International Adoption In The Twenty-First Century

Globalization is well underway in the twenty-first century. Tribal and national barriers are being lowered in many respects, but in some instances they are kept officially erect, like hackles. International adoption seems to be one area in which officialdom seem to be confident that it can erect as many fences as it likes, safe from sanctions or threats of military intervention.

Wealthy Americans with good intentions sometimes decide that they would like to adopt a poor child from Africa and give it its own American dream. They could fly into a state ruled by a warlord famous for using child soldiers to butcher his opponents. Half the population could be starving or homeless, yet the American couple could find themselves prevented from giving a starving child a better life by human rights rules and regulations.

Such an ironic situation can arise for a number of reasons. It could be that officials in poor countries see an opportunity to assert their pride in sovereignty, irrespective of the opportunities opened up to the child. They might also see opportunities to feather their nests with bribes and fees. However, there could also be genuine desires to protect children from exploitation.

Biological parents have rights and obligations towards their offspring. In some cases obligations are ignored. Children may be born as a result of drunken orgies or rape and may not be wanted by their parents. Despite these horrible truths the demands made of couples who wish to adopt far outweigh what is required of biological parents. Those who would adopt have to produce records that prove them to be potentially faultless as parents.

Some might think that the demands made upon people who probably have much to offer disadvantaged children are excessive in the light of how irresponsible parents can be. Unfortunately, human nature is such that strict precautions are necessary. There is strong evidence to support the view that human traffickers would take advantage of any laxity in the law to exploit children, possibly enslave them or even sell them.

A measure of international agreement in respect of this issue is recorded in the Hague Convention on protection of children in respect of inter-country adoption. The regulations and procedures set out at the convention apply to countries that are signatories to this set of rules. However many countries have their own procedures and stick to them.

The more than seventy countries that have agreed to the provisions of the Hague Convention have the best interests of children at heart. Their intention is to prevent corruption and ensure that children enjoy the rights to a home life if possible. Unfortunately theory and practice seldom fit exactly. There can be little doubt that the ideals of the Conventions are foiled, at least in some instances by the very rules that are supposed to assist them. Some couples who could provide excellent homes for children are prevented by financial requirements and red tape.

International adoption has enabled many families to bring a child with quite different physical features into a family. This is quite possibly a significant advance in humanity. In future it may be a great deal more difficult for a mad dictator or upstart politician to convince his countrymen to hate people who happen to have different racial or ethnic features than their own.


International Adoption In The Era Of Globalization

In the twenty-first century international barriers, are crashing down. The world is gradually becoming one place and not a jigsaw of warring states each defending its territory at the cost of millions of lives. Some would say that it is about time that human beings stopped behaving like ants or insects. However with respect to international adoption national boundaries appear to be like brick walls.

A wealthy American actress could land in a dusty African state with a budget perhaps a little less than her own. Many of its citizens might have been butchered and many others could be starving. The actress might intend to adopt a poor boy and lavish dollars and the American way of life on him. To her dismay and surprise she could find her best intentions blocked by red tape and human rights concerns.

In a world where generous offers can make a world of difference to individual lives it may seems strange that rafts of difficulties can be put in the way of well meaning people. However, the arrogance of some people lucky enough to be born in certain countries can seem sickening to other less fortunate people. Fabricated difficulties could also be means of inducing bribes and fees from the well heeled. Finally there could be genuine and well founded concerns about protecting vulnerable children.

A child might be born to a mother as a result of a one night stand. The mother could actually dislike it and treat it badly, yet she will not be required to produce any documentation to keep it. Adoptive parents, on the other hand, will have to produce finger prints, criminal records, financial statements and often testimonials from several friends. The whole dossier of information submitted to authorities will outweigh anything that might be available from the biological parents.

It might seem excessive to require such a huge investment and body of information from people whose intentions are probably noble. However, there are good reasons for caution. Human traffickers and slavers know no bounds of depravity and are quite capable of masquerading as reputable couples. Innocent children need to be protected from such monsters.

In an attempt at international co-operation the Hague Convention on the protection of children in respect of inter-country adoption signatory countries are compelled to abide by the agreed resolutions of the Convention. However, there are still many countries who have their own sets of rules and regulations.

The Hague Convention has approximately seventy countries that have agreed to abide by its regulations. These attempt to provide for the best interests of the child and prevent exploitation. However, as in many instances of good intentions in the hands of bureaucrats, there can be little doubt that the strictness of the provisions whilst they may prevent exploitation also can obstruct many adoptions that could offer good lives to needy children.

Thanks in part to globalization humanity does seem to have evolved past the narrow racism that caused so much mayhem in the world during the twentieth century. Though petty divisions and fighting across national boundaries does till exist, there are reasons to believe that human beings are advancing beyond tribalism. International adoption is welcomed as an opportunity to bring a person with quite different physical features into the family.


International Adoption Can Represent Hope For The Future

Affluent people who watch TV and see images of children suffering in various parts of the world might feel inclined to do what they can to help. We live in a global environment in which Japanese cars are easily exported and Macdonald restaurants can be found in quite remote Chines Towns. However when it comes to international adoption different circumstances seem to apply. Countries put up barriers instead of taking them down.

An American celebrity actress might jet into a dusty African country with a national budget the size of Starbucks, ruled by an upstart dictator with a human rights record to rival that of Joseph Stalin. She might wish to adopt a small boy, call him Randy and offer him his own version of the American dream. To her chagrin she could find her plans thwarted by red tape and human rights regulations.

Such an ironic state of affairs could be explained by three possible ways. First, authorities could not care a fig about the individual needs of a child in the face of the need to preserve national pride. Second, officials and lawyers could see in a wealthy person's passions the opportunity to line their own pockets with fees and bribes. Thirdly, there could be genuine and well founded concerns about protecting the birthrights of the child.

Even if the biological parents of a child might be destitute migrants liable to get drunk and ignore their parental obligations they have so-called 'human right' to their offspring. By contrast aspiring adoptive parents will be required to produce wads of information and submit to close scrutiny by social workers. They will have to prove themselves financially, morally and socially stable at considerable cost to themselves.

Though the regulations regarding international adoption might seem excessive to some there are good reasons for caution. Human trafficking and the exploitation of children for commercial gain can easily get muddled up with adoption. If laws were too loose it would be easy for criminals and people of ill intent to exploit other human beings when they are at the most vulnerable stage of their lives.

The Hague Convention on protection of children and co-operation in respect of inter-country adoption is an attempt to protect children from abuse. Countries who subscribe to it agree to control adoption according to the international standards agreed to at the Convention. Countries that do not subscribe have unique regulations that they might apply assiduously.

The countries that have signed up to the Hague Convention abide by a uniform set of rules. The proclaimed intention is to act in the best interests of the child and to protect children from exploitation. However, as in so many instances of human bureaucracy noble intentions do not always work out in practice. There can be little doubt that sticking to the strict regulations can actually prevent many children from prevent many children from being taken into ideal homes.

The world seems to have advanced well beyond the narrow nationalism and racism that caused so much misery in the twentieth century. There is a widespread willingness to accept people with different facial and physical features than theirs. International adoption can play its part not only in alleviating misery at the individual level but also in the evolution of humanity.



