Should the US stop funding UNICEF?

Every year, the United States sends $132 million in federal funds to UNICEF. UNICEF does many great things, like providing clean drinking water in remote areas. But UNICEF has recently developed a very dark spot on their record.

In an effort to keep orphans in their birth country and culture, UNICEF has started an active war on foreign adoptions. In Guatemala, UNICEF paid millions of dollars to government agencies to shut down foreign run orphanages and close the country to foreign adoption. They succeeded. Adoptions in Guatemala went from 5,000 a year to 35. The other 4,965 children will continue to languish in the country owned, overcrowded orphanages. US Families in the process of adopting saw the hopes of bringing home their son or daughter torn away from them, sometimes even at the very end of the process.

In some countries children are already dying in overcrowded, underfunded orphanages because of this UNICEF policy. Instead of spending those millions on things that will actually help people, they are giving that money to government officials to implement this terrible policy. This has also greatly increased waiting times and costs for families in wealthier countries to adopt children out of impoverished orphanages, many times saving their lives.

Because this policy only affects the absolute lowest segment of any society on earth, impoverished orphans in third world countries, and because it is being implemented by one of the most respected foreign aide organizations, there has been very little publicity. So I am asking you. No. Begging you to contact your congressman and senator and ask them to cut off the $132 million to UNICEF every year until UNICEF changes their foreign adoption policy. We can give that money instead to foreign aide groups who will actually seek to help foreign orphans and their communities instead of simply paying off the government to ensure that these children die in government orphanages.

That is my perspective. Here is the question. In light of this, should the US stop funding UNICEF?

No, while UNICEF's policy is a shame, and should be changed, the rest of the people they help shouldn't suffer because of it.

spud_meister said:

No, while UNICEF's policy is a shame, and should be changed, the rest of the people they help shouldn't suffer because of it.

Click to expand...

Spud, I appreciate that sentiment. They do a lot of good. But as the father of an orphan from a third world country and currently in the process of adopting again from a country that UNICEF has targeted for shutdown, I am more inclined to want as much leverage as possible used against UNICEF to force a change in policy.

UNICEF - Press centre - UNICEF's position on Inter-country adoption UNICEF - Press centre - UNICEF's position on Inter-country adoption Why are these not correct or reasonable?

Anarcho-fascist said:

UNICEF - Press centre - UNICEF's position on Inter-country adoption UNICEF - Press centre - UNICEF's position on Inter-country adoption Why are these not correct or reasonable?

Click to expand...

Their motives may be reasonable, but their methods have created a disaster that is killing children. Instead of providing for families to keep their own children or providing incentives for in country adoption, they money is being spent on shutting down foreign adoption. The result is that instead of having a family, these children are left to grow up, and in some cases die, in these orphanages.

The internationally run orphanages that UNICEF have shut down often already have their own program for keeping families together or promoting in country adoption. UNICEF is not shutting them down for fraud, they are shutting them down as part of a blanket policy. This blanket policy doesn't promote in country adoption, it just ends foreign adoption.

As far as abuse and sale of children, that is a far lower rate than the 4,965 children in Guatemala who are forced to live in the orphanage because their adoption to a loving foreign family has been cancelled by this international agency.

As far as wealthy families taking these children out of their culture, I find that very offensive. I am not wealthy by American standards, but my wife and I have sacrificed to bring our son home and provide him with a good life with freedom and real opportunity. Had he stayed in his home country, he would have likely starved to death. They simply do not have the social infrastructure to provide homes for all the orphans in their orphanages. Our agency did everything they could to unite him with extended family and provide an in country adoption for him.

Now we are seeking to adopt again. UNICEF is at work in the country we are adopting from and they have cut foreign adoptions way down and shut down orphanages with absolutely no indication or evidence of fraud. Our next child could die in that orphanage because of a blanket UNICEF policy. So no, it is not correct or reasonable.

I suspect this will not be a popular thought, but personally I believe we should withdraw entirely from the UN among other international organizations.

from Anarco-facist's cite:

... lack of regulation and oversight, particularly in the countries of origin, coupled with the potential for financial gain, has spurred the growth of an industry around adoption, where profit, rather than the best interests of children, takes centre stage. Abuses include the sale and abduction of children, coercion of parents, and bribery.
... The case of children separated from their parents and communities during war or natural disasters merits special mention. It cannot be assumed that such children have neither living parents nor relatives. Even if both their parents are dead, the chances of finding living relatives, a community and home to return to after the conflict subsides exist. Thus, such children should not be considered for inter-country adoption, and family tracing should be the priority. This position is shared by UNICEF, UNHCR, the International Confederation of the Red Cross, and international NGOs such as the Save the Children Alliance.

Click to expand...

if UNESCO's actions are consistent with its expressed tenets, then those laudable purposes deserve financial support

just in case you were unaware, the USA only recently terminated contributions to UNESCO (representing 22% of its annual budget)
read this if you want to know why that was done (it had nothing to do with adoption policy or practices): UNESCO suspends year-end projects due to U.S. funding cut - CNN

justabubba said:

from Anarco-facist's cite:

if UNESCO's actions are consistent with its expressed tenets, then those laudable purposes deserve financial support

just in case you were unaware, the USA only recently terminated contributions to UNESCO (representing 22% of its annual budget)
read this if you want to know why that was done (it had nothing to do with adoption policy or practices): UNESCO suspends year-end projects due to U.S. funding cut - CNN

Click to expand...

As far as their statement of goals, that would be fine if they were pouring more money into tracing family lines and supporting families. But they are pouring the majority of funds simply into forcing a crisis where those countries will have to do that themselves, and they aren't. This is especially crucial in the Horn of Africa where the famine is. Children are dying in those orphanages because of this policy.