The Swazi government has extended a moratorium on international adoption of children. But in a powerful article, Professor Elizabeth Bartholet has argued that international adoption is a fundamental human right, where a local adoptive parent cannot be found for an unparented child (HERE). She argues that UNICEF, a number of powerful NGOs and nation-states have conspired to deny children this right, on grounds of heritage and nationalism. In response, she writes:
“[C]hildren’s fundamental human rights to grow up in a nurturing family should trump nation state rights...Moreover, keeping unparented children in their countries of origin does nothing...[for] poor countries and their people. It is simply a symbolic way for the powerless to stand up to the powerful, for countries formerly victimized by colonialism to make an anti-colonialist statement. And it exploits the least powerful of all, the children of the poorest groups in these countries.” (p 27)
This argument has serious implications for Swaziland, a state in which orphaned and vulnerable children constitute around 20% of the population, or 40% of the child population. Heritage and genetic links are highly valued here. Culture is viewed as an extremely important part of life. In addition, a number of international adoption cases caused some anxiety amongst the population. These triggered the government to place a moratorium on such adoptions, ostensibly until the country ratifies the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoptions. It is this very instrument which is singled out for censure by Paulo Barozzo (HERE), who in support of Bartholet writes:
“The principle Bartholet offers is to consider each and every child as an independent and fully fledged subject of human rights – as a person. The institutional entailment of this principle, she continues, is straightforward: states and international organizations are under an international human rights obligation proactively to promote and facilitate urgent adoption. In light of the devastating effects of institutionalization and other forms of crushing dependence and uncertainty, states should concurrently plan both for domestic and for transborder adoption options, proceeding with whichever offers a nurturing family for the unparented child first.”
I was recently consulted about a case involving a Finnish aid worker who had lived in Swaziland for five years and wanted to adopt a child from here before going home. He and his wife had been trying for a number of years to have a third child and had made arrangements through the appropriate authorities. They had even met the child that was assigned to them. The moratorium on inter-country adoptions, however, put a stop to the adoption, and they have left the country without the child. I don’t know where that child is now, presumably still in the orphanage where he was being raised. But the whole experience left me feeling uneasy.
So, is there a right to an international adoption contained within the Swazi Bill of Rights?
