With the UN being one of my favorite targets for well-deserved abuse, I welcomed Lisa's recent post revealing UNICEF's agenda in Guatemala and now Haiti, to the detriment of children in those poor countries.
An
article in Newsweek addresses the organization, as well, and offers other opinions that also take issue with the oh-so-very-unhelpful official stance Lisa outlined.
By their own reckoning, there are some 143 million orphans in the world, and through what can only look like pie-in-the-sky to all but a very few of those 143 million UNICEF insists that a life sentence in a birth country ... a birth country where everything is somehow made peachy, so that would be peach pie ... is the way to go, while adoption as an alternative for some is portrayed as a negative on all fronts.
"UNICEF and some foreign critics have encouraged countries to look at international adoption as a form of colonialism," says Dana Johnson, director of the International Adoption Clinic at the University of Minnesota and an expert on global adoption trends. Critics compare such policies to those promoted in the 1970s by black American social workers, who argued that only African-American families could ethically adopt black babies. As a result, many minority children spent most of their childhoods in state care.
Keeping positives out of the spin and emphasizing negatives whenever they present, no matter what the actual ratio, the organization promotes the worst sort of rumor mill grist and strong-arms small, poor countries that depend on international aid into moving away from the option of international adoption, ostensibly to focus on "helping birth families get adequate support from their governments".
By way of explanation, a senior adviser in the "child-protection" section of UNICEF states in the report:
"That's our priority because that will help a much larger number of kids—as will promoting domestic adoption," she says. "It's not that we're against intercountry adoption; it's just not a main focus for us."
News Flash, Lady: That ain't helping!
In fact, year after year the number of orphans grows larger, wars continue to break out ... with pretty much no problem with the UN getting in the way of the fighting ... genocides wipe out entire populations ... once again with the UN not stepping up for more than some nicely-dressed yack-yacking ... disease kills, natural disasters strike, and on and on and on.
And, by the way, the main focus would specifically be ... ?
Pulled from the hat ... or whatever ... as always when this discussion takes place is the usual red herring: money.
International adoptions can be expensive ... hence, there are profits made ... hence, greedy people will get involved in international adoption for the money ... hence, international adoption should die.
Quite frankly, I'm more worried about the hundreds of thousands of children displaced by conflict, murdered by genocide, trafficked for slavery and the sex trade or forced to take up arms and fight in some stupid local war, and can't help but think that those issues are where the UN's focus should be, where UNICEF should be on the ground and making a difference.
Getting them to step up where the going is tough is tough though, as tough as getting them to admit that there is more to their agenda than they speak: "Yuster insists that UNICEF never pressures countries to tighten their adoption regulations, and in fact gets involved only when asked."
Yeah. Right. But, asked what?
"Dear UNICEF, Our country is falling apart and we have a bazillion orphaned kids we can't feed or house. Any suggestions?"
On this front, I'll be taking
Dr. Elizabeth Bartholet's word over UNICEF's on how much the organization leans on countries in efforts to take international adoption off the table.
"Forces at the very top are making international adoption more and more difficult," says Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Bartholet, who has written extensively on the subject. "What this means is that fewer kids are getting adopted, more children are required to spend time in orphanages, those who get out are of older ages, and are more likely to have developed serious disabilities that make them hard to parent."
This is what we see. This is what we know. And this, unfortunately, is resulting in more and more children suffering every year as fewer and fewer are allowed the small hope that international adoption extends.
SandraHanksBenoiton's blog | 
Login or register to post comments | 
Tags: Guatemala, International adoption, UNICEF, United Nations
Unicef's numbers for orphans (134 mil) is based on the child losing ONE parent, not two, as is the more recognized definition of an orphan. I recall Unicef established this definition for funding purposes during the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa (someone correct me if I'm wrong)
So, the actual numbers of children who have lost BOTH parents is just 13 million (still a lot, but a far cry from 134 million). Of those 13 million actual orphans, 95% are over 5, and the vast majority of those kids live with extended family.
Therefore, the idea that there are millions of babies doomed to a life in institutions is a largely a myth. That is why Unicef "steps in" when adoptions go through the roof in developing nations, where the "supply" of healthy babies being adopted by foreigners is way out of proportion with the actual numbers they have tracked for years.
Must say, I love this "logic". As if, for starters, that the mere 13 million orphans number is in danger of being depleted by potential adoptive parents.
Then, of course, the idea that a child in dirt-poor countries can do just fine if mom kicks it, but dad is still around is interesting. Plus, the extended family care in places where no food means no food, life is cheap and children are an expendable drain has a nice ring to it, unless you happen to be a three-year-old for sale.
Add to that the concept that "life in institutions" is the worst-case scenario for these children. That's a dream-come-true for sex slaves and child soldiers ... and even just the poor sods that are starving and dying before the age of five because there is no food and no medicine.
Taking issue with international adoption because of a debate on numbers is a dodge ... no more, no less ... and to think that UNICEF has any consideration for the "actual numbers" to the point that they respond responsibly and for the welfare of the millions of children supposedly under their mandate is pie-in-the-sky.
Nice try, though ...
UNICEF's numbers (as well as their motives) are questionable at best. No one is able to accurately count the number of orphans in the world, particularly in developing countries - I will venture to say that the number is probably greater than any of our estimates.
These places governments are NOT GOING TO HELP THEM! Look at Guatemala with its HUGE percentage of poverty!
In most of these counties there's such a HUGE stigma against adoption that until that changes would could take ages, so many of these kids are denied homes! It's probably easier to adopt domestically from those countries than from here! At least here we have a foster care system, it's imperfect and flawed, but many children find the homes that they need. It still needs changes, but there's more hope there.
In places like Romania children are STILL being abandoned-http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/romania_37375.html (And whose fault do they think that is...? Pressuring them to end adoption, and then what happens?!)
And in so many parts orphans are marginalized.
They reall need to find a way to make legal adoptions easier instead of harder for folks out there who want to provide familes for kids who don't have families and other options besides orphanages and the street!
I wish I knew how to STOP these guys.
"I wish I knew how to STOP these guys."
Let me know if you think of something! I've been wracking my brain for years and just chipping away where I can.
Sandra Hanks Benoiton
"The road to hell is paved with unbought stuffed dogs." Hemingway
HAS ANYONE FROM UNICEF EVER BEEN TO HAITI??? Does it appear that there are good homes for the more than ONE MILLION orphans there (and I've heard that's a conservative estimate)? The issue is not the fear of child trafficking, as UNICEF claims. There are more than enough safeguards (homestudies, immigration approvals, etc...) to insure that adoptive parents are bringing these children into their homes to become part of their *families*.
And the reality is that Haitian adoption isn't nearly as costly as other international adoption options. Very little money is being made by any one person. I don't know of any organizations in Haiti that could be considered "baby mills." Most children adopted from Haiti are older and already in orphanages. I'm not asserting that there is anything wrong with international infant adoptions - just trying to debunk any possible reason that UNICEF could now be targeting Haiti. Their proposed laws are absurd and will most definitely contribute to the deaths of children.
I'd love to dump a UNICEF representative off in a little Haitian village with nothing... okay, maybe a dirty bucket so they can walk a mile or two to fetch some water from the stream in which goats are peeing, cars are being washed and women are bathing.
Thank you for continuing to address these issues, Sandra!
Beth - waiting for our son to come home from HAITI
The cluelessness of UNICEF is almost on par with its arrogance. You can bet that when people from the organization do go to Haiti they have flown First Class, wear designer suits, stay at the best hotels available, travel in convoys of brand, spanking new SUVs and remain as clueless and arrogant as they were before they ever touched down.
This organization MUST be rattled to the rafters!
Sandra Hanks Benoiton
"The road to hell is paved with unbought stuffed dogs." Hemingway