IT is a sad reflection on Bulgaria that one of its most successful export commodities is its children.
As reported in our Insight section this week, estimates are that about 1000 Bulgarian children are given up for international adoptions every year.
Naturally, there is more than one side to the story. Some would argue that it is a trade in which everybody wins.
Parents who cannot afford to give their children a decent standard of living are relieved of them, for a little cash in hand; with these children and with orphans leaving the country, the burden on Bulgaria's over-stressed social system is relieved; and somewhere on the other side of the globe, wealthy would-be parents buy themselves some joy.
Would that it were so simple, as venal as these terms are.
Whether adoptions are international or not, there are complex and hotly-debated issues related to the process, perhaps the most difficult being the deprivation of a child of its cultural heritage, and whether its new environment is insupportably stressful.
Progressive thinking and international conventions require that in all matters affecting children, the interests of the child should be paramount.
In this trade, is that always so? It may be true that at least some of the agencies involved operate with due sensitivity and care to ensure that the child is not being consigned to a new domestic environment that is inappropriate to it.
But when there are so many interested parties involved, and allegations are made that agencies and officials exercise pressure on the process so that they rake off profits, it is questionable whether the interests of the child are being put first.
It is also a fact that Bulgaria is a source of supply for international child-trafficking syndicates, representing the dark side of this trade in which children could be destined for organ harvesting and prostitution.
Those who have made it their business to investigate the international trade have found, in the case of countries in similar positions to Bulgaria, instances where the adoptive parents have rejected the child and it has finished up in institutional care either in its new country or has been returned to its country of origin. The consquence is profound psychological trauma for the child; one of the most grievous acts against any child is to leave it isolated and having to cope with an unbearable sense of rejection.
The handling of child adoption has not been made a part of conditions for Bulgaria to accede to the European Union.
This seems to be a startling omission, particularly considering that the issue of child adoption can be linked to human rights and to the eradication of corruption and of organised crime.
This is not to call for a blanket ban on international adoptions, because without doubt there can be cases where indeed the life chances of a child can be enhanced by ensuring that it has a new home life that is nurturing and sensitive to its special needs.
But certainly the EU should take the opportunity of the negotiations process to take up the cause of the children.
Nor need anyone wait for the commencement of such a formal process: there would be great value if the ambassadors to Sofia from the EU and other Western states, which are home to most of the clients of the trade, were to raise in their engagements with the Bulgarian Government the question of international child adoptions. This could be done now, with the greatest discretion and firmness. Any child sold into an unhappy life, or a destiny even darker than that, is one child too many.
As reported in our Insight section this week, estimates are that about 1000 Bulgarian children are given up for international adoptions every year.
Naturally, there is more than one side to the story. Some would argue that it is a trade in which everybody wins.
Parents who cannot afford to give their children a decent standard of living are relieved of them, for a little cash in hand; with these children and with orphans leaving the country, the burden on Bulgaria's over-stressed social system is relieved; and somewhere on the other side of the globe, wealthy would-be parents buy themselves some joy.
Would that it were so simple, as venal as these terms are.
Whether adoptions are international or not, there are complex and hotly-debated issues related to the process, perhaps the most difficult being the deprivation of a child of its cultural heritage, and whether its new environment is insupportably stressful.
Progressive thinking and international conventions require that in all matters affecting children, the interests of the child should be paramount.
In this trade, is that always so? It may be true that at least some of the agencies involved operate with due sensitivity and care to ensure that the child is not being consigned to a new domestic environment that is inappropriate to it.
But when there are so many interested parties involved, and allegations are made that agencies and officials exercise pressure on the process so that they rake off profits, it is questionable whether the interests of the child are being put first.
It is also a fact that Bulgaria is a source of supply for international child-trafficking syndicates, representing the dark side of this trade in which children could be destined for organ harvesting and prostitution.
Those who have made it their business to investigate the international trade have found, in the case of countries in similar positions to Bulgaria, instances where the adoptive parents have rejected the child and it has finished up in institutional care either in its new country or has been returned to its country of origin. The consquence is profound psychological trauma for the child; one of the most grievous acts against any child is to leave it isolated and having to cope with an unbearable sense of rejection.
The handling of child adoption has not been made a part of conditions for Bulgaria to accede to the European Union.
This seems to be a startling omission, particularly considering that the issue of child adoption can be linked to human rights and to the eradication of corruption and of organised crime.
This is not to call for a blanket ban on international adoptions, because without doubt there can be cases where indeed the life chances of a child can be enhanced by ensuring that it has a new home life that is nurturing and sensitive to its special needs.
But certainly the EU should take the opportunity of the negotiations process to take up the cause of the children.
Nor need anyone wait for the commencement of such a formal process: there would be great value if the ambassadors to Sofia from the EU and other Western states, which are home to most of the clients of the trade, were to raise in their engagements with the Bulgarian Government the question of international child adoptions. This could be done now, with the greatest discretion and firmness. Any child sold into an unhappy life, or a destiny even darker than that, is one child too many.
