to Japanese Section ! to English Corner !
PRI's Weekly Briefing
(PRI is the acronym for Population Research
Institute which is a branch of Human Life
International based in Front Royal, Virginia,
U.S.A.)
Dear Friends and Colleagues:
New England, long a bastion of population
control sentiment, home to the lowest birthrates
in the nation, is suffering from a growing
labor shortage. New Englanders find themselves
in the awkward position of having to choose
between more immigrants or face the social
and economic consequences of depopulation.
Another Baby Boom, the " natural"
solution to the problem, does not seem in
the offing.
Steven W. Mosher,
President
PRI's Weekly Briefing
Vol. 1. No. 29
16 December 1999
DEPOPULATION STRIKES NEW ENGLAND
Greenspan's Answer: Increase Net Immigration
POPULATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE --- The UNFPA
seized upon 12 October 1999 -- the date world
population was to reach 6 billion -- to once
again raise the tired specter of overpopulation.
Joined by the International Planned Parenthood
Federation, they sought to frighten Washington
into spending more money on family planning
programs, both at home and abroad.
The most significant aspects of the birth
of Baby Six Billion were
deliberately left unmentioned: World population
will never double again. If
there is any population crisis in the developed
world, it is one of looming
depopulation, not overpopulation.
Take the growing labor shortage in the United
States. Early in November, Fed Chairman Alan
Greenspan released a report stating that
American productivity and market competitiveness
were being threatened by an ever-tightening
labor force. How did he propose to address
the problem? One suggestion was to increase
imports, thus moving American jobs offshore.
A second was to expand the workforce, which
is hardly possible in a time of record-low
unemployment unless you raise the age of
retirement. Greenspan's preferred option,
however, was to increase immigration.
What Greenspan didn't say was this: America's
birthrate has been below replacement since
about 1970. There are simply too few young
people coming into the workforce to fill
available jobs. Another way of putting this
is that America's population growth rate
is too low to sustain its current rate of
economic growth, which will in turn increasingly
affect its competitiveness on the world market.
According to the Census Bureau, the present
US rate of natural increase is only about
one half of one percent annually, and is
dropping rapidly. By 2030, barring either
a significant increase in the birthrate,
or a massive increase in immigration, the
US population will be in absolute decline.
The problems this will cause are already
apparent in the Northeast. A report issued
jointly last week by the Center for Labor
Market Studies at Northeastern University
and the non-profit organization Mass INC
underscores the social and economic impact
of falling birthrates. Entitled The Changing
Workforce: Immigrants and the New Economy
in Massachusetts, the report highlights Massachusetts'
falling birthrates, and hence its increasing
dependence upon foreign immigration for sustaining
both the state's population, and the growth
and success of its economy.
The study placed Massachusetts as one of
the five US states most dependent on foreign
immigration -- a dependence resulting from
a combination of falling birthrates and domestic
out-migration. The report found that, absent
foreign immigration, the Massachusetts population
would be smaller today than it was in 1970,
and that foreign immigrants in Massachusetts
were responsible for 82 percent of the net
growth in the state's civilian labor force
between the mid-1980s and 1997.
This dependence on immigration for sustaining
economic productivity extends throughout
the entire Northeast Corridor. New York,
New Jersey, Rhode Island and Connecticut
together with Massachusetts make up the five
US states most dependent on immigration to
generate labor force growth. If not for foreign
immigration, the current labor force of the
entire New England region would be 200,000
workers less than it was in 1990.
" Many New Englander's have voluntarily
adopted a one-child policy, justifying their
selfishness by an appeal to the myth of overpopulation,"
said PRI President, Steven W. Mosher. " Having
chosen fewer children, they will either admit
more immigrants or watch creeping economic
stagnation infect the entire region. 'Give
me your tired huddled masses yearning to
breath free' will be in effect rewritten
to say 'Give me your tired huddled masses
. . . to fill our emptying classrooms, take
our vacant jobs, and support us in our old
age.'"
If birthrates continue to fall according
to current projections, Massachusetts and
the Northeast Corridor will be joined by
more and more states in their dependence
on foreign immigration. This slow-burning
demographic implosion will be one of the
principal challenges facing the US during
the next millennium.
###
Copyright 1999 by PRI. Unlimited use granted.
Please circulate widely.
Credit requested.
Dear Friend and Colleague:
We report on two victories achieved during
the recent session of Congress.
President Ronald Reagan's Mexico City Policy
was signed permanently into law
by President William Jefferson Clinton, who
overturned this same executive
order upon taking office seven years ago.
And, as a result of a series of
last-minute maneuvers, a significant cut
was made in the FY 2000 population
planning budget. With " family planning"
scandals breaking out in Kosovo,
China, and other parts of the world, the
downsizing of the population
planning budget may turn out to be permanent.
Steven W. Mosher
President
PRI's Weekly Briefing
Vol. 1 / No. 25
10 December 1999
Albright Scrambles to Appease Population
Control Allies
WASHINGTON, DC --- US Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright, decrying cuts
in the (FY) 2000 population planning budget
as the result of an " extremist
agenda," has promised that President
Clinton will work to restore funding to
the record levels of 1995. (Washington Post,
" Albright Pledges Funds..." 25
November 1999).
This is a sharp turnabout from the position
taken by the Administration
before the budget compromise was signed.
At that time, Administration
officials were saying that the family planning
restrictions championed by US
Representative Christopher Smith (R-NJ) would
" not harm our fundamental
position" on international family planning
(New York Times, " Albright Is
Offering Compromise...," 12 November
1999).
The Administration shifted course in order
to placate pro-abortion,
pro-population control activists, who were
furious over the codification of
the Mexico City language in US law, which
will be much more difficult to
reverse than a mere executive order. They
were equally upset that the
Administration allowed itself to be maneuvered
into--what is for them--a
lose-lose situation by Smith and other pro-life
Republicans.
Clinton agreed to sign the Mexico City policy,
forbidding US tax dollars
from going to nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) that performed or
promoted abortions, into law. But at the
same time he insisted on inserting
a waiver. If he invoked the waiver, then
he could give up to $15 million to
abortion-promoting organizations like the
International Planned Parenthood
Federation. Smith agreed to this, but insisted
on a penalty: If the
President invoked the waiver, this would
automatically trigger a $12.5
million cut in population planning spending.
These funds would be shifted
into child survival programs and spent on
things like polio and diphtheria
vaccinations for children in the developing
world.
Forced to choose between abortion and population
control, Clinton chose
abortion. Pro-abortion groups would get a
slice of the pie, shrinking it in
the process. Population planning spending
was reduced from $385 million to
$372.5 million.
With Albright's promise to increase American
funding for population control
programs from $385 million to $541.6 million
for fiscal year 2001, the stage
is set for a major confrontation between
those who want the American
taxpayer to foot the bill for abortion, sterilization
and contraception
around the world, and those who don't.
Dear Friend and Colleague:
PRI's International Conference, Human Rights
in China: 50 Years Later, attracted the attention
of the international community, and national
and international media, to the plight of
the persecuted Falun Gong, as well as to
Christians, minorities and families under
siege by the one-child policy. Citing human
rights concerns, China's leading freedom
fighters joined Wei Jingsheng in opposing
China's unconditional entrance in the World
Trade Organization.
Steven W. Mosher
PRI's Weekly Briefing
Vol. 1 / No. 24
23 November 1999
Wei Jingsheng Calls for Democracy in America
Chinese Freedom Fighters Slam WTO Agreement
POPULATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE --- China's
leading democrat, a man jailed by China's
communist government for two decades for
advocating democracy in China, now says that
America needs more democracy.
Wei Jingsheng's remarks came on the first
day of PRI's international conference: Human
Rights in China: 50 Years Later, and were
made in reference to the World Trade Organization
(WTO) bilateral trade agreement that was
recently signed between Chinese Premier Zhu
Rongji and the Clinton Administration.
Scholars throughout America, Europe and China,
" have concluded that the WTO agreement
does not represent American interests,"
said Wei Jingsheng. " If the White House
believes it can make this decision independently
without consulting with Congress, that's
exactly the opposite of the way things proceed.
If it was left to the American Congress to
decide whether or not to sign the WTO agreement,
it never would have happened."
Only weeks after Communist Party leaderJiang
Zemin told his Central Military Commission
" to be prepared for war with America....
The President decides to give China a piece
of candy," Wei continued. " And
it seems like they've also decided to tack
on to this gift of permanent MFN (Most Favored
Nation) status. Is the White House sending
the message to China that human rights will
have to be respected? No, they are sending
the opposite message. Those concerned about
human rights and democracy in China view
this agreement as a catastrophe.
" Every area in China has human rights
problems," Wei Jingsheng declared. China's
one-child policy is no exception.
China's One-Child Policy
Is China's one-child policy coming to an
end, as the United Nations Population Fund
(UNFPA) asserts? Not at all, responds Steven
W. Mosher, President of PRI, who has been
tracking the one-child policy since its inception
in the early eighties. " The Chinese
government has made it clear that the one-child
policy will be continued into the foreseeable
future."
The UNFPA lost its US funding in October
1998 because, in violation of a promise to
Congress, it resumed its collaboration with
the Chinese government. In order to mitigate
congressional anger at its duplicity, the
UNFPA began a media campaign to try to convince
the world that China's one-child policy was
over. According to Mosher, " They did
not reckon on word of this campaign getting
back to China. But it did, and on 13 October
Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji thought it necessary
to correct the record. 'China will continue
to enforce its effective family planning
policy in the new century,' said Premier
Zhu, stressing that China would continue
to make 'family planning' a fundamental state
policy."
What does China mean when it claims that
its one-child policy is voluntary? " As
long as the targeted women walk the last
few steps to the local medical clinic,"
Mosher remarked, " then the abortion
that follows is said to be 'voluntary.'"
Women may be subjected to " psychological
mauling, sleep-deprivation, arrest; grueling
mistreatment... until eventually they break
down."
" There are cases in China where brute
force is used to perform abortion and sterilization.
But more commonly, the Chinese government
abides by its own Orwelian definition of
voluntary, which is to say that you can fine
the woman; you can lock her up; you can subject
her to morning-to-night brainwashing sessions;
you can cut off the electricity to her house;
you can fire her from her job; you can fire
her husband from his job, and you can fire
her parents from their jobs."
The Chinese government has failed to consider
the social consequences of its policy of
so-called family planning.
" In enforcing a one child policy, the
Chinese government has put the Chinese people
in a position of having to turn on their
daughters in their desire to have sons. It
has put parents in the position of having
to choose between a son, who will support
them in old age, or having a daughter who
will marry out and live with her husband's
family. The result is that little girls have
to run a gauntlet from conception through
birth. Many of them do not survive that gauntlet."
The first part of that gauntlet is sex selective
abortion, Mosher said. The second part is
female infanticide. " Reports throughout
the length and breadth of China reveal that
little girls are dying shortly after birth
in mysterious circumstances." Now there
is a shortage of 30 million brides in China.
China's communist government desires its
overall population to be in a state of decline,
said a reporter from the Beijing Daily, China's
national newspaper, and to have complete
regulatory power over population and demographics
through control of reproduction. The short-term
challenge is how to bring China's population
into a state of decline; the long-term challenge
is how to " deal with" China's aging
population. " If more people are needed,"
this reporter said, " we will raise the
birth rate."
" China's 'family-planning' policy is
particularly effective against minority populations,
in accord with China's 1987 eugenics law
which permits the attempt to 'breed a better
Chinese man, and a better Chinese woman.'"
The state is targeting minorities such as
the Uyghur people of China, Mosher said,
to depress their birthrates below replacement.
" In a few generations, the Uyghur people
will cease to be a threat to China's 'territorial
integrity.'"
Uyghur representative, Adil Ahmat, joined
the conference on its second day to unveil
a score of documented human rights abuses
committed against his people by Chinese officials,
including forced abortion and sterilization.
###