Forced sterilization in Peru: Difference between revisions

Alberto Fujimori's government used forced sterilization to control the population of impoverished and indigenous women in Peru, mainly in rural Andean communities. This practice was part of the state-led National Population Program, which emerged from the military's Plan Verde, initially aimed at economic recovery and combating the Shining Path insurgency. The program has been widely condemned as a form of ethnic cleansing or genocide due to its disproportionate impact on rural and indigenous peoples.

The roots of this program can be traced back to population control measures and eugenics theories that emerged in Peru during the early 20th century. These measures evolved significantly under the Fujimori government, which privately justified sterilizations as a means to alleviate poverty and improve the distribution of resources by reducing birth rates among "culturally backward" and economically disadvantaged groups, but in public hijacked feminist movement by shielding itself from growing demands for reproductive rights.^[1] Despite claims of voluntary participation, many women were often sterilized without their informed consent, under threat, and sterilizations in exchange for food and medical care were common.

Due to the association of peasants with guerrilla groups of the Peruvian Civil War of 1980–2000 and the creation of Plan Verde, forced sterilizations have also been described as a counterinsurgency tactic by the military. Shining Path, one of the guerrilla groups, tried to prevent the sterilizations from taking place.^[2] The sterilization campaign in Peru was the largest state-led population control program in the Americas.^[3] Although international and national bodies have condemned the actions as crimes against humanity, accountability and reparations for the victims remain limited.

This forced sterilization campaign had lasting socioeconomic and health consequences in the affected communities. The program decimated rural economies, exacerbated poverty, and led to widespread human rights abuses. Efforts to bring justice to the victims have faced numerous obstacles, including government resistance and legal challenges.

In the 20th century, population control measures in Peru were closely tied to ethnicity.^[4] Public discourse on the so-called "Indian problem" portrayed indigenous populations as obstacles to national progress, while associating racial improvement with increased whiteness. These views were primarily promoted by the country's white and mestizo elites.^[5][1]

Eugenics, a theory that aims to improve the genetic quality of a human population, gained influence in Peru during the first half of the 20th century, reaching its apogee in the 1920s and 1930s.^[6][7] The government introduced pre-marriage examinations designed to prevent unions between individuals deemed "unfit."^[7] In the 1930s, the Peruvian government encouraged the immigration of white Europeans as part of efforts to alter the country's racial composition.^[7]

Although concerns over population control persisted after the decline of the eugenics movement in the 1930s and 1940s, practices such as forced sterilization and eugenic abortion were not formally implemented during this period.^[8] However, there were also Peruvian authors who defended them, inspired by the policies applied in the United States and even in Nazi Germany.^[6] By the 1970s, eugenics had largely fallen out of favor in both scientific and political discussions in Peru, becoming a taboo subject.^[9]

In post-colonial Peru, public health interventions primarily targeted marginalized groups, including women, the poor, and indigenous populations. This focus led to a perception of the health system as catering mainly to these disadvantaged groups. Early pro-natalist policies in the republic emphasized mother-child health, viewing population growth as beneficial to the economy. Women were often seen in terms of their reproductive roles, with their contribution to economic progress tied to their potential as mothers and caregivers.

However, by the 1970s, large families were increasingly seen as "culturally primitive," harmful to women’s health, and a threat to democratic stability. At that time, Peru was a deeply divided society, with a powerful oligarchy ruling over a largely impoverished majority. Rapid urbanization occurred, healthcare improved, and mortality rates declined, but the birth rate remained high—around six children per woman in 1972.

As the sexual revolution unfolded in the United States and globally, calls for better access to birth control grew in Peru, particularly among middle-class, urban women. Feminist movements advocated for reproductive health services, but access remained unequal, with middle-class women enjoying more resources compared to poor, rural, and predominantly indigenous women.

Following the collapse of the military regime in the 1980s, the government of Fernando Belaúnde made the first attempts to expand access to birth control. The 1981 census indicated that women in regions with high birth rates did not desire more children. In response, the government created a national population council and introduced family planning services in hospitals, although these efforts were largely confined to urban areas and did not reach rural, indigenous populations.

These efforts were continued by President Alan García, with support from both the political left and the Catholic Church. However, while the Church endorsed population control, it opposed modern contraceptive methods, promoting instead "responsible parenthood" through traditional means. Due to the Church’s influence, the 1985 legislation did not legalize voluntary sterilization or abortion, a decision that disappointed many feminist activists.

In the 1980s, the Peruvian Armed Forces grew increasingly frustrated with President Alan García's inability to address the country's economic and political crises, including the ongoing internal conflict. In response, the military began drafting a plan to overthrow his government and implement a neoliberal economic system under an authoritarian regime. The military saw overpopulation as a possible cause of social problems, as in neo-Malthusian theory.

Business elites, who maintained close relations with military planners, supported this agenda, providing economic ideas that aligned with the military’s goals. One key aspect of this plan, detailed in a volume titled Driving Peru into the XXI Century (Spanish: Impulsar al Perú al siglo XXI), involved a population control strategy aimed at impoverished citizens.

According to Peruvian analyst Fernando Rospigliosi [es], the military proposed sterilizing economically disadvantaged and indigenous groups, which they described as "culturally backward" and "unnecessary burdens" on the country.^[10] The plan explicitly called for the widespread use of sterilization as a means to reduce the population of these groups, which were deemed detrimental to Peru’s progress. Rospigliosi likened these ideas to those of the Nazis, noting the extreme language used in the plan, including references to the "total extermination" of certain populations due to their perceived incorrigibility and lack of resources.^[10]

The Peruvian magazine Oiga reported that on 18 June 1990, the military finalized several scenarios for a coup, one of which was planned for 27 July 1990, the day before Alberto Fujimori's inauguration as president. In this scenario, titled "Negotiation and Agreement with Fujimori: Bases of Negotiation—Concept of Directed Democracy and Market Economy," Fujimori would be pressured to accept the military’s agenda at least 24 hours before taking office.

Rospigliosi suggested that an agreement was reached between Fujimori, his intelligence chief Vladimiro Montesinos, and key military officers involved in Plan Verde prior to Fujimori's inauguration. As a result, many of the policies outlined in Plan Verde were later adopted during Fujimori's administration.

We were required to perform a certain number of sterilizations each month. This was obligatory and if we did not comply, we were fired. Many providers did not inform women that they were going to be sterilized – they told them that the procedure was something else. But I felt this was wrong. I preferred to offer women a bag of rice to convince them to accept the procedure and explained to them beforehand what was going to happen.

—Ministry of Health physician .

In the 1990s, the government of Alberto Fujimori implemented a state-led sterilization program as part of broader population control efforts under the National Population Program. This initiative, framed as a tool for economic development, disproportionately targeted impoverished and indigenous women, particularly in rural areas. A media controversy orchestrated by Fujimori during his first term (1990-1995) created a conducive environment for his future sterilisation campaign.

The sterilization campaign stemmed from earlier military plans, including Plan Verde, which advocated for population control measures to alleviate economic burdens. By 1991, Fujimori’s administration had integrated these ideas into its policies. In 1992, following Fujimori’s self-coup, a civilian-military regime was established, and many of the objectives outlined in Plan Verde were set into motion. The Family Planning Program was initially supported by national and international organizations due to the historical neglect of comprehensive reproductive health policies in Peru.

In 1993, the government expanded the program, citing the need for population control to ensure the provision of basic social services. The prime minister’s report, Basic Social Policy Guidelines, and the document Social Policy: Situation and Perspectives both influenced the direction of the sterilization campaign, emphasizing permanent birth control for the poor as a critical element of economic recovery. The program director, Eduardo Yong Motta, demanded increased quotas for sterilizations, and Fujimori, known for his micromanagement, personally pressured regional leaders to comply.

Before the program's expansion, fewer than 15,000 sterilizations were performed annually, primarily for women with specific health risks or those with multiple children. However, after 1995, sterilizations were increasingly performed without prior medical conditions, targeting women from poor and marginalized communities. By 1996, the number of sterilizations had increased to 67,000, and by 1997, it reached 115,000.

Many of the healthcare personnel involved in the program lacked proper training, and the equipment used was often outdated or insufficient. Counselling services were inadequate, with many women not receiving full information about the procedures. A common strategy of health workers was to offer food incentives, such as bags of rice, to convince women to undergo the procedure, often under coercion. Peruvian public health care employees were pressured to sterilize women because of their precarious job security. Employees on short-term performance-linked contracts risked losing their jobs if they did not meet sterilization quotas. This insecurity, coupled with economic incentives to meet quotas, created a climate in which health workers felt pressured by authorities to perform more sterilizations than might be medically necessary.

The program was presented using progressive rhetoric, with Fujimori framing population control as essential for modernization and economic growth. He criticized the Catholic Church, which opposed the use of modern contraceptive methods, as an obstacle to family planning efforts. Many of the rural areas targeted by the program were not overpopulated, but were located in inaccessible, poor and marginalized areas.

Between 1996 and 2000, an estimated 300,000 Peruvians were sterilized, the vast majority of whom were indigenous, poor, and illiterate women. The program’s use of intimidation and coercion led to severe medical complications for many women, social ostracism, and in some cases, death. Fujimori’s government used feminist discourse to legitimize the campaign, framing it as a progressive step toward women’s empowerment and family planning, even as human rights violations occurred. The sterilization program has since been condemned as a violation of human rights and a case of state-led abuse of vulnerable populations.

During the implementation of sterilization programs in Peru, many procedures were carried out under coercion, deceit, or serious threats. Indigenous women were often targeted while seeking routine healthcare services, such as treatment for common illnesses, vaccinations, or general health inquiries. In some cases, women who presented with minor conditions, like the flu, were anesthetized and sterilized without their knowledge or consent. A significant number of sterilizations were also performed following cesarean sections, without informed consent.

By 1998, 8% of the Peruvian population was illiterate, with the highest rates of illiteracy found in regions populated by rural and Indigenous communities. These areas were also heavily affected by the forced sterilization campaign. Coercion was frequently linked to economic incentives, as impoverished women were offered food and clothing in exchange for agreeing to the procedure. For many women and their families, these material benefits—essential for survival in conditions of poverty—manipulated their decision-making. Many of the women targeted did not speak Spanish fluently or were illiterate, making them especially vulnerable. Healthcare workers would often have women sign or place their fingerprint on consent forms they could not understand, with the threat of cutting off access to food programs if they refused.

Other methods of coercion included threats of police involvement, the potential loss of healthcare services, and, in extreme cases, threats of imprisonment. These tactics were used to pressure women into undergoing sterilization procedures, often without full understanding or genuine consent.

The sterilization that occurred under the National Population Program has been widely described as analogous to ethnic cleansing or genocide. Scholars such as Michele Back and Virginia Zavala have described it as ethnic cleansing, emphasizing its focus on indigenous and rural women.

Jocelyn E. Getgen of Cornell University argues that the systemic nature of these sterilizations, combined with the genocidal intent of Plan Verde's creators and officials, constitutes genocide. The non-profit organization Centro Amazónico de Antropología y Aplicación Práctica called the event a genocide unprecedented since the time of Peruvian colonization. The policy of sterilizations resulted in a generational shift that included a smaller younger generation that could not provide economic stimulation to rural areas, making such regions more impoverished.

The Public Ministry determined that between 1996 and 2001, a total of 2,091 women suffered forced sterilizations, a figure that would represent less than 1% of the total sterilizations that, according to data from the Ombudsman's Office, were practiced on 272,028 people.

In the Prosecutor's Office there are 2,166 complaints for cases of non-voluntary sterilization, while 3,761 women registered in the Registry of Victims of Forced Sterilizations (Reviesfo) of the Peruvian Ministry of Justice. This body was able to identify 5,097 women who suffered sterilizations against their will.

Suspicion that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was funding a forced sterilisation campaign in Peru led U.S Congressman Todd Tiahrt to enact the 1998 "Tiahrt Amendment".

According to Peru's congressional subcommittee investigations, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the Nippon Foundation supported the sterilization efforts of the Fujimori government. However, a US congressional investigation led by members of the religious right, who were deeply opposed to sterilization, found no evidence USAID was funding forced sterilizations.

The Peruvian Catholic Church and human rights organizations played an important role in denouncing forced sterilizations during the Fujimori regime. Catholic leaders were among the earliest to condemn the sterilization campaign, even before feminist and other activist groups. However, their motivations differed from those of human rights organizations. The Church's opposition was framed by a conservative agenda, yet it adopted elements of human rights and public health frameworks to strengthen its stance against family planning. A strong metaphor used by Catholic leaders to describe the sterilizations was the "mutilation of the poor."

In their critique, the Catholic Church argued that the family planning campaign infringed upon individual freedom, particularly women’s rights, and violated the public's autonomy. This position was often articulated through the defense of women's "right to motherhood." The Church's opposition gained international attention through media statements that emphasized concerns about violations of personal freedoms.

Feminist organizations, such as the NGO Flora Tristán, in contrast, contributed to the discourse with reports on the government's sterilization practices. Julia Tamayo, herself one of Flora Tristán's key figures, published a detailed report on the Fujimori government's “Health Festivals,” where mass sterilizations took place. According to Tamayo's findings, only 10% of the 314,967 women sterilized gave their free, prior and informed consent.

Reports also revealed that health professionals were incentivized with bonuses ranging from $4 to $30 for each woman they "persuaded" and sterilized, and promotions were given based on meeting sterilization quotas. Professionals who did not meet these targets could lose their career advancement.

Publicly, the Fujimori administration and Fujimorists denied the existence of a forced sterilization program,^[11] attributing the allegations to an "international conspiracy" and accusing local critics of disregarding the health needs of the poor. In a speech at the United Nations, President Alberto Fujimori mocked the human rights organizations that condemned the sterilizations, suggesting that their discontent stemmed from not receiving state funding. This narrative was echoed by numerous Peruvian and international institutions aligned with Fujimori's government.

During this period, the Fujimori regime systematically distanced itself from independent institutions, including the media, judiciary, and Congress. Opposition to government policies was often labeled as "anti-nationalist," disruptive to political stability, or even linked to terrorism. Despite this atmosphere of repression, feminist groups, journalists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and human rights activists amplified the voices of affected women.

The concept of informed consent, or respecting the reproductive choices of women, was largely limited to middle-class, educated, urban, and predominantly white individuals. In contrast, the Fujimori government fostered a climate of fear, marked by ongoing concerns about terrorism and economic instability, which silenced many voices and created tacit support for the regime among broader segments of Peruvian society.

Fujimori was succeeded by Alejandro Toledo in 2001. While the Toledo administration condemned the practice of forced sterilizations, it also faced criticism for other reproductive rights violations. The Peruvian Medical Association [es] acknowledged that the sterilization procedures were state policy and violated patients' rights, but defended doctors, arguing that they were pressured by the state and forced to perform sterilizations without consent under the threat of losing their jobs. This stance was criticized for portraying medical professionals as victims of the system, thereby minimizing their personal and professional accountability for the violations.

The actions of the Fujimori government have been condemned by various international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, which categorized the regime's forced sterilization campaign as crimes against humanity. In 1999, human rights organizations brought a case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights concerning Mamerita Mestanza Chavez, a woman who was coerced into sterilization without adequate medical care, leading to her death. Despite the magnitude of the issue, the Peruvian government has been criticized for its lack of response and for obstructing investigations, particularly during periods when Fujimorists held influence in Congress during the 2010s.

In 2016, a public prosecutor argued that former President Alberto Fujimori and his administration should not be prosecuted for the sterilizations, asserting that any coercive sterilizations were isolated actions taken by individual medical personnel. A legal case involving thousands of women, initiated in 2002, has faced numerous delays. Fujimori, already convicted for other crimes against humanity, was scheduled to face trial for the sterilization program. However, Judge Rafael Martinez ruled against the trial, stating that forced sterilizations were not part of the extradition request when Fujimori was extradited from Chile. In 2024, the Supreme Court of Chile approved the addition of the forced sterilization charges to the extradition request, allowing the prosecution to proceed.

Efforts to address the forced sterilizations have been pursued by both civil society and the government. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), established in 2001 to investigate two decades of internal conflict between the Shining Path, rondas campesinas (peasant militias), and the Peruvian military, also examined the sterilization campaign. Feminist and human rights groups advocated for the recognition of forced sterilizations as a form of sexual violence. Decree 2906, introduced to expand the definition of sexual violence during the conflict to include practices such as forced pregnancy, abortion, prostitution, and sexual slavery, faced strong opposition from the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry argued that this broadened definition would implicate the state, particularly the Ministry of Health, as the primary perpetrator of sexual violence during the conflict. While Decree 2906 was eventually passed in 2012, it excluded the sterilization campaign from the expanded definition of reparable sexual violence.

In 2023, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights accepted the case of Edith Ramos, a victim of forced sterilization under the Fujimori government, for a new trial against the Peruvian state in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

• Final solution

• "Peru forced sterilisations case reaches key stage" – BBC News