When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

China

China’s One-Child Policy Leads To Racket Of Fines, Kidnapping, Foreign Adoptions

Outrage follows an investigation into the confiscation of a dozen infants from a poor rural area of Hunan province. There, local officials offered dozens of children up for adoption to foreigners after the biological parents failed to pay fines for violat

A Chinese orphanage (Wootang01)
A Chinese orphanage (Wootang01)
Wei Yingjie

In May this year, the Family Planning Department of Shaoyang City was accused of taking away infants by force over the past few years from dozens of families in order to meet the requirements of China's one-child policy. The infants, placed in an orphanage, were then sold abroad in the name of adoption.

When exposed, the scandal shocked the public.

On Sept. 28, the investigation was finally published. Yet to the public's outrage, the 12 officials involved were charged with no crimes, sanctioned instead by simply being expelled from the Chinese Communist Party and removed from their work functions in the Hunan province city offices.

What this means is that neither of the institutes involved in Shaoyang bear criminal liability; a serious tragedy that has stirred turmoil both inside and outside of China is a case where nobody is responsible.

The investigation concluded that Shaoyang Family Planning staff forcibly took infants away from their parents, and the orphanage profited from having arranged adoption for these children. Also, according to the investigation's findings, the two public departments did not enter into collusion, and thus the accusation of infant trafficking was not justified.

According to previous reports, some of the adopted infants were not "abandoned babies' as the authority claimed, but the kidnapped biological children of the parents involved. This is why it was particularly shocking when the scandal was disclosed.

The survey concluded that the parents should bear the responsibility because they had initially hidden the blood relation. What lies behind this is a very cruel reality. Some of the parents who had more than one child, in order to avoid trouble with their local family planning bureaucrats, and to avoid paying the "social compensation fee," often concealed the real blood ties of their children.

In other words, the means these desperate parents had employed to avoid the harsh punishment from the one-child policy is now used as the defense of these officials.

"Donations' from foreign parents

This rogue means of the authorities shirking their responsibility is also seen in the other conclusions of the report. For example, the report stated that there were no financial relations between the family planning office, the local Interior Ministry office, and the orphanage. According to the regulation concerning foreign adoption in China, and international practice, it's legal for the Shaoyang orphanage to accept a donation from the foreign adoptive parents and adoptive organizations.

One can't deny these facts. But again, another truth lies behind the excuses: the local officials kidnapped these infants to benefit from the "social compensation fees' and the potential donations that the orphanage could get from the foreigners. We have seen many media reports that "these fees had been a major financial resource of certain poor rural regions."

The false "truth" of the official findings hardly reveal the whole truth. We need a true conclusion that can stand the test of time. But that's precisely the reason why the survey tries to deny the truth. Because the acts of these officials are too heinous and the nature of the scandal is so grave, that recognizing the facts will arouse public opinion and grab the attention of the international press. And indeed, at that point, just punishing a few Shaoyang officials won't be enough to resolve the problem.

Bypassing the larger truth skirts the essence of the problem, avoiding the accountability of officials at an even higher level. But the tragedy remains that those parents have nowhere to pursue justice, and most important of all, have lost their children forever.

Read the original article in Chinese

photo - Wootang01

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Geopolitics

Utter Pessimism, What Israelis And Palestinians Share In Common

Right now, according to a joint survey of Israelis and Palestinians, hopes for a peaceful solution of coexistence simply don't exist. The recent spate of violence is confirmation of the deepest kind of pessimism on both sides for any solution other than domination of the other.

An old Palestinian protester waves Palestinian flag while he confronts the Israeli soldiers during the demonstration against Israeli settlements in the village of Beit Dajan near the West Bank city of Nablus.

A Palestinian protester confronts Israeli soldiers during the demonstration against Israeli settlements in the West Bank village of Beit Dajan on Jan. 6.

Pierre Haski

-Analysis-

PARIS — Just before the latest outbreak of violence between Israelis and Palestinians, a survey of public opinion among the two peoples provided a key to understanding the current situation unfolding before our eyes.

It was a joint study, entitled "Palestinian-Israeli Pulse", carried out by two research centers, one Israeli, the other Palestinian, which for years have been regularly asking the same questions to both sides.

The result is disastrous: not only is the support for the two-state solution — Israel and Palestine side by side — at its lowest point in two decades, but there is now a significant share of opinion on both sides that favors a "non-democratic" solution, i.e., a single state controlled by either the Israelis or Palestinians.

This captures the absolute sense of pessimism commonly felt regarding the chances of the two-state option ever being realized, which currently appears to be our grim reality today. But the results are also an expression of the growing acceptance on both sides that it is inconceivable for either state to live without dominating the other — and therefore impossible to live in peace.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest