Child 'rescue' in mass emergencies: illegal, unrealistic and unethical
JUDITH RAE
Special to Globe and Mail Update
November 21, 2007 at 12:18 AM EST
It has been argued that while a French charity's attempt to whisk away more than 100 children from Chad may not be legal according to Chadian law, the issue is, first and foremost, a moral one. Why let a dictator's laws get in the way of rescuing children? Surely a higher moral calling must prevail.
In fact, there are several compelling ethical reasons why the removal or adoption of children in such circumstances is a bad idea. Not only is it prohibited by Chadian law (which actually does not recognize any legal adoption), but adoption in situations of mass emergency and chaos — exactly like the Darfur conflict, which has spilled over into Chad — is contrary to international law, French law, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, and joint guidelines issued in 2004 by six leading international agencies, including Unicef, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and Save the Children.
Why would we want to stop an ostensibly well-meaning charity such as L'arche de Zoé from taking children from a notoriously troubled region and bringing them to the West? Consider the following:
1. Experience shows that almost all children who appear to be orphans during a conflict or other disaster situation do in fact have families who love them, want them and are looking for them. In an emergency, children may become separated from their families in a number of ways. Reputable agencies working in disaster relief now use all kinds of innovative systems to care for separated children, trace their families, verify relationships and reunite them safely. It should come as no surprise that the vast majority of the children seized by L'arche de Zoé say they have families they would like to return to.
2. Even if some children are true orphans or have parents who would actually prefer to send them abroad, this is impossible to establish during the emergency. In an environment of mass displacement, systematic coercion and complete social chaos, there is absolutely no way to determine with any accuracy where a child is from, whether a child's family is indeed alive and looking for them, whether an adult who presents himself or herself with a child is in fact the parent, or what a parent's true wishes are. I was shocked to see the footage indicating that the aid workers in Chad did not even try to verify details on the children they were taking. And if they had done so, the information would not have been sufficiently reliable.
3. The Darfur conflict presents added risks due to the particular kinds of violence being perpetrated there. This is a conflict in which children from so-called "black" ethnic groups have been abducted into armed forces and into slavery; child trafficking is one element of the crisis itself. It is also a conflict with undertones of ethnic cleansing; one of the perpetrators' motives is to clear non-Arabized ethnic groups away from their lands and break apart their societies. To enter this environment looking to take away children from the very groups targeted by this sort of violence presents massive ethical and practical problems, to say the least. That money is alleged to have changed hands in the charity's "rescue" operation is all the more troubling.
If we want to help the children of Sudan and Chad, there is much we can do. Small amounts of money can help thousands of children where they are, rather than taking one or two children far away. We can also pressure our governments and the UN for stronger intervention at the political level. But good intentions — if that's what they truly are — do not justify the removal of children for adoption; it is illegal, unfeasible to do safely and completely unethical.
Judith Rae is pursuing a law degree and an master's degree in social work at the University of Toronto. Last summer, she worked for the UNHCR in Sudan on the subject of separated and unaccompanied children.