The uncertain future of human rights activist Chen Guangcheng—especially given the divided response of the Chinese government and the response of the Chinese people– suggests that America could be playing a pivotal role in that country’s progress toward democracy. Analyst Dr. Jing, an expert on Chinese politics, foreign relations and security issues, stated recently that the Chinese people are in a transition toward democracy: “China is at a crossroads of political reform; and the widespread concern and protests among the Chinese people over the Chen Guangcheng case demonstrate that this can be the turning point in the nation’s political development” (Jing). Yet, our nation’s response has been minimal at best.
Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng
What influence America has in such cases is often cast aside for political gains. However, what might have been gained had the current administration encouraged Guangcheng to stay at the embassy? Why didn’t Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visit him when he was at the embassy? Why was he encouraged to leave the embassy? Could it be that our president’s lack of comment when asked directly about the stand off stems at least in part from his ongoing record of abortion advocacy?
To know how the United States has promoted abortion worldwide requires looking at our influence as a global power. Although we like to think of ourselves as defenders of democracy, at times we nullify that effect. At the United Nations as well, our role appears that of Big Brother. According to one UN observer: “The United States has a lot of power over the interpretation and implementation of resolutions and decisions at the UN. This influence is used to pressure other countries into accepting population control and abortion as a human right” (Marchinda). Particularly under the current administration, US tax dollars are funneled to NGOs such as International Planned Parenthood, in order to promote and expand abortion rights in countries that would otherwise oppose them.
Behind the abortion agenda is the assumption that the earth is overpopulated. The United States in particular has preferred the quick fix approach to human ills represented by abortion funding. Ironically, China’s leadership clearly bought into the Western theory of overpopulation, yet the strength of their economy today in part derives from the size of their population—an asset when it comes to a strong economy (Scase, Mallik). Clearly erroneous, efforts to reduce population by promoting abortion has not resulted in the end of poverty. One grievous result of the abortion solution to overpopulation has been the horrific human rights abuses, as recorded by the human rights activist Guangcheng.
The United Nations Population Fund has supported efforts that violate the UN’s own Declaration of human rights. Article 3 states: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” Yet, the UNPF supported China’s One Child Policy that has led to women getting arrested for being pregnant without a permit and to coerced late-term abortions. In fact, America “has been the single biggest driving force (both monetarily and morally) behind the movement to control the populations of developing countries” (Marchinda). The pro-abortion agenda of the White House tops our traditional willingness to defend human rights.
The right to life is a global issue because it transcends boundaries. It is a right that transcends other rights since without the right to life, the other rights matter little. Some commentators have called for an end to bullying other countries into accepting pro-abortion policies and laws (Slater). This stand off shows the real intent of America in foreign relations: work toward abortion rights at the cost of human rights.