Today's Presna Libre has a worth-while OPINION column entitled "What happened to adoptions". It raises many of the issues faced when cash poor governments attempt to centralize and control adoption systems, at the behest of organizations like Unicef who are all too often more talk and pressure than help. This is a huge issue that Unicef ignores and that the world community (especially the Hague) needs to address to the long term implications of the saddening trend in intercountry adoption.
The story can be found here: Download file
A translation can be found by clicking on more.
What happened to adoptions?
BY:Manuel F. Ayau Cordon
A thankless unfortunately imposition imposed by a law to for Guatemalan children was the success that Unicef had (with its efforts and contributions juicy, bad languages mentioned in $ 900 thousand) to ensure an end to adoptions of abandoned children, who also had success in other countries they made their case histories phantasmatic, leaving thousands of children without families and in a state of miserable poverty, begging, prostitution and crime, if not aborted, for lack of homes willing to adopt them. (I remember that the U.S. Government. UU. Suspended aid to Unicef by indirectly promoting abortion).
Many surprised with phrases like "They do not love the children, since it ceased to be a business." It is cruel and cynical refer to those providing the service to receive, retain, give shelter, feed, providing medicines, dental services, medical and education to abandoned children, recoup these costs through voluntary contributions and the payment of compensation that give services to youths who are abandoned.
The term "trade in children" sounds so insidious as if they criticize the Press news that say "sells for money" or that diplomats from the Unicef charge money for their services. Unfortunately, for reasons that come from far away, even before Dickens earn money has had a bad name, but the entire world does so because it has nothing bad, and even churches seeking money ( "charity").
We know of isolated cases of theft of children in Europe, U.S. and other countries where the cure is not to punish thousands of innocent children, but a few offenders. But here in Guatemala it has been punished to some? Are you aware that foreign adoptions are carried out mainly (95%) for EE. UU. And that its government requires two DNA maternity tests and prior authorization? It is said that they abduct babies to extract organs, as if this does not require the facilities to do so, qualified medical personnel, compatibility testing and acceptance of origin and procedure by the recipient, a process difficult to achieve, especially in hiding. If the government knows this, why not apprehend the criminals? Meanwhile, while more yellow and the ghostly tale, more like a morbid minds.
Now it appears that only the government can handle adoptions and, consequently, have closed private homes for abandoned children, and, according to the Press, adoptions have stopped because the Government has neither the funds nor homes to care for these children. Care costs money that previously was paid voluntarily, without charge to a treasury. Now the new bureaucracy resorts to give them care in a "chosen" people who will have to pay to cover maintenance costs, and so on. We will have to finance the people with their taxes (Will trade?, Do business?, Did bribes?).
The greatest damage, which obviously do not care, has been depriving many young people abandoned a family, a home to grow and develop, an opportunity to be educated, and a promising future. This law constitutes cruelty, and should be repealed, but not like the ambassadors of countries and institutions to "help" and that only because they believe money is entitled to interfere and impose their ideological judgements on what is not incumbent.
----------------------------------
Another translation (which is probably clearer):
Ayau article on ADAGuatemala.org
ADA also posted a new article talking about their take on the recent events HERE.
So glad this was posted, and published by Prensa Libre too ? ? PL tends to be anti-adoption in its articles, Are we looking at the beginning of change? a acceptance of the good parts of the notarial system ? ?
Meanwhile we wait for our little boy whose file is now 7 months in PGN without one document being changed. Thanks UNICEF.
Charlie
Yes, it's all too sad isn't it??? It's a shame that children needing families have to be deprived of them or have to wait,wait,wait. And it's a shame that parents, like me, get so disheartened by the risk and wait,wait,wait that we drop out of the process.
Posted by: Janet J at June 1, 2008 12:07 PMCharlie-
We can all thank unicef ( why you keep using capitol letters for this organizazion ? ),among the others, for the stressfull situation we are in right now. By the way unicef is running " commercials " on the major TV stations asking for money to help the children in need. I guess that money will be " used " to push for another Ortega Law somewhere else in the world.And people ask me where my bitterness for unicef comes from!!!
Vince
Posted by: Vince at June 1, 2008 05:20 PMJanet J-
Only if I die I give up on my child.
Vince
Posted by: Vince at June 1, 2008 05:23 PMDid you know that Pampers donates $1.00 to unicef for each package of diapers purchased? I guess I will NOT buy pampers anymore!
Posted by: Lynda at June 1, 2008 11:46 PMFunny, Manuel Ayau is among the most conservative, anti-social services, pro-privatization of everything-kind of politician...Kevin, can you put a larger font on "OPINION"? The policies that Ayau and his people promote would seem excessively conservative even to American conservatives. Sad that he´d be seen as an advocate for the destitute and the forgotten...
Posted by: Mariale at June 2, 2008 02:47 AMVince, On this occasion, capital letters = Shouting. I can only agree with the rest of what you said.
Not one shred of argument here.
Charlie
Obviously, Ayau and I would not agree on most issues. Likely ICA as well. Nonetheless, he makes some good points in this story - particularly about Unicef!
But please lord save me if somehow it is construed that I have become a neo-con. It is not so! If I need to prove it, I'll vote Green again this November :-)
In all seriousness, upon some research and scolding e-mails it does appear that IMHO this Ayau guy is a complete bonehead. And by that I mean in particular sickening views on what happened during Guatemala's civil war. I like this OPINION column he wrote but for anyone who knows anything about him, it is not an endorsement of anything he stands for. It is just one Op-Ed worthy of a read.
Paz,
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin at June 2, 2008 07:51 AMFirst, I have never posted on this site before, and had vowed I would not, looking to GuatAdopt rather as a much appreciated source of information as my family, too, navigates these frustrating waters.
However, publicly calling someone a "bonehead" based on what you (think you) know about a person is ironic for a group who I believe intends to host an unbiased and informative site. Your credibility with me has been undermined tremendously.
Finally, it is remarkably inconsistent to lament the involvement of the state and international organizations in our cases, yet call for action in other areas where we agree with such intervention. This is a dicey proposition, not to mention one that could hold our cases up interminably.
I applaud Mr. Ayau, a man I know to be of great integrity, for providing a much-needed local voice in defense of adoption. We can only hope this is not his last editorial. I encourage you to join me in thanking him, rather than disparaging him.
Posted by: anonymous at June 2, 2008 08:32 AMI love the strength and emphatic use of language in Spanish writing! I wish we could get away with writing so bluntly. Whether or not this guy is worth reading, it is a powerful read.
Posted by: Sheryl Smith at June 2, 2008 09:39 AMHi Vince,
Oh I'd NEVER give up on my child either IF I had get a referral!!!! Best of luck and prayers to all in process stuck in the mess. Maybe it be order soon and the memory a distant one as you are holding your children.
Posted by: Janet J at June 2, 2008 12:04 PManonymous- HUH?
Posted by: J.'s mom at June 2, 2008 07:22 PMDear Anonymous,
The problem with State intervention, or lack of it, as I read the history of much of Latin America, is that the USA has intervened almost entirely when the interests of big business appear to be threatened, often fabricating threats of Communism to justify the interventions, as Dulles did in Guatemala. When the rights of indigenous people, or of average families, even families of US citizens, come into question, our government invokes a "hands off the sovereignity of other states" policy. Quite hypocritical, to say the least.
Kevin:
Have you heard any more on cases being released on a daily basis or did they just release cases on Friday. Also, has anyone heard how they will release the cases? Is there any strategy or are they randomly picking files to release? Joint council updated their website but they only seem to agree with the fact that adoptions should be on hold until all interviews are complete. I can't believe they can just keep holding files. And the post on Friday about 50 files being released and only 10 were approved. I want to scream right now if I get a previo after going through the BM interview and having my file held over a month only to find out I have to start over again and go through another two month wait...Does any one have any feedback or updates on what PGN did today??? Karen
Posted by: Karen at June 2, 2008 09:58 PMAs for why UNICEF is capitalized, it's because it is an abbreviation. It stands for United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund. It was founded in 1946. Since 1953, its official name has been the United Nations Children's Fund, but most folks still call it UNICEF. Even on www.UNICEF.org, sometimes it's capitalized, and other times not.
As for the stress all of the birth mother interviews is putting on waiting families, especially those whose children-to-be have been removed to who-knows-where, I certainly hope that everything gets back on track soon. My thoughts and prayers are with you, your children-to-be, and all of the other children who now do not have the opportunity to be adopted should their birth families desire it.
Posted by: Beth in MN at June 2, 2008 11:10 PMBETH in MN-
Thanks for your explanation, but my question was sarcastic. I have said in one of my comments that I will never use again capital letters for this organization. Capital letter are used for people, countries, geografic places and institutions as a form of respect for them. Do you think that unicef deserves that respect or high consideration?
Vince
Vince
Posted by: Vince at June 3, 2008 04:58 PMI will never give ANY money to UNICEF....I quite buying pampers when I saw that commercial. Even though our little Guat is home and is 3 years old UNICEF was trying to start trouble during those times as well. However, they will always say they are "for the children" come on..Give me a break.
Please know all of you that are still waiting on your precious angels to be in your arms, there are MANY of us Guat Parents who watch this fourm and pray for all of you and the babies. God be with you all, and my our voices be heard to let these babies be free to come home.
Posted by: sandy at June 3, 2008 06:19 PMI have a very stupid question. I know that Unicef
instigated so man of the problems taking place right
now, but I don't know the details. Would it be correct to say they strong-armed the Guatemalan government into stopping adoptions? If this is the case, what is their motive if not to help the children? This is a completely innocent question from someone who is a little confused. I've made comments to friends about how Unicef has made a mess of things, but then I am not left with much more to say, because for the life of me, I can't figure out what their motive would be, if not to help kids. Thanks.
Jennifer,
Unicef is a big political player here. They put "lobbying" type pressure on the government to make their adoption laws very restrictive, to pretty much cut out international adoption. In their mind, it IS to help the children. They feel that the children would be better off in bio-related homes, ie grandparents, aunts/uncles, brothers/sisters. If not that, then other villagers and if not that, then other Guatemalan homes.
What they fail to accept is the reality of the culture of the country. The people who are financially able to adopt within the country are the very people who do not want to adopt within the country. These people are doing international adoption themselves, adopting from "white" countries. There is still a deep-seated prejudice against the Mayan (native) populations, from whence most of the available babies come.
In addition, while Unicef takes this hardline stance, they offer no help whatsoever to build the kind of social structure their ideals require. They are not building children's homes. They are just saying that the children should not leave the country. They will not address the question of what is going to happen to these children once adoptions stop.
If I understand correctly, part of their political power is to withhold support for the things they do financially for the country until the country conforms to their ideals.
I hope I have given you a good nutshell idea of what is going on, while doing justice to the issue.
If you write to Unicef, you will get a "form letter" back telling you their perspective. You have to really read between the lines, because on the surface what they are saying sounds good and reasonable. It is just that what it means on the streets is really, really horrible.
Posted by: Sheryl Smith at June 5, 2008 09:33 AMMr. Ayau's comments in his article bear much more merit than those usually posted on here. He lives there and actually knows on a day by day basis what is going on.
I agree with anonymous that the reputation of this website has been considerably damaged by your lack of understanding the real situation and Mr. Ayau's brilliant ways of thinking and understanding economics and government's role in private matters.
Posted by: SDC at June 5, 2008 10:57 PMsandy...if you think you want to not give money to unicef, you are going to have to probably go cloth diapers. lol. everytime i think i find a company that does not support unicef, i find i am wrong. huggies also contributes to unicef.
Posted by: mommy at June 9, 2008 12:09 AM