Successive Romanian governments have made it clear that Inter-Country Adoptions (ICA) are no longer permitted. The decision to ban ICA came about because the market in children – following the 1997 legislation on adoption – led to rampant corruption. This corruption severely impacted on child healthcare and development in Romania. The ban was also connected to the fact that Romania has fundamentally reformed its child welfare system and is now in a position to provide family-based care for children who can not, for whatever reason, be brought up by their own family. Romania is also in a position to share its experience of child welfare reform with those countries which have not yet started that long and difficult road.
Despite the ban, which has been held up firmly by Prime Minister Tariceanu as well as the Justice Minister, Monica Macovei and President Basescu, continual pressure is being exerted on the Romanian government from a number of sources – the US Congress in particular and organisations of adoptive parents, behind whom the adoption agencies are hiding. The pro-ICA lobby is well financed, cleverly organised and manages to remain invisible as their spokespersons are not paid PR people but passionate would-be parents, whose adoption files have been put on hold. For anyone studying PR or communications at university, the workings of the ICA lobby would make a fascinating subject.
Why is the ICA lobby so desperate to repeal Romania’s child rights legislation and re-introduce international adoptions? I have two answers. The obvious response is that there are many American families, and adoption agencies, who are well connected with their Congressmen, with the State Department and with the White House, and they have managed to make this an issue in bilateral relations between the US and Romania. This is not an unusual turn of events in US politics, in which lobbyists are increasingly able to influence policy.
A more interesting answer is that the ICA lobby is afraid what Romania has done with their ban on adoptions; they are setting a bad example. Not only has the ICA trade been stopped from Romania but the country has managed to reform its child welfare system, get most of the children out of institutions back to their families, or placed with foster families – and prevent infants from entering institutions in the first place. This is not following the pro-ICA script, which is that Romania, and all other “source” countries, are in chaos and are unable to take care of their own children. According to the ICA propaganda machine the only solution for children in difficulty in these countries is that they be adopted by families in the US and other Western countries. What the ICA lobby is particularly afraid of is that other “source” countries, particularly Russia, Moldova and Ukraine, will follow Romania’s example, reform their child welfare systems, find local solutions for their children in difficulty and stop international adoptions. This would be bad for business.
Personally, I would like to move on from the ICA issue. I consider this particular battle to have been fought and won – certainly as regards Romania, where the abuses were at their worst – and Romania has proven its determination to stand firm in the face of intense pressure to repeal its child rights legislation and reintroduce ICA. There are so many other issues to deal with; so many other problems that need addressing both in Romania and elsewhere. I am also deeply concerned about the plight of the Marsh Arabs in Iraq and Iran, the victims of the earthquake in Pakistan (see page 11 – ed.), the long suffering people in Afghanistan, not to mention the Palestinians. As Vice Chairman of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, scores of other issues come across my desk.
