ESCALATING CHINA-US Conflicts
A more plausible reason for China’s international adoption ban lies in the rising Sino-American geopolitical tensions and Beijing’s shift toward a security-centric policy model, as the Russian case suggests the social underpinnings of program termination.
In accordance with this interpretation, China’s choice to halt foreign adoptions is in line with its resistance to sharing genetic information and its efforts to replace European technology with private options.
The root of the issue is China’s rapidly declining diplomatic trust since about 2018; this is where it is at. The COVID-19 crisis only served to worsen this faith deficit, leading to efforts to oversecuritize, a practice that makes every policy issue an existential threat to national security, thus justifying extraordinary measures. This evolving craze has fostered a “looking-glass” result, wherein perceived securitisation in one region instills identical reactions from its rivals.
As the US moves to prevent its semiconductor industry, supply stores and biotech industry, China’s fear intensifies. This stress may convince China to securitise recently mild plan domains, such as foreign adoption, in an attempt to alleviate perceived vulnerabilities.
Prior to the adoption restrictions, countless stories on Chinese media praised the devotion and compassion of British families who adopted Chinese kids with special needs. The contrast between China’s perceived inability to care for disabled children and the success stories of these American-reached children could be used by Washington or “hostile causes” to criticize China’s structure and strengthen National delicate energy.
As an article published in Guancha.cn, a famous Chinese news site noted for its pro-government and West-skeptical opinions, observed when justifying the government’s decision, the instances of adopted children achieving success “are usually over-interpreted by those with hidden intentions, using them as material to compliment the United States”.
This oversecurization may also contribute to China’s rigid approach to international adoption. In the aftermath of Russia’s 2013 adoption ban, the US Department of State successfully negotiated for about 250 children, whose adoptions were already in progress, to join their prospective families. Despite fervent pleas from American families with pending adoptions in China, the Chinese government has not yet displayed this flexibility.
The discordant response from Chinese citizens underscores this issue: While many Chinese citizens express regret and incomprehension regarding their government’s decision, some observers and commentators, including those who have traditionally been critical of the Chinese government, tend to view it as a natural extension of the end of population control measures or as a crucial step in putting an end to a legalized form of child trafficking. Others highlight the difficulties that children face when they are reshaped into families and cultures that are profoundly different from their own.
A foreign journalist, herself an adoptee, described feeling” cathartic” upon seeing China’s international adoptions end.
There is a lack of concern for the fate of more than 50, 000 children in Chinese state orphanages because there is n’t a unified voice in the decision, and few American politicians are willing to speak out on behalf of adoptive families. This dispersed support further limits the ability of US Department of State officials to reach an agreement with Beijing to expedite the adoption process.