Appeasing China, Miscellaneous, News Item

Edinburgh’s Royal College Of Surgeons Honors China’s Body Parts Snatcher

Royal College Of Surgeons Edinburgh
Royal College Of Surgeons Edinburgh

Image: pressdispensary

Not since those ghastly 19th Century killers Burke and Hare has Scotland’s premier medical establishment been associated with grisly profits from corpses, not that these days Edinburgh’s Royal College of Surgeons (RCSE) is engaged in any criminal activity, or paying body-snatchers to secure ‘dissection material’. However this august institution is attracting concern as a consequence of one of its Fellows, Professor, Huang Jiefu, Deputy Chief of China’s Central Health Care Committee, responsible for the health of the core leaders of the Party and the state. This individual is praised by some within the wider medical establishment for aiding a claimed moderation of China’s medical atrocities regarding organ extractions. The Professor had during 2014 issued some ambitious and misleading claims that China would establish a voluntary organ donation system conforming to international standards.

Professor Huang Jiefu
Prof. Huang Jiefu

Image:NYT

According to Huang China would stop using organs from executed prisoners, an oblique assurance that no longer would countless numbers of political and death row prisoners face execution by having their organs ripped out of their bodies. Naturally the prospect of ending these harrowing atrocities was greatly welcomed by the international medical community. It was also greeted with an alarming degree of credulity, no doubt the standing of Huang Jiefu was seen as conveying authority. If he was issuing such statements it followed that China’s Regime was seriously committed to ending such harrowing violations.

If only matters were that transparently simple, however academics, medical colleagues lined up to praise Huang, citing him as a champion of human rights, others were less convinced. Concerns however were brushed away by repeating, as fact, the claims so carefully promoted by Huang Jiefu. Nor has the medical community taken account of the reality that his remit within the Chinese government does not extend to having authority over transplant reform, nor has it ever been applied in his public role!

A New York Times report (November 16, 2015) Huang Jiefu had previously announced (to international applause) that: “From Jan. 1, 2015, we will completely stop using death row prisoners’ organs as a transplant source. The only source will be organs from dead citizens who have voluntarily donated.”

However in the following twelve months the New York Times noted that under the new regime of supposedly not using organs from executed political or criminal prisoners, China’s organ supply showed no decrease!

..”organs from prisoners, including those on death row, can still be used for transplants in China, with the full backing of policy makers, according to Chinese news reports, as well as doctors and medical researchers in China and abroad. “They just reclassified prisoners as citizens,” said Huige Li, a Chinese-born doctor at the University of Mainz in Germany. Source: NYT November 16, 2015

Clearly the claims made by Huang that China now operates a voluntary organ donation system need to be viewed with considerable skepticism, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/world/asia/china-bends-vow-using-prisoners-organs-for-transplants.html medical atrocities continue on an industrial sized scale, with the knowledge and authorization of the very regime of which Huang Jiefu is part.

Image:abcnews

Just what was the Royal College Of Surgeons Edinburgh thinking in honoring a man so worryingly linked with such medical atrocities? An individual who has seemingly conceded that “….as recently as November, 2012 that he continues to perform about two liver transplants every week – so that would be 100 organs a year, and using his own figures, 90 to 95 per cent of those would have come from executed prisoners.”  SOURCE: Falunda 2013/05/24/

We think it’s plain wrong that such a globally respected medical organization, with its commitment to ethical principles should choose to honor a man at the heart of a regime notorious for its record of abusing human rights. Thankfully in response to international criticism, in which we played an active and prominent role, the University of Sydney in 2015 decided not renew Huang’s fellowship. An action we hope will be followed by other academic and medical institutions and it’s hoped receive support from Scottish MSPs, all of whom we have contacted on this issue Appeal To Scottish MSPs

If you share our concern then please consider directly contacting the RCSE.

PA to President: Moira Britton and Fiona Ramsay
Tel: (+44) 131 527 1635
Fax: (+44) 131 557 9771
Email: presidentpa@rcsed.ac.uk

News Item, Tibet

Chinese President’s Visit Reinforces Profit-Driven UK Foreign Policy

Image:chinadaily

On Monday, October 19 Chinese President, Xi Jinping lands in England on a state visit, as with his recent trip to the US it’s all about expanding and strengthening economic and political influence. An objective that western governments are desperate to comply with, their economies increasingly enmeshed, and dependent upon, trade with China.

The biggest casualty in the drive to secure lucrative commercial relations has been foreign policy and the cynical and illusory promises of ‘positive engagement with China’, that we were assured would encourage and progress human rights, has been exposed as no more than political jargon. It was always a sleight-of-hand, engineered by the sharp suits at the State Department, who were already sold and bought on elevating trade above considerations of human rights. Successive Administrations promoted the concept, while an ever powerful China lobby oiled the wheels across the DC political scene. Money talks and sure as hell it screamed, and does so still to those seeing to profit from deals with China.

No doubt a similar deception was foisted upon folks in the UK, their Foreign Office, with a long history of diplomacy in China has been equally active in appeasing China’s regime, and like their counterparts in 2201 C St Northwest, Washington DC, human rights issues receive platitudes, are ignored or marginalized. Such sensitive an issue cannot after all be allowed to disturb relations, and so there will be no mention during Xi Jinping’s discussions with the British government of Tibet, East Turkistan, far too dangerous subjects, that the Chinese regime has insisted are not open for debate. Nor will a word be raised against the horrors of China’s coercive birth-control program, that has targeted women with forced-sterilizations, fines, detention, removal of housing rights and other penalties. Indeed while the Congressional Executive Commission On China has featured this issue in its 2015 report the UK Foreign Office has chosen complete silence on the subject. So much for an ethical foreign policy!

Meanwhile Tibetans and their supporters will no doubt be planning various protests during Xi Jinping’s visit, power to them, it would be naive though for anyone to expect that the British authorities will be championing the cause of Tibet, even their meager offerings on human rights  simply cannot be trusted. After all how can their assurances be believed when on record they choose to ignore the harrowing medical atrocities inflicted upon women across China and occupied territories such as Tibet and East Turkistan!

Uncategorized

Is Female Genital Mutilation More Of An Atrocity Than China’s Forced Sterilizations?

Graphic via @tibettruth

It’s the international day against Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and various social networking platforms are buzzing with discussions and comments in opposition to this issue. Anyone concerned with women’s human rights is naturally promoting this important event and demanding an end to the practice of FGM.  The global outrage surrounding  a vicious disfigurement and abuse of a woman’s freedom of control over her own body has attracted concerted and fierce opposition. Such a response contrasts starkly with the subject of China’s medical atrocities. While feminists, women’s NGOs and bodies such as the United Nations Fund for Population and United Nations Commission On The Status of Women are rightly campaigning against FGM they are virtually invisible when it comes to China’s forced sterilization of women.

Is the slicing open of a woman against her will, forcibly sterilized through such ‘surgery’, any less an atrocity than the practice of FGM? Clearly not as both constitute a violent abuse of women’s human rights. Yet the influential and agitated voices of condemnation on FGM, maintain a cold-hearted silence on the countless numbers of women forcibly sterilized by China.

While we support and respect all who are campaigning to end FGM such efforts are somewhat demeaned by the worrying absence of equivalent action against China’s program of forced sterilizations. Surely all violence against women should be equally and forcefully opposed?

Uncategorized

Beijing+20 Meeting Silent On China’s Forced Sterilizations

Ms Cai Yiping Silent On China's Forced Sterilizations.
Ms Cai Yiping Silent On China’s Forced Sterilizations.

Image:ips.org

Only within the self-serving, delusional double-think of the United Nations would you witness a former journalist linked to an organization that administers China’s notorious and vicious population control program announce with dead-pan seriousness that:

“We need to hold all states  accountable to the promises they made 20 years ago” Source: comments quoted by @liy

Fine words, but hang-on a minute this  comes from no less than  Ms Cai Piying formerly employed by the All Women’s Federation Of China a national body that overseas and assists in implementing forced sterilizations across China! She reportedly issued this demand at the current Beijing+20 meeting, convened by the United Nations to assess and progress the commitments of states who were signatories to the 1995 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action

These documents clearly state governments should;

“Take all appropriate measures to eliminate harmful, medically unnecessary or coercive medical interventions…” and that “Acts of violence against women also include forced sterilization and forced abortion, coercive/forced use of contraceptives…” (section D, paragraph 115).

Given that China’s Regime has forcibly sterilized untold numbers of women since then, and continues to do so, the words of Ms Cai Piying are rather hollow, or should we say cynical in that her role within such meetings is no doubt to serve the disinformation objectives of her employers!

Examining the outcomes and statements thus far from Beijing+20 and already a number of concerns have been raised. Apart from the singular silence on the issue of China’s program of forced sterilizations, which has traumatized the lives of  women in China, occupied Tibet and East Turkestan, the meeting has been seen by younger women as being out-of-touch, too willing to celebrate the supposed achievements of the Beijing Declaration of 1995 and failing to make genuine progress on a range of key issues, most notably reproductive and health rights.

Anyone genuinely dedicated to championing human rights will be dismayed by the lack of exposure and advancement of such issues. They will be disappointed too at the absence of any rigorous demand for governments to protect and implement their commitments to sexual and reproductive rights, enshrined in the Beijing Declaration. As noted by one critic:

“A review conference, a celebration, is an opportunity to move forward and really get everyone to make commitments to challenge all these heads of states – not all of them are terrific – and to say that until and unless there are national action plans, until and unless there are implementation programs, we’re still going to sit here year after year and it’s not good enough.” .

Image:archivenet

Whenever the subject of reproductive rights is raised attention is naturally turned towards China, the nation that hosted the 1995 UN World Forum on Women, while across China, occupied Tibet and East Turkestan women were (and still are) denied freedom of choice or control over their own bodies are are forced to submit to the dictates of a male dominated totalitarian state. It is reasonable to consider that this issue,which so closely touches upon a central plank of feminist ideology, would be given prominent exposure? Yet there was a merciless absence of any reference to the subject, nor criticism of China’s program, which causes untold misery and suffering for millions across the Chinese Empire.

Will the suppressed and violated voices of Chinese, Tibetan and Uyghur women be given exposure by Beijing+20? Can we hope to see the assembled NGOs reach a consensus and issue a forceful condemnation of such violations and call upon the Chinese government to honor the commitments it made in the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action to eliminate coercive practices?

How Can Beijing+20 Debate VAW Without Reference To China's Forced Sterilizations?
How Can Beijing+20 Debate VAW Without Reference To China’s Forced Sterilizations?

Image:christopherherwig/graphicby@tibettruth

In view of the dismal record of the United Nations on the subject and the presence as guest speaker of Ms Cai Yiping  the prospects of any balanced and unbiased assessment of women’s human and reproductive rights in China looks unlikely. Particularly from an individual, who in all probability was responsible for drafting propaganda for an organization that inflicts forced sterilizations upon countless numbers of women!

“By far and away the most important mass organization involved in birth planning is the Women’s Federation (fulian). In the villages, where the great majority of the population still lives, the women in charge of women’s affairs, known as “women’s heads,” have had the duty of enforcing the policy throughout their villages, which means imposing birth restrictions on their neighbors and even relatives. Given the unpopularity of the policy and the drastic measures sometimes ordered from above, enforcing the policy has been an onerous and unpleasant task at best. While grass-roots Women’s Federation cadres have been responsible for the day-to-day work of birth planning, during birth planning campaigns all the major mass organizations including those for workers, youth, and students have been enjoined to contribute to the effort to mobilize the population to achieve population-control targets”

(Source: Greenhalgh, S. & Winkler, E. 2001, Chinese State Birth Planning in the 1990s and Beyond, Resource Information Center, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), US Department of Justice, Perspective Series, September, pp.77-79 –Attachment 17).

Women Are Viciously Denied Reproductive Rights In China
Women Are Viciously Denied Reproductive Rights In China

Image:kunchokbodrangzen

Imagine hosting a conference on women’s rights in the Black townships of Soweto, and having as a prominent speaker, a supporter of the racist policies of the Apartheid Regime of South Africa! Such is the staggering hypocrisy and troubling ethical questions raised by Ms.Cai’s prominence within the Beijing+20 Forum. Perhaps however she is now committed to women’s human rights, that being so we look forward to hearing her condemnation of China’s population policies, which continue to deny and violate women’s reproductive and human rights.

Appeasing China, News Item, Tibet

Is Sydney University A Suitable Venue For A Tibet Meeting?

 Doctor Huang Jiefu
Doctor Huang Jiefu

Image: afp

“In the 1990s a very special form of lethal injection, called slow lethal injection, was perfected in China by Chinese officials as a way to preserve the organs so that the person is basically anesthetized, they don’t die right away, it gives the surgeons the time to take out as many organs as they would like to and then the lethal injection is finalized. So, it’s done in a way that actually allows this very, very unsavory mix of execution and medical care and treatment to be done by the same team of doctors. It’s horrific, really.” Source: Maria Fiatarone Singh, Professor of Medicine, Sydney University

In April 2013 Sydney University was coming intense international pressure to strip the honors it bestowed upon Doctor Huang Jiefu, a former Chinese health (sic) minister, following concerns that that he presided over the removal of organs from executed prisoners without their consent. Details here

Huang Jiefu, Accused Of Removing Livers From Executed Prisoners

Image: archivenet

Activists within Tibettruth were at the forefront of action in exposing this issue and challenging the University to withdraw its award to Doctor Huang, who now oversees the organ transplant committee in China. Apart from some noises that suggested that a review would be made of his honorary professorship, he retained support from some academic colleagues with Sydney University.

Fast forward to November 2014 and it is hard to find across the Internet or other media the published conclusions of such a inquiry, indeed it appears as if the matter has been brushed beneath a very thick carpet. Meanwhile suspicions remain that a man who “….as recently as November, 2012 that he continues to perform about two liver transplants every week – so that would be 100 organs a year, and using his own figures, 90 to 95 per cent of those would have come from executed prisoners.” Source

In the absence of any formal statement, it is probably safe to conclude that Sydney University has not removed its award from Doctor Huang Jiefu and as far as we can determine has not issued any comments condemning China’s medical atrocities.

Image: screenshot from SFT Facebook posting

In light of this, and considering the exposure generated we are puzzled at the decision by Students For Free Tibet (SFT) to use the venue of Sydney University for its November 7 meeting on Tibet, when that institution employs and honors China’s former ‘Minister Of Forced Organ Extractions’! We can only hope that this entirely unwise and misguided choice is relieved by SFT issuing a statement making clear its position on the matter and adding its voice to call for Sydney University to withdraw its honorary professorship to Doctor Huang.