The Chinese have been rather heavy handed lately in their dealings with certain of their nouveau riche citizens who have decided the laws should not apply to them. If they want more than one child they will have them, they seem to have decided. They have the money to take care of them, so why not?
The government’s answer-we will just have to take that property. So there!
The conservatives here have always pointed to China’s one child per couple law as an example of the totalitarian brutality of the communist regime, while at the same time agonizing over their more worrisome policies. Their massive population, at roughly one and a third billion, is the reason for the law. It is also the reason that, in the face of economic expansion and industrial development, they have developed an insatiable appetite for oil, one that grows harder to satisfy over time.
Due to this, they see no reason to impose sanctions on the government of Sudan-where a large part of their oil supply comes from- over the treatment of the citizens of Darfur. Similarly, they can be relied upon to oppose any similar such actions against Iran, whether such are needed or not, based solely on this need.
Add to this their ever-expanding military budget and the potential for a diplomatic and possibly even a military confrontation over the Korean peninsula or Taiwan.
Throw in their questionable at best trade practices, and simmer in a stew of their loathsome human rights abuses.
Add a dash or two of government censorship and laws against religious and political rights and freedom of the press and expression.
Baste in a savory sauce of heavy-handed micromanagement of all aspects of Chinese culture and day-to-day life.
Throw out the fortune cookie- you don’t need it to see that there is palpable cause for alarm at their massive growth and political and diplomatic influence in the world.
It is all together a recipe for a potential disaster.
Why then is there all this concern from the American right about their one child per couple policy? All things considered, I applaud their insight and determination, and their realistic assessment of their predicament. It seems cold and brutal now, of course, but if they did not undertake this approach, what might be the long-term result, not only for themselves, but for the world?
I might even go so far as to suggest that they take it a step further. Ratchet it up a notch or two. Announce a ban on all childbirths. No children whatsoever, in other words, for anyone. That way, they would arrive at their population reduction goals even faster.
It would only be a temporary mandate, of course, one of limited duration. I would say that-oh, maybe about sixty years ought to do it.