I’ve long wondered about the logic behind removing children from their parents in the name of ‘giving them a better life.’ I’m fine with people adopting children in danger, girls from China for example, or handicapped children in countries where they might be at risk. But I’m not onboard with the Madonna/Jolie/pick another star celebrity adoptions. I’m also not a fan of ‘rescuing’ children from poverty or material want.
The story from Haiti today got a bit worse, especially for the ten Americans charged with kidnapping and criminal association. They’re now looking at up to 25 years if found guilty of both crimes. Now, I think everyone knows that most of the people charged had nothing but the best intentions in taking those children. It appears that the group’s lawyer is tossing the leader under the bus. The lawyer contends that 9 of the group had no idea that they were kidnapping children, but that the leader of the group was clear that they were not complying with Haiti’s laws.
The best of intentions… Isn’t that what most of us have? Take, for instance, the people who responded to the Haiti earthquake by sending clothing. Seems like a good idea, honestly. American’s are wealthy, they have too many clothes, many in good condition, isn’t it a good idea to send the clothes to those in need. Well, no.
No matter how poor people are, they find a way to purchase clothes. Or they make them. If you send them clothes, they’ll save a bit of money on clothes for a while, but in the mean time, their clothing manufacturers will go out of business. When China does it with steel, we call it dumping. When you do it with clothes, it’s considered aid. But the long term impact of sending free clothes to needy countries is significant. Basically, you’re guaranteeing that they will continue to be dependent on aid. After the first clothing shipment, the local clothing industry will take a hit, but probably won’t die. But, the second and third shipments will cement the fate of the small textile businesses. Once the clothing businesses are bankrupt, the recipients of the aid will become dependent on the aid. They won’t have any other way to clothe themselves.
The story’s the same with food aid. I don’t mean emergency aid. Of course you send as much food as necessary in response to fires, earthquakes, and other natural disasters. But, I’m taking about the continuing aid. Starting during the Cold War and P.L. 480 (Food for Peace), the US has sent millions and millions of tons of food to struggling nations. According to US law, at least 50% of food aid has to be purchased in the US, most of it is packed in the US and most is transported on US ship. At the end of the day, food aid normally helps the US farmer more than anyone else. But, beyond the problems with obtaining, packing and sending the food, the result is the same as with the clothing above. If you’re sending free food to poor folks you create a cycle of dependency. If you are a small business owner in a country that receives aid, you can’t compete with free food.
For the past few weeks in church, we’ve been discussing the role of the 2010 Christian. We’ve discussed the environment, global warming, mercury poisoning, stormwater runoff, and development. Pretty interesting stuff, honestly. One of my friends, an Army officer who has spent some time in Iraq, made a great observation when it comes to aid and foreign assistance. Paraphrasing, “If you would like to accomplish anything, make sure you send people without enough money or other resources to actually achieve anything.” The logic is, if you send people who can’t accomplish anything on their own, they will be forced to work with the locals to get real work done. If you send people with enough money to do something meaningful, they’ll do it, they won’t get any local buy-in, and once they leave, the project will be a waste.
My point here is that many thing that we do for others, we actually do for ourselves. We give clothing, we donate food, we ‘save’ children, ostensibly for the good of the people we’re helping, but when we analyze our response, we find that we’re actually damaging the very people we try to help. We do this, not just as individuals, but as organizations and collectively as a country. When are we going to critically analyze our actions as people and our policies as a country? We need to create sustainable programs, not countries that simply slap a Band-Aid on the problem. Instead of kidnapping 33 orphans, how about you make a long-term commitment to creating a safe environment for Haitian children? Instead of sending clothing, how about you work with a local Haitian organization to increase the competitiveness of local clothing manufacturers? The bottom line is that we’re going to have to do more than just respond to emergencies. We need to start thinking of our commitments as long term investments in the future of the people we help.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Missionaries Formally Charged With Kidnapping Haitian Children [More Harm Than Good] (jezebel.com)
- Take Action: Cancel Haiti’s $890 World Debt (one.org)
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
You’ve got a point there. Sometimes come to think that giving away your child is not the solution to it. So if that is the case I think this would be better to let those children be adopted rather than be with their parents coz they say poverty is one cause. But how to overcome poverty? The answer is within us. If you know how to work hard you can’t acquire poverty. Helping them through their needs makes them no need to worry coz there will always be an alternative way to get their needs through donations. It is right on what you said give them programs that sets them to know how to live and be with their children. Like those livelihood works.
Thanks for this great post, a very enlightening one.
I agree on that, this is not the time to get (steal) the children from their parents. Think of the trauma it caused the children and the parents from the tragedy and here are some people who thinks they are helping build a butter future for the haitian children. They got their point but not in situations like this.