Figures reveal that 336 million women have been aborted; 37 million more men than women as campaign of gendercide unbalances the population.

A shocking report in The Financial Times has finally revealed the true extent of China’s one child policy – a policy which has resulted in a massive imbalance between young men and women and which has targeted girls babies in a relentless campaign of gendercide. Over decades, using taxpayers’ money, this is a policy which has been indirectly aided and abetted by successive British Governments.

The report – which is based on official data from the Communist Party’s own health ministry – suggests that Chinese doctors have undertaken over 330m abortions during the 40 years since China began to implement the one child policy.

First introduced in 1971 I began to challenge the policy in 1980, after my election to the House of Commons and over the years which have followed I have questioned the millions of pounds which Conservative and Labour Governments – enthusiastically supported by the Liberals and then Liberal Democrats – have poured into agencies which have, in turn, funded the Communist Party’s Chinese Population Association.

At one memorable meeting with a Secretary of State for International Development the air was blue with undeleted expletives and four letter words as I was accused of undermining development policies which relied on population control. I told the politician concerned that we should be attacking poverty not people and that it was an egregious violation of the rights of women when they are forcibly aborted or sterilised. For the UK to have channelled money into agencies which have in turn funded those carrying out coercive population measures makes us collaborators in these violations.

Some years after that meeting, during a visit to China, and in conversation with Chinese officials, I was surprised when they privately gave me quiet encouragement in opposing the one-child policy.

In Beijing there was also more sympathy than I had anticipated when I took up the case of Chen Guangchen, the blind human rights activist who had single-handedly exposed the forced abortion of over 120,000 women in the Shandong province.

While Chen Guangchen was incarcerated during a four year prison sentence – and then kept under house arrest – I told senior Chinese officials that I thought that one day Chen would be seen as a national hero. It was striking that no one contradicted me or shouted me down. Of course, many officials have suffered under these policies too. Hardly anyone in China is unaffected.

Chen’s bravery and the clarity with which he saw the economic and demographic consequences of a policy which evaded sighted people gradually opened the space for more honest debate within the country.

The micro-bloggers in China – some of whom I recently met in London – took up Chen’s case and began to question the policy. One of those bloggers has more than 5 million followers and is able to exert much greater influence than party cadres. In the absence of a free press the bloggers represent the best hope for changing opinion and attitudes.

Clearly this more open debate, and public exposure of horrifying stories like that of a women coercively aborted, and whose seven month unborn baby was then left by her side on her bed, as a warning not to become pregnant again, are having a radicalising effect on the population.

The scale of what has been done is phenomenal. Since 1971, Chinese doctors have aborted 336m women and undertaken 196m sterilisations. 403m intrauterine devices have been inserted into women, often without their consent.

The Chinese say that their population of 1.3 billion would be about 30% bigger if they had not pursued these draconian policies. Elsewhere, when poverty and infant mortality are reduced population has fallen naturally.

By comparison, since legal abortion was introduced in America in 1973, in a country about a quarter of China’s size, around 50 million abortions have been undertaken. In the UK, with a population of around 60 million, the figure is 7 million abortions.

The attrition rate in China has not been getting better.

The official figures show that since the 1990s around 7 million babies are aborted every year, around 2 million men and women have been sterilised, and another 7 million women have been required to have intra uterine devices fitted.

For years economic analysts have been warning about the imbalances and distortions which this policy has created. The official data now confirms the inevitable. Not only are there 37 million more Chinese men than women, globally the sex-selection abortion of little girls means that between 100 million and 200 million females are missing in the world. But there are other implications of this social engineering.

The ratio of children and retirees shows that for the first time the one is less than the other – meaning that (as in child-poor Europe) there simply will not be the children to support those who have retired. One Chinese economist, Ken Peng, said: “This makes China’s population look more like a developed country than a developing one, which is a key disadvantage in labour-intensive industries,”

The new Chinese leadership has hinted that it will introduce some welcome reforms – such as the dismantling of the network of re-education centres which indoctrinate citizens in Communist Party beliefs. Some observers also think they may also re-examine the one child policy.

One commentator, Mr He Yafu, has suggested that one likely change to family planning rules would be to permit two children for parents who were both single children themselves. He said that the policy, in place on a trial basis in some cities, could be implemented nationwide. But he added that such a modest change would not be enough to deal with the accelerating problem on an aging and unbalanced population; and even these modest changes have been attacked by die-hard officials in the Communist Party’s family planning secretariat.

Yan Yuxue argued that “the idea of easing the ageing problem by increasing the fertility rate is like drinking poison to quench thirst.”

So, despite the more open criticism of this appalling policy we should not assume that it will simply disappear without a fight.

Nor should we be seduced by the argument that the Chinese Government may allow some couples to have two children. The key question is not the number of children but the principle of State interference in the intimate life of a family and the coercion which the State uses to enforce limits. Even with a two-child policy, women will still be subject to forced abortion if they get pregnant without a birth permit.

And, of course, a “two-child policy” rather than a “one child policy” will not discourage gendercide, the sex-selective abortion of baby girls. There is already plenty of evidence of rampant gendercide in those districts where couples can have a second child if their first is female. Forced abortion up to the ninth month of pregnancy, and gendercide – the sex-selective abortion of baby girls – will undoubtedly persist until China abolishes all coercive birth limits.

What amazes me is that those who would normally be so outspoken against cruel abuses of human rights, and against discriminatory practices targeted at women, have been so quiet for so long. The moment abortion or population are mentioned the shutters come down and the world simply looks the other way as 330 million women are forcibly aborted. ChenChen Guangchen and his family



President Hu Jintao’s Chance To End The One Child Policy and Gendercide

The contrast with the American presidential election campaign could not be greater but this week the Chinese Communist Party made its once in a decade transfer of power to a new Politburo of one-party State appointees. President, Hu Jintao is expected to hand over the reins of power in March.
Before he leaves office there is one last question which President Hu should address – and which would earn him widespread respect and admiration: it is a brutal and discriminatory policy which for 32 years has tarnished the reputation of a great country and which has left a trail of misery.
Last month the United Nations commemorated its International Day of the Girl: highlighting the 100 million girls who are the victims of domestic violence, compulsory veiling, the sex trade, trafficking, bonded labour, forced marriages, genital mutilation, and sexual abuse. In China – and elsewhere – that discrimination begins even before birth, when the three most dangerous and deadly words which can be uttered are the words “It’s a girl”
Thirty two years ago China passed a law which institutionalised the routine killing of little girls, merely because of their sex. It’s a policy which shamefully has been indirectly aided and abetted by British taxpayers money.

Statistics related to the birth control policy are staggering.

The Chinese government says about thirteen million abortions are carried out every year. That amounts to one thousand, four hundred and fifty eight every sixty minutes or, to put it another way, a Tiananmen Square massacre every hour. The vast majority, of course, are girls. China’s One Child Policy and the country’s traditional preference for boys have led to widespread abandonment, infanticide, and forced abortions.

China’s One Child Policy causes more violence against women and girls than any other policy on earth – than any official policy in the history of the world.
A story which broke in June of this year and which caused outrage throughout the world illustrates the brutal and discriminatory nature of this policy. Feng Jianmei was forcibly aborted at seven months when she and her husband, Deng Jiyuan were unable to pay a fine of almost £4,000. Having fled to the mountains officials tracked her down, found her hiding under a bed, forcibly aborted her baby and left the bloody body of that little girl next to her on her bed.

Then, in July, a man in Anshan city in northeast China was rummaging through a garbage bin for recyclables when he caught sight of a small plastic bag.

When he removed the bag and looked inside, what he saw would have shocked and sickened any civilized human being.

Inside was a newborn baby girl with a deep cut to her throat. She was so newborn that her placenta and umbilical cord were still attached. Her entire tiny body was covered in blood.

Luckily for her, local residents got her to hospital and, as far as we know, the baby’s life was saved.

Earlier in the year, in March, A photo of a forcibly aborted full term baby drowned in a bucket, submitted anonymously, circulated on Weibo, the Chinese version of Twitter, and in the West. The infant was reported to have cried cried at birth, before being drowned in a bucket by family planning officials.Also in March, in Jiangxi Province, a 46-year-old woman was forcibly sterilized, in retaliation for bringing a petition against the one child policy. The woman posted the following account on the internet:

“The town government sent more than 20 strong men. I could no longer give birth to a child at that time, but they still dragged my legs, treated me like an animal, and forcibly performed a tubal ligation on the operating table of the Family Planning Office.”
Centuries-old tradition, combined with government-enforced birth control policies, have had horrifying and devastating consequences.

But while China is by far the leader in this appalling trend, it’s by no means alone. India, with its history of deadly discrimination against girls and women, is rapidly catching up. Today there are now markedly more males than females in India than there were in the early 1990s, and various regions are facing serious and growing gender imbalances.

One United Nations expert estimates that gendercide has cost the lives of around two hundred million women and girls worldwide over the past thirty years. It has also led to violence against citizens and sometimes to the murder of those who don’t comply with the policy.
Gendercide is also on the rise globally. As an international predilection for sex-selective abortion grows, so more and more women and girls are losing their lives or simply “missing”, the result of sterilization or other means. Western Asia, in particular, is a region of growing concern. And in February of this year undercover journalists discovered sex selection abortions taking place in the UK.

And this isn’t just about the loss of precious human life. The gender disparity it creates is causing a catalogue of other problems. China now has thirty-seven million more males than females, fuelling human trafficking and sexual slavery. As this spreads to neighbouring states, national security is threatened. China’s One Child Policy is also fostering an ageing population without young people to support them – an anomaly expected to hit the country within the next twenty years.

What was therefore a policy enforced for economic reasons has ironically now become China’s economic death sentence.

Many Chinese people have been urging Hu Jintao to abandon the one child policy and there are signs that the protests are having their effect. One man in particular has done more than anyone to force open the debate about gendercide. In April of this year the blind self taught lawyer, Chen Guangcheng, who spent four years in prison for opposing the policy, escaped house arrest, finding safe passage to the United States.
We can learn much from his example. Chen’s bravery and heroism has inspired many Chinese dissidents and campaigners around the world. He has seen what sighted people have failed to see; spoken out when those of us with free speech have failed to do so.

In a recent interview, Chen said he was confident reform will come to China, but stressed that if everyone made an effort to build a more just and civil society, then it would come faster. Here’s one thing each of us can do:

A brilliant new hour-long film, entitled “It’s A Girl” was recently premiered at Westminster at a meeting which I chaired. The film conveys a simple yet powerful message: that the words “It’s a girl” – usually proclaimed with such joy and celebration – are deadly for large populations of the world.

It is available to be seen in parishes and in small groups in people’s homes or in colleges. Anyone wishing to show the film should contact its maker, Andrew Brown and there are more details at: