DAFOH and four other NGOs launch an appeal at the end of the “World Summit on Combating and Preventing Forced Organ Harvesting.” Bitter Winter was there.
by Marco Respinti
Organ harvesting is a crime against humanity, and the Chinese Communist regime is totally responsible for it. The entire world should do whatever is legally possible to stop it now, and hold Beijing publicly accountable for it. This is what the Universal Declaration on Combating and Preventing Forced Organ Harvesting calls for.
Everybody can sign the Universal Declaration, which comes in different languages, both individuals and organizations. It is important to gather as many signatures as possible. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” goes a famous sentence attributed to Irish philosopher and statesman Edmund Burke (1729–1797), but we all know that propaganda and above all silence are strong allies of evil-doers. Personally, I publicly support the Universal Declaration as a human being, as a professional journalist and in my capacity as Director-in-Charge of Bitter Winter.
This important call for action comes at the end of an important online symposium, the “World Summit on Combating and Preventing Forced Organ Harvesting.” Together with the “China Tribunal,” which Bitter Winter covered, it may well be the most important public event ever on this horrific topic.
The World Summit was an initiative of DAFOH (Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting), one of the main organizations active in the field. Based in Washington, D.C., it has many branches in different countries. DAFOH was founded and is led by Dr. Torsten Trey, a US medical doctor, who serves as its Executive Director. Four other NGOs co-hosted the event: CAP Freedom of Conscience, France; the Taiwan Association for International Care of Organ Transplants, Taiwan; Korea Association for Ethical Organ Transplants in Seoul; and the Transplant Tourism Research Association, Japan.
On September 24, I opened the session Silence and self-censorship by the media regarding forced organ harvesting crimes, and my speech can be read at the bottom of this article.
From September 17 to 26, 2021, several sessions featured a total of 35 panelists from 19 different countries, ranging from medical doctors to politicians, from journalists to witnesses. The amount of documentation and evidence is so large that nobody can now doubt the reality of a state mass murder, which can be compared to the most horrific government-ordered slaughters and criminal medical experiments of the 19th century, the century of totalitarian regimes. Falun Gong has historically been the favored target of organ harvesting, a cruel policy that has decimated that movement, but other ethnic and religious groups have been hit as well, including Tibetan Buddhists, House Church Christians, members of The Church of Almighty God, and Muslim Uyghurs and ethnic Kazakhs.
One of the most incredible aspects of this tragic situation is that a world such as ours, so generous in popular and well-supported campaigns for a variety of causes, frequently sponsored also by national governments and internationals organizations, from the environment to sexual harassment of women, seems to be rather indifferent to a felony of such scale and magnitude, which has killed thousands of innocents. Frankly, no one could have done more than the “China Tribunal” and DAFOH’s “World Summit” to speak out the truth in favor of the victims of China’s organ harvesting. Will the powers of the world acknowledge, it or will Chinese neo-post-national-communism continue to perform this grave offense undisturbed?
There is a structural dimension of the state malfeasance of organ harvesting that frightens the most, and it has to do with the cynic, sadistic, and criminal nature of Communism, which has caused tens of millions of deaths, and has been importantly and officially equated to Nazism by the European Parliament in it resolution of September 19, 2019. Chinese organ harvesting is not in fact an exception, but the confirmation of a rule and the demonstration of a system, as the Cuban precedent shows.
Taking the floor during the Silence and self-censorship by the media regarding forced organ harvesting crimes session on September 24, Ms. Zoé Valdés, a Cuban who lives in exile to defend herself from the persecution of the still Communist Cuban regime, made it clear. Ms. Valdés is a journalist, author, cinematographer, and visual artist, and was a professor and guest lecturer in several Ivy League universities and colleges including La Sorbonne in Paris, Harvard University, Florida International University in Miami, and Queen Mary University in London, UK.
It is quite impossible to summarize all the relevant speeches given at the “World Summit on Combating and Preventing Forced Organ Harvesting” and name all the distinguished participants, but at least a few of Ms. Valdés’ words deserve to be singled out for an evident reason. “In Cuba, this kind of practice existed,” she said referring to organ harvesting. “The extraction of blood from political prisoners was very common beginning in the sixties when Communism triumphed under Fidel Castro. Before taking them to the firing squad, before giving them the final shot, they extracted their blood, seven pints of blood, and left them anemic and mentally depleted.”
Ms. Valdés further added: “Despite the information that was provided for years, it was ignored. Some publications were produced, but nothing further. This should be remembered because it was done repeatedly, until the persecuted, and this is little known, arrived almost dead at the place where, as I said before, they were given the last shot. The world ignored those bloody acts perpetrated by Castro’s tyranny, like the world ignores almost everything else about Communism. Fidel Castro even bragged about selling that blood, and that these prisoners were in good health so he could sell their blood.”
There is really nothing to be added.
Table of Contents
China’s Human Harvest and Illegal Organ Trade: Publish or Perish?
by Marco Respinti
This is the text which, on September 24, 2021, opened the session “Silence and self-censorship by the media regarding forced organ harvesting crimes” of the “World Summit on Combating and Preventing Forced Organ Harvesting.”
Taboos and propaganda
I.
Independently from its modern age usage, be it pejorative for some or culturally identifying for others, the toponym “Cathay” evokes marvels and mystery since the 11th century, when it was introduced in Europe through peoples and cultures of the steppes, to vaguely indicate what we now call “China.”
Today’s China is still a vast mysterious land: a land of many things and of a thousand taboos. Let us evoke some of them.
(a) The annual number of executions is a jealously held state secret, but Amnesty International count them by the thousands.
(b) The genocide of Uyghurs and other Turkic people, chiefly of Muslim persuasion, carried out in Xinjiang, that its non-Han inhabitants call East Turkestan, is an ongoing horror—whose evidence is being collected lately by the Uyghur Tribunal in London, UK—that not a few, against all evidence, still deny.
(c) The slow but painstaking cultural genocide of Tibetan Buddhists and Mongols of Inner Mongolia is an awful reality that none finds convenient to acknowledge.
(d) The regime claims to have canceled the staggering “one-child policy,” that demographically precipitated the People’s republic of China more or less back to the folly of the “Great Leap Forward”(1958–1961), with a recent “liberalization” (two children per couple in 2015, three since May 31, 2021, perhaps even more in the future), which is in fact a typical totalitarian politicization of demography.
(e) A capillary system of mass surveillance strangles the country by using all sort of advanced technology, including sophisticated facial recognition software, futuristic data storing, and fingerprints collecting devices, as well as DNA profiling.
(f) While this creates a literally unbearable control on all citizens, and poses a serious threat to the entire world, many, against all evidence, regard it as fake news and Western propaganda, uncritically repeating the regime’s rhetoric.
(g) All religions and spiritual paths are systematically pushed to extinction, being deemed unnatural by the materialistic official philosophy of the ruling Communist Party, and the annihilation of believers is pursued through persecution, repression, unlawful incarceration, psychological and physical torture, humiliation, and death: yet, it is still repeated that the Chinese Constitution of 1982 grants religious freedom to its citizens (overlooking that the Constitution also says that only “normal” religion is allowed).
(h) Last but not least, there is the horror of forced organ harvesting (FOH): so-called “prisoners of conscience” are used (at times even when still alive) as suppliers of replacement parts in a gigantic black-market operation in which the state acts undercover as a marabou stork while playing the dove in public. China even sends some of its ministers and officials to testify against this heinous practice at international symposia, as if it were not organized by the government itself.
China is really the land of a thousand taboos. FOH has been decimating innocent people for decades, and, in spite of a huge amount of evidence—lately collected inter alia by the China Tribunal in London, UK—, very few in the world seem to be outraged, alerted, or even simply aware. FOH has massacred chiefly Falun Gong, or Falun Dafa, practitioners, substantially reducing their number in China, but reports also document victims among Uyghurs, ethnic Kazakhs, Tibetans, and members of The Church of Almighty God.
Emilio Salgari (1862–1911) was a popular Italian writer of adventure novels and tales, typically set in exotic scenarios, and often in Asia. One of his novels, published in 1901 with the pseudonym “Captain Guido Altieri,” is known under the definitive title Le stragi della China, “The Slaughters of China,” using an old-fashioned, but then usual spelling of the Italian word for “China.” Published in 1901, it takes place in a totally different China, but its title is a perfect sound bite to describe the gruesome China of today.
II.
Another aspect of this land of a thousand taboos, whose other name is slaughters, is the killing of innocence. The official Chinese Communist Party (CCP)’s response to the exposition of its crimes against humanity is the serial fabrication of fake news, aiming at distorting reality, changing the average person’s perception of what is all about, imposing an edulcorated standard narrative, and using all this to cover its misdeeds for the purpose of keeping on perpetrating them undisturbed.
Notably in this strategy, the CCP’s propaganda not only pretends to debunk real facts by using mendacious answers. The mendacious answers serve also to twist reality so profoundly as to establish a “post-truth,” used to promote, domestically and internationally, a justification, even a “salvific role” for its harsh measures. Needless to say, once this official narrative is enthroned, dissidents are guilty twice: guilty of speaking the truth, and guilty of disobeying the “post-truth.”
This is blatantly evident in the case of ethnic minorities, whose members are persecuted on the false accusation of being “separatists” and “terrorists” simply for being themselves, as well as in the case of members of religious and spiritual groups, who are harassed as disruptors of “social stability” simply because the materialistic creed of the party cannot even accept their existence, not to say, in several cases, their growing numbers.
The CCP’s killing of innocence through fake news and post-truths usually adopts a two-step technique. First, the CCP denies reality at all costs, labelling those who dare to speak out as “liars.” Secondly, when it cannot endure the cover-up any longer, because of the number and quality of public evidence, the CCP finds a “reasonable” “reason for it.” Two sensational cases illustrate this perfectly.
The “re-education camps” in Xinjiang/East Turkestan aiming at deprogramming “extremists” is the first. The Chinese regime started denying their very existence, claiming that they were officially abolished a long time ago. In reality, only one out of three types of “re-education camps” were abolished: the laojiao (劳动教养 or 劳教), or “re-education through labor” camps (no judicial decision was needed to be sent there), abolished in 2013. This means that two types still exist: the laodong gaizao (劳动改造), or “reform through labor” camps, which are part of the Chinese prison system, inmates being sentenced there by a court of law after a criminal trial, and the jiaoyu zhuanhua (教育转化), or “transformation through education” camps. Chinese authorities aptly “forgot” the latter for quite a long time until pictures showed them to the world. At that point, the CCP changed rhetoric, admitted their existence but described them as “vocational schools” where “religious fanatics” and “nationalists” graduate when they have learned how to leave backwardness and extremism behind.
The second is the case of Falun Dafa. Launched in China in 1992, the movement was initially supported by the Communist state, which regarded as healthy its typical exercises rooted in traditional qi gong (氣功). But then Falun Dafa started growing fast in numbers, and the CCP could no longer deny its spiritual nature. So, it started persecuting it, regarding it, since 1995, as a xiejiao (邪教), an expression wrongly translated in Chinese official documents in English as “evil cults,” but which in fact means “heterodox teachings.” The word xie jiao was used to designate teachings not approved by the government since the Middle Ages, and lists were compiled since the late Ming period, but were revived by the CCP since 1995 as a political weapon. Being active in a group labeled as xie jiao, like Falun Dafa, is a crime in China and leads to be mercilessly persecuted.
III.
Another chapter in the story of the killing of innocence deals with the murder of knowledge.
In facts, the CCP propaganda machinery bets much on misinformation and disinformation, a goal it can achieve, and often achieves, through media which superficially repeat their master’s voice. This media complicity may be subjective or objective, depending on the reasons. Some journalists are partners in crime of the CCP because of ideological reasons, some others are so simply because they find easier not to question the official narrative.
It may seem strange to find ideological comrades of Communist China at this late hour in history: nonetheless, some of my colleagues still deny evidence in name of ideological orthodoxy.
As for China’s objective partners in crime, that is to say people who simply don’t care and don’t want troubles, they are nothing else but a shame to the journalistic profession.
Transplants and abuses
I.
Reporting on the land of a thousand taboos without questioning taboos is performing journalism with taboos. But journalism with taboos is simply bad journalism.
Former Canadian ambassador to China (2009–2012), Mr. David Mulroney, said that “people assume that diplomacy means flattery,” but this is not always the case. Now, people assume that journalism means only publish or perish, but this should not be the case either. In the case of good journalism, i.e. journalism without taboos, it is mandatory to publish only the truth, to show as much evidence as possible, to be opinionated in a very transparent way, and not to fool the readers. Of course, it is only a moral obligation, but it implies also that a journalist should be ready to prefer “perishing” to publishing lies or kneel before taboos.
Even before entering any possible further ethical implications, taboo journalism is in fact bad journalism, because it is partial, and serves only half of its purpose.
A buzz word goes by saying that journalism is the watchdog of democracy, constantly serving a better society. This is even more the case when journalism investigates totalitarian states, where fake news and violence are the daily bread.
II.
Let me clarify this basic point by introducing two daring and paradoxical parallels: journalists and Nazi officials, and journalists and medical doctors.
During the Nuremberg trials in 1945–46 Germany, many national-socialist officials defended themselves from the accusations of complicity in genocide and crimes against humanity by insisting that they just obeyed orders. Here comes the daring paradoxical parallel with media. Is it enough to publish news without questioning sources and affirmations? Yes, at first glance comparing journalists with Third Reich’s officials may seem offensive and far-fetched, but it is not, if one thinks that, in many cases, the misrepresentation of today’s China and the repetition of the CCP’s lies end up promoting harassment, torture, and death of innocent people.
The second of my daring paradoxical parallels focuses on the case of medical doctors involved in illegal human organ transplants: is it enough to surgically operate without questioning?
Here a 2002 Hollywood movie, John Q., starring famous actor Denzel Washington, serves as an inspiration. A young kid, Michael, needs an urgent heart transplant. His parents, John Quincy Archibald and his wife Denise, do not have the necessary money, and the father also discovers he was somewhat cheated by the insurance company. John tries as hard as he can to save his son’s life. When all efforts seem futile, he takes several patients and staff hostage in the hospital’s ER where his son is lying in terminal conditions. In fact, the man is a good guy and has never hurt anybody in his life. But he is desperate. So, desperation brings him to an extreme gesture. He calls the cardiologist, Dr. Raymond Turner, and declares he is ready to shoot himself dead to donate his heart to Michael. Dr. Turner weights the idea and finally accepts, commenting that he is just a doctor: after all, his job is to perform life-saving transplants, not to question the source of the organs he happens to handle. Fortunately, the movie finds its way out with no bloodshed. Its happy ending is canonical at Hollywood; nonetheless, it is also a great occasion for reflecting and wondering.
Can Dr. Turner just perform his operation with no other questioning, even at the extreme of knowing but ignoring the illicit source (John’s suicide) of the heart he is going to insert into young Michael’s chest? Of course, morally, he cannot.
In the same way, journalists cannot take for granted the official standard narrative on organ transplants in China according to which all is the fruit of voluntary donations, while, clearly, numbers do not match. Good journalism questions the land of a thousand taboos even at the risk of uncanny and disturbing findings.
Making a difference
Yes, discussing organ transplants is not easy. It is delicate, and touches on strong feelings; it may even directly affect our relatives, and questions may seem cynical. It deals with the great suffering of patients and their families, it is a matter of life and death, and it may also involve huge economic interests. But can a medical doctor just use for a surgical operation whatever organ he gets, no questions asked? Can a medical doctor refrain to wonder whether the organ he is handling cost the life of an innocent person—the lives of thousand and thousand innocent persons?
Now, journalists are neither detectives nor spiritual preachers. It is enough when they do their job properly. But there is always also an investigative side to the journalistic profession, as well as an ethical one. Journalists are not detectives but through their job they can perform some measure of investigation; journalists are not detectives, but they can provide facts that detectives may somewhat use. Journalists are not even spiritual guides, but, properly doing their job, they can offer occasions and clues that can also help to somewhat nourish the soul of their readers. Let’s all wisely stay away from preaching journalism, but good journalists can at least avoid poisoning their own as well as their readers’ souls.
What I mean is that it is not enough to accept the supply and demand narrative on human organ transplants given by the CCP in the face of so many testimonies, statistics, research, and facts to the contrary. And especially journalists should always question sources, data, numbers, and names.
Allow me than to conclude with an understatement created by Rev. Jonathan Swift (1667–1745) in 1729 and put forward “a modest proposal.” The response to the challenge that FOH poses to media integrity, which is both personal and structural, is the deontological (and ethical) carefulness of journalists performing their profession in a free and independent journalistic sphere. This independence is the only bastion against the arrogance of totalitarian power. But frequently this idea, albeit true and precious, sounds just like the message of a fortune cookie. It may then be the right time for a “supplement of spirit,” to use a nice expression of French philosopher Henri Bergson (1859–1941): why not a pool of professional and good-willing journalists establishing and managing a web resource bank for colleagues (and detectives, and preachers) to be filled with reports, news and even rumors on FOH, publicly and earnestly discussing their credibility, as well as the official CCP responses, questioning them?
A modest but ambitious proposal, as it directly challenges the land of a thousand taboos, and offers its contribution to stop “le stragi della China.”
Statement of support on the “Universal Declaration on Combating and Preventing Forced Organ Harvesting”
This videomessage is displayed online here.
It is my honor to support and endorse the Universal Declaration on Combating and Preventing Forced Organ Harvesting in each and every of its articles, clauses, and points. I do it as an individual (feeling it to be my moral duty), I do it as a professional (feeling it to be my deontological duty) and I do it in my capacity as Director-in-Charge of Bitter Winter: A Magazine on Religious Liberty and Human Rights.
Organ harvesting is a shame that the civilized world cannot endure any longer, and it should be put to an end now.
I stand with the victims of organ harvesting and their families, as I stand with the promoters of the seminal Universal Declaration on Combating and Preventing Forced Organ Harvesting.
I wholeheartedly wish that the Universal Declaration on Combating and Preventing Forced Organ Harvesting will move consciences, push international organizations to political and legal action against it, and awake governments so that they will stop ignoring this awful practice.