[Posted to the website on July 25, 2002]

                                                                                                     May 29, 2002

__________________
¹Jihua Shengyu Weiyuanhui. Terminological note: The term State Family Planning Commission (SFPC) is the official English language translation used by that institution, by the Xinhua News Agency, and by foreign agencies including those of the U.S. Government and the United Nations. However, in Chinese, the word "family" is not included in this term and the term does not connote "family planning" in the Western sense of voluntary planning by family members. Rather, the connotation is one of planning mandated by the State. We would therefore prefer a translation rendered "State Planned-Birth Commission (SP-BC)" or "State Birth Planning Commission (SBPC)". However, we have used the accepted translation for this commission throughout this report.

In support of these assertions Ms. Tellier also provided us copies in English and (all but one) Chinese of the following documents:

• "The Seven Prohibitions," a notice issued in 1995 by the SFPC as it began negotiations with the UNFPA on a joint program in 32 counties. This document, which we subsequently saw posted in view in several county SFPC field offices and substations, states among other things that it is forbidden "to prevent legal births on the grounds of fulfilling the population plan," or to "organize pregnancy tests on unmarried young women." (Exhibit 4)

• The "Project Document Between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the United Nations Population Fund" signed on September 11, 1998 after three years of difficult negotiations. This document sets forth joint reproductive health/family planning and other projects in 32 counties during the period mid 1998-2000 and has been since extended. Paragraph 9 reads, "Given the ICPD’s emphasis [i.e., the emphasis of the International Conference on Population and Development’s 1994 Cairo Conference] on responsible voluntary decisions about childbearing and methods of family planning choice, UNFPA will work with the Government to ensure that the widest range of reproductive health and family planning services are provided in the project counties without any form of coercion. Similarly, UNFPA and the Government will work together to help those counties adopt an integrated approach; one that will combine the promotion of family planning with economic development, universal education, improvement of women’s status and provision of quality family planning and reproductive health services, and will ensure that implementation of the family planning programme is not in the form of imposing birth quotas and acceptor targets on family planning providers.[emphasis added]" (Exhibit 5)
  
  
• The Reproductive Health/Family Planning Project CPR/98/PO1 addressed to "people of reproductive age" in the 32 counties and bearing the logos of the SFPC and UNFPA which states, inter alia, that the SFPC and UNFPA will work together to ensure that the joint program proceed "without any form of coercion" and "remove the birth quotas and targets." (Exhibit 6) We saw the Chinese version of this document in many SFPC stations and sub-stations. We also saw later adaptations of the expression "no birth quotas, no targets" in posters in family planning stations and substations.
  
  
• A letter (English copy only) dated February 1, 2001 from UNFPA Executive Director Thoraya Ahmed Obaid to Minister Zhang Weiqing expressing "reservations on aspects" of The Population and Family Planning Law adopted on December 29, 2001 (which goes into effect September 1, 2002) "that contradict ICPD principles and recommendations." The UNFPA comments attached to Madame Obaid’s letter state, "In particular, articles 18, 41 and 42 pertaining to advocating one child per couple and social compensation fees are contrary to the principles of free choice in the matter of family size as expressed in the ICPD’s Programme of Action. On these matters, the UNFPA expresses its concerns and intends to seek further clarifications form Chinese authorities. It should be noted that the Fund does not support any measures, including national legislation, which are not in line with the principles of the ICPD. Paragraph 7.12 states, in part: ‘The principle of informed free choice is essential to the long –term success of family-planning programmes. Any form of coercion has no part to play.’ As had been the practice, the UNFPA will bring its concerns to the attention of the Chinese authorities any further variances with the ICPD principles that are observed." (Exhibit 7)

"We find that notwithstanding some relaxation in the 32 counties in which UNFPA is involved the population control programs of the PRC retain coercive elements in law and practice."

Discussion:

A linguistic/terminological note: In all the PRC Chinese versions of the documents exchanged with the UNFPA the term "coercion" is rendered qiangpo ( ). While we yield to linguistic experts, our sense is that qiangpo carries a distinct connotation of applying physical force to either persons or property, whereas in American usage coercion connotes applying physical and/or mental pressure². This distinction, if real, is important, especially when discussing the "social compensation fees" (sometimes translated as "fees for society to bring up children"), which the PRC levies on those who have "out of plan" births, e.g. more than two children. The PRC authorities argue that these fees are a "disincentive" or a "necessary form of economic restraint" rather than a form of coercion, whereas our team looks upon them as a coercive element in a practice that will shortly have a legal basis when the Law on Population and Birth Planning goes into effect on September 1, 2002. (Exhibit 11)

Even though qiangpo measures were nominally banned as of 1984, there is ample evidence that coercive practices, including coerced abortion and involuntary sterilization, were widespread in PRC population control programs as of 1995, when the PRC began to negotiate a joint program with the UNFPA in 32 counties. Chinese officials admitted to us that such practices did occur in the past, but stressed that they are now moving from an "administrative" approach to one which is "client-oriented" and emphasizes "informed choice" on contraception. Indeed, the SFPC’s issuance of the "Seven Prohibitions" in 1995 demonstrates that such practices were still in use then.

We were told that SFPC-UNFPA negotiations over the joint program took three years, of which three months were spent on three paragraphs that center on birth control quotas and targets, as well as coercive issues. Nevertheless, ample evidence exists of heavy-handed abusive and coercive practices outside the 32 counties since 1995:

• The June 10, 1998 testimony before the House Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights within the House International Relations Committee of former SFPC official in Fujian Province Gao Xiaoduan and the documents/forms she submitted, including a December 20, 1997 Notice of Non-Permission to Bear [More] Children, which was issued to a couple that already had two children, with the warning that failure to comply would be handled "severely" (a code expression for coercive abortion/involuntary sterilization). (Exhibit 12)

• A 1999 Xinhua Agency piece on "Basic Situation on Resolution of Problems Occurring in Family Planning Work in Linguan County in Anhui Province and at Pingyu County in Henan Province", as well as a 1999 piece "Basic Situation of Resolving Cases Exposed by Tellers and Calls from the Masses by SFPC in 1999" (Exhibit 13) reporting demotion/dismissal and expulsion from the Communist Party of officials who violated birth planning laws and regulations in 1998 and 1999.

• The March 2000 "Decision of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and the State Council on Strengthening Population and Family Planning Work and Stabilizing a Low Birthrate", Text of the CPCC, State Council Decision on Family Planning, Xinhua (Beijing 20000507000012, as translated for FBIS) (See Appendix Two, March 2000, "Decision" of Perspective Series Chinese State Birth Planning in the 1990s and Beyond, Susan Greenhalgh, Edwin Winckler, INS Resource Information Center, Exhibit 14). Paragraph 9 of Section III states in part, "In the current stage, fees for society to bring up children should be collected from families that have violated family planning policies, and this is a kind of necessary economic restraint on them. The rate of such fees should be fixed in a unified manner by various provinces, regions, and municipalities. The fees for society to bring up children collected should be handed over to the financial departments."

• The continued emergence of asylum seekers, especially from Fujian Province, appearing before the Immigration and Naturalization Service, many of whom have been granted asylum on the grounds of coercion or fear of coercion should they be returned to the PRC.

• Two consular cases reported in 2001 where under close questioning SFPC officials applying for U.S. visas freely admitted having engaged in coercive abortions (in counties outside the 32 counties of the SFPC-UNFPA joint program).

• The passage on December 29, 2001, of the PRC State Law on Population and Birth Planning, which goes into effect on September 1, 2002. (Exhibit 11, above)

As elsewhere noted in her February 2002 letter to SFPC Chairman Zhang Weiqing, UNFPA Executive Director Thoraya Obaid expresses concern about these articles which stipulate the "one child per couple" and "social compensation fees" and are therefore "contrary to the principles of free choice in the matter of family size, as expressed in the ICPD Programme of Action."

During our meetings with local SFPC, Ministry of Health officials and magistrates, while admitting that coercive practices had taken place in the past, they denied that coercive abortions, involuntary sterilization, or indeed any other coercive practices were taking place in their jurisdictions. As previously noted, they denied that the social compensation fees (or "society raising children fees") were coercive or that they were a significant source of revenue for the counties. Moreover, the deputy county magistrates asserted that although these fees are set by the province or municipality, they had the leeway to lower, stretch out, or even waive the fees for couples who were unable to pay them. The fact remains, however, that on the books these fees for the first "out of plan" child are often set at two to three times the couple’s annual salary for the previous year, a level which for many must be so punitive as to be, in our view, coercive. Moreover, when we asked whether any couples had taken such cases to the local courts, the answer was always negative; rather, the case was reported to have been resolved administratively, which left us with a sense of opacity rather than transparency.

It is noteworthy that while the propaganda and educational posters and notices in the local SFPC clinics stress "informed choice" for contraceptive methods and the absence of birth control targets, quotas, or qiangpo, some of the older, sterner propaganda slogans can still be seen outside the SFPC premises on nearby walls. These slogans, many now faded but still readable, call for "resolutely" implementing population control, "sternly" implementing the one-child policy, and "severely" preventing out-of-plan births. As we drove through towns, we saw numerous instances of these slogans, although faded, still present on town walls.

"We find that with a population of 1.3 billion, PRC leaders view population control as a high priority and remain nervous as they face many imponderables concerning population growth and socioeconomic change. Decisions made now and in the future by the PRC could have unintended consequences. Moreover, PRC population matters affect major U.S. policy concerns and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future."

Discussion:

With regard to the imponderables, there are numerous tracks to consider.

• Economic Growth: Can China sustain its economic growth at a 7% economic growth rate? While we are not economists, it is well and widely known that economies go through cycles. China will certainly, at some point in time, go through a down-cycle. What will happen both to government control and its ability to feed its population are unknown. China might easily see an economic downturn. Our travels in rural China suggest that entry into WTO may have adverse effects on the small farmer. China’s economic boom was due in large part to Deng Xiaoping’s land reform. Small farm economies, however, have begun to stagnate and with an upsurge in cheap farm imports due to WTO accession, those economies may suffer with repercussions felt in the cities.

• Fertility Rate: Can China sustain its total fertility rate at 1.8 children/woman or lower? What if Chinese census data are incorrect? What if the population of China is significantly greater than 1.3 billion? Some of the research elite with whom we met voiced concerns about the validity of the census, particularly if there has been a significant undercount of the "floating" population.

• HIV/AIDS: The PRC is poorly prepared to cope with HIV/AIDS. Although many officials deny the existence of HIV/AIDS in their jurisdictions, the reality of the number of Chinese citizens carrying the disease has potentially grave consequences for the world community. In each county we visited, health officials denied the existence of even one case of HIV/AIDS in their counties. "Perhaps elsewhere in China, but not here," was a chorus with which became familiar. This denial will hurt China in the long run, and it should do a better job of moniroting and reporting the prevalence of HIV/AIDS. It is in the U.S. interest that China develop an effective HIV/AIDS program to address this matter with the utmost urgency.

• Eugenics: There is a constant echo of improving the "quality" of the population and improving the "quality" of births, and this partially explains the prevalence of abortion on demand. Healthcare providers in several substations told us that if women are sick and taking cold medicine (specifically something like Contac), they could come to a health station and request an abortion. We were told that SFPC clinics screen for five health conditions which pose a teratogen risk or threat to the fetus: Herpes Simplex, Toxoplasmosis, Cytomegalovirus, another kind of Herpes, and German Measles (Rubella). Chinese officials told us that a "quality" birth is a mistranslation of the essence of the policy. They explain that it refers to the quality of life for these children – ideally, parents should have fewer children, later in life, when they have more resources to spend on raising these children. The children, therefore, have better access to education, healthcare, resources, etc., and they stand a better chance of having a high "quality" of life. That said, the issue of genetic testing remains a troubling one. Before obtaining permission to marry, couples are screened genetically to determine whether they are at risk to have a deformed child. This screening is per the Law on Maternal and Infant Healthcare circa June 1, 1995. (Exhibit 15) Permission to marry can be denied, at least temporarily, until such conditions are remedied.

• Social Security/Aging Population: In China there is an absence of an adequate social security system. The chorus we heard from some rural women was that they do not need to have more than one child because they are not concerned about who will take care of them when they retire. The answer, for them, was that the State will provide. There are nursing homes that will adequately cover their needs, therefore, they do not need to have multiple children to care for them in their old age. However, a different chorus echoed by some government officials and government propaganda, particularly in large cities like Shanghai, is that there may not be sufficient resources to care for the aged – there is actually an effort underway under some circumstances to encourage couples to have more than one child in order to care for aging parents. As a sign of one of the unpredictable consequences, the mood in Shanghai is one in which, given the prosperity of the city, people do not want to have multiple births – many are hesitant to have any children at all. The fertility rate in Shanghai is 0.7 – well below the national average. Who will care for the elderly in Shanghai in 20-30 years? (The current population of Shanghai Municipality is approximately 17 million, including 3 million migrants.)

The unpredictability of the future in China is a cause of great concern and should weigh heavily on the minds of U.S. policymakers. We saw the result of China’s initiation of the one-child policy which has led to the unintended consequence of unwanted baby girls. The result is a demographic problem of huge proportions, as seen in the country’s gender ration showing 116 boy babies registered for every 100 girl babies. We saw happy American families formed in the U.S. Consulate General in Guangzhou – it is there that adoptive parents receive travel papers for their new baby daughters, to the tune of 5000 American adoptions each year.

We therefore recommend that appropriate resources be allocated to monitor and evaluate PRC population control programs. If this is important to U.S. policy, the U.S. government should be prepared to provide the resources. A possibility is to use Chinese language-trained officers from the Embassy and Consulates General for monitoring population control throughout China. UNFPA is stretched to its extremes and is unable to monitor even its own 32 program counties effectively. China’s control of its own population ranks high on the PRC’s list of issues of national security concern. China’s population control programs, therefore, should be high on the U.S. list of national security concerns.