The United Nations Wants To Recommend China's "One Child" Policy To Nigerians


[b]"Washington (CNSNews.com) – A U.S. congressman says the United Nations and China have been working hand-in-hand to spread China’s “One Child” population control policy to Africa and that recent comments by a top U.N. adviser calling on Nigeria to limit births to three children per family reflect that partnership.

Last week, after meeting with Nigeria’s new president, liberal economist Jeffrey Sachs told Agence France Presse (AFP): “I am really scared about population explosion in Nigeria. It is not healthy. Nigeria should work towards attaining a maximum of three children per family.”

Sachs is a special advisor to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, directs the Earth Institute at Columbia University, and is the author of The End of Poverty.

At a press conference on Wednesday,  Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) told CNSNews.com that this was not the first time a top U.N. adviser has pushed for population control in Nigeria. In fact, he said, the U.N. has been working with China to spread the population control message to Sub-Saharan Africa.

“I think two years ago the U.N. Population Fund and the State Family Planning Council of China invited the health ministers and other high officials of every sub-Saharan Africa (country) to Beijing for about a week,” Smith said during a Capitol Hill news conference.

“They gave them world-class hotel accommodations, and fed them the line that, ‘If you want economic growth, get rid of the children, follow China’s lead.’ And as our eminent demographers and scientists would tell you, it is a matter of when -- and not if --given the aging of the Chinese population that will begin in earnest in the very near future, that the economic miracle of China will quickly dissipate and become a nightmare,” Smith said.

Smith, who is the chairman of the Africa, Global Health and Human Rights subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said recent congressional hearings he conducted revealed the growing influence of China on world population control.

“Now we see they’re exporting the ‘one-child-per-couple’ mantra, which in Nigeria’s case or Rwanda’s case, to say may be two or three (children per couple),” Smith told CNSNews.com.

He stressed that restricting the number of people stunts a nation’s economic growth.

“The impact will be disastrous," said Smith. "If women decide they do not want to have children, that is their prerogative, but government stepping in and using the coercive power of the State to either incentivizing no children by putting penalties on as China does."

At the press conference, the congressman quoted a work by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, entitled “The Pivot of Civilization,” which contains a chapter “The Cruelty of Charity”, in which Sanger asserts that  “is cruel to help and to assist an indigent woman (to) have a child because you get more of those useless breeders.”

“It is eugenist and racist to the core and yet that’s the mindset being exported by China to Nigeria," said Smith.  "Now UNFPA has at its helm Nigeria. So you can be sure that very anti-human rights policy of China will have additional favor because UNFPA has enabled it right from the beginning and now they are targeting Africa."

Nigeria is currently the most populated country in Africa. The United Nations has predicted that the population of Nigeria will climb from its current 160 million to 730 million by the year 2100. The data are taken from the United Nations Population Fund.

If the U.N. predictions are correct, Nigeria would become the third most populated country in the world behind India and China. According to data from the UNFPA, currently the average number of children per Nigerian household is four.

Kyu-Young Lee, media spokesperson for Sachs, told CNSNews.com: “Research has shown time and time again that economic growth is tied to population control. The two go hand-in-hand.”

According to Lee, the goal of the UNFPA is to raise the standard of living for impoverished nations. To reach this objective, a mind-set change must take place. A multi-pronged approach involving family planning measures and reproductive health awareness would be necessary.

Currently, more than 70 percent of Nigerians live below the international poverty line, according to the UNFPA.

Steve Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, agreed with Smith that Sachs – a Nobel-nominated economist -- was trying to pressure Nigeria on behalf of the U.N.

“By bringing the weight of the U.N. to bear on Nigeria, Sachs is potentially contributing to a China-like situation, where the government will impose by force a limit on the number of children that couples can have, and impose this limit by forced abortions, forced sterilizations, and forced contraception,” Mosher said.

Mosher said Smith is correct that implementing a three-child-per-family limit would have disastrous effects for both Nigeria and the globe.

“It always starts being called voluntary, as did China’s, and very quickly matriculates into coercion, because in the end, women and men will want to build families. And then the government tells you how many,” Smith said.

“Neither the U.N., nor its special advisors, have any business encouraging countries to intervene in the personal decisions of their citizens whether or not to have children.  Couples have a fundamental right to determine for themselves the number and spacing of their children,” he added.

A transcript of CNSNews.com's exchange with Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) is presented below:

CNSNEWS.COM: "Jeffrey Sachs recommended that Nigeria adopt a three child per family maximum. Do you think Nigeria will accept this recommendation? If so, what do you think the effects will be?"

REP. CHRIS SMITH (R-N.J.): "I think two years ago the UN Population Fund and the State Family Planning Council of China invited the health ministers and other high officials of every sub-Saharan Africa (country) to Beijing for about a week. They gave them world class hotel accommodations, and fed them the line that if you want economic growth, get rid of the children, follow China’s lead. And as our imminent demographers and scientists would tell you, it is a matter of when and not if given the aging of the Chinese population that will begin in earnest in the very near future that the economic miracle of China will quickly dissipate and become a nightmare."

REP. SMITH: "But they are selling that (and I do chair the Global Human Rights Committee, which is also the Africa and Global Health Committee), we’ve held hearings on the influence of the Chinese form of governance and its dictatorship, and now we see they’re exporting the “one-child-per-couple” mantra, which in Nigeria’s case or Rwanda’s case, to say may be two or three (children per couple). The impact will be disastrous. If women decide they do not want to have children that is their prerogative, but government stepping in and using the coercive power of the State to either incentivizing no children by putting penalties on as China does. It always starts being called voluntary, as did China’s, and very quickly matriculates into coercion because in the end women and men will want to build families. And then the government tells you how many."

REP. SMITH: "And it all goes back, if you go back and read -- Margaret Sanger wrote a number of books and I’ve read most of them. One of them was called “Child Limitation,” in which she argues for one to two children per couple. Ted Turner recent said at a Global Climate Change Summit in Cancun, “We need a word of one-child-per couple policies just like China’s. Forgetting perhaps, not forgetting, that coercion is the only means to that end. And there was one book written by Margaret Sanger called “The Pivot of Civilization” and in chapter five, the chapter title is called, “The Cruelty of Charity.” And she argues that it is cruel to help and to assist an indigent woman have a child because you get more of those useless breeders. It is eugenist and racist to the core and yet that’s the mindset being exported by China to Nigeria. Now UNFPA has at its helm Nigeria. So you can be sure that very anti-human rights policy of China will have additional favor because UNFPA has enabled it right from the beginning and now they are targeting Africa."[/b]
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-smith-un-and-china-exporting-one-child-policy-nigeria-africa

I don't think this "one child" policy will work in any country besides China, so I think it's a joke what do you think?

too many kids=poverty

However, population control is not realistic in Nigeria. In a post-Nigeria setting, yes, I'm all for it

[size=28pt]A U.S. congressman[/size]

So when will this "one-child" policy be implemented in the USA?

Every time I walk out of my house, I see teenagers/ young college students with babies.

^-- US has a much slower pop growth rate than Nigeria?

And it is a huge country, one of the largest in the world.

Pop density of Nigeria is 433 per square mile.

China sef is at 363.

US is at 83.

(see this.)

@ Ileke Idi
"So when will this "one-child" policy be implemented in the USA? "

exactly, especially since that country has a bigger population then Nigeria. India is right behind China in population and I don't see that happening in that country.

I don't think any country besides China will practice that rule, they can recommend it but will the Nigerian government listen to that, Nope. If I am not mistaken there was a 4 child policy in Nigeria decades ago but was never implemented, so I think it's all talk
http://bristolboy.hubpages.com/hub/Top-10-Countries-With-The-Largest-Population

ekt_bear:

^-- US has a much slower pop growth rate than Nigeria?

And it is a huge country, one of the largest in the world.

Pop density of Nigeria is 433 per square mile.

China sef is at 363.

US is at 83.

(see this.)

Hmm interesting. . . . with the alarming increasing birth rate of foreigners like immigrants of hispanic origins, the one-child policy should be seriously put into consideration.

Like I said, everytime I walk outside of my house, I see young women (<25) with 2+ kids. Now, that may not be the case for all USA regions, but for most, it is. Alarming teenage pregnancy too.

anonymous6:

@ Ileke Idi
"So when will this "one-child" policy be implemented in the USA? "

exactly, especially since that country has a bigger population then Nigeria. India is right behind China in population and I don't see that happening in that country.

I don't think any country besides China will practice that rule, they can recommend it but will the Nigerian government listen to that, Nope. If I am not mistaken there was a 4 child policy in Nigeria decades ago but was never implemented, so I think it's all talk
http://bristolboy.hubpages.com/hub/Top-10-Countries-With-The-Largest-Population

Yea, it can only work in China (or a communist country) or a Sharia country. Try telling a Yoruba woman she cant have more than one child.

" Try telling a Yoruba woman she cant have more than one child. "

exactly a Yoruba women will never tolerate that, Nigeria will never implement a law like that

If I were president of Yorubaland I'd try to control population growth. But in Nigeria, you cannot do that. Otherwise quickly you'll be outnumbered numerically by people who don't give a sh1t about the # of kids they have.

^^^ well find other options than the "one-child" policy. Because my 7 children will be dancing the makossa in your face 

I wouldn't do one child. Just penalize having too many kids. E.g., you get a tax deduction if you have less than 3 kids, but as soon as you have your third tax deduction goes away.

Extra school/university fee surcharges for child #3, #4, etc.

Basically there are lots of ways to incentive good behavior and punish bad behavior.

one child ko, three 'child' ni
i plan on having as much as 6 children, from different women if possible.the only hindrance to my goal may be financial which i don't see happening (IJN)

@ekt_bear

How you dey?
Since I found out you hang in my circle here in Cali, I've decided to give you a break.

BTW I'm laughing at your

 But in Nigeria, you cannot do that. Otherwise quickly you'll be outnumbered numerically by people who don't give a sh1t about the # of kids they have.

Well, don't even go there in naija.  

Personally I think having 2 kids but raising them really well, sinking a lot of money into them to ensure they have a wonderful childhood/upbringing/education is way better than having 4 kids and not having enough resources for them.

Also, if some people have too many kids then it makes it harder to have things like "free primary/secondary education." Because then that means that the people who obey the rules (not having too many kids) subsidize those who don't obey the rules.

My best friend has this buddy out in Maryland who has 7 kids already at age 27 or so   Dude doesn't bother with any birth control with his wife. . . they've been popping out kids since they started dating in HS

Who do you think is paying for his kids to be educated? The Maryland taxpaper (i.e., my best friend and other folks), not him. That to me seems very wrong.

@omo Ekiti

Having more than one child is not "bad behavior".

Well, your idea has its faults. Why "punish" families who can support 7 children, but has 5 children? How do you determine when the income is "just" right, and since employment is not ALWAYS static, what happens when the money stops rolling in or when more money starts rolling in?

Tax deduction? in a civilized region, more refunds are given to families with more [size=28pt]KIDS[/size]. . . . so I guess the opposite would make sense in Nigeria.



*MODIFIED

People should have the # of children they can AFFORD.

But you have to keep in mind that educating a child properly up to age 18 or so is EXPENSIVE. Not to mention university after that.

If you have 7 kids and cannot afford to send them to school, then you are creating a burden on society, in my opinion.

Either (A) society writes a check to educate your children or (B) your children become the equivalent of almajiris (thugs and ne'er do wells here in the US.) Neither is desirable to me.

Onlytruth:

@ekt_bear

How you dey?
Since I found out you hang in my circle here in Cali, I've decided to give you a break.

BTW I'm laughing at your

Well, don't even go there in naija.  

Doing well man, cannot complain.

I don't need any breaks btw, I'm tough enough

At my last comment, yep. In a multi-ethnic society like Nigeria with very backwards people like Hausa in it, unilaterally declaring population control for your ethnic group is slow suicide

ekt_bear:

Personally I think having 2 kids but raising them really well, sinking a lot of money into them to ensure they have a wonderful childhood/upbringing/education is way better than having 4 kids and not having enough resources for them.

Also, if some people have too many kids then it makes it harder to have things like "free primary/secondary education." Because then that means that the people who obey the rules (not having too many kids) subsidize those who don't obey the rules.

My best friend has this buddy out in Maryland who has 7 kids already at age 27 or so   Dude doesn't bother with any birth control with his wife. . . they've been popping out kids since they started dating in HS  

Who do you think is paying for his kids to be educated? The Maryland taxpaper (i.e., my best friend and other folks), not him. That to me seems very wrong.

What people fail to realize is that "too much money" and "too little money" is not the only factors that affect the way a child turns out.

In my opinion, even with too much money, my children won't be seeing half of it. Unless they earn it.  

You're right tho, if people can't provide for their children, then they shouldn't have many kids. However, punishing the rest of us won't do.

ekt_bear:

[size=28pt]People should have the # of children they can AFFORD.[/size]

But you have to keep in mind that educating a child properly up to age 18 or so is EXPENSIVE. Not to mention university after that.

If you have 7 kids and cannot afford to send them to school, then you are creating a burden on society, in my opinion.

Either (A) society writes a check to educate your children or (B) your children become the equivalent of almajiris (thugs and ne'er do wells here in the US.) Neither is desirable to me.

Well let them decide. Give them the choice.

Nigeria is still a democratic country. . . .right? I haven't checked in a while, hope the april election hasnt changed things.

Ileke-IdI:

@omo Ekiti

Having more than one child is not "bad behavior".

Well, your idea has its faults. Why "punish" families who can support 7 children, but has 5 children? How do you determine when the income is "just" right, and since employment is not ALWAYS static, what happens when the money stops rolling in or when more money starts rolling in?

Tax deduction? in a civilized region, more refunds are given to families with more money. . . . so I guess the opposite would make sense in Nigeria.

Simple. Primary and secondary education, which I'd ordinarily have the state subsidize, I start taking away the subsidy as you have more and more kids.

So it isn't punishing anyone, just making them bear the full consequences of their decisions.

Have 100 kids if you like. You'd just better also find money to send them all to school. . . the state will only subsidize the first 2 (but will still tax you anyways.)

Ileke-IdI:

Well let them decide. Give them the choice.

Nigeria is still a democratic country. . . .right? I haven't checked in a while, hope the april election hasnt changed things.

This is all hypothetical.

Anyway, I wouldn't be taking away choice. Just making you bear the financial burden fully yourself.

One pikin ke! My plan of having a football team with me babe is still intact. Nobody should put san san for me garri o. Blessed is the man whose house is filled with em.

@Ileke-IdI

Calm down beau. No one is touching that baby. . . . or any more you are planning to have.

ekt_bear:

Simple. Primary and secondary education, which I'd ordinarily have the state subsidize, I start taking away the subsidy as you have more and more kids.

So it isn't punishing anyone, just making them bear the full consequences of their decisions.

Have 100 kids if you like. You'd just better also find money to send them all to school. . . the state will only subsidize the first 2 (but will still tax you anyways.)

ekt_bear:

This is all hypothetical.

Anyway, I wouldn't be taking away choice. Just making you bear the financial burden fully yourself.

HMM Interesting policy. I don't support it, but I find it very interesting how you're sweeping away fundamentals of "rights", but still labels it as rights.

"I'm taking away your financial support, but hey you can still go to the grocery store and buy as much food as you want. You still have your rights".

Onlytruth:

@Ileke-IdI

Calm down beau. No one is touching that baby. . . . or any more you are planning to have.

Thanks. . . . calmed.

Ileke-IdI:

HMM Interesting policy. I don't support it, but I find it very interesting how you're sweeping away fundamentals of "rights", but still labels it as rights.

"I'm taking away your financial support, but hey you can still go to the grocery store and buy as much food as you want. You still have your rights".

I just don't understand when it became a "right" to burden society.

Or when it became your "right" for society to educate your kids.

It is a privilege, not a right.

ekt_bear:

I just don't understand when it became a "right" to burden society.

Or when it became your "right" for society to educate your kids.

It is a privilege, not a right.

We're talking about the rights to the process of child birth. The same society that increases the care of a child ($400/month for daycare, $12 for pack of diaper etc) should also be held liable for methods to support the caregiver, imo. We came to this world to multiply, and unless I'm reading my bible sideways, God did not tell us to  go and "have one (or two or three) child (children) only".

@ Ileke Idi
Cosign, God never gave us a one child policy

U.N. should feel free to enjoy a nice long bathe in acidic goat feces.

Ileke-IdI:

^^^ well find other options than the "one-child" policy. Because my 7 children will be dancing the makossa in your face 

GBAM!

I don't like this idea but I appreciate it's just a recommendation. I can't imagine seeing Nigerian men and women content with having one child that isn't of their preferred gender (most especially a male child). Also children are percieved as inheritance, blessing etc so restricting two healthy fertile people from reproducing may be construed as busy body by some Nigerians. . . furthermore many Nigerians may just resolve to have their children abroad if they are made to adopt this policy and I'm pretty sure US and other host nations alike will not be best pleased with such an outcome.

The tendency is that many Nigeria family will respond to this affront with 10 kid each. As long a population size determines who get what in the sh1thole, UN or whatever agency that is making such plan should know that their plans are DOA - dead on arrival.

i dont think they should implement it cuz come on its as if i have no freedom to do what i want to do.