HPRgument Blog — February 25, 2010 5:59 pm

Population Control: Gaza v. China

By

Following Kramer’s comments the other day, an interesting conversation has arisen that compares Kramer’s proposal to end pre-natal subsidies with China’s one child policy. The reason for this debate originates in the UN’s definition of genocide, as found in Article 2 of the Convention on the Preventment and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  • a) Killing members of the group;
  • b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  • c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  • d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  • e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” (my emphasis)

With this mind, let’s compare Kramer with China. First, yes, China’s one-child policy is indeed “imposing measures intended to prevent births.” However, it is applied at a national level, and is not directed at a particular group, as is the case with Kramer’s proposal (detail: the one-child policy does not apply to Chinese ethnic minorities, but this has to do with speeding development in minority regions). Second, there is a difference between population control in Gaza, a sanctioned/isolated territory with little to no resources, and population control in a country like China. Third, whereas in China, the one-child policy is a law enforced at the provincial level through fines, ending pre-natal subsidies equates to forcing Gazans to starve. Fines and starvation are different. Third, and most importantly, the one-child policy has no “intent to destroy.” The policy emerged out of socioeconomic and environmental necessity. I find it ambiguous as to whether or not Kramer’s words have “an intent to destroy,” and would welcome comments to this regard.

In any case, whether or not Kramer’s comments amount to genocide misses the point. What’s matters is that Kramer deliberately called for aid to be cut from Gaza. Genocide or not, it is a an appalling ignorance and violation of human dignity and rights.

Related posts:

Life on the Hill
Defending Columbus with Guns, Germs, and Steel
A Stroll Down Judenstrasse
Ana Navarro: Republican National Hispanic Co-Chair '08 '12
Tags:
Felix de Rosen is a Staff Writer for Harvard Political Review. He has written on various subjects, invcluding Middle Eastern politics, economic development, and political theory. He is primarily interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but am open to many subjects. Felix currently lives in Paris, France but lived in the United States most of his life. He despises the political process, but loves criticizing it. Felix is also a practicing nudist.
  • Jeremy Patashnik

    [Some of this is excerpted from my comment on the other blog post pertaining to this issue.]

    Felix, I don’t think it misses the point that a lot of people are labeling Kramer’s proposal as “genocide.”

    In your original post, you (rightly so!) pointed to several reasons why Kramer’s proposal should not be implemented.

    But when we say that Kramer’s speech advocated genocide, we immediately disregard every single idea he touched upon in those six minutes.

    And I think that’s a unfortunate, because I think one can legitimately ask: would it be in everyone’s (including BOTH Israelis’ AND Palestinians’) best interest if Palestinians had a lower birth rate. (It’s also a legitimate question to ask if it’s in everyone’s best interest for Israelis to have a lower birth rate, too!)

    If economists investigate that question and they conclude that the answer is yes, then I think the best plan would be to work with Palestinian leaders to devise a set of economic incentives to lower the birth rate that will actually improve life for Palestinians.

    So, in short, yes, I have problems with much of Kramer’s proposals. No, I still don’t think they’re genocidal, and I think that additional research on population growth can even help contribute to a solution to this conflict.

    To label his speech as genocidal is to ignore some real questions that could actually improve the situation for everyone in Gaza and Israel.

  • Harvard College ’11

    Dear Jeremy,

    As far as fun arm-chair debates that argue about the necessity of starving children, I acknowledge your efforts.

    But this isn’t about economics. It’s about human dignity. And it’s about racism.

    If you don’t see it, please refer to Professor Juan Cole’s statement:
    “Kramer’s remarks are wrong, offensive and racist by implication. He is driven to them by his nationalist ideology, which cannot recognize the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by Israelis in 1948, cannot see that most Palestinians have been deprived by Israeli policies of citizenship rights (what Warren Burger called ‘the right to have rights’, as Margaret Somers pointed out), and that Palestinians are even at this moment being deprived of basic property and other rights by Israeli occupation. To admit that any of these actions produces a backlash is to acknowledge the Palestinian movements as forms of national liberation activism, and to legitimize Palestinian aspirations. Rightwing Zionism is all about erasing the Palestinians from history. And now Kramer wants to make it about erasing future Palestinian children!

    Where have we seen the picture Kramer draws before? It is just a recycled form of Malthusianism, where the population growth rates of “some people” is seen as dangerous to society. Barbara Brown wrote of Apartheid South Africa:

    ‘ [White] South Africans who express a [concern with Black population growth] perceive a close relationship between population growth rates and political instability. There are two variants of this approach. The first holds that a growing black and unemployed population will mean increased poverty which will in turn lead to a black revolt. . .

    In an opening address to a major private sector conference on ‘population dynamics’ in South Africa, the president of the 1820 Foundation argued that ‘Rapid population growth translates into a steadily worsening employment future, massive city growth . . . and an increase in the number of poor and disadvantaged. All are rightly viewed as threats to social stability and orderly change.’

    A second, but smaller, group believes the black threat arises simply out of the changing ratio of white to black. This group sees that ‘THE WHITES ARE A DWINDLING MINORITY IN THE COUNTRY’ and argues that this situation will lead to a ‘similar reduction of white political authority’.

    Some argue for birth control on even more overtly racist grounds, but few people in leadership positions do so, at least publicly. Debates in the House of Assembly have included remarks to the effect that blacks are unable to make a contribution to South African society and so should be encouraged to limit their numbers. The organiser of a ‘Population Explosion’ conference, a medical doctor who is deputy director of the Verwoerd Hospital, argued that whites must organise a family planning programme for blacks because the latter group is biologically incapable of exercising foresight.’

    - Barbara B. Brown, “Facing the ‘Black Peril’: The Politics of Population Control in South Africa,” Journal of Southern African Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2(Jan., 1987), pp. 256-273, this quote pp. 263-64.

    Further recommended reading:
    http://www.juancole.com/2010/02/harvard-professors-modest-proposal.html

  • Jeremy Patashnik

    Harvard College ’11, I’m not sure which “debate that argues about the necessity of starving children” you’re referring to, but it’s certainly not the one I’m taking part in.

    Feel free to show me where you feel I’ve ever argued for such a position, and I will happily clarify my words and let you know why I was not in fact supporting that repugnant–as people are certainly right to call it–policy.

    To the extent that Kramer was ever advocating for such a policy–which I don’t think he really was–I have tried to make clear that I think we ought to reject those aspects of his proposal entirely.

    You write, “But this isn’t about economics. It’s about human dignity.” Why can’t it be about both? Why must we view an idea in only one dimension? Clearly, any steps that are taken to alleviate the Israeli-Palestinian tension must include some aspect of sound economic thinking.

    First of all, I think we all agree that Palestinians have a high birth rate relative to the global average. Logically, then, there are seven possibilities:

    1) That high birth rate is hurting both Palestinians and Israelis,
    2) That high birth rate is hurting Palestinians but helping Israelis,
    3) That high birth rate is hurting Palestinians but having no (or ambiguous) significant effects on Israelis,
    4) That high birth rate is helping both Israelis and Palestinians,
    5) That high birth rate is helping Palestinians but hurting Israelis,
    6) That high birth rate is helping Palestinians and having no (or ambiguous) significant effects on Israelis,
    7) That high birth rate is having no (or ambiguous) significant effects on either Palestinians or Israelis.

    I would support enacting economic incentives to help Palestinians reduce their birth rate only in cases 1, 2, and 3. That is to say, economic incentives should be adopted to help Palestinians reduce their birth rate only in cases where their high birth rate is actually hurting Palestinians, independent of the effect it’s having on Israelis.

    I think much of the controversy here stems from the fact that some people believe Kramer was advocating his proposal in light of scenario 5. He might have that view; and if that were the case, I would strongly disagree with his overall assessment that the Palestinians ought to reduce their birth rate. Still, based on his speech, it sounded like he was talking about scenario 1: that the high Palestinian birth rate was hurting both Palestinians and Israelis.

    The point is that I think it could help the situation if we did indeed examine what effects the high Palestinian birth rate are having, and it’s not racist to suggest so. What we all find objectionable about the situation in South Africa is that in that case white South Africans were advocating a reduction in the black population’s birth rate only because the growth of the black population was hurting the white population. If the black population’s growth was hurting the black population–independent of the effect it was having on the white population– would it be racist to introduce incentives designed to lower the birth rate of the black population? (Such a policy should be enacted, with the permission, of course, of the black population; similarly, any policies enacted that affect Palestinians be approved by Palestinian leaders.)

    The nature of the incentives is important, too. I object to Kramer’s exact proposal because he would be making each Palestinian family choose to between two undesirable alternatives: have a quantity of kids less than the desired number and be able to provide for them, or have the desired number of kids and run the risk of not being able to provide for them. What if instead the trade-off were: have the desired number of kids and be able to provide for them, or have a quantity of kids less than the desired number and get $1 billion. Clearly, under this extreme scenario many Palestinians would have fewer children, and it would be hard to label this as genocide.

    Obviously, Kramer was not proposing a situation like this, which is why many people rightly take issue with what he says, but some of the basic logic behind some of his ideas can still be applicable.

    Juan Cole raises some valid points against the youth bulge theory in his blog post. (I take issues with some of the things he says, but that’s for a whole other comment.) I think it’s good that people debate the youth bulge theory, but I think it should be in a discussion about merits of the economics and data behind it.

    Finally, Cole writes, “High population growth can be a problem for development, and can contribute to internal conflict over resources, but it is only one factor.” Agreed, it’s only one factor, but I think population growth–of both Israelis and Palestinians–is a factor worth exploring.

custom writing