Quantcast
Channel: Against Child Trafficking
Viewing all 663 articles
Browse latest View live

Open Letter from Against Child Trafficking to the European Parliament

$
0
0

From: Arun Dohle <arundohle@gmail.com>
Date: 29 May 2018 at 20:35
Subject: Open letter: Child trafficking / Roelie Post
To: antonio.tajani@europarl.europa.eumanfred.weber@europarl.europa.euudo.bullmann@europarl.europa.eusyed.kamall@europarl.europa.euryszardantoni.legutko@europarl.europa.euguy.verhofstadt@europarl.europa.eugabriele.zimmer@europarl.europa.eufranziska.keller@europarl.europa.euphilippe.lamberts@europarl.europa.eunigel.farage@europarl.europa.eunicolas.bay@europarl.europa.eumarcel.degraaff@europarl.europa.eu

Dear President Tajani,

Yesterday I received documents under Regulation 1049/2001 in relation to correspondence between the EP and Euradopt regarding the collaboration of the EP’s Milan office and Euradopt.

Here the link to the documents I received:

https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/euradopt_2018?nocache=incoming-17471#incoming-17471

It turns out that Euradopt violated the rules and procedures of the European Parliament.

After having been informed that they you decided that they did not qualify for the Patronage, they turned to the EP’s office in Milano.

The EP’s office  seems to have been misled. There was no European dimension, and no participation of a Member of the European Parliament.

I note that the Opinion of the Proposal for a decision was: avis incertain (uncertain opinion):

“The issue was very controversial in the past in EP debates. The promoter have international contacts but in the detailed programme we received, there is no explicitly reference to the EU and EP guidelines and actors (program uploaded on GEDA). We leave the decision to the CP.”

Amici dei Bambini was expelled from the Euradopt2018 conference by the Italian authorities.

«Ong accusata di commercio di bambini alla conferenza internazionale sulle adozioni»

http://gatti.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2018/05/24/%C2%ABong-accusata-di-commercio-di-bambini-alla-conferenza-internazionale-sulle-adozioni%C2%BB/

«NGO accused of trade in children at the international conference on adoptions»

http://www.againstchildtrafficking.org/2018/05/ngo-accused-of-trade-in-children-at-the-international-conference-on-adoptions/

This was  the result of the documentary THE TRAFFICKERS – The Dark Side of Adoption, which exposed child trafficking in Congo committed by Amici dei Bambini.

This documentary can be watched on Netflix in Belgium and many other countries

THE TRAFFICKERS: https://www.netflix.com/title/80175290

In the documentary EU civil servant Roelie Post blows the whistle.

I would like to also remind you of the whistle-blower letter of Mrs. Post that we handed over to the legal adviser (Oliver Dreute) of then President Schulz in February 2016, and to which no reply was given (attached). Mr. Dreute told me that he felt the

Please inform me in details about the steps undertaken by you or your predecessor regarding Roelie Post.

For further details on the recent developments you can listen to the Dutch Investigative radio program ARGOS, Roelie Post: The Life of a Whistleblower. In this documentary also Amici dei Bambini is mentioned.

https://www.vpro.nl/argos/media/afleveringen/2018/Roelie-Post.html

The issue, which you call controversial, is in fact simple child trafficking and definitely in violation of all EU values.

ACT has over the years researched the practices of various Euradopt member agencies and exposed them for child trafficking.

For example:

Adoptionscentrum Sweden – Board Euradopt, and CIAI – Centro Italiano Aiuti all’infanzia which organised the Euradopt conference:

Manufactured Orphans:

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/video-on-demand/undercover-asia-s4/manufactured-orphans-8864316

More you can find in this blogpost here:

http://www.againstchildtrafficking.org/2018/05/hello-traffickers-meet-the-parents/

The issue became controversial because of the influence and relations of Amici dei Bambini and Francois de Combret (Solidarite Enfants Roumains Abandonnes) who have their influence on  the European Institutions.

Their fight: re-open intercountry adoptions from Romania and European Adoption policy ( European market in children)

Also at least partly due to the above mentioned influence, the European Commission cruxified the Romanian Children File’s Task Manager:  Mrs. Roelie Post.

As a result, our NGO – Against Child Trafficking (ACT) was set up on instigation of the then Secretary General of the European Commission Catherine Day.
Roelie Post worked for ACT while being paid by the European Commission. A weird construction.

Please do read the whistle-blower letter and give a formal reply to Mrs. Roelie Post, which your predecessor failed to do.

Further hereby I request that you initiate an inquiry into the dealings and wheelings of the former S&D leader Pitella and MEP  Kyenge,  concerning the adoption of children from Congo.

See also here:

https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/visit_of_meps_pittella_and_kyeng

Certainly I request you to take strict  actions against Euradopt for violating the rules on the use of the EP logo.

Please inform me about your concrete actions.

Most importantly as President you have  to put the record straight on European values.

Child trafficking is organized crime and needs the political will to fight it. Certainly not aiding and abetting, collaboration of the European Parliament.

Looking forward to your detailed reply,

Yours sincerely,

Arun Dohle

Director

Against Child Trafficking

PS: Here some videos of the “controversial debates”

WDR German TV documentary Search a Child, Pay Cash – 2009

WDR German TV about the Petition handed in by Amici dei Bambini – 2010

Petition Committee – Petition about EU funding for Amici dei Bambini – 2011

ANNEX:

Whistle-blowing Letter Roelie Post – February 2016
to President Schulz, European Parliament
cc. European Ombudsman, European Presidency, European Children Ombudsmen Network

Whistle Blowing Letter to President European Parliament_0


‘Maybe I robbed a mother of her child’

$
0
0
Source: https://www.nrc.nl   (Google Translation)

Adoptees and their parents consider a lawsuit against the State after irregularities in adoptions from an Indonesian children’s home.

Anouk Eigenraam
May 30, 2018

Unsuspecting, Marius and Marjan Kooistra at the end of March were watching the television broadcast “Adoption Treachery” by Zembla , about irregularities in adoptions from Indonesia. They were shocked when ‘Kasih Bunda’ was shown. That was the children’s home from where they adopted in 1981 their now 37-year-old twins.

“Immediately we told our boys that they had to watch the broadcast”, says Marjan. “Marijn just about exploded. We immediately browsed all the adoption papers and there was also the name of the intermediary who is depicted as unreliable in the broadcast. That was scary again. ”

Especially son Marijn is completely upset, says Marius. “He wonders: have I been sold?” The brothers are going to do a DNA test. “They and we have always found that they are so incredibly not similar. But you think: they will be two-egg twins. Now there is doubt about it. ”

As a complainant, the Kooistra family joined the initiative of jurist Dewi Deijle, who was also adopted from Indonesia, who researches legal action against the Dutch government on behalf of the My Roots foundation. My Roots has been helping adoptees to find their families in Indonesia for years and regularly encountered fraud.

At the end of April, the foundation held a meeting at the Indonesian embassy in The Hague. It became clear how much the broadcast of Zembla has brought out among the more than sixty attendees. “I feel like the bottom of my life has been beaten away,” a man in his forties told me, and he burst into tears.

Zeitgeist
It is a feeling that Joke Kraaij and her husband Kees recognise. They have joined the claim as interested parties. In 1981 they adopted a baby, their now 37-year-old daughter Sriwarni, through the Foundation Child and Future (Kind en Toekomst SKET). They had a three-year-old son, but Joke always wanted to adopt. “It was the zeitgeist that there were so many children in the world who needed help.”

When their daughter wanted to find her family in Indonesia a few years ago, the Kraaijs assumed it would be a simple job. Joke: “I had all the information, I thought we also had a picture of her mother.”

Soon it turned out to be far from simple. After many detours, the half-sister of Sriwarni was found. “Their father died, where Sriwarni’s mother was, the half-sister did not know. She knew that the woman in the picture was absolutely not Sriwarni’s mother.”

Although Sriwarni does not blame her mother, Joke still feels guilty: “As an adoptive parent, I find myself on the questioning side; because there was so much demand, there also had to be an offer. I really thought I was helping a child, now I’m almost ashamed. That I may have robbed a mother of her child and my child of her mother, that is agonisingly painful. ”

Jurist Deijle wants the state to acknowledge that it was culpably negligent. “Already in the seventies BIA, the official body that coordinated the adoptions, warned about abuses”, says Deijle. “It was a recurring subject at the Parliament.”

For example, VVD member Ed Nijpels repeatedly called for legislation as a member of parliament because “importing peanuts was subject to more regulations” than the adoption of a foreign child. Indonesia also required better supervision and control. But the Ministry of Justice found that adoption mediation had to be left to the ‘private initiative’. Indonesia ended the adoptions in 1983 to prevent illegal practices.

Deijle thinks that the Dutch government has seriously neglected its “duty of care and information”. Marjan Kooistra: “At that time there were already articles in the newspapers that a child was stolen from Kasih Bunda. But if the government does not even warn you, you assume that it is an incident. “Joke Kraaij:” You can not lie and cheat people like that? There has never been any doubt expressed towards us. At that time the propaganda was only that you were doing a good thing if you adopted. ”

Deijle also demands that the government will contribute financially to what she calls “truth finding”: quests by adoptees. Because of the limited information, these are a costly affair. For example, the Kraaijs will soon be distributing hundreds of euros to flyers in the area where they suspect that Sriwarni’s mother lives or lived.

Distant reaction
The daughter of Karin and Joop Michel is already spending a lot of money on her search for family. The Michel couple adopted Manon (38) in 1980 through SKET, on the advice of the BIA. They were under the impression that the file of their daughter contained sufficient information when she decided to contact her family a few years ago. It is now clear that names are not correct, possibly false, similar addresses given; some have never even existed.

Karin: “We have already contacted SKET a few times, but we got a very distant reaction: that not being able to find the biological family does not mean that there were inaccuracies during the adoption procedure. So now we are addressing the government. ”

The wait is for the government’s response. If it rejects the claim, Deijle, the six parents and their children will not exclude a lawsuit against the state. Deijle is not the only one, other adoptees from Sri Lanka are investigating the same option with lawyers.

The Michels find it unimaginable that they have to walk this road. “In fact, this is extremely private. But it is so nasty that we have to come out with this. We want those responsible who have violated the law to pay for this. ”

The price of a child

$
0
0
  • Trailer can be watched here: LINK
16x9

In the fall of 2017 it became apparent that a childless couple from Denmark had bought a baby for 5,500 kroner from a Polish woman. But was the case a single case, or is there trading in children in Europe in 2018? TV 2 Documentary journalists went undercover in Poland to find out how easy it is to buy a child without all authorities.

program Information

  • Original title: Dokumentar- baby / purchase

Showtimes

  • May 31st. 2018: 20:00 – 20:50 on TV 2 DENMARK

Ireland: Adoption campaigners urge immediate probe

$
0
0

Thursday, May 31, 2018

By Conall Ó Fátharta,  Irish Examiner Reporter

Adoption campaigners want an immediate inquiry into the scale of illegal adoptions — a call they have repeatedly made for years.

Claire McGettrick of the Adoption Rights Alliance (ARA) said an investigation into all illegal adoptions was now needed but said the current Mother and Baby Homes Commission was “not a suitable mechanism” to undertake this inquiry.

“While we welcome the appointment of the Independent Reviewer and while the targeted sampling exercise may be an acceptable approach in the short term, it will not suffice in the long-term.”

“The only way to ensure that illegally adopted people who are unaware of their status will be able to learn of their adoptions is to conduct a complete survey of all adoption files. It is simply unacceptable to leave anyone behind.”

The group has Minister Katherine Zappone to ensure that the investigation of illegal adoptions takes place within a transitional justice framework that encompasses truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence.

Paul Redmond of the Coalition of Mother and Baby Homes Survivors (CMABS) said Minister Zappone’s announcement was “just the tip of a very large iceberg of fraud, forgery, baby trafficking, child abduction and criminal activity by rogue Irish adoption agencies who have destroyed tens of thousands of innocent peoples’ lives”.

“It is important to note that the adoption community has been calling for an audit of St Patrick’s Guild files, and other agencies, for over 20 years. Government after government have willfully ignored such calls while adoptees have died by the thousands.

“Perhaps the most vital issue here is that illegally adopted people have spent generations going to their doctors and hospitals and unknowingly giving false — and potentially lethal — family medical histories that do not in fact relate to them. Illegal adoptees carry on this practice for their children and even their grandchildren,” he said.

Mr Redmond also rejected Taoiseach Leo Varadkar’s assertion that it is too early to consider redress or free DNA tests for the victims of illegal registrations.

The voice of Irish First Mothers group has called for any evidence of illegality in the files to be passed onto gardaí so a formal criminal investigation can begin.

“The Government chose to exclude the activities of adoption agencies from the ongoing Commission of Investigation. Therefore the police service is currently the qualified body to determine the scope of the criminal activity which is now admitted by the Government.”IFM Founder Kathy McMahon told a Dáil Committee in 2015: “Those records are not normal confidential records, they are evidence related to the illegal acts to which we and our infants were subjected… crimes against natural identity.”

Rockie Awards: Manufactured Orphans

$
0
0

ACT is proud to announce that Manufactured Orphans was awarded the Rockie Award for best Digital Non-Fiction Series

Manufactured Orphans
MCN International Pte Ltd / Channel NewsAsia
Singapore

The series are based on the full documentary – which can be watched HERE

Watch the trailer where with the help of ACT, a Swedish adoptee follows the criminal trail to India to unmask the deception behind her adoption story. ACT’s founder Roelie Post explains the pattern on Channel AsiaNews.

Manufactured Orphans: Roelie from Sumithra Prasanna on Vimeo.

Kenya: Report lays bare how child theft syndicates thrive

$
0
0

Saturday Standard Reporter |
Published Sat, June 16th 2018

A government team has exposed new chilling details of a thriving child theft racket involving adoption societies, charities, state officers, police officers, lawyers and social workers, all eyeing vulnerable children. In a report handed to President Uhuru Kenyatta in December last year and accessed by the Saturday Standard Friday, child experts vouch for definite ban on inter-country adoption, citing numerous cases of abuse and theft of children.

For instance, out of a sample five adoption cases picked from court, DNA conducted on four of the children confirmed links to their existing parents, yet they had been offered for adoption on grounds that they lacked parents. “These five children had parents looking for them, and yet they were given out to foreigners and a local family,” says the report dated December 2017. It adds: “These were the cases that were obvious and had overwhelming evidence; otherwise there are many others full of malpractices that the committee is following up.”

The revelations contained in the report on Implementation of the Moratorium on Inter-Country and Resident Adoptions come as the country celebrates the Day of the African Child today. The national celebrations will take place in Kwale County. The findings also come just a week after the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection launched a campaign to encourage children to leave charity homes and reunite with families – in what has turned out to be a recommendation of the team appointed by former Labour Cabinet Secretary Phyllis Kandie (see separate story). Know if news is factual and true. Text ‘NEWS’ to 22840 and always receive verified news updates.

In November 2014, the government placed a moratorium on inter-country child adoption following reports that adoption and other forms of alternative family care for children in Kenya had been used by unscrupulous agencies and officials to traffic children. The moratorium was to help the government to conduct a comprehensive audit of the claims by the team of seven, which compiled the present report.

In one of the cases examined in the report was referred to as “abduction, kidnap, forceful and fraudulent,” a mother of a child was wrongly accused of neglecting her child and put on a charge of “neglect” soon after birth. Take away ALSO READ: Adopted? Judge just gave hope “This mother was still having precious colostrum breast milk, probably still bleeding from child birth when her baby was forcefully taken away from her, causing serious health trauma to child and mother, which may take many years for her (mother) to heal,” says the report.

The report recommends measures be taken against duty bearers who commit such crimes to an infant in the name of welfare, philanthropy, charity or adoption. In rooting for inter-country ban on adoption, the report says there are enough local parents available to adopt Kenyan children. For every one child available for adoption, the report says, there were six Kenyan parents waiting to adopt him or her.
By the time the report was compiled, Kenya had 440 families who were on the waiting list to adopt a child. It says that the country only met 15 per cent of the children who were required for adoption, meaning there was still a huge deficit. “Some of these parents have waited for more than four years without getting a child (for adoption),” the report says. Of the parents who had lined up to adopt children, the team found, the majority were interested in children above one year. The report said inter-country adoption only increased competition for children besides putting pressure on adoption societies to produce children.

Adoption
The team established that some children’s homes were used to hold and hoard children who did, in fact, not require to be in the institutions, for purposes of adoption. Such children, the report says, should otherwise be released to their families or for local solutions such foster care, guardianship and local adoption.

The team said there were many children in (children’s) homes who could otherwise benefit from the Government’s social protection cash transfer programmes.

They could also be aided through the Constituency Development Fund and other social protection services available at the community level. According to the team’s investigations, 86 per cent of all children who had been rescued from closed charitable institutions had their rightful families traced, raising questions on how they ended up being taken to the organisations. “They were not orphans or abandoned children as had been put by proponents of those who justify existence of children’s homes and inter-county adoption,” the report says. The team said most children removed from charity homes were unified with their families within six months.

“The committee analysed and found that it was possible to remove 80 per cent of all children from institutions and place them in families and communities within three years,” the report says.

It adds: “Given funds and availability of social workers, children in charitable children’s institutions will be reunified.” newsdesk@standardmedia.co.ke
Read more at: https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2001284292/report-lays-bare-how-…

Roelie Post, the life of a whistle-blower

$
0
0

 

Source: ARGOS 

Broadcasted on 5 May 2018

English translation

Roelie Post: The Life of a Whistle-Blower

Part 1

But first our investigation. About a sensitive subject: adoption of a child from abroad is more and more under discussion. The investigative programme Zembla recently brought the news about adoptions from Sri Lanka and in April the Dutch docu drama Exportbaby was broadcasted – about corruption with adoptions from Uganda. Last year the Council for Criminal Justice and Youth Protection [RSJ] advised to forbid adoptions from abroad.

One of the first who brought out the fact that adoption and child trafficking are closely connected, was Roelie Post – civil servant of the European Commission in Brussels.

End nineties she worked there on the problems with children’s rights in Romania; these needed to be solved before accession of Romania to the European Union would be possible. Post got confronted with opposition and threats that were so serious that she now has retreated to a small village in the north of the Netherlands.  She has a long-lasting conflict with her employer: the European Commission.

They do not acknowledge her as whistle-blower and threaten with disciplinary measures.

Hélène van Beek visited her.

I stand here in front of the door of Roelie Post. It is a picturesque little street, stepped gable houses, in a very small village in the North of the country.  It is Sunday. I have an appointment with Roelie Post. But the doorbell does not work.  I better knock.

There she is.

Roelie: Hello Helene

Hélène: Can I come in?

Roelie:  Yes, of course

Hélène:   Thank you, let’s have a look. Here we are.

Roelie is looking quite nice. A well taken care of woman in her fifties. Somewhat distinguished. Wearing a nice big neck chain. Tastefully dressed in black. One would almost say: Brussels’ chique.

What does the expert in the field of adoption and child trafficking here in this little house in the north of the Netherlands?

Roelie spoke last year as expert in the Dutch Parliament during a hearing about intercountry adoption.

Chair of the meeting was Madeleine van Toorenburg from the Christian Democratic Party.

… long,  fascinating, very interesting day. Without doubt also a day that will bring about a lot. I say that on purpose because I also know that some of the people here will perhaps say things about which you think, … what do I think about that. That will happen, but I want to ask you to just listen well. The Members of Parliament want to take these remarks into consideration when they debate the issue.

Adoption is a sensitive issue.

A discussion about it is always surrounded with many emotions.

The Hearing is organised because there is a far reachting advice to stop the adoption of children from abroad.

The Vice-President of the Council for Criminal Justice and Youth Protection (RSJ) explains the advice:

And therefore we advise to provide help in the country of origin as a better means then intercountry adoption – to protect children.

This is an unexpected clear message. For the first time an official advisory committee speaks out against intercountry adoption.

And we know it has consequences for future wish parents. But nevertheless we made this consideration, because the interest of the child must be the only and decisive interest.

Then one of the experts is introduced: Roelie Post.

She deals since many years with irregularities in intercountry adoptions worldwide. Bureaucrats and journalists often use her expertise. She was also closely involved with the script of Exportbaby, a docu drama about adoptions from Uganda which was last month broadcasted on TV.

And now, at the request of politicians, she gives her opinion about the report of the advisory committee.

Part 2

Roelie Post: The Life of a Whistle-Blower Part 2

$
0
0

 

Source: ARGOS 

Broadcasted on 5 May 2018

English translation

Roelie Post: The Life of a Whistle-Blower

Part 2

Madeleine van Toorenburg (Chair):

I give the floor to Mrs. Roelie Post, European civil servant and whistle-blower.

Roelie Post:

Thank you. I am Roelie Post, I thank you for the invitation. I am civil servant of the European Commission since 1983. I have gotten involved with the subject of intercountry adoption in 1999, now seventeen/eighteen years ago, when Romania wanted to become a member of the European Union. And the European Union put as condition that adoptions had to stop.

Hélène van Beek:

That was last year in the Dutch Parliament. But now Roelie Post sits here, in this little house. She prefers that we don’t mention the name of the village.

Over the last months, I visited her a few times and got to know her better.

She is here in hiding. The quiet village gives her a feeling of safety. If something happens, it will be noticed.

Hélène: But do you like being here, Roelie?

Roelie: No

Here Roelie tells us her story. And that story begins in 1999. Roelie then becomes Task Manager at the European Commission in the field of children’s rights in Romania.

 Roelie:

It was the file Romanian children, Romanian orphans as they were often called, and in 1999 that became my job. In the framework of the enlargement of the European Union with the Eastern European countries, so I became responsible for the monitoring of the respect of children’s rights in Romania, meaning children in children’s homes. There were all kind of scandals about that. Bad care, everyone knew about that problem. And, in 2000, we were confronted with a strongly increasing intercountry adoption. In two, three years’ time it went from 500 to 2.500. The Romanian news was full with all kind of scandals about that.

Hélène:

And what were those scandals about?

Roelie:

The enormous amount of money involved. And sometimes dark organisations that were involved

These scandals also reached the Dutch media. Newspaper Trouw wrote in 2004 about a very lucrative trade in children in Romania.

To improve the process of intercountry adoption and in the hope to prevent irregularities, in 1993 the Hague Adoption Convention came into being. But according to Post, this worsened the situation.

Roelie:

Romania was the first country that implemented it. So adoptions were now well regulated. Now lawyers and others could no longer do adoptions, it had to be done by officially accredited adoption agencies. And thus within a few months there were 108 adoption agencies. Everyone set up an adoption agency.

In Romania, white children were available for adoption. Those were very much wanted. In particular by “wish” parents from France, Italy, Israel and the US. Those countries were the biggest takers. Adoptive parents paid up to 40.000 dollar for a Romanian child. According to a price list from an American adoption agency.

After the fall of the Romanian dictator Ceausescu, in 1989, 30.000 children were sent abroad.

Roelie:

Romania was then the fourth biggest sending country of the world. Third or fourth. It came right after China and Russia. But those are enormous big countries. With a lot of inhabitants. Romania came right after those, while it is a relatively small country. And in Romania was almost the only country where one could adopt Caucasian, white children.

Except the Hague Adoption Convention, there is another Convention. That is the international Convention on the Rights of the Child. This UN Convention regulates that if parents cannot care for their children, intercountry adoption is only allowed if in-country there is no other way to care for the child. All EU Member States ratified this child rights convention.

Roelie Post was as civil servant of the European Commission working for the Romania Team, which had to prepare the accession of Romania.

Roelie was in particular charged with the improvement of the situation in the hundreds of children homes and orphanages in Romania. To look for other ways of care. For the European Commission, not the Hague Adoption Convention – but the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child the legal basis.

Roelie:

We also had made 50 million euro available for Romania to reform their child protection. In such a manner that it became like other European Member States, to close the huge old-style children homes. Creating foster care, family-type homes. There was huge resistance to the closure of so-called baby-homes. Those were the nurseries for intercountry adoption, literally – so the resistance was enormous to their closure by those who had made this their business.

The interests in adoptions are big.

Roelie:

It are the adoption agencies who have interests, because that is their reason of being. There is a lot of money involved. And although these organisations are non-profit, those people earn a good salary. So, they want to continue. Then there are prospective adoptive parents who have a strong desire to have a child.

All those interests make that there are a lot of lobbyists who strongly work pro adoption.

Roelie:

Inside the European Commission there are all kind of other files where there are lobbied involved, but I dare to say that this is about the strongest lobby that exists.

Hélène:

How come?

Roelie:

Because it is a very emotional subject, for many people. Because there is a lot of money involved.

Someone who also personally got confronted with this heavy pressure of the adoption lobby, is Gunter Verheugen. This German politician was as Commissioner for the European Commission responsible for the accession of new members to the EU. So also Romania.

To be continued…


Roelie Post: The Life of a Whistle-Blower Part 3

$
0
0

 

Source: ARGOS 

Broadcasted on 5 May 2018

English translation

Roelie Post: The Life of a Whistle-Blower

Part 3

Someone who also personally got confronted with this heavy pressure of the adoption lobby, is Gunter Verheugen. This German politician was as Commissioner for the European Commission responsible for the accession of new members to the EU. So also Romania.

Verheugen wanted to stop the trade in children. Under his ruling, in 2001 a moratorium was put in place. A temporary stop on Romanian adoptions. Verheugen felt what this stop brought about. Also inside his own organisation.

Because he felt he was being opposed, Verheugen took measures:

Gunter Verheugen:

In time it became clear that my attitude in this case of child trafficking in Romania got huge political resistance. In many countries, NGO’s and people with a lot of power.
There were strong reactions. From the US, Israel, Italy and France. There was also a significant resistance within the European Commission regarding this issue. Also in my own Directorate General, because high-level civil servants had a completely different view.

They held my tough attitude towards Romania for wrong.

I had the feeling that I got not 100 percent and correctly informed. And then I took an unusual decision and put Roelie directly under me. This way she could inform me without the in-between of the Director General.

That Director General was the Spanish Eneko Landaburu. He wanted indeed that the Romanian adoptions continued.

That becomes clear from an amicable letter from April 2001 from Landaburu to one of the most important lobbyists: François Polge de Combret. The letter became public through a request under the Regulation for access to documents. Landaburu says that the blockage of adoption procedures is very alarming. And he promises to convince the Romanian authorities that rapid re-opening of the adoption procedures is necessary.

Remarkable detail: the wives of De Combret and Landaburu are cousins.

It was in this confusing and sensitive setting that Commissioner Verheugen requested an adoption stop from Romania.

Verheugen:

I have told the Romanian Prime Minister clearly: I don’t want to finalise the accession of Romania if this issue is not solved. “Pistole auf der Brust” [Sic. German expression for extreme pressure].

The Romanians have changed the laws, and adoptions abroad were forbidden.

Ana Gomes, the Portuguese Member of the European Parliament (Alliance of Progressive Socialists and Democrats) had children’s rights in her portfolio. She also experienced how aggressive the pro-adoption lobbyists worked.

Gomes:

In several of our Member States but also in the United States and in Israel, who had an interest in importing children from Romania, were many groups who had an interest in adopting children from Romania. It was also about economic interests. Many people were of vicious reputation. They placed Romanian children in rich families, in the US and in Europe.

Ana Gomes also personally experienced how powerful the lobby was.

Gomes:

So I felt that lobby. I saw it acting. Here in the Parliament. And I can tell you, it is a very strong and organised lobby. A lot of money involved.

At the same time there was hardly any control possible. It was unclear, how the children who were adopted abroad, were doing. I am convinced there were criminal organisations involved.

Part 4

Roelie Post: The Life of a Whistle-Blower Part 4

$
0
0

 

Source: ARGOS 

Broadcasted on 5 May 2018

English translation

Roelie Post: The Life of a Whistle-Blower

Part 4

In the European Commission and the European Parliament many lobbyists are active who all try to get things done. Mostly people with status.  One of the mightiest lobbyists was the previously mentioned François de Combret.  He was banker, and director of Renault.

Since the nineties he was the figurehead of the French organisation Solidarité Enfants Roumains Abbandonés, SERA. Officially SERA had as goal to improve the situation in children homes in Romania, but in fact SERA was mainly an adoption organisation.

And within the European Commission it was known that many adoption organisations had a dubious reputation. Proof of this is a confidential note written in 2000 by the European ambassador in Romania, the Greek Fokion Fotiadis. And this note was addressed to Landaburu, as Director General responsible for the enlargement of the European Union.

The international adoption system is indeed very lucrative. There is a corrupt system of child trafficking under the guise of intercountry adoption, whereby more than 200 uncontrolled and in many cases dubious NGO’s are involved. There is a strong suspicion that also the political top in the country is involved. Also, some embassies in Bucharest say that there are strong indications that the system is infiltrated by paedophile networks.

But the lobby by De Combret and others continued. De Combret felt stronger after the departure of the principled Commissioner Verheugen. De Combret wrote March 2005 a letter to Roelie’s direct boss, Wenceslaz de Lobkowicz:

Dear Wenceslaz,

My conviction is that we have today an historical chance to solve a problem. In Brussels the Commission for Enlargement has changed. And in the European Parliament is also another, well-willing rapporteur.

Dear Wenceslaz, this is the new political situation, which is simple and complicated. Simple because it is clear that the situation of the orphans is tragic, very complicated because the margins within which the Romanian government can manoeuver depends of the Commission and the Parliament.

In this context, dear Wenceslaz, I am glad to meet you.

De combret and De Lobkowicz would have this meeting on 18 April 2005. But when Roelie Post found out about it, she warned that officials of the European Commission were being played against each other by De Combret. A mail from Post to her colleagues:

This meeting risks a negative effect. Like again letters from De Combret and media campaigns directed against the European Commission and Romania, as well as personal actions in the European Parliament. Considering the problematic relation between SERA and the Commission it is necessary that we internally are on one line.

Post requested that she and her colleague were present at that meeting. From the minutes that se made of that meeting, appears that there was a tensed ambiance.

De Combret had strong criticism towards the Commission, because adoptions from Romania were forbidden. And he attacked Roelie Post in person by stating that she was since too long in her position and had too much influence in the European Commission.

But Roelie’s boss, De Lobkowicz, was clear about the wrongdoings in adoptions. He called it trade in children, and compared this with trade in drugs and arms. He also was irritated about the exaggerated dramatization and rhetorical emotion of De Combret in relation to the Romanian children.

An angry De Combret ended the meeting.

It was tactic from De Combret. He did not shun any means to create the image that despite all improvements there were still huge problems in the Romanian orphanages. And that the only solution for that was intercountry adoption.

Roelie

He put pressure on the top, the French top in in the European Commission. With all kind of scandal stories and dramatic stories about… let me give an example: that a child had eaten the hand of another child, at night, because of hunger. Cannibalism in the Romanian orphanages. After we had checked that, it appeared not to be true.

The temporary stop on adoptions was changed in 2004 into a Romanian law that permanently forbid intercountry adoptions.

But the pro-adoption lobby did not accept that.

De Combret at its head.

He started a campaign with adverts in French magazines with terrible stories about wrongdoings in Romanian children homes. With as message: Romania better re-allows intercountry adoptions.

Member of the European Parliament Ana Gomes calls that blackmail.

Gomes:

I remember there was a Mr. Francois de Combret, who was very much steering that campaign to blackmail Romania.

He pretended doing good for the children in the children homes, but in fact he made money by exporting children to rich families.

Just before the European Parliament would take a final decision about the accession of Romania to the EU, De Combret argued in a Hearing at the European Parliament for adoptions from Romania.

He uses strong words.

De Combret:

What is at stake, is the happiness of the child. The fate of the child is even worse than it was in the orphanage.

If we close the orphanages, their fate is even worse than it was in the orphanage. Therefore, international adoption is absolute necessary.

Part 5

Roelie Post: The Life of a Whistle-Blower Part 5

$
0
0

 

Source: ARGOS 

Broadcasted on 5 May 2018

English translation

Roelie Post: The Life of a Whistle-Blower

Part 5

Also Italy had a very strong lobby with the adoption agency Amicy dei Bambini. Despite the moratorium Amici dei Bambini was successful in getting a large group of children to Italy. Not by total coincidence, Italy held at that time the Presidency of the European Union.

Roelie:

In that role, Italy put pressure on the Romanian Prime Minister to get exceptions on the adoption stop. On the moratorium. Silvio Berlusconi got then, end December, the green light for 105 exceptions. 105 children who were sent to Italy.

When we heard about that, especially when Commissioner Verheugen heard about it, he was extraordinary angry. And he told the Romanian Prime Minister, Nastase, we don’t continue like this. If there will be more exceptions, then you cannot be a Member of the European Union. And then Romania stopped adoptions completely.

But that was not all. Also countries outside Europe had people who were active to get Romanian adoptions.

The US lobbied also aggressively in Brussels.

Member of the European Parliament, Ana Gomes:

At that time I was even lobbied by an American congressman who came to complain about one of his rich constituents who was expecting a child that would not come from Romania because of the moratorium.

I went to Romania, and together with the Romanian authorities, saw that the child was fantastically integrated in a Romanian family who adopted her.

Roelie:

For months I was, first twice per week and afterwards every day – even twice per day, followed by young men who looked identical. They made intimidating gestures towards me, as if they would get a gun out of their pocket, looking very unfriendly. They stood for hours in front of my window. Police came often. But… told me to be careful and not to take any actions myself.

The threats towards Roelie Post were a number of strange, unexplainable happenings.

Roelie:

It is a range of weird things, being followed… at a certain moment I and others who worked with me had all car problems – break-ins, windows broken, my car was stolen. Also a break-in in my house, and the office which we had in the basement.

She filed complaints about the threats with the Belgian police. The spokesperson of the Police in Brussels confirms to us that there is indeed a file “Roelie Post”, and that the Police advised her to be on guard.

Roelie:

Well, with this kind of almost mafia-like threats nobody leaves a name. The Police told me at the time that I not only should note down the dates and threats, but also note down what I was doing that day and what happened at work. And then one saw very quickly a pattern. That as soon as there were important happenings, or if I would speak in public – something would happen.

The atmosphere become very frightening for Roelie. And she gets no support from her employer, the European Commission.

Roelie:

The local Brussels Police told me at a certain moment, listen… this is serious. You have to take it seriously. But we cannot do much for you, as long as the European Commission does not come with you here at the Police station.

Hélène:

Why would the European Commission need to come with you to file a complaint?

Roelie:

Because, the European Commission is of course the most powerful organisation of Europe and the Brussels Police will not go against the European Commission. Or investigate things surrounding their staff, if the European Commission does not ask that. And I was always alone.

Part 6

Roelie Post: The Life of a Whistle-Blower Part 6

$
0
0

 

Source: ARGOS 

Broadcasted on 5 May 2018

English translation

Roelie Post: The Life of a Whistle-Blower

Part 6

Roelie also reported to her hierarchic superiors.

Dirk Lange, head of the Romania Team. We have the minutes of a meeting where her security situation is discussed with the head of Human Resources. There is mentioned the proposal to remove Roelie from the file.

Roelie disagrees.

The Romanian children issue is close to her heart. And she has in the meantime gained a lot of expertise, which she wants to continue to put at use.

Roelie does not want to leave, but asks for security.

Some colleagues support Roelie.

Her direct boss, writes the next day to the head of Human Resources:

It seems to me that when an official is victim of threats, because of her professional responsibilities, that it is up to the Commission to organise her protection. And that the Commission should address the Police in the name of the official.

And that the last mentioned does not have to do that on personal title.

But the European Commission does not involve the Police.

And the threats continued. Roelie Post is convinced that she was also overheard. And she is not the only one who thinks so.

She shows a big notepad, in which she communicated with the British Baroness Emma Nicholson. She dealt with the Romanian adoptions as rapporteur of the European Parliament for Romania’s accession to the EU.

Roelie:

We then already knew that we worked on a dangerous file. And that if we discussed important matters – in relation to our safety – we should not speak out loud. And – better safe than sorry – in the end, at the insistence of Baroness Nicholson, we wrote it all down.

So yes, paranoia or not, I was in any case then not the only one…

Emma Nicholson wrote in big letters the measures which Post should take. Emma Nicholson confirmed to us that these are indeed her notes.

  • Pictures, take them

  • Camera’s above door and windows

  • A personal alarm, with a cord on your body

  • Equipment to record

  • Temporarily move house

  • Plan of Action: swipe your house, including mobile and computer

Despite everything, Roelie Post continues to work.

A second person has been put on the job, so that she is no longer the only responsible civil servant for the Romanian Children File.

In an undated confidential letter her boss De Lobkowicz writes that Roelie is possibly a victim of the lobby. That she filed Police complaints. That she will need to withdraw from the Romanian Children File and that a colleague will temporarily take over.

That colleague is prepared to speak with us, on condition that we don’t mention her name. Because she is not really allowed to speak to us.

Well, when we started working together, very quickly I also started seeing strange things. Because I often after work spent time at her house, here in Brussels. We were for example followed in the street, in the park, when we walked her dog.

And in front of her house we often saw a big white van that was parked there.

And once we got out and I could see that the doors of the van were open and inside there was a lot of electronical equipment. When they saw me getting closer, they quickly closed the doors. It was clear that someone was very carefully listening in. Listening to what was going on in Roelie’s house.

Roelie:

Eventually it led to the fact that one day, on 14 June 2005, I had to go to the head of the Human Resources, who said: from tomorrow on you don’t work in the Romania Team. And that was it. And it wasn’t said where I would work. So, I first stayed home a few days. That’s how it started. The breaking point.

The colleague tells how she experienced that meeting:

In the Commission you have this system that if they want to transfer you, they transfer you. It is sort of military hierarchy.

At the end, in 2005, they forced Roelie to leave. I was there, with someone from Human Resources. She told Roelie that she had 15 minutes to leave the building.

Roelie wrote an emotional farewell mail to her close colleagues and bosses:

It is with deep regret that I write this mail. Since the change of the Commission the pressure for intercountry adoptions has increased and appears to have found a willing ear at the Commission. Mr. de Combret is stronger than ever and, after 15 years of harassing the Commission he seems to be winning after all.

Roelie first put herself on sick leave, then took leave to reconsider her future, but she remained a European Commission civil servant.

To be continued

Roelie Post: The Life of a Whistle-Blower

$
0
0
Source: ARGOS 

ARGOS – VPRO (Independent Dutch Public Broadcaster)

Broadcasted on 5 May 2018

English translation from Dutch

But first our investigation about a sensitive subject: adoption of a child from abroad is more and more under discussion.

Investigative programme Zembla recently brought the news about adoptions from Sri Lanka and in April the Dutch docu drama Exportbaby was broadcasted – about corruption with adoptions from Uganda. Last year the Council for Criminal Justice and Youth Protection [RSJ] to forbid adoptions from abroad. One of the first who brought out the fact that adoption and child trafficking are closely connected, was Roelie Post – civil servant of the European Commission in Brussels.

End nineties she worked there on the problems with children’s rights in Romania; these needed to be solved before accession of Romania to the European Union would be possible. Post got confronted with opposition and threats that were so serious that she now has retreated to a small village in the North of the Netherlands.  She has a long-lasting conflict with her employer: the European Commission.

They do not acknowledge her as whistle-blower and threaten with disciplinary measures.

Hélène van Beek visited her.

I stand her in front of the door of Roelie Post. It is a picturesque little street, stepped gable houses, in a very small village in the North of the country.  It is Sunday. I have an appointment with Roelie Post. But the doorbell does not work.  I better knock.

There she is.

Roelie: Hello Hélène

Hélène: Can I come in?

Roelie:  Yes, of course

Hélène: Thank you, let’s have a look. Here we are.

Roelie is looking quite nice. A well taken care of woman in her fifties. Somewhat distinguished. Wearing a nice big neck chain. Tastefully dressed in black. One would almost say: Brussels’ chique.

What does the expert in the field of adoption and child trafficking do here in this little house in the north of the Netherlands?

Last year Roelie spoke as expert in the Dutch Parliament during a hearing about intercountry adoption.

Chair of the meeting was Madeleine van Toorenburg from the Christian Democratic Party:

It will be a long, fascinating and very interesting day. Without doubt also a day that will bring about a lot. I say that on purpose because I also know that some of the people here will perhaps say things about which you think … what do I think about that. That will happen, but I want to ask you to just listen well. The Parliament Members will take these remarks into consideration when they debate the issue.

Adoption is a sensitive issue.

A discussion about it is always surrounded with many emotions.

The Hearing is organised because there is a fare going advice to stop the adoption of children from abroad.

The Vice-President of the Council on Council for Criminal Justice and Youth Protection [RSJ] explains the advice:

And therefore we advise to provide help in the country of origin as a better way then intercountry adoption, to protect children.

This is an unexpected clear message. For the first time an official advisory committees speaks out against intercountry adoption.

And we know it has consequences for future wish parents. But nevertheless we made this consideration, because the interest of the child must be the only and decisive interest.

Then one of the experts is introduced: Roelie Post. She deals since many years with irregularities in intercountry adoptions worldwide. Bureaucrats and journalists often use her expertise. She was also closely involved with the script of Exportbaby, a docu drama about adoptions from Uganda which was last month broadcasted on TV.

And now, at the request of politicians, she gives her opinion about the report of the advisory committee.

Madeleine van Toorenburg (Chair):

I give the floor to Mrs. Roelie Post, European civil servant and whistle-blower.

Roelie Post:

Thank you. I am Roelie Post, I thank you for the invitation. I am civil servant of the European Commission since 1983. I have gotten involved with the subject of intercountry adoption in 1999, now seventeen/eighteen years ago, when Romania wanted to become a member of the European Union. And the European Union put as condition that adoptions had to stop.

Hélène van Beek:

That was last year in the Dutch Parliament. But now Roelie Post sits here, in this little house. She prefers that we don’t mention the name of the village.

Over the last months, I visited her a few times and got to know her better.

She is here in hiding. The quiet village gives her a feeling of safety. If something happens, it will be noticed.

 Hélène: But do you like being here, Roelie?

Roelie: No

Here Roelie tells us her story. And that story begins in 1999. Roelie then becomes Task Manager at the European Commission in the field of children’s rights in Romania.

Roelie:

It was the file Romanian children, Romanian orphans as they were often called, and in 1999 that became my job. In the framework of the enlargement of the European Union with the Eastern European countries, so I became responsible for the monitoring of the respect of children’s rights in Romania, meaning children in children’s homes. There were all kind of scandals about that. Bad care, everyone knew about that problem. And, in 2000, we were confronted with a strongly increasing intercountry adoption. In two, three years’ time it went from 500 to 2.500. The Romanian news was full with all kind of scandals about that.

Hélène:

 And what were those scandals about?

Roelie:

The enormous amount of money involved. And sometimes dark organisations that were involved

These scandals also reached the Dutch media. Newspaper Trouw wrote in 2004 about a very lucrative trade in children in Romania.

To improve the process of intercountry adoption and in the hope to prevent irregularities, in 1993 the Hague Adoption Convention came into being. But according to Post, this worsened the situation.

Roelie:

Romania was the first country that implemented it. So adoptions were now well regulated. Now lawyers and others could no longer do adoptions, it had to be done by officially accredited adoption agencies. And thus within a few months there were 108 adoption agencies. Everyone set up an adoption agency.

In Romania, white children were available for adoption. Those were very much wanted. In particular by “wish” parents from France, Italy, Israel and the US. Those countries were the biggest takers. Adoptive parents paid up to 40.000 dollar for a Romanian child. According to a price list from an American adoption agency.

After the fall of the Romanian dictator Ceausescu, in 1989, 30.000 children were sent abroad.

Roelie:

Romania was then the fourth biggest sending country of the world. Third or fourth. It came right after China and Russia. But those are enormous big countries. With a lot of inhabitants. Romania came right after those, while it is a relatively small country. And in Romania was almost the only country where one could adopt Caucasian, white children.

Except the Hague Adoption Convention, there is another Convention. That is the international Convention on the Rights of the Child. This UN Convention regulates that if parents cannot care for their children, intercountry adoption is only allowed if in-country there is no other way to care for the child. All EU Member States ratified this child rights convention.

Roelie Post was as civil servant of the European Commission working for the Romania Team, which had to prepare the accession of Romania.

Roelie was in particular charged with the improvement of the situation in the hundreds of children homes and orphanages in Romania. To look for other ways of care. For the European Commission, not the Hague Adoption Convention – but the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child the legal basis.

Roelie:

We also had made 50 million euro available for Romania to reform their child protection. In such a manner that it became like other European Member States, to close the huge old-style children homes. Creating foster care, family-type homes. There was huge resistance to the closure of so-called baby-homes. Those were the nurseries for intercountry adoption, literally – so the resistance was enormous to their closure by those who had made this their business.

The interests in adoptions are big.

Roelie:

It are the adoption agencies who have interests, because that is their reason of being. There is a lot of money involved. And although these organisations are non-profit, those people earn a good salary. So, they want to continue. Then there are prospective adoptive parents who have a strong desire to have a child.

All those interests make that there are a lot of lobbyists who strongly work pro adoption.

Roelie:

Inside the European Commission there are all kind of other files where there are lobbied involved, but I dare to say that this is about the strongest lobby that exists.

Hélène:

 How come?

Roelie:

Because it is a very emotional subject, for many people. Because there is a lot of money involved.

Someone who also personally got confronted with this heavy pressure of the adoption lobby, is Gunter Verheugen. This German politician was as Commissioner for the European Commission responsible for the accession of new members to the EU. So also Romania.

Verheugen wanted to stop the trade in children. Under his ruling, in 2001 a moratorium was put in place. A temporary stop on Romanian adoptions. Verheugen felt what this stop brought about. Also inside his own organisation.

Because he felt he was being opposed, Verheugen took measures:

Gunter Verheugen:

In time it became clear that my attitude in this case of child trafficking in Romania got huge political resistance. In many countries, NGO’s and people with a lot of power.
There were strong reactions. From the US, Israel, Italy and France. There was also a
significant resistance within the European Commission regarding this issue. Also in my own Directorate General, because high-level civil servants had a completely different view.

They held my tough attitude towards Romania for wrong.

I had the feeling that I got not 100 percent and correctly informed. And then I took an unusual decision and put Roelie directly under me. This way she could inform me without the in-between of the Director General.

That Director General was the Spanish Eneko Landaburu. He wanted indeed that the Romanian adoptions continued.

That becomes clear from an amicable letter from April 2001 from Landaburu to one of the most important lobbyists: François Polge de Combret. The letter became public through a request under the Regulation for access to documents. Landaburu says that the blockage of adoption procedures is very alarming. And he promises to convince the Romanian authorities that rapid re-opening of the adoption procedures is necessary.

Remarkable detail: the wives of De Combret and Landaburu are cousins.

It was in this confusing and sensitive setting that Commissioner Verheugen requested an adoption stop from Romania.

Verheugen:

I have told the Romanian Prime Minister clearly: I don’t want to finalise the accession of Romania if this issue is not solved. “Pistole auf der Brust” [Sic. German expression for extreme pressure].

The Romanians have changed the laws, and adoptions abroad were forbidden.

Ana Gomes, a Portuguese Member of the European Parliament (Alliance of Progressive Socialists and Democrats) had children’s rights in her portfolio. She also experienced how aggressive the pro-adoption lobbyists worked.

Gomes:

In several of our Member States but also in the United States and in Israel, who had an interest in importing children from Romania, were many groups who had an interest in adopting children from Romania. It was also about economic interests. Many people were of vicious reputation. They placed Romanian children in rich families, in the US and in Europe.

Ana Gomes also personally experienced how powerful the lobby was.

Gomes:

So I felt that lobby. I saw it acting. Here in the Parliament. And I can tell you, it is a very strong and organised lobby. A lot of money involved.

At the same time there was hardly any control possible. It was unclear, how the children who were adopted abroad, were doing. I am convinced there were criminal organisations involved.

In the European Commission and the European Parliament many lobbyists are active who all try to get things done. Mostly people with status.  One of the mightiest lobbyists was the previously mentioned Francois de Combret.  He was banker, and director of Renault.

Since the nineties he was the figurehead of the French organisation Solidarite Enfants Roumains Abbandones, SERA. Officially SERA had as goal to improve the situation in children homes in Romania, but in fact SERA was mainly an adoption organisation.

And within the European Commission it was known that many adoption organisations had a dubious reputation. Proof of this is a confidential note written in 2000 by the European ambassador in Romania, the Greek Fokion Fotiadis. And this note was addressed to Landaburu, as Director General responsible for the enlargement of the European Union:

The international adoption system is indeed very lucrative. There is a corrupt system of child trafficking under the guise of intercountry adoption, whereby more than 200 uncontrolled and in many cases dubious NGO’s are involved. There is a strong suspicion that also the political top in the country is involved. Also, some embassies in Bucharest say that there are strong indications that the system is infiltrated by paedophile networks.

But the lobby by De Combret and others continued. De Combret felt stronger after the departure of the principled Commissioner Verheugen. De Combret wrote March 2005 a letter to Roelie’s direct boss, Wenceslaz de Lobkowicz:

Dear Wenceslaz,

My conviction is that we have today an historical chance to solve a problem. In Brussels the Commission for Enlargement has changed. And in the European Parliament is also another, well-willing rapporteur.

Dear Wenceslaz, this is the new political situation, which is simple and complicated. Simple because it is clear that the situation of the orphans is tragic, very complicated because the margins within which the Romanian government can manoeuver depends of the Commission and the Parliament.

In this context, dear Wenceslaz, I am glad to meet you.

De Combret and De Lobkowicz would have this meeting on 18 April 2005. But when Roelie Post found out about it, she warned that officials of the European Commission were being played against each other by De Combret. A mail from Post to her colleagues:

This meeting risks a negative effect. Like again letters from De Combret and media campaigns directed against the European Commission and Romania, as well as personal actions in the European Parliament. Considering the problematic relation between SERA and the Commission it is necessary that we internally are on one line.

Post requested that she and her colleague were present at that meeting. From the minutes that she made of that meeting, appears that there was a tensed ambiance.

De Combret had strong criticism towards the Commission, because adoptions from Romania were forbidden. And he attacked Roelie Post in person by stating that she was since too long in her position and had too much influence in the European Commission.

But Roelie’s boss, De Lobkowicz, was clear about the wrongdoings in adoptions. He called it trade in children, and compared this with trade in drugs and arms. He also was irritated about the exaggerated dramatization and rhetorical emotion of De Combret in relation to the Romanian children.

An angry De Combret ended the meeting.

It was tactic from De Combret. He did not shun any means to create the image that despite all improvements there were still huge problems in the Romanian orphanages. And that the only solution for that was intercountry adoption.

Roelie:

He put pressure on the top, the French top in in the European Commission. With all kind of scandal stories and dramatic stories about… let me give an example: that a child had eaten the hand of another child, at night, because of hunger. Cannibalism in the Romanian orphanages. After we had checked that, it appeared not to be true.

The temporary stop on adoptions was changed in 2004 into a Romanian law that permanently forbid intercountry adoptions.

But the pro-adoption lobby did not accept that.

De Combret at its head.

He started a campaign with adverts in French magazines with terrible stories about wrongdoings in Romanian children homes. With as message: Romania better re-allows intercountry adoptions.

Member of the European Parliament Ana Gomes calls that blackmail.

Gomes:

I remember there was a Mr. Francois de Combret, who was very much steering that campaign to blackmail Romania.

He pretended doing good for the children in the children homes, but in fact he made money by exporting children to rich families.

Just before the European Parliament would take a final decision about the accession of Romania to the EU, De Combret argued in a Hearing at the European Parliament for adoptions from Romania.

He uses strong words.

De Combret:

What is at stake, is the happiness of the child. The fate of the child is even worse than it was in the orphanage.

If we close the orphanages, their fate is even worse than it was in the orphanage. Therefore, international adoption is absolute necessary.

Also Italy had a very strong lobby with the adoption agency Amici dei Bambini. Despite the moratorium Amici dei Bambini was successful in getting a large group of children to Italy. Not by total coincidence, Italy held at that time the Presidency of the European Union.

Roelie:

In that role, Italy put pressure on the Romanian Prime Minister to get exceptions on the adoption stop. On the moratorium. Silvio Berlusconi got then, end December, the green light for 105 exceptions. 105 children who were sent to Italy.

When we heard about that, especially when Commissioner Verheugen heard about it, he was extraordinary angry. And he told the Romanian Prime Minister, Nastase, we don’t continue like this. If there will be more exceptions, then you cannot be a Member of the European Union. And then Romania stopped adoptions completely.

But that was not all. Also countries outside Europe had people who were active to get Romanian adoptions.

The US lobbied also aggressively in Brussels.

Member of the European Parliament, Ana Gomes:

At that time I was even lobbied by an American congressman who came to complain about one of his rich constituents who was expecting a child that would not come from Romania because of the moratorium.

I went to Romania, and together with the Romanian authorities, saw that the child was fantastically integrated in a Romanian family who adopted her.

Roelie:

For months I was, first twice per week and afterwards every day – even twice per day, followed by young men who looked identical. They made intimidating gestures towards me, as if they would get a gun out of their pocket, looking very unfriendly. They stood for hours in front of my window. Police came often. But… told me to be careful and not to take any actions myself.

The threats towards Roelie Post were a number of strange, unexplainable happenings.

Roelie:

It is a range of weird things, being followed… at a certain moment I and others who worked with me had all car problems – break-ins, windows broken, my car was stolen. Also a break-in in my house, and the office which we had in the basement.

She filed complaints about the threats with the Belgian police. The spokesperson of the Police in Brussels confirms to us that there is indeed a file “Roelie Post”, and that the Police advised her to be on guard.

Roelie:

Well, with this kind of almost mafia-like threats nobody leaves a name. The Police told me at the time that I not only should note down the dates and threats, but also note down what I was doing that day and what happened at work. And then one saw very quickly a pattern. That as soon as there were important happenings, or if I would speak in public – something would happen.

The atmosphere become very frightening for Roelie. And she gets no support from her employer, the European Commission.

Roelie:

The local Brussels Police told me at a certain moment, listen… this is serious. You have to take it seriously. But we cannot do much for you, as long as the European Commission does not come with you here at the Police station.

Hélène:

Why would the European Commission need to come with you to file a complaint?

Roelie:

Because, the European Commission is of course the most powerful organisation of Europe and the Brussels Police will not go against the European Commission. Or investigate things surrounding their staff, if the European Commission does not ask that. And I was always alone.

Roelie also reported to her hierarchic superiors.

Dirk Lange, head of the Romania Team. We have the minutes of a meeting where her security situation is discussed with the head of Human Resources. There is mentioned the proposal to remove Roelie from the file.

Roelie disagrees.

The Romanian children issue is close to her heart. And she has in the meantime gained a lot of expertise, which she wants to continue to put at use.

Roelie does not want to leave, but asks for security.

Some colleagues support Roelie.

Her direct boss, writes the next day to the head of Human Resources:

 It seems to me that when an official is victim of threats, because of her professional responsibilities, that it is up to the Commission to organise her protection. And that the Commission should address the Police in the name of the official.

And that the last mentioned does not have to do that on personal title.

But the European Commission does not involve the Police.

And the threats continued. Roelie Post is convinced that she was also overheard. And she is not the only one who thinks so.

She shows a big notepad, in which she communicated with the British Baroness Emma Nicholson. She dealt with the Romanian adoptions as rapporteur of the European Parliament for Romania’s accession to the EU.

Roelie:

We then already knew that we worked on a dangerous file. And that if we discussed important matters – in relation to our safety – we should not speak out loud. And – better safe than sorry – in the end, at the insistence of Baroness Nicholson, we wrote it all down.

So yes, paranoia or not, I was in any case then not the only one…

Emma Nicholson wrote in big scribbels the measures which Post should take. Emma Nicholson confirmed to us that these are indeed her notes.

  • Pictures, take them

  • Camera’s above door and windows

  • A personal alarm, with a cord on your body

  • Equipment to record

  • Temporarily move house

  • Plan of Action: swipe your house, including mobile and computer

Despite everything, Roelie Post continues to work.

A second person has been put on the job, so that she is no longer the only responsible civil servant for the Romanian Children File.

In an undated confidential letter her boss De Lobkowicz writes that Roelie is possibly a victim of the lobby. That she filed Police complaints. That she will need to withdraw from the Romanian Children File and that a colleague will temporarily take over.

That colleague is prepared to speak with us, on condition that we don’t mention her name. Because she is not really allowed to speak to us.

Well, when we started working together, very quickly I also started seeing strange things. Because I often after work spent time at her house, here in Brussels. We were for example followed in the street, in the park, when we walked her dog.

And in front of her house we often saw a big white van that was parked there.

And once we got out and I could see that the doors of the van were open and inside there was a lot of electronical equipment. When they saw me getting closer, they quickly closed the doors. It was clear that someone was very carefully listening in. Listening to what was going on in Roelie’s house.

Roelie:

Eventually it led to the fact that one day, on 14 June 2005, I had to go to the head of the Human Resources, who said: from tomorrow on you don’t work in the Romania Team. And that was it. And it wasn’t said where I would work. So, I first stayed home a few days. That’s how it started. The breaking point.

The colleague tells how she experienced that meeting:

In the Commission you have this system that if they want to transfer you, they transfer you. It is sort of military hierarchy.

At the end, in 2005, they forced Roelie to leave. I was there, with someone from Human Resources. She told Roelie that she had 15 minutes to leave the building.

Roelie wrote an emotional farewell mail to her close colleagues and bosses:

It is with deep regret that I write this mail. Since the change of the Commission the pressure for intercountry adoptions has increased and appears to have found a willing ear at the Commission. Mr. de Combret is stronger than ever and, after 15 years of harassing the Commission he seems to be winning after all.

Roelie first put herself on sick leave, then took leave to reconsider her future, but she remained a European Commission civil servant.

After four years, there came finally a solution. Thanks to Secretary General Catherine Day. The highest official of the European Commission.

And she has mediated, let’s say, and made clear to me that inside the Barroso I Commission there was no place for me. That I could not work there on children’s rights and that the whole ambiance, the whole environment was hostile. That I could better work for an NGO, an outside organisation. Like for example UNICEF or Save the Children, until the situation inside the European Commission would improve.

Roelie Post remained officially a European civil servant, and got told to work temporarily for – until a solution was found – and set up – her own NGO. That was Against Child Trafficking, ACT.

Roelie:

I always knew this is bizarre. This is weird. You cannot be a civil servant and work for an NGO. But there was absolutely no other option.

Against Child Trafficking since then uncovered worldwide many adoption scandals. For example in Ethiopia, India and China. It were always comparable wrongdoings. Files not in order, stolen children, biological parents still alive.

During her leave, Roelie wrote the book “Romania for export only”. A dairy in which she very detailed reports about the corruption inside and outside the Commission. With that book she blew the whistle.

Roelie:

To publish a book as civil servant is blowing the whistle. Externally. And it was a strong whistle.

Catherine Day, the highest boss of the European Commission, said to me: don’t do it under the whistle-blowing procedures. Then you can come back in a few years. I did not quite understand that at the time. I understand now that whistle-blowers can never come back. That’s inherent. One blows the whistle about your organisation and unfortunately experience shows that you never can get back.

Roelie Post is not the only one who got to do with threats when she, as European civil servant, wanted to end wrongdoings in adoptions. Her colleague also, many years later, got threats when she also was working on the improvement of care for children in children homes.

This time this happened in the framework of the accession of Montenegro to the European Union.

Anonymous colleague:

In 2014 when I was working on Montenegro, I started seeing similar problems. Montenegro is a very small country. There was just one children home with approximately 100 children. UNICEF and the European Union wanted to dismantle it. We gave UNICEF some 2 million euros to close that home and to create alternative solutions for the children. But they never finished the job.

And in the end it looked like a bit of corruption. And at the same time I saw in the press that healthy children from Montenegro were adopted for example to Sweden.

Then I told my bosses: I don’t see why we would give Montenegro this EU subsidy. And when I wrote that in my annual staff report, I and my family got to do with problems related to our security.

So then, me and my family we started experiencing security problems.

In a mail to Roelie she described the threats and the measures she and her husband had to take:

We are locked up now. Fences and cameras everywhere.

Axel had a strange car accident yesterday. The shock was violent, the cars heavily damaged. Axel was not hurt. Could also be part of the intimidations.

The colleague and her husband Axel went through the same as Roelie. They also handed in many complaints with the Police. In a long letter they asked to make a connection between their threats and those of Roelie Post, but also that did not happen.

And this colleague too got into big problems at the European Commission. And she was just like Roelie side-lined.

And another colleague from the European Commission who dealt with children’s rights in Romania has been threatened. Mariela Neagu. She lived in Bucharest and she contributed to the book of Roelie Post. But at the last minute she withdrew. She did not dare after all.

She confirms that she was the close colleague from Roelie, but she does not want to talk with us.

Yes, I did. But there is nothing I have to tell you.

Is that all right?

Thank you very much, bye bye!

She now lives in Oxford. There she wrote in 2015 a detailed article “Children by request”, in which she calls the adoptions from Romania a much corrupted trade.

When the temporary secondment to her own NGO stopped, Roelie Post had to back to the office of the European Commission in Brussels.

But that went wrong.

She got a function without content, which had nothing to do with her expertise.

And worse, the men who threatened her before, again were in front of her door.

Roelie:

When I – 10 years later – started working at the Commission again, in 2014, all of a sudden the same young man, 10 years older, was back. In the same way. And that shocked me enormously. That 10 years later, after I had not seen them for so long, that they were back.

And again nobody stands up for Roelie. She is completely alone. And can no longer take it. From one day to the other, she closes the door of her Brussels’ house and goes in hiding.

First in a caravan. Now in a house in a small village in the North of the Netherlands.

She sits now since years in a debilitating conflict with her employer the European Commission, who shuns no means to destroy her. They even tried to have her declared as psychiatric case.

Roelie:

It is a pattern that one sees often. That they try to get you there. That you have a burn out, or in any case psychiatrically not ok.

And that they also tried with her colleague.

Anonymous colleague:

Well in Roelie’s case and mine it is very clear that they would like to put us on invalidity. Because invalidity means that you need a psychiatric statement. One keeps 70% of salary, but it needs a psychiatric statement that something is wrong in your head.

That’s their goal. Then they can say that there two women are crazy.

Is Roelie crazy or not.

We ask it to people with whom she worked.

Former Commissioner Gunter Verheugen wishes to emphasise that he does not experience Roelie as a paranoid woman, but as a normal, good official.

Verheugen:

  I experienced her as a very competent, very engaged, and very trustworthy staffer.

 Competent, engaged, trustworthy.

Also Member of the Parliament Ana Gomes, who dealt with Romania for years, believes Roelie Post.

Gomes:

And at that time, what I heard about Mrs. Roelie Post is that she did an outstanding, very brave, courageous job in exposing all these murky things.

She got later psychologically damaged so that she could not continue her work.

So obviously there was an interest to put her away.

Ana Gomes does not understand why the Commission does not see Roelie as whistle-blower.

Gomes:

I really don’t understand it. I am persuaded that she is a whistle-blower. And victim of a very very powerful lobby. 

MEP Gomes asked in 2015 Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission, to intervene. She wrote to him:

I believe that Mrs. Post must be considered to be a whistle-blower. And thus should be protected instead of punished.

Timmermans did not reply.

Gomes repeated her request last year. Only then Timmermans replied that he would not interfere because he is not responsible for human resources.

Ana Gomes also asked the European Ombudsman to investigate the case.

Roelie is now threatened with disciplinary matters, because she does not go to work anymore.

That could mean: pay back years of salary, and reduction of her pension.

And there is a preliminary report of the Ombudsman, which says that the European Commission treated Roelie correctly.

Hélène:

 Will they also destroy you emotionally?

Roelie:

To emotionally destroy me they have of course already tried over the last 10 years.

Hélène:

Were they successful?

Roelie:

No, they were not successful. I am of course not anymore the same person I was before all this happened. That person also never comes back. So far there is permanent damage to my life. And in how I look at life.

There have also been moments where I thought: I stop with it completely. I lost my job, my house, all normal things, going on a holiday is something I have not done since 10 years.

There is nothing left. Nothing at all.

But… yes… every person has its limits.

We asked those involved in this inside the European Commission for a reaction, but nobody wanted to cooperate.

Finally the spokesperson came with a statement which says that the issue of Mrs. Post is dealt with according to quote “just procedures as laid down in the Staff Regulations. For privacy reasons the Commission does not want to enter into the content of the case.”

Also several former colleagues, among who former Secretary General Catherine Day and former Member of the European Parliament Emma Nicholson do not want to cooperate.

The adoption lobbyist François Polge de Combret could not be reached for comments. He is now being the suspect in a bribery scandal related to a mine company in Guinea.

Lobbyist Marco Griffini from Amici dei Bambini is since beginning of this year under investigation by the anti-mafia prosecutor in Milan for the suspicion of corruption with adoptions from Congo.

Roelie Post, Das Leben eines Whistleblowers

$
0
0
Quelle: ARGOS 

ARGOS – VPRO

 5. Mai 2018

Google übersetzung

Aber zuerst unsere Untersuchung über ein sensibles Thema: Adoption eines Kindes aus dem Ausland wird mehr und mehr diskutiert.

Das Untersuchungsprogramm Zembla brachte kürzlich die Nachrichten über Adoptionen aus Sri Lanka und im April wurde das niederländische Doku-Drama “Exportbaby” ausgestrahlt – über die Korruption mit Adoptionen aus Uganda. Im vergangenen Jahr hat der Rat für Strafjustiz und Jugendschutz (RSJ) Adoptionen aus dem Ausland verboten. Einer der ersten, der die enge Verbindung von Adoption und Kinderhandel zum Ausdruck brachte, war Roelie Post – Beamtin der Europäischen Kommission in Brüssel.

Ende der Neunziger arbeitete sie dort an den Problemen der Kinderrechte in Rumänien; Diese müssten vor dem Beitritt Rumäniens zur Europäischen Union gelöst werden. Post wurde mit Opposition und Drohungen konfrontiert, die so ernst waren, dass sie sich jetzt in ein kleines Dorf im Norden der Niederlande zurückgezogen hat. Sie hat einen langjährigen Konflikt mit ihrem Arbeitgeber: der Europäischen Kommission.

Sie erkennen sie nicht als Whistleblower an und drohen mit Disziplinarmaßnahmen.

Hélène van Beek besuchte sie.

Ich stehe vor der Tür von Roelie Post. Es ist eine malerische kleine Gasse in einem kleinen Dorf im Norden des Landes. Es ist Sonntag. Ich habe einen Termin bei Roelie Post. Aber die Türklingel funktioniert nicht. Ich klopfe besser.

Da ist sie.

Roelie: Hallo Hélène

Hélène: Kann ich reinkommen?

Roelie: Ja, natürlich

Hélène: Danke.  Hier sind wir.

Roelie sieht ganz nett aus. Eine gut gepflegte Frau in den Fünfzigern. Etwas ausgezeichnet. Trägt eine schöne große Halskette. Geschmackvoll in Schwarz gekleidet. Man würde fast sagen: Brüsseler Chic.

Was macht der Experte auf dem Gebiet der Adoption und des Kinderhandels hier in diesem kleinen Haus im Norden der Niederlande?

Letztes Jahr sprach Roelie als Experte im niederländischen Parlament während einer Anhörung über internationale Adoption.

Vorsitzende des Treffens war Madeleine van Toorenburg von der Christdemokratischen Partei:

Es wird ein langer, faszinierender und sehr interessanter Tag. Ohne Zweifel auch ein Tag, der viel bewirken wird. Ich sage das absichtlich, weil ich auch weiß, dass einige der Leute hier vielleicht Dinge sagen werden, über die du denkst … was denke ich darüber? Das wird passieren, aber ich möchte Sie bitten, nur gut zuzuhören. Die Parlamentsmitglieder werden diese Bemerkungen berücksichtigen, wenn sie das Thema diskutieren.

Adoption ist ein heikles Thema.

Eine Diskussion darüber ist immer von vielen Emotionen umgeben.

Die Anhörung wird organisiert, weil es einen Bericht gibt, der Ratschläge gibt, um die Adoption von Kindern aus dem Ausland zu stoppen.

Der Vizepräsident des Rates für Strafjustiz und Jugendschutz [RSJ] erläutert den Rat:

Und deshalb raten wir, Hilfe im Herkunftsland als besseren Weg als internationale Adoption anzubieten, um Kinder zu schützen.

Dies ist eine unerwartet klare Nachricht. Zum ersten Mal spricht sich ein offizieller Beratender Ausschuss gegen internationale Adoptionen aus.

Und wir wissen, dass es Konsequenzen für zukünftige Wunscheltern hat.Dennoch haben wir diese Überlegung gemacht, weil das Interesse des Kindes das einzige und entscheidende Interesse sein muss.

Dann wird einer der Experten vorgestellt: Roelie Post. Sie befasst sich seit vielen Jahren mit Unregelmäßigkeiten bei internationalen Adoptionen weltweit.Bürokraten und Journalisten nutzen oft ihr Fachwissen. Sie war auch eng mit dem Drehbuch von Exportbaby verbunden, einem Doku-Drama über Adoptionen aus Uganda, das letzten Monat im Fernsehen ausgestrahlt wurde.

Und jetzt, auf Wunsch von Politikern, äußert sie sich zum Bericht des beratenden Ausschusses.

Madeleine van Toorenburg (Vorsitzende):

Ich gebe Frau Roelie Post, europäische Beamtin und Hinweisgeberin, das Wort.

Roelie Post:

Vielen Dank. Ich bin Roelie Post, ich danke Ihnen für die Einladung. Ich bin seit 1983 Beamter der Europäischen Kommission. Ich habe mich 1999, vor siebzehn / achtzehn Jahren, mit dem Thema der internationalen Adoption befasst, als Rumänien Mitglied der Europäischen Union werden wollte. Und die Europäische Union hat die Bedingung gestellt, dass Adoptionen aufhören müssen.

Hélène van Beek:

Das war letztes Jahr im niederländischen Parlament. Aber jetzt sitzt Roelie Post hier in diesem kleinen Haus. Sie zieht es vor, dass wir den Namen des Dorfes nicht erwähnen.

In den letzten Monaten habe ich sie ein paar Mal besucht und sie besser kennengelernt.

Sie ist hier versteckt. Das ruhige Dorf gibt ihr ein Gefühl der Sicherheit. Wenn etwas passiert, wird es bemerkt.

 Hélène: Aber bist du gerne hier, Roelie?

Roelie: Nein

Hier erzählt Roelie ihre Geschichte. Und diese Geschichte beginnt 1999. Roelie wird dann Task-Managerin der Europäischen Kommission im Bereich der Kinderrechte in Rumänien.

Roelie:

Es waren rumänische Kinder, rumänische Waisen, wie sie oft genannt wurden, und 1999 wurde das meine Aufgabe. Im Rahmen der Erweiterung der Europäischen Union mit den osteuropäischen Ländern wurde ich für die Überwachung der Achtung der Kinderrechte in Rumänien verantwortlich, also für Kinder in Kinderheimen. Es gab alle möglichen Skandale. Schlechte Pflege, jeder wusste von diesem Problem. Und im Jahr 2000 waren wir mit einer stark zunehmenden internationalen Adoption konfrontiert. In zwei, drei Jahren ging es von 500 auf 2.500. Die rumänischen Nachrichten waren voller Skandale.

Hélène:

Und worum ging es bei diesen Skandalen?

Roelie:

Die enorme Menge an Geld beteiligt. Und manchmal dunkle Organisationen, die beteiligt waren

Diese Skandale erreichten auch die niederländischen Medien. Die Zeitung Trouw schrieb 2004 über einen sehr lukrativen Handel mit Kindern in Rumänien.

Um den Prozess der internationalen Adoption zu verbessern und in der Hoffnung, Unregelmäßigkeiten zu verhindern, wurde 1993 das Haager Adoptionsübereinkommen ins Leben gerufen. Aber laut Post verschlechterte sich die Situation.

Roelie:

Rumänien war das erste Land, das es umsetzte. Adoptionen waren nun gut geregelt. Jetzt konnten Anwälte und andere nicht mehr Adoptionen machen, sondern mussten von offiziell akkreditierten Adoptionsagenturen durchgeführt werden. Und so gab es innerhalb weniger Monate 108 Adoptionsagenturen. Jeder gründete eine Adoptionsagentur.

In Rumänien konnten weiße Kinder adoptiert werden. Die waren sehr gefragt. Vor allem von “Wunsch” Eltern aus Frankreich, Italien, Israel und den USA. Diese Länder waren die größten Abnehmer. Adoptiveltern bezahlten für ein rumänisches Kind bis zu 40.000 Dollar. Laut einer Preisliste von einer amerikanischen Adoptionsagentur.

Nach dem Fall des rumänischen Diktators Ceausescu wurden 1989 30.000 Kinder ins Ausland geschickt.

Roelie:

Rumänien war damals das viertgrößte Herkunftsland der Welt. Dritter oder vierter. Es kam direkt nach China und Russland. Aber das sind enorme große Länder. Mit vielen Einwohnern. Rumänien kam direkt nach denen, während es ein relativ kleines Land ist. Und in Rumänien war fast das einzige Land, wo man kaukasische, weiße Kinder adoptieren konnte.

Außer dem Haager Adoptionsübereinkommen gibt es ein weiteres Übereinkommen. Das ist das internationale Übereinkommen über die Rechte des Kindes. Diese UN-Konvention regelt, dass, wenn Eltern sich nicht um ihre Kinder kümmern können, eine internationale Adoption nur dann erlaubt ist, wenn es im Land keine andere Möglichkeit gibt, sich um das Kind zu kümmern. Alle EU-Mitgliedstaaten haben dieses Kinderrechtsübereinkommen ratifiziert.

Roelie Post war als Beamtin der Europäischen Kommission für das Rumänien-Team tätig, das den Beitritt Rumäniens vorbereiten musste.

Roelie war insbesondere mit der Verbesserung der Situation in den Hunderten von Kinderheimen und Waisenhäusern in Rumänien beauftragt. Nach anderen Wegen der Pflege suchen. Für die Europäische Kommission ist nicht das Haager Adoptionsübereinkommen – sondern das UN-Übereinkommen über die Rechte des Kindes die Rechtsgrundlage.

Roelie:

Wir hatten auch Rumänien 50 Millionen Euro zur Verfügung gestellt, um seinen Kinderschutz zu reformieren. In einer Weise, dass es wie andere europäische Mitgliedstaaten wurde, um die riesigen alten Kinderheime zu schließen. Pflegefamilien schaffen, Familienhäuser. Die Schließung von so genannten Baby-Homes war enorm. Das waren buchstäblich die Kindergärten für internationale Adoptionen, also war der Widerstand für diejenigen, die dies zu ihrem Geschäft gemacht hatten, enorm.

Die Interessen an Adoptionen sind groß.

Roelie:

Es sind die Adoptionsagenturen, die Interessen haben, weil das der Grund ihres Seins ist. Es ist eine Menge Geld involviert. Und obwohl diese Organisationen gemeinnützig sind, verdienen diese Leute ein gutes Gehalt. Also wollen sie weitermachen. Dann gibt es zukünftige Adoptiveltern, die einen starken Wunsch haben, ein Kind zu bekommen.

Alle diese Interessen machen es, dass es viele Lobbyisten gibt, die stark für die Adoption arbeiten.

Roelie:

In der Europäischen Kommission gibt es alle Arten von anderen Akten, in denen Lobbyarbeit betrieben wird, aber ich wage zu sagen, dass dies die stärkste Lobby ist, die es gibt.

Hélène:

 Woher?

Roelie:

Weil es für viele Menschen ein sehr emotionales Thema ist. Weil es viel Geld gibt.

Jemand, der auch persönlich mit diesem starken Druck der Adoptionslobby konfrontiert wurde, ist Gunter Verheugen. Dieser deutsche Politiker war als Kommissar für die Europäische Kommission für den Beitritt neuer Mitglieder zur EU verantwortlich. Also auch Rumänien.

Verheugen wollte den Handel mit Kindern einstellen. Unter seiner Entscheidung wurde 2001 ein Moratorium eingeführt. Ein vorübergehender Stopp der rumänischen Adoptionen. Verheugen spürte, was dieser Stopp bewirkte. Auch in seiner eigenen Organisation.

Weil er fühlte, dass er sich bekämpfte, traf Verheugen Maßnahmen:

Gunter Verheugen:

Im Laufe der Zeit wurde klar, dass meine Haltung in diesem Fall des Kinderhandels in Rumänien großen politischen Widerstand fand. In vielen Ländern NGOs und Menschen mit viel Macht.

Es gab starke Reaktionen. Aus den USA, Israel, Italien und Frankreich. In der Europäischen Kommission gab es auch erheblichen Widerstand in dieser Frage. Auch in meiner eigenen Generaldirektion, weil hochrangige Beamte eine völlig andere Sichtweise hatten.

Sie hielten meine harte Haltung gegenüber Rumänien für falsch.

Ich hatte das Gefühl, dass ich nicht 100 Prozent richtig informiert wurde. Und dann habe ich eine ungewöhnliche Entscheidung getroffen und Roelie direkt unter mich gestellt. So konnte sie mich ohne Zwischenglied des Generaldirektors informieren.

Dieser Generaldirektor war der Spanier Eneko Landaburu. Er wollte in der Tat, dass die rumänischen Adoptionen fortgesetzt wurden.

Das geht aus einem freundlichen Brief von Landaburu vom April 2001 an einen der wichtigsten Lobbyisten hervor: François Polge de Combret. Der Brief wurde durch einen Antrag gemäß der Verordnung über den Zugang zu Dokumenten veröffentlicht. Landaburu sagt, dass die Blockade der Adoptionsverfahren sehr alarmierend ist. Und er verspricht, die rumänischen Behörden davon zu überzeugen, dass eine rasche Wiederaufnahme der Adoptionsverfahren notwendig ist.

Bemerkenswertes Detail: Die Ehefrauen von De Combret und Landaburu sind Cousins.

In diesem verwirrenden und sensiblen Umfeld hat Kommissar Verheugen um einen Adoptionsstopp aus Rumänien gebeten.

Verheugen:

Ich habe dem rumänischen Premierminister klar gesagt: Ich möchte den Beitritt Rumäniens nicht abschließen, wenn dieses Problem nicht gelöst wird. “Pistole auf der Brust” [Sic. Deutscher Ausdruck für extremen Druck].

Die Rumänen haben die Gesetze geändert, und Adoptionen im Ausland wurden verboten.

Ana Gomes, eine portugiesische Abgeordnete des Europäischen Parlaments (Allianz der Progressiven Sozialisten und Demokraten), hatte Kinderrechte in ihrem Portfolio. Sie hat auch erlebt, wie aggressiv die Lobbyisten der Pro-Adoption arbeiteten.

Gomes:

Ich fühlte diese Lobby. Ich sah es handeln. Hier im Parlament. Und ich kann Ihnen sagen, es ist eine sehr starke und organisierte Lobby. Eine Menge Geld beteiligt.

Gleichzeitig war kaum Kontrolle möglich. Es war unklar, wie es den Kindern ging, die im Ausland adoptiert wurden. Ich bin überzeugt, dass kriminelle Organisationen beteiligt waren.

In der Europäischen Kommission und im Europäischen Parlament sind viele Lobbyisten aktiv, die alle versuchen, Dinge zu erledigen. Meistens Leute mit Status. Einer der mächtigsten Lobbyisten war der bereits erwähnte Francois de Combret. Er war Bankier und Direktor von Renault.

Seit den neunziger Jahren war er das Aushängeschild der französischen Organisation Solidarite Enfants Roumains Abbandones, SERA. Offiziell hatte SERA das Ziel, die Situation in Kinderheimen in Rumänien zu verbessern, aber in Wirklichkeit war SERA hauptsächlich eine Adoptionsorganisation.

Und innerhalb der Europäischen Kommission war bekannt, dass viele Adoptionsorganisationen einen zweifelhaften Ruf hatten. Ein Beweis dafür ist eine vertrauliche Notiz, die der europäische Botschafter in Rumänien, der Grieche Fokion Fotiadis im Jahr 2000 verfasst hat. Und diese Note war an Landaburu gerichtet, als Generaldirektor, der für die Erweiterung der Europäischen Union verantwortlich ist:

Das internationale Adoptionssystem ist in der Tat sehr lukrativ. Es gibt ein korruptes System des Kinderhandels unter dem Deckmantel der internationalen Adoption, bei dem mehr als 200 unkontrollierte und in vielen Fällen dubiose NGOs involviert sind. Es besteht der starke Verdacht, dass auch die politische Spitze des Landes involviert ist. Auch einige Botschaften in Bukarest sagen, dass es starke Anzeichen dafür gibt, dass das System von pädophilen Netzwerken infiltriert wird.

Aber die Lobby von De Combret und anderen ging weiter. De Combret fühlte sich gestärkt nach dem Rücktritt des prinzipientreuen Kommissars Verheugen. De Combret schrieb im März 2005 einen Brief an Roelies direkten Chef, Wenceslaz de Lobkowicz:

Lieber Wenceslaz,

Ich bin überzeugt, dass wir heute eine historische Chance haben, ein Problem zu lösen. In Brüssel hat sich die Erweiterungskommission verändert. Und im Europäischen Parlament ist auch ein anderer, gutwilliger Berichterstatter.

Lieber Wenceslaz, das ist die neue politische Situation, die einfach und kompliziert ist. Ganz einfach, denn es ist klar, dass die Situation der Waisen tragisch und sehr kompliziert ist, weil die Margen, innerhalb deren die rumänische Regierung manövrieren kann, von der Kommission und dem Parlament abhängen.

In diesem Zusammenhang, lieber Wenzeslaz, freue ich mich, Sie kennenzulernen.

De Combret und De Lobkowicz hatten dieses Treffen am 18. April 2005. Aber als Roelie Post davon erfuhr, warnte sie, dass die Beamten der Europäischen Kommission von De Combret gegeneinander gespielt würden. Eine Mail von Post an ihre Kollegen:

Diese Sitzung birgt einen negativen Effekt. Wie wieder Briefe von De Combret und Medienkampagnen gegen die Europäische Kommission und Rumänien, sowie persönliche Aktionen im Europäischen Parlament. Angesichts der problematischen Beziehung zwischen SERA und der Kommission ist es notwendig, dass wir intern auf einer Linie sind.

Post bittet darum, dass sie und ihre Kollegin bei diesem Treffen anwesend sind. Nach den Minuten, die sie von diesem Treffen gemacht hat, scheint es, dass es ein angespanntes Ambiente gab.

De Combret hatte starke Kritik an der Kommission, weil Adoptionen aus Rumänien verboten waren. Und er griff Roelie Post persönlich an, indem er erklärte, dass sie seit langem in ihrer Position war und zu viel Einfluss in der Europäischen Kommission hatte.

Aber Roelies Chef, De Lobkowicz, war sich über das Fehlverhalten bei Adoptionen klar. Er nannte es Handel mit Kindern und verglich dies mit dem Handel mit Drogen und Waffen. Er war auch irritiert über die übertriebene Dramatisierung und rhetorische Emotion von De Combret in Bezug auf die rumänischen Kinder.

Ein wütender De Combret beendete das Treffen.

Es war eine Taktik von De Combret. Er hat keine Mühen gescheut, um das Image zu schaffen, dass es trotz aller Verbesserungen in den rumänischen Waisenhäusern immer noch große Probleme gab. Und die einzige Lösung dafür war die internationale Adoption.

Roelie:

Er machte Druck auf die Spitze, die Franzosen in der Europäischen Kommission. Mit allen möglichen Skandalgeschichten und dramatischen Geschichten über … lassen Sie mich ein Beispiel geben: dass ein Kind wegen Hunger die Hand eines anderen Kindes gegessen hat. Kannibalismus in den rumänischen Waisenhäusern. Nachdem wir das überprüft hatten, schien es nicht wahr zu sein.

Die vorübergehende Einstellung der Adoptionen wurde 2004 in ein rumänisches Gesetz umgewandelt, das internationale Adoptionen dauerhaft verbietet.

Aber die Pro-Adoptions-Lobby akzeptierte das nicht.

De Combret an der Spitze.

Er startete eine Kampagne mit Anzeigen in französischen Magazinen mit schrecklichen Geschichten über Missstände in rumänischen Kinderheimen. Mit als Botschaft: Rumänien erlaubt internationale Adoptionen besser wieder.

Die Abgeordnete Ana Gomes nennt diese Erpressung.

Gomes:

Ich erinnere mich, dass es einen Herrn Francois de Combret gab, der diese Kampagne sehr stark steuerte, um Rumänien zu erpressen.

Er gab vor, den Kindern in den Kinderheimen Gutes zu tun, aber in Wirklichkeit verdiente er Geld, indem er Kinder in reiche Familien exportierte.

Kurz bevor das Europäische Parlament eine endgültige Entscheidung über den Beitritt Rumäniens zur EU treffen würde, argumentierte De Combret in einer Anhörung vor dem Europäischen Parlament für Adoptionen aus Rumänien.

Er benutzt starke Worte.

De Combret:

Was auf dem Spiel steht, ist das Glück des Kindes. Das Schicksal des Kindes ist noch schlimmer als im Waisenhaus.

Wenn wir die Waisenhäuser schließen, ist ihr Schicksal noch schlimmer als im Waisenhaus. Daher ist eine internationale Adoption unbedingt notwendig.

Auch Italien hatte eine sehr starke Lobby mit der Adoptionsagentur Amici dei Bambini. Trotz des Moratoriums gelang es Amici dei Bambini, eine große Gruppe von Kindern nach Italien zu bringen. Nicht zufällig hat Italien damals die Präsidentschaft der Europäischen Union innegehabt.

Roelie:

In dieser Rolle übte Italien Druck auf den rumänischen Premierminister aus, um Ausnahmen vom Adoptionsstopp zu erhalten. Auf das Moratorium. Silvio Berlusconi bekam dann, Ende Dezember, grünes Licht für 105 Ausnahmen. 105 Kinder, die nach Italien geschickt wurden.

Als wir davon hörten, besonders als Kommissar Verheugen davon hörte, war er außerordentlich wütend. Und er sagte dem rumänischen Premierminister Nastase, wir machen das nicht so weiter. Wenn es weitere Ausnahmen geben wird, können Sie kein Mitglied der Europäischen Union sein. Und dann hat Rumänien die Adoptionen vollständig eingestellt.

Aber das war nicht alles. Auch Länder außerhalb Europas hatten Leute, die aktiv waren, um rumänische Adoptionen zu bekommen.

Die USA setzten sich auch in Brüssel aggressiv dafür ein.

Mitglied des Europäischen Parlaments, Ana Gomes:

Zu dieser Zeit wurde ich sogar von einem amerikanischen Abgeordneten angegriffen, der sich über einen seiner reichsten Bürger beschwerte, der ein Kind erwartete, das wegen des Moratoriums nicht aus Rumänien kommen würde.

Ich ging nach Rumänien und sah zusammen mit den rumänischen Behörden, dass das Kind fantastisch in eine rumänische Familie integriert war, die sie adoptierte.

Roelie:

Seit Monaten war ich zuerst zweimal pro Woche und danach jeden Tag – sogar zweimal am Tag, gefolgt von jungen Männern, die identisch aussahen. Sie machten mir einschüchternde Gesten, als ob sie eine Waffe aus ihrer Tasche holen würden, die sehr unfreundlich aussahen. Sie standen stundenlang vor meinem Fenster. Die Polizei kam oft. Aber … sagte mir, ich solle vorsichtig sein und nichts unternehmen.

Die Drohungen gegen Roelie Post waren eine Reihe seltsamer, unerklärlicher Ereignisse.

Roelie:

Es ist eine Reihe von seltsamen Dingen, denen man folgt … zu einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt hatten ich und andere, die mit mir arbeiteten, alle Probleme mit dem Auto – Einbrüche, Fenster kaputt, mein Auto wurde gestohlen. Auch ein Einbruch in meinem Haus und das Büro, das wir im Keller hatten.

Sie hat sich mit der belgischen Polizei über die Drohungen beschwert. Die Sprecherin der Polizei in Brüssel bestätigt uns, dass es tatsächlich eine Akte “Roelie Post” gibt und dass die Polizei ihr geraten hat, auf der Hut zu sein.

Roelie:

Nun, mit dieser Art von fast mafiösen Drohungen hinterlässt niemand einen Namen. Die Polizei hat mir damals gesagt, dass ich nicht nur die Daten und Drohungen notieren, sondern auch notieren soll, was ich an diesem Tag gemacht habe und was bei der Arbeit passiert ist. Und dann sah man sehr schnell ein Muster. Sobald es wichtige Ereignisse gab oder ich öffentlich sprechen würde, würde etwas passieren.

Die Atmosphäre wurde für Roelie sehr beängstigend. Und sie bekommt keine Unterstützung von ihrem Arbeitgeber, der Europäischen Kommission.

Roelie:

Die örtliche Brüsseler Polizei hat mir zu einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt gesagt, hör zu … das ist ernst gemeint. Du musst es ernst nehmen. Aber wir können nicht viel für Sie tun, solange die Europäische Kommission nicht hier in der Polizeistation mitkommt.

Hélène:

Warum sollte die Europäische Kommission mit Ihnen kommen, um eine Beschwerde einzureichen?

Roelie:

Denn die Europäische Kommission ist natürlich die mächtigste Organisation Europas, und die Brüsseler Polizei wird sich nicht gegen die Europäische Kommission stellen. Oder untersuchen Sie Dinge rund um ihre Mitarbeiter, wenn die Europäische Kommission das nicht fragt. Und ich war immer alleine.

Roelie berichtete auch ihren hierarchischen Vorgesetzten.

Dirk Lange, Leiter des Rumänien-Teams. Wir haben das Protokoll eines Treffens, in dem ihre Sicherheitslage mit dem Leiter der Personalabteilung besprochen wird. Es wird der Vorschlag erwähnt, Roelie aus der Akte zu entfernen.

Roelie ist anderer Meinung.

Die rumänische Kinderfrage liegt ihr am Herzen. Und sie hat inzwischen viel Know-how gewonnen, das sie weiter nutzen möchte.

Roelie möchte nicht gehen, sondern bittet um Sicherheit.

Einige Kollegen unterstützen Roelie.

Ihr direkter Chef schreibt am nächsten Tag an den Leiter der Personalabteilung:

Mir scheint, dass, wenn ein Beamter aufgrund seiner beruflichen Verantwortung Opfer von Drohungen wird, es Sache der Kommission ist, ihren Schutz zu organisieren. Und dass die Kommission sich im Namen des Beamten an die Polizei wenden sollte.

Und dass das zuletzt erwähnte nicht auf dem persönlichen Titel tun muss.

Aber die Europäische Kommission beteiligt die Polizei nicht.

Und die Drohungen gingen weiter. Roelie Post ist überzeugt, dass sie auch belauscht wurde. Und sie ist nicht die Einzige, die das denkt.

Sie zeigt einen großen Notizblock, in dem sie mit der britischen Baronin Emma Nicholson kommuniziert. Sie hat die rumänischen Adoptionen als Berichterstatterin des Europäischen Parlaments für den Beitritt Rumäniens zur EU behandelt.

Roelie:

Wir wussten dann schon, dass wir an einer gefährlichen Datei gearbeitet haben. Und wenn wir wichtige Dinge – in Bezug auf unsere Sicherheit – diskutieren, sollten wir nicht laut sprechen. Und – auf der sicheren Seite von Baroness Nicholson – schrieben wir am Ende alles auf.

Also ja, Paranoia oder nicht, ich war auf jeden Fall dann nicht der Einzige …

Emma Nicholson schrieb in großen Skizzen die Maßnahmen, die Post treffen sollte. Emma Nicholson hat uns bestätigt, dass dies ihre Notizen sind.

Bilder, nimm sie

Kamera ist über Tür und Fenstern

Ein persönlicher Alarm mit einer Schnur an deinem Körper

Ausrüstung zum Aufnehmen

Vorübergehend das Haus wechseln

Plan der Aktion: wischen Sie Ihr Haus, einschließlich Handy und Computer

Trotz allem arbeitet Roelie Post weiter.

Eine zweite Person wurde eingestellt, so dass sie nicht mehr die einzige verantwortliche Beamtin für die rumänische Kinderakte ist.

In einem undatierten vertraulichen Brief schreibt ihr Chef De Lobkowicz, dass Roelie möglicherweise ein Opfer der Lobby sei. Sie hat Polizeibeschwerden eingereicht. Dass sie sich aus der rumänischen Kinderakte zurückziehen muss und dass ein Kollege vorübergehend übernehmen wird.

Diese Kollegin ist bereit, mit uns zu sprechen, unter der Bedingung, dass wir ihren Namen nicht erwähnen. Weil sie nicht wirklich mit uns sprechen darf.

Als wir anfingen zusammen zu arbeiten, fing ich sehr schnell an seltsame Dinge zu sehen. Weil ich oft nach der Arbeit Zeit in ihrem Haus verbracht habe, hier in Brüssel. Wir wurden zum Beispiel auf der Straße verfolgt, im Park, als wir mit ihrem Hund spazieren gingen.

Und vor ihrem Haus sahen wir oft einen großen weißen Lieferwagen, der dort geparkt war.

Und als wir herauskamen und ich sah, dass die Türen des Wagens offen waren und drinnen war eine Menge elektronischer Ausrüstung. Als sie mich näher kommen sahen, schlossen sie schnell die Türen. Es war klar, dass jemand sehr aufmerksam zuhörte. Er hörte, was in Roelies Haus vor sich ging.

Roelie:

Letztendlich führte es dazu, dass ich eines Tages, am 14. Juni 2005, zum Leiter der Personalabteilung gehen musste, der sagte: Ab morgen arbeitest du nicht mehr im Team Rumänien. Und das war es. Und es wurde nicht gesagt, wo ich arbeiten würde. Also bin ich erst ein paar Tage zu Hause geblieben. So fing es an. Der Bruchpunkt.

Die Kollegin erzählt, wie sie dieses Treffen erlebt hat:

In der Kommission haben Sie dieses System, dass, wenn Sie Sie übertragen möchten, sie Sie übertragen. Es ist eine Art militärischer Hierarchie.

Am Ende, im Jahr 2005, zwangen sie Roelie zu gehen. Ich war dort, mit jemandem aus der Personalabteilung. Sie sagte Roelie, dass sie 15 Minuten Zeit habe, das Gebäude zu verlassen.

Roelie schrieb eine emotionale Abschiedsmail an ihre engen Kollegen und Chefs:

Mit Bedauern schreibe ich diese Mail. Seit dem Wechsel der Kommission hat der Druck auf internationale Adoptionen zugenommen und scheint bei der Kommission ein offenes Ohr gefunden zu haben. Herr de Combret ist stärker denn je und nach 15 Jahren der Belästigung der Kommission scheint er doch zu gewinnen.

Roelie machte sich zunächst krank, dann verabschiedete sie sich, um ihre Zukunft zu überdenken, aber sie blieb eine Beamtin der Europäischen Kommission.

Nach vier Jahren kam endlich eine Lösung. Danke an Generalsekretärin Catherine Day. Der höchste Beamte der Europäischen Kommission.

Und sie hat vermittelt, sagen wir, und mir klar gemacht, dass in der Barroso I Commission kein Platz für mich war. Dass ich dort nicht an Kinderrechten arbeiten konnte und dass das ganze Ambiente, die ganze Umgebung feindselig war. Dass ich besser für eine NGO, eine externe Organisation arbeiten könnte. Wie zum Beispiel UNICEF oder Save the Children, bis sich die Situation in der Europäischen Kommission verbessern würde.

Roelie Post blieb offiziell ein europäischer Beamter und wurde angewiesen, vorübergehend zu arbeiten – bis eine Lösung gefunden wurde – und eine eigene NGO zu gründen. Das war Against Child Trafficking, ACT.

Roelie:

Ich wusste immer, das ist bizarr. Das ist seltsam. Sie können kein Beamter sein und für eine NGO arbeiten. Aber es gab absolut keine andere Möglichkeit.

Gegen Kinderhandel haben seither weltweit viele Adoptionsskandale aufgedeckt. Zum Beispiel in Äthiopien, Indien und China. Es waren immer vergleichbare Missetaten. Dateien nicht in Ordnung, gestohlene Kinder, biologische Eltern noch am Leben.

Während ihres Urlaubs schrieb Roelie das Buch “Rumänien nur für den Export”. Eine Molkerei, in der sie sehr detailliert über die Korruption innerhalb und außerhalb der Kommission berichtet. Mit diesem Buch sprach sie aus.

Roelie:

Die Veröffentlichung eines Buches als Beamter ist whistleblowing. Und es war ein starker Pfiff.

Catherine Day, die höchste Chefin der Europäischen Kommission, sagte zu mir: Tu es nicht unter den Whistleblowing-Verfahren. Dann können Sie in ein paar Jahren zurückkommen. Das habe ich damals nicht ganz verstanden. Ich verstehe jetzt, dass Hinweisgeber nie zurückkommen können. Das ist inhärent. Einer pfeift über Ihre Organisation und leider zeigt die Erfahrung, dass Sie nie zurückkommen können.

Roelie Post ist nicht die Einzige, die mit Drohungen zu tun hat, als sie als europäischer Beamter das Fehlverhalten bei Adoptionen beenden wollte. Auch ihre Kollegin, viele Jahre später, bekam Drohungen, als sie auch an der Verbesserung der Betreuung von Kindern in Kinderheimen arbeitete.

Dieses Mal geschah dies im Rahmen des Beitritts Montenegros zur Europäischen Union.

Anonymer Kollege:

Als ich 2014 in Montenegro arbeitete, sah ich ähnliche Probleme. Montenegro ist ein sehr kleines Land. Es gab nur ein Kinderheim mit ungefähr 100 Kindern. UNICEF und die Europäische Union wollten es demontieren. Wir haben UNICEF rund 2 Millionen Euro zur Verfügung gestellt, um dieses Haus zu schließen und alternative Lösungen für die Kinder zu schaffen. Aber sie haben den Job nie beendet.

Und am Ende sah es nach Korruption aus. Gleichzeitig sah ich in der Presse, dass gesunde Kinder aus Montenegro beispielsweise nach Schweden adoptiert wurden.

Dann habe ich meinen Vorgesetzten gesagt: Ich verstehe nicht, warum wir Montenegro diesen EU-Zuschuss geben würden. Und als ich das in meinem jährlichen Mitarbeiterbericht schrieb, hatten ich und meine Familie mit Problemen im Zusammenhang mit unserer Sicherheit zu tun.

Also, ich und meine Familie, haben wir angefangen, Sicherheitsprobleme zu haben.

In einer Mail an Roelie beschrieb sie die Drohungen und die Maßnahmen, die sie und ihr Ehemann ergreifen mussten:

Wir sind jetzt eingesperrt. Zäune und Kameras überall.

Axel hatte gestern einen seltsamen Autounfall. Der Schock war heftig, die Autos schwer beschädigt. Axel wurde nicht verletzt. Könnte auch Teil der Einschüchterungen sein.

Die Kollegin und ihr Ehemann Axel gingen genauso durch wie Roelie. Sie reichten auch viele Beschwerden bei der Polizei ein. In einem langen Brief haben sie darum gebeten, eine Verbindung zwischen ihren Drohungen und denen von Roelie Post herzustellen, aber auch das ist nicht geschehen.

Auch dieser Kollege hat bei der Europäischen Kommission große Probleme bekommen. Und sie war genauso wie Roelie von der Seite.

Und ein weiterer Kollege der Europäischen Kommission, der sich mit den Kinderrechten in Rumänien befasste, wurde bedroht. Mariela Neagu. Sie lebte in Bukarest und trug zum Buch Roelie Post bei. Aber in letzter Minute zog sie sich zurück. Sie wagte es doch nicht.

Sie bestätigt, dass sie die enge Kollegin von Roelie war, aber sie will nicht mit uns reden.

Ja, habe ich. Aber ich muss dir nichts sagen.

Ist das in Ordnung?

Vielen Dank, Tschüss!

Sie lebt jetzt in Oxford. Dort schrieb sie 2015 einen ausführlichen Artikel “Kinder auf Anfrage”, in dem sie die Adoptionen aus Rumänien als stark korrupten Handel bezeichnet.

Als die vorübergehende Abordnung zu ihrer eigenen NGO eingestellt wurde, musste Roelie Post in das Büro der Europäischen Kommission in Brüssel zurückkehren.

Aber das ist falsch gelaufen.

Sie hatte eine Funktion ohne Inhalt, die nichts mit ihrer Expertise zu tun hatte.

Und noch schlimmer, die Männer, die ihr zuvor gedroht hatten, waren wieder vor ihrer Tür.

Roelie:

Als ich – 10 Jahre später – wieder in der Kommission arbeitete, war 2014 plötzlich der gleiche junge Mann, zehn Jahre älter, zurück. Auf die gleiche Weise. Und das hat mich enorm erschüttert. Das 10 Jahre später, nachdem ich sie nicht mehr so ​​lange gesehen hatte, waren sie zurück.

Und wieder steht niemand für Roelie auf. Sie ist völlig alleine. Und kann es nicht länger ertragen. Von einem Tag auf den anderen schließt sie die Tür ihres Brüsseler Hauses und versteckt sich.

Zuerst in einem Wohnwagen. Jetzt in einem Haus in einem kleinen Dorf im Norden der Niederlande.

Sie sitzt jetzt seit Jahren in einem lähmenden Konflikt mit ihrem Arbeitgeber, der Europäischen Kommission, die nichts unternimmt, um sie zu zerstören. Sie versuchten sogar, sie als psychiatrischen Fall zu deklarieren.

Roelie:

Es ist ein Muster, das man oft sieht. Dass sie versuchen, dich dorthin zu bringen. Dass du einen Burnout hast, oder auf jeden Fall psychiatrisch nicht ok.

Und das haben sie auch mit ihrer Kollegin versucht.

Anonymer Kollege:

Nun, in Roelie’s Fall und mein Fall ist es sehr klar, dass sie uns invalid machen wollen. Weil Invalidität bedeutet, dass Sie eine psychiatrische Aussage benötigen. Einer behält 70% des Gehalts, aber es braucht eine psychiatrische Aussage, dass etwas in deinem Kopf nicht stimmt.

Das ist ihr Ziel. Dann können sie sagen, dass zwei Frauen verrückt sind.

Ist Roelie verrückt oder nicht?

Wir fragen es an Leute mit denen sie gearbeitet hat.

Der ehemalige Kommissar Gunter Verheugen möchte betonen, dass er Roelie nicht als paranoide Frau, sondern als normalen, guten Beamten erlebt.

Verheugen:

Ich habe sie als eine sehr kompetente, sehr engagierte und sehr vertrauenswürdige Mitarbeiterin erlebt.

Kompetent, engagiert, vertrauenswürdig.

Auch die Abgeordnete Ana Gomes, die seit Jahren mit Rumänien zu tun hat, glaubt Roelie Post.

Gomes:

Und zu dieser Zeit habe ich von Mrs. Roelie Post gehört, dass sie eine hervorragende, sehr mutige und mutige Arbeit geleistet hat, all diese düsteren Dinge aufzudecken.

Sie wurde später psychisch geschädigt, so dass sie ihre Arbeit nicht fortsetzen konnte.

Offensichtlich gab es ein Interesse, sie weg zu schicken.

Ana Gomes versteht nicht, warum die Kommission Roelie nicht als Whistleblower sieht.

Gomes:

Ich verstehe es wirklich nicht. Ich bin überzeugt, dass sie ein Whistleblower ist. Und Opfer einer sehr sehr mächtigen Lobby.

MdEP Gomes hat im Jahr 2015 Frans Timmermans, Erster Vizepräsident der Kommission, gebeten zu intervenieren. Sie schrieb an ihn:

Ich glaube, dass Frau Post als Whistleblower betrachtet werden muss. Und so sollte geschützt werden statt bestraft werden.

Timmermans antwortete nicht.

Gomes wiederholte ihre Bitte letztes Jahr. Erst dann antwortete Timmermans, dass er sich nicht einmischen würde, weil er nicht für die Humanressourcen verantwortlich sei.

Ana Gomes bat den Europäischen Bürgerbeauftragten, den Fall zu untersuchen.

Roelie wird jetzt mit Disziplinarangelegenheiten gedroht, weil sie nicht mehr zur Arbeit geht.

Das könnte bedeuten: die Lohnjahre zurückzuzahlen und die Rente zu kürzen.

Und es gibt einen vorläufigen Bericht des Bürgerbeauftragten, in dem steht, dass die Europäische Kommission Roelie richtig behandelt hat.

Hélène:

 Werden sie dich auch emotional zerstören?

Roelie:

Um mich emotional zu zerstören haben sie es natürlich schon in den letzten 10 Jahren versucht.

Hélène:

Waren sie erfolgreich?

Roelie:

Nein, sie waren nicht erfolgreich. Ich bin natürlich nicht mehr dieselbe Person, die ich war, bevor das alles passiert ist. Diese Person kommt auch nie zurück. Bis jetzt gibt es dauerhaften Schaden für mein Leben. Und wie ich das Leben betrachte.

Es gab auch Momente, in denen ich dachte: Ich höre damit ganz auf. Ich habe meinen Job verloren, mein Haus, alles normale Dinge, Urlaub machen ist etwas, was ich seit 10 Jahren nicht mehr getan habe.

Da ist nichts mehr übrig. Gar nichts.

Aber … ja … jeder Mensch hat seine Grenzen.

Wir haben die Beteiligten innerhalb der Europäischen Kommission um eine Reaktion gebeten, aber niemand wollte kooperieren.

Schließlich kam die Sprecherin mit einer Erklärung, die besagt, dass die Frage von Frau Post nach dem Zitat “gerechte Verfahren wie im Statut” behandelt wird. Aus Datenschutzgründen möchte die Kommission nicht auf den Inhalt des Falles eingehen. ”

Auch einige ehemalige Kollegen, darunter die ehemalige Generalsekretärin Catherine Day und die ehemalige Europaabgeordnete Emma Nicholson, wollen nicht kooperieren.

Der Adoptionslobbyist François Polge de Combret konnte nicht für Kommentare erreicht werden. Er ist jetzt der Verdächtige in einem Bestechungsskandal in Bezug auf eine Minengesellschaft in Guinea.

Lobbyist Marco Griffini von Amici dei Bambini wird seit Anfang dieses Jahres von der Anti-Mafia-Staatsanwaltschaft in Mailand wegen des Verdachts der Korruption bei Adoptionen aus dem Kongo untersucht.

 

Roelie Post: La Vie d’un Lanceur d’Alerte

$
0
0
Source: ARGOS 

ARGOS – VPRO

 5 mai 2018

Traduction par Google

Mais d’abord, notre enquête sur un sujet sensible: l’adoption d’un enfant de l’étranger est de plus en plus discutée.

Programme d’enquête Zembla a récemment apporté des nouvelles sur les adoptions au Sri Lanka et en avril, le docu drame hollandais Exportbaby a été diffusé – sur la corruption avec des adoptions en provenance d’Ouganda. L’année dernière, le Conseil pour la justice pénale et la protection de la jeunesse [RSJ] a conseillé d’interdire les adoptions de l’étranger. Roelie Post, fonctionnaire de la Commission européenne à Bruxelles, a été l’un des premiers à souligner que l’adoption et le trafic d’enfants sont étroitement liés.

À la fin des années 90, elle y a travaillé sur les problèmes des droits des enfants en Roumanie ; ceux-ci devaient être résolus avant que l’adhésion de la Roumanie à l’Union européenne soit possible. Post s’est heurtée à une opposition et à des menaces si graves qu’elle s’est maintenant retirée dans un petit village du nord des Pays-Bas. Elle a un conflit de longue durée avec son employeur: la Commission européenne.

Ils ne la reconnaissent pas comme lanceur d’alerte et menacent aved des mesures disciplinaires.

Hélène Van Beek lui a rendu visite.

Je suis devant la porte de Roelie Post. C’est une petite rue pittoresque, dans un très petit village du nord du pays . C’est dimanche. J’ai un rendez-vous avec Roelie Post. Mais la sonnette ne fonctionne pas. Je ferais mieux de frapper.

Elle est là.

Roelie:     Bonjour Hélène

Hélène :   Puis-je entrer?

Roelie:      Oui bien sûr

Hélène : Merci. Nous voilà.

Roelie a l’air plutôt sympa . Un femme bien soigné dans la cinquantaine. Un peu distingué. Portant une belle gros chaîne de cou. Habillé en noir. On dirait presque : chique de Bruxelles .

Qu’est – ce que l’expert dans le domaine de l’ adoption et la traite des enfants ne lui re dans cette petite maison dans le n ord des Pays – Bas?

L’année dernière, Roelie s’est exprimée en tant qu’expert devant le Parlement néerlandais lors d’une audition sur l’adoption internationale.

La présidente de la réunion était Madeleine van Toorenburg du Parti chrétien-démocrate:

Ce sera une journée longue, fascinante et très intéressante. Sans doute aussi une journée qui va busculer beaucoup . Je dis cela exprès parce que je sais aussi que certaines des personnes ici auront peut-être des choses à propos desquelles vous pensez … qu’est  ce que je pense à ce sujet. Cela arrivera, mais je veux vous demander de bien écouter. Les membres du Parlement prendront ces remarques en considération lorsqu’ils débattront de la question.

L’adoption est une question sensible.

Une discussion à ce sujet est toujours entourée de nombreuses émotions.

L’audience est organisée parce qu’il y a un conseil de passage pour arrêter l’adoption d’enfants de l’étranger.

Le vice-président du Conseil du Conseil pour la justice pénale et la protection de la jeunesse [RSJ] explique le conseil:

Et donc nous conseillons de fournir de l’aide dans le pays d’origine comme un meilleur moyen que l’adoption internationale, pour protéger les enfants.

Ceci est un message clair inattendu. Pour la première fois, un comité consultatif officiel se prononce contre l’ adoption internationale.

Et nous savons que cela a des conséquences pour les futurs parents de souhaits. Mais nous avons néanmoins pris cette considération, car l’intérêt de l’enfant doit être l’intérêt unique et décisif.

Puis l’un des experts est présenté: Roelie Post. Elle s’occupe depuis de nombreuses années d’irrégularités dans les adoptions internationales dans le monde entier. Des bureaucrates et des journalistes utilisent souvent son expertise. Elle a également été étroitement impliquée dans le scénario d’ Exportbaby , un documentaire sur les adoptions en Ouganda qui a été diffusé le mois dernier à la télévision.

Et maintenant, à la demande des politiciens, elle donne son avis sur le rapport du comité consultatif.

Madeleine van Toorenburg (présidente):

Je donne la parole à Mme Roelie Post, fonctionnaire européenne et lanceur d’alerte.

Roelie Post:

Je vous remercie. Je suis Roelie Post, je vous remercie pour l’invitation. Je suis fonctionnaire de la Commission européenne depuis 1983. Je me suis intéressé à l’adoption internationale en 1999, il y a dix-sept ou dix-huit ans, quand la Roumanie voulait devenir membre de l’Union européenne. Et l’Union européenne a posé comme condition que les adoptions devaient cesser.

Hélène van Beek:

C’était l’année dernière au Parlement néerlandais. Mais maintenant Roelie Post est assise ici, dans cette petite maison. Elle préfère que nous ne mentionnions pas le nom du village.

Au cours des derniers mois, je lui ai rendu visite plusieurs fois et j’ai appris à mieux la connaître.

Elle est ici cachée. Le village calme lui donne un sentiment de sécurité. Si quelque chose arrive, il sera remarqué.

Hélène : Mais tu aimes être ici, Roelie?

Roelie: Non

Ici, Roelie nous raconte son histoire. Et cette histoire commence en 1999. Roelie devient ensuite Task Manager à la Commission européenne dans le domaine des droits de l’enfant en Roumanie.

Roelie:

C’était le dossier des enfants roumains, des orphelins roumains comme on les appelait souvent, et en 1999 c’est devenu mon travail. Dans le cadre de l’élargissement de l’Union européenne aux pays d’Europe de l’Est, je suis devenu responsable du suivi du respect des droits de l’enfant en Roumanie, c’est-à-dire des enfants dans les foyers pour enfants. Il y avait toutes sortes de scandales à ce sujet. Mauvais soin, tout le monde était au courant de ce problème. Et, en 2000, nous avons été confrontés à une adoption internationale en forte augmentation. Dans deux, trois ans, il est passé de 500 à 2 500. Les nouvelles roumaines étaient pleines de scandales à ce sujet.

Hélène :

Et quels étaient ces scandales?

Roelie:

L’énorme quantité d’argent impliqué. Et parfois des organisations douteux étaient impliquées

Ces scandales ont également atteint les médias néerlandais. Le journal Trouw a écrit en 2004 sur un commerce très lucratif d’enfants en Roumanie.

Afin d’améliorer le processus d’adoption internationale et dans l’espoir de prévenir les irrégularités, la Convention d’adoption de La Haye est entrée en vigueur en 1993 . Mais selon Post, cela a aggravé la situation.

Roelie:

La Roumanie a été le premier pays à l’avoir mis en place. Donc, les adoptions étaient maintenant bien réglementées. Maintenant, les avocats et les autres ne pouvaient plus faire d’adoptions, cela devait être fait par des agences d’adoption officiellement accréditées. Et donc en quelques mois il y avait 108 agences d’adoption. Tout le monde a mis en place une agence d’adoption.

En Roumanie, les enfants blancs étaient disponibles pour adoption. Ils étaient très recherchés. En particulier par “souhaiter” des parents de France, d’Italie, d’Israël et des Etats-Unis. Ces pays étaient les plus grands preneurs. Les parents adoptifs ont payé jusqu’à 40 000 dollars pour un enfant roumain. Selon une liste de prix d’une agence d’adoption américaine.

Après la chute du dictateur roumain Ceausescu , en 1989, 30 000 enfants ont été envoyés à l’étranger.

Roelie:

La Roumanie était alors le quatrième plus grand pays d’envoi du monde. Troisième ou quatrième. Il est venu juste après la Chine et la Russie. Mais ce sont d’énormes grands pays. Avec beaucoup d’habitants. La Roumanie est venue juste après, alors que c’est un pays relativement petit. Et en Roumanie était presque le seul pays où l’on pouvait adopter des enfants blancs du Caucase.

Sauf la Convention d’Adoption de La Haye, il existe une autre Convention. C’est la Convention internationale des droits de l’enfant. Ette Convention des Nations Unies règle que si les parents ne peuvent pas prendre soin de leurs enfants, l’ adoption internationale est autorisée que si dans le pays il n’y a pas d’ autre moyen de prendre soin de l’enfant. Tous les États membres de l’UE ont ratifié cette convention sur les droits de l’enfant.

Roelie Post était en tant que fonctionnaire de la Commission européenne membre de l’équipe de Roumanie, qui a dû préparer l’adhésion de la Roumanie.

Roelie était notamment chargée de l’amélioration de la situation dans les centaines de foyers pour enfants et d’orphelinats en Roumanie. De trouver d’autres moyens de soins. Pour la Commission européenne, pas la Convention d’adoption de La Haye – mais la Convention des Nations Unies relative aux droits de l’enfant, était la base juridique.

Roelie:

Nous avions également mis 50 millions d’euros à la disposition de la Roumanie pour réformer sa protection de l’enfance. De telle sorte qu’il est devenu comme les autres États membres européens, de fermer les énormes maisons d’enfants à l’ancienne. Créer des foyers d’accueil, des maisons de type familial. Il y avait une énorme résistance à la fermeture des soi-disant baby-homes. C’étaient les pépinières pour l’ adoption dans le pays, littéralement – ainsi la résistance était énorme à leur fermeture par ceux qui en avaient fait leur affaire.

Les intérêts dans les adoptions sont grands.

Roelie:

Ce sont les agences d’adoption qui ont des intérêts, parce que c’est leur raison d’être. Il y a beaucoup d’argent impliqué. Et bien que ces organisations soient à but non lucratif, ces personnes gagnent un bon salaire. Donc, ils veulent continuer. Ensuite, il y a des parents adoptifs potentiels qui ont un fort désir d’avoir un enfant.

Tous ces intérêts font qu’il y a beaucoup de lobbyistes qui travaillent fortement pour l’adoption pro.

Roelie:

Au sein de la Commission européenne, il y a toutes sortes d’autres dossiers où des pressions sont exercées, mais j’ose dire qu’il s’agit du lobby le plus puissant qui existe.

Hélène :

Pourquoi?

Roelie:

Parce que c’est un sujet très émotif, pour beaucoup de gens. Parce qu’il y a beaucoup d’argent impliqué.

Gunter Verheugen a également été personnellement confronté à cette lourde pression du lobby de l’adoption. Cet homme politique allemand était commissaire de la Commission européenne responsable de l’adhésion de nouveaux membres à l’UE. Donc aussi la Roumanie.

Verheugen voulait arrêter le commerce des enfants. En vertu de sa décision, en 2001, un moratoire a été mis en place. Un arrêt temporaire sur les adoptions roumaines. Verheugen a ressenti ce que cet arrêt a provoqué. Aussi à l’intérieur de sa propre organisation.

Parce qu’il sentait qu’il était opposé, Verheugen a pris des mesures:

Gunter Verheugen:

Avec le temps, il est devenu clair que mon attitude dans ce cas de traite d’enfants en Roumanie a eu une énorme résistance politique. Dans de nombreux pays, les ONG et les personnes avec beaucoup de pouvoir.

Il y avait de fortes réactions. Des Etats-Unis, d’Israël, d’Italie et de France. Il y avait aussi un grande résistance au sein de la Commission européenne sur cette question. Aussi dans ma propre direction générale , parce que des hauts fonctionnaires avaient un point de vue complètement différent.

Ils ont tenu mon attitude dure envers la Roumanie pour le mal.

J’ai eu le sentiment que je n’étais pas à 100% et correctement informé. Et puis j’ai pris une décision inhabituelle et mis directement Roelie en dessous de moi. De cette façon, elle pourrait m’informer sans l’intermédiaire du directeur général.

Ce directeur général était l’espagnol Eneko Landaburu. Il voulait en effet que les adoptions roumaines continuent.

Cela apparaît clairement à une lettre amicale d’Avril 2001 , Landaburu à l’ un des lobbyistes les plus importants: François Polge de  Combret. La lettre a été rendue publique par une demande  pour l’ accès aux documents. Landaburu dit que le blocage des procédures d’adoption est très alarmant. Et il promet de convaincre les autorités roumaines qu’une réouverture rapide des procédures d’adoption est nécessaire.

Détail remarquable: les épouses de De Combret et Landaburu sont cousines.

C’est dans ce contexte confus et sensible que le commissaire Verheugen a demandé l’arrêt de l’adoption de la Roumanie.

Verheugen:

J’ai clairement dit au Premier ministre roumain : Je ne veux pas finaliser l’adhésion de la Roumanie si cette question n’est pas résolue.  Pistole auf der Brust ” [Sic. Expression allemande pour extrême pression].

Les Roumains ont changé les lois et les adoptions à l’étranger ont été interdites.

Ana Gomes, membre portugaise du Parlement européen (Alliance des socialistes et démocrates progressistes) avait des droits de l’enfant dans son portefeuille. Elle a également fait l’expérience du travail acharné des lobbyistes en faveur de l’adoption.

Gomes:

Dans plusieurs de nos États membres, mais aussi aux États-Unis et en Israël, qui avaient intérêt à importer des enfants de Roumanie, de nombreux groupes avaient intérêt à adopter des enfants de Roumanie. C’était aussi sur les intérêts économiques. Beaucoup de gens étaient de mauvaise réputation. Ils ont placé des enfants roumains dans des familles riches, aux États-Unis et en Europe.

Ana Gomes a également personnellement expérimenté la puissance du lobby.

Gomes:

J’ai donc ressenti ce lobby. Je l’ai vu agir. Ici au Parlement. Et je peux vous dire, c’est un lobby très fort et organisé. Beaucoup d’argent impliqué.

Dans le même temps, il n’y avait pratiquement aucun contrôle possible. On ne sait pas comment les enfants qui ont été adoptés à l’étranger le font. Je suis convaincu qu’il y avait des organisations criminelles impliquées.

Au sein de la Commission européenne et du Parlement européen, de nombreux lobbyistes sont actifs et essayent tous de faire avancer les choses. Surtout les gens avec un statut. L’un des lobbyistes les plus puissants était le nommé François de Combret. Il était banquier et directeur de Renault.

Depuis les années 1990, il était la figure de proue de l’organisation française Solidarité Enfants Roumains Abbandones, SERA. Officiellement, la SERA avait pour objectif d’améliorer la situation dans les foyers pour enfants en Roumanie, mais en fait SERA était principalement une organisation d’adoption.

Et au sein de la Commission européenne, on savait que de nombreuses organisations d’adoption avaient une réputation douteuse. La preuve en est une note confidentielle écrite en 2000 par l’ambassadeur européen en Roumanie, le grec Fokion Fotiadis. Et cette note a été adressée à Landaburu, en tant que directeur général chargé de l’Union européenne:

Le système d’adoption internationale est en effet très lucratif. Il existe un système corrompu de traite des enfants sous le couvert de l’adoption internationale, qui implique plus de 200 ONG non contrôlées et, dans bien des cas, douteuses. Il y a un fort soupçon que le sommet politique dans le pays est impliqué. En outre, certaines ambassades à Bucarest affirment qu’il existe de fortes indications que le système est infiltré par des réseaux pédophiles.

Mais le lobby de De Combret et d’autres a continué. De Combret s’est senti plus fort après le départ du commissaire aux principes Verheugen. De Combret a écrit en mars 2005 une lettre au chef direct de Roelie, Wenceslaz de Lobkowicz:

Cher Wenceslaz,

Ma conviction est que nous avons aujourd’hui une chance historique de résoudre un problème. À Bruxelles, la Commission pour l’élargissement a changé. Et au Parlement européen, c’est aussi un autre rapporteur bien disposé.

Cher Wenceslaz, voici la nouvelle situation politique, simple et compliquée. Simple car il est clair que la situation des orphelins est tragique, très compliquée car les marges dans lesquelles le gouvernement roumain peut manœuvrer dépendent de la Commission et du Parlement.

Dans ce contexte, cher Wenceslaz, je suis heureux de vous rencontrer.

De Combret et De Lobkowicz tiendront cette réunion le 18 avril 2005. Mais lorsque Roelie Post l’a découvert, elle a prévenu que les fonctionnaires de la Commission européenne étaient joués l’un contre l’autre par De Combret. Un mail de Post à ses collègues:

Cette réunion risque un effet négatif. Comme encore des lettres de De Combret et des campagnes médiatiques dirigées contre la Commission européenne et la Roumanie, ainsi que des actions personnelles au Parlement européen. Compte tenu de la relation problématique entre la SERA et la Commission, il est nécessaire que nous soyons sur une même ligne.

Post a demandé qu’elle et son collègue soient présentes à cette réunion. A partir des minutes qui s h e fait de cette réunion, semble qu’il y avait une ambiance tendue.

De Combret a vivement critiqué la Commission, car les adoptions de la Roumanie étaient interdites. Et il a attaqué Roelie Post en personne en déclarant qu’elle occupait depuis trop longtemps sa position et avait trop d’influence à la Commission européenne.

Mais le chef de Roelie, De Lobkowicz, était clair sur les fautes dans les adoptions. Il a appelé cela le commerce des enfants et a comparé cela avec le commerce des drogues et des armes. Il était également irrité par la dramatisation exagérée et l’émotion rhétorique de De Combret par rapport aux enfants roumains.

Un De Combret en colère a terminé la réunion.

C’était une tactique de De Combret. Il n’a pas manqué de moyens pour créer l’image que malgré toutes les améliorations il y avait encore d’énormes problèmes dans les orphelinats roumains. Et que la seule solution pour cela était l’adoption internationale.

Roelie :

Il a mis pression sur le sommet, le sommet français à la Commission européenne. Avec toutes sortes d’histoires de scandales et d’histoires dramatiques sur … laissez-moi donner un exemple: qu’un enfant a mangé la main d’un autre enfant, la nuit, à cause de la faim. Cannibalisme dans les orphelinats roumains. Après avoir vérifié cela, cela ne semblait pas être vrai.

L’arrêt temporaire des adoptions a été changé en 2004 en une loi roumaine qui interdit définitivement les adoptions internationales.

Mais le lobby pro-adoption n’a pas accepté cela.

De Combret à sa tête.

Il a commencé une campagne avec des publicités dans des magazines français avec des histoires terribles sur les méfaits dans les maisons d’enfants roumains. Avec comme message: La Roumanie autorise de nouveau les adoptions internationales.

Ana Gomes, membre du Parlement européen, appelle ce chantage.

Gomes:

Je me souviens qu’il y avait un M. François de Combret qui dirigeait cette campagne pour faire chanter la Roumanie.

Il prétendait faire du bien aux enfants dans les foyers pour enfants, mais en fait il gagnait de l’argent en exportant des enfants dans des familles riches.

Juste avant que le Parlement européen prenne une décision finale sur l’adhésion de la Roumanie à l’UE, De Combret a plaidé lors d’une audition au Parlement européen pour des adoptions de la Roumanie.

Il utilise des mots forts.

De Combret:

Ce qui est en jeu, c’est le bonheur de l’enfant. Le sort de l’enfant est encore pire qu’il ne l’était à l’orphelinat.

Si nous fermons les orphelinats, leur sort est encore pire qu’il ne l’était à l’orphelinat. Par conséquent, l’adoption internationale est absolument nécessaire.

En outre, l’Italie a eu un très fort lobby avec l’agence d’adoption Amici dei Bambini. Malgré le moratoire, Amici dei Bambini a réussi à faire venir un grand groupe d’enfants en Italie. Pas par coïncidence totale, l’Italie a occupé à cette époque la présidence de l’Union européenne.

Roelie:

Dans ce rôle, l’Italie a fait pression sur le Premier ministre roumain pour obtenir des exceptions sur l’arrêt de l’adoption. Sur le moratoire. Silvio Berlusconi a obtenu, fin décembre, le feu vert pour 105 exceptions. 105 enfants qui ont été envoyés en Italie.

Quand nous avons entendu parler de cela, surtout quand le commissaire Verheugen a entendu parler de cela, il était extrêmement mécontent. Et il a dit au Premier ministre roumain, Nastase, que nous ne continuons pas comme ça. S’il y a plus d’exceptions, vous ne pouvez pas être membre de l’Union européenne. Et puis la Roumanie a complètement arrêté les adoptions.

Mais ce n’était pas tout. De même, des pays extérieurs à l’Europe avaient des personnes actives pour obtenir des adoptions roumaines.

Les États-Unis ont également exercé des pressions agressives à Bruxelles.

Député européen, Ana Gomes:

À l’époque, un membre du Congrès américain m’a même fait du lobbying pour me plaindre de l’un de ses riches électeurs qui attendait un enfant qui ne viendrait pas de Roumanie à cause du moratoire.

Je suis allé en Roumanie et, avec les autorités roumaines, j’ai vu que l’enfant était fantastiquement intégrée dans une famille roumaine qui l’avait adoptée.

Roelie:

Pendant des mois j’ai été, deux fois par semaine et après tous les jours – même deux fois par jour, suivis par des jeunes hommes qui avaient l’air identiques. Ils ont fait des gestes intimidants envers moi, comme s’ils voulaient sortir un pistolet de leur poche, semblant très hostiles. Ils ont passé des heures devant ma fenêtre. La police est venue souvent. Mais … m’a dit de faire attention et de ne pas prendre de mesures moi-même.

Les menaces envers Roelie Post étaient un nombre d’événements étranges et inexplicables.

Roelie:

C’est une série de choses bizarres, d’être suivi … à un certain moment, moi et d’autres qui travaillaient avec moi avions tous les problèmes de voiture – cambriolages, fenêtres cassées, ma voiture a été volée. Aussi une cambriolage dans ma maison, et le bureau que nous avions au sous-sol.

Elle a porté plainte auprès de la police belge. Le porte-parole de la police à Bruxelles nous confirme qu’il existe bien un dossier “Roelie Post”, et que la police lui a conseillé d’être sur ses gardes.

Roelie:

Eh bien, avec ce genre de menaces presque mafieuses, personne ne laisse de nom. La police m’a dit à l’époque que je devais non seulement noter les dates et les menaces, mais aussi noter ce que je faisais ce jour-là et ce qui s’est passé au travail. Et puis on a vu très vite une connection. Que dès qu’il y avait des événements importants, ou si je parlais en public – quelque chose arriverait.

L’atmosphère devient très effrayante pour Roelie. Et elle ne reçoit aucun soutien de son employeur, la Commission européenne.

Roelie:

La police locale de Bruxelles m’a dit à un moment donné, écoute … c’est sérieux. Vous devez le prendre au sérieux. Mais nous ne pouvons pas faire grand chose pour vous, tant que la Commission européenne ne viendra pas avec vous ici au poste de police.

Hélène :

 Pourquoi la Commission européenne devrait-elle venir avec vous pour déposer une plainte?

Roelie:

Car, la Commission européenne est bien sûr l’organisation la plus puissante de l’Europe et la police de Bruxelles ne va pas à l’encontre de la Commission européenne. Ou enquêter sur les choses entourant leur personnel, si la Commission européenne ne le demande pas. Et j’étais toujours seul.

Roelie rapporte également à ses supérieurs hiérarchiques.

Dirk Lange, chef de l’équipe de Roumanie. Nous avons le procès-verbal d’une réunion où sa situation en matière de sécurité est discutée avec le chef des ressources humaines. Il est mentionné la proposition de retirer Roelie du fichier.

Roelie n’est pas d’accord.

La question des enfants roumains est proche de son cœur. Et elle a entre-temps acquis beaucoup d’expertise, qu’elle veut continuer à utiliser.

Roelie ne veut pas partir, mais demande la sécurité.

Certains collègues soutiennent Roelie.

Son patron direct, écrit le lendemain à la tête des ressources humaines:

Il me semble que lorsqu’un fonctionnaire est victime de menaces, en raison de ses responsabilités professionnelles, c’est à la Commission d’organiser sa protection. Et que la Commission devrait s’adresser à la police au nom du fonctionnaire.

Et que le dernier mentionné ne doit pas faire cela sur titre personnel.

Mais la Commission européenne n’implique pas la police.

Et les menaces ont continué. Roelie Post est convaincue qu’elle a également été buggé. Et elle n’est pas la seule à le penser.

Elle montre un grand bloc-notes, dans lequel elle a communiqué avec la baronne britannique Emma Nicholson . Elle a suivi les adoptions roumaines en tant que rapporteur du Parlement européen pour l’adhésion de la Roumanie à l’UE.

Roelie:

Nous savions déjà que nous travaillions sur un dossier dangereux. Et que si nous discutions de questions importantes – en ce qui concerne notre sécurité – nous ne devrions pas parler à voix haute. Et – mieux vaut prévenir que guérir – à la fin, à l’insistance de la baronne Nicholson, nous avons tout écrit.

Alors oui, paranoïa ou pas, j’étais en tout cas pas le seul …

Emma Nicholson a écrit en grosses lettres les mesures que le Post devrait prendre. Emma Nicholson nous a confirmé que ce sont bien ses notes.

  • Photos, prenez-les

  • La caméra est au-dessus de la porte et des fenêtres

  • Une alarme personnelle, avec un cordon sur votre corps

  • Équipement à enregistrer

  • Déménager temporairement

  • Plan d’action: balayez votre maison, y compris mobile et ordinateur

Malgré tout, Roelie Post continue de travailler.

Une deuxième personne a été mise en place, de sorte qu’elle n’est plus la seule fonctionnaire responsable du dossier des enfants roumains.

Dans une lettre confidentielle non datée, son patron, De Lobkowicz, écrit que Roelie est peut-être une victime du lobby. Qu’elle a déposé des plaintes à la police . Qu’elle devra se retirer du dossier roumain des enfants et qu’un collègue prendra temporairement le relais.

Cette collègue est prête à nous parler, à condition de ne pas mentionner son nom. Parce qu’elle n’a pas vraiment le droit de nous parler.

Eh bien, quand nous avons commencé à travailler ensemble, très rapidement, j’ai aussi commencé à voir des choses étranges. Parce que souvent, après mon travail, je passais du temps chez elle, ici à Bruxelles. Nous étions par exemple suivis dans la rue, dans le parc, quand nous promenions son chien.

Et devant sa maison, nous avons souvent vu une grosse camionnette blanche qui était garée là.

Et une fois, nous sommes sortis et j’ai pu voir que les portes de la camionnette étaient ouvertes et à l’intérieur il y avait beaucoup d’équipement électronique. Quand ils m’ont vu rapprocher, ils ont rapidement fermé les portes. Il était clair que quelqu’un écoutait très attentivement. A l’écoute de ce qui se passait dans la maison de Roelie.

Roelie:

Finalement, cela a mené au fait qu’un jour, le 14 juin 2005, j’ai dû aller à la tête des Ressources Humaines, qui a dit: à partir de demain vous ne travaillez pas dans l’équipe de Roumanie. Et c’était tout. Et il n’a pas été dit où je travaillerais. Donc, je suis d’abord resté à la maison quelques jours. C’est comme ça que ça a commencé. Le point de rupture.

La collègue raconte comment elle a vécu cette rencontre:

À la Commission, vous avez ce système que s’ils veulent vous transférer, ils vous transfèrent. C’est une sorte de hiérarchie militaire.

À la fin, en 2005, ils ont forcé Roelie à partir. J’étais là, avec quelqu’un des Ressources humaines. Elle a dit à Roelie qu’elle avait 15 minutes pour quitter le bâtiment.

Roelie a écrit un message d’adieu émotionnel à ses proches collègues et patrons:

C’est avec un profond regret que j’écris ce mail. Depuis le changement de la Commission, la pression pour les adoptions internationales a augmenté et semble avoir trouvé une oreille attentive à la Commission. M. de Combret est plus fort que jamais et, après 15 ans de harcèlement à la Commission, il semble gagner après tout.

Roelie s’est d’abord mise en congé de maladie, puis a pris congé pour reconsidérer son avenir, mais elle est restée fonctionnaire de la Commission européenne.

Après quatre ans, finalement une solution. Grace à la secrétaire générale Catherine Day. Le plus haut fonctionnaire de la Commission européenne.

Et elle a joué le rôle de médiateur, disons, et m’a fait comprendre qu’à l’intérieur de la Commission Barroso, il n’y avait pas de place pour moi. Que je ne pouvais pas travailler là-bas sur les droits desenfants et que toute l’ambiance, tout l’environnement était hostile. Que je pourrais mieux travailler pour une ONG, une organisation extérieure. Comme par exemple UNICEF ou Save the Children, jusqu’à ce que la situation au sein de la Commission européenne s’améliore.

Roelie Post est officiellement rester fonctionnaire européenne, et on lui a dit de travailler temporairement pour – jusqu’à ce qu’une solution soit trouvée – et de mettre en place sa propre ONG. C’était Against Child Trafficking, ACT.

Roelie:

J’ai toujours su que c’était bizarre. C’est bizarre. Vous ne pouvez pas être fonctionnaire et travailler pour une ONG. Mais il n’y avait absolument aucune autre option.

Contre la traite des enfants, de nombreux scandales d’adoption ont été découverts dans le monde entier. Par exemple en Ethiopie, en Inde et en Chine. C’était toujours des méfaits comparables. Des dossiers non en ordre, des enfants volés, des parents biologiques encore en vie.

Pendant son congé, Roelie a écrit le livre “Roumanie pour l’exportation seulement”. Une laiterie dans laquelle elle présente des rapports très détaillés sur la corruption à l’intérieur et à l’extérieur de la Commission. Avec ce livre, elle a dénoncé.

Roelie:

Publier un livre en tant que fonctionnaire est un dénoncement. Extérieurement. Et c’était un dénoncement fort.

Catherine Day, le plus haut patron de la Commission européenne, m’a dit: ne le faites pas dans le cadre des procédures de lanceurs d’alerte. Ensuite, vous pouvez revenir dans quelques années. Je n’ai pas très bien compris cela à l’époque. Je comprends maintenant que les lanceurs d’alerte ne peuvent jamais revenir. C’est inhérent. Un dénoncement sur votre organisation et malheureusement l’expérience montre que vous ne pouvez jamais revenir.

Roelie Post n’est pas la seule à avoir eu affaire à des menaces quand, en tant que fonctionnaire européenne, elle voulait mettre fin à des actes répréhensibles lors d’adoptions. Plusieurs années plus tard, sa collègue a également reçu des menaces lorsqu’elle travaillait à l’amélioration des soins aux enfants dans les foyers pour enfants.

Cette fois, cela s’est passé dans le cadre de l’adhésion du Monténégro à l’Union européenne.

Collègue anonyme:

En 2014, alors que je travaillais sur le dossier Monténégro, j’ai commencé à rencontrer des problèmes similaires. Le Monténégro est un très petit pays. Il y avait seulement une maison d’enfants avec environ 100 enfants. L’UNICEF et l’Union européenne ont voulu le démanteler. Nous avons donné à l’ UNICEF 2 millions d’euros pour fermer cette maison et créer des solutions alternatives pour les enfants. Mais ils n’ont jamais fini le travail.

Et à la fin, cela ressemblait à un peu de corruption. Et en même temps j’ai vu dans la presse que des enfants sains du Monténégro étaient adoptés par exemple en Suède.

Ensuite, j’ai dit à mes patrons: je ne vois pas pourquoi nous donnerions au Monténégro cette subvention de l’UE. Et quand j’ai écrit cela dans mon rapport annuel du personnel, moi et ma famille avons eu à faire avec des problèmes liés à notre sécurité.

Alors, moi et ma famille, nous avons commencé à avoir des problèmes de sécurité.

Dans un courrier adressé à Roelie, elle décrit les menaces et les mesures qu’elle et son mari doivent prendre:

Nous sommes enfermés maintenant. Clôtures et caméras partout.

Axel a eu un étrange accident de voiture hier. Le choc était violent, les voitures lourdement endommagées. Axel n’a pas été blessé. Pourrait également faire partie des intimidations.

La collègue et son mari Axel sont passés par là comme Roelie. Ils ont également déposé de nombreuses plaintes auprès de la police. Dans une longue lettre, ils ont demandé à faire un lien entre leurs menaces et celles de Roelie Post, mais cela ne s’est pas produit non plus.

Et ce collègue a également eu de gros problèmes à la Commission européenne. Et elle était comme Roelie.

Et un autre collègue de la Commission européenne qui a traité des droits de l’enfant en Roumanie a été menacé. Mariela Neagu. Elle a vécu à Bucarest et a contribué au livre de Roelie Post. Mais à la dernière minute, elle s’est retirée. Elle n’a pas osé après tout.

Elle confirme qu’elle était la proche collègue de Roelie, mais elle ne veut pas parler avec nous.

Oui je l’ai fait. Mais il n’y a rien que je doive te dire.

Est-ce que tout va bien?

Merci beaucoup, au revoir !

Elle vit maintenant à Oxford. Là, elle a écrit en 2015 un article détaillé “Enfants sur demande”, dans lequel elle appelle les adoptions de Roumanie un commerce très corrompu.

Lorsque le détachement temporaire de sa propre ONG s’est arrêté, Roelie Post a dû retourner au bureau de la Commission européenne à Bruxelles.

Mais ça a mal tourné.

Elle a eu une fonction sans contenu, ce qui n’avait rien à voir avec son expertise.

Et pire encore, les hommes qui la menaçaient auparavant étaient de nouveau devant sa porte.

Roelie:

Quand, 10 ans plus tard, j’ai recommencé à travailler à la Commission, en 2014, tout à coup, le même jeune homme de 10 ans était de retour. De la même manière. Et cela m’a énormément choqué. Que 10 ans plus tard, après que je ne les avais pas vus depuis si longtemps, ils étaient de retour.

Et encore personne ne se lève pour Roelie. Elle est complètement seule. Et ne peut plus le prendre. D’un jour à l’autre, elle ferme la porte de sa maison bruxelloise et se cache.

Premier dans une caravane. Maintenant dans une maison dans un petit village au nord des Pays-Bas.

Elle se trouve maintenant depuis des années dans un conflit débilitant avec son employeur la Commission européenne, qui ne cherche aucun moyen de la détruire. Ils ont même essayé de la faire déclarer comme cas psychiatrique.

Roelie:

C’est un schéma que l’on voit souvent. Qu’ils essayent de vous y amener. Que vous avez un burn-out, ou en tout cas psychiatriquement pas ok.

Et qu’ils ont aussi essayé avec son collègue.

Collègue anonyme:

Eh bien, dans le cas de Roelie et du mien, il est très clair qu’ils aimeraient nous mettre en invalidité. Parce que l’invalidité signifie que vous avez besoin d’une déclaration psychiatrique. On garde 70% du salaire, mais il faut une déclaration psychiatrique que quelque chose ne va pas dans votre tête.

C’est leur but. Ensuite, ils peuvent dire qu’il y a deux femmes qui sont folles.

Est-ce que Roelie est folle ou pas?

Nous le demandons aux personnes avec qui elle a travaillé.

L’ancien commissaire Gunter Verheugen tient à souligner qu’il ne connaît pas Roelie en tant que femme paranoïaque, mais en tant que normal, bon fonctionnaire.

Verheugen:

Je l’ai vécue comme une personne très compétente, très engagée et très digne de confiance.

Compétent, engagé, digne de confiance.

Aussi membre du Parlement Ana Gomes, qui a traité avec la Roumanie pendant des années, estime Roelie Post.

Gomes:

Et à ce moment-là, ce que j’ai entendu à propos de Mme Roelie Post, c’est qu’elle a fait un travail remarquable, très courageux et courageuse en exposant toutes ces choses troubles.

Elle a été plus tard psychologiquement endommagée de sorte qu’elle ne pouvait pas continuer son travail.

Donc, évidemment, il y avait un intérêt à la repousser.

Ana Gomes ne comprend pas pourquoi la Commission ne considère pas Roelie comme un dénonciateur.

Gomes:

Je ne comprends vraiment pas. Je suis persuadé qu’elle est un lanceur d’alerte. Et victime d’un lobby très très puissant.

L’eurodéputé Gomes a demandé en 2015 à Frans Timmermans, premier vice-président de la Commission, d’intervenir. Elle lui a écrit:

Je crois que Mme Post doit être considérée comme un lanceur d’alerte. Et donc être protégé au lieu de punir.

Timmermans n’a pas répondu.

Gomes a répété sa demande l’année dernière. C’est seulement alors que Timmermans a répondu qu’il n’interviendrait pas parce qu’il n’est pas responsable des ressources humaines.

Ana Gomes a également demandé au Médiateur européen d’enquêter sur l’affaire.

Roelie est maintenant menacée de sanctions disciplinaires, car elle ne va plus au travail.

Cela pourrait signifier: rembourser les années de salaire et réduire sa pension.

Et il y a un rapport préliminaire du Médiateur, qui dit que la Commission européenne a traité Roelie correctement.

Hélène:

  Vont-ils aussi vous détruire émotionnellement?

Roelie:

Me détruire émotionnellement, ils ont bien sûr déjà essayé au cours des 10 dernières années.

Hélène

Ont-ils réussi?

Roelie:

Non, ils n’ont pas réussi. Je ne suis bien sûr plus la même personne que j’étais avant tout cela. Cette personne ne revient jamais non plus. Jusqu’à présent, il y a des dommages permanents à ma vie. Et dans la façon dont je regarde la vie.

Il y a aussi eu des moments où j’ai pensé: je m’arrête complètement. J’ai perdu mon travail, ma maison, toutes les choses normales, partir en vacances est quelque chose que je n’ai pas fait depuis 10 ans.

Il ne reste rien. Rien du tout.

Mais … oui … chaque personne a ses limites.

Nous avons demandé à ceux qui étaient impliqués dans cette affaire au sein de la Commission européenne de réagir, mais personne ne voulait coopérer.

Enfin, le porte-parole est venu avec une déclaration qui dit que la question de Mme Post est traitée selon les termes “des procédures justes telles que prévues dans le Statut du personnel. Pour des raisons de confidentialité, la Commission ne veut pas entrer dans le contenu de l’affaire. ”

Plusieurs anciens collègues, parmi lesquels l’ancienne secrétaire générale Catherine Day et l’ancienne députée européenne Emma Nicholson, ne veulent pas coopérer.

Le lobbyiste d’adoption François Polge de Combret n’a pas pu être atteint pour commentaires. Il est actuellement le suspect d’un scandale de corruption lié à une société minière en Guinée.

Le lobbyiste Marco Griffini d’Amici dei Bambini est depuis le début de l’année sous enquête par le procureur anti-mafia à Milan pour le soupçon de corruption avec les adoptions du Congo.


Traffickers on the loose: How children are sold to highest bidder in name of adoption

$
0
0

SUNDAY JULY 1 2018

Children playing in school. Weak adoption laws could have also exposed hundreds of Kenyan children to abuse and exploitation both locally and internationally. PHOTO | FILE | NATION MEDIA GROUP

In Summary
In Kenya, illegal adoption agencies have used technocrats, political offices and even tried to use diplomatic offices to advance their “saviours to Kenyan child initiative”.

They sell a picture of a needy child requiring a loving family. This story is told to people and officers outside the adoption profession to invoke emotion.

The report also established that leaving infants to private entities has proved to be a disaster as they are “merciless and act as mercenaries organised against the children and their families”.

There is verifiable evidence of serious child trade, child abuse and a cartel that clearly exploits children for commercial purposes.

By ABIUD OCHIENG

For years there has been hue and cry over children being stolen or going missing from hospitals, homes, schools, among other places and later being sold.

Some of these children have remained untraced to date while others are believed to have been abandoned and placed for adoption as their families could not be found. Accusing fingers pointed to the manner adoption of children has been carried out in the country for years.

Weak adoption laws could have also exposed hundreds of Kenyan children to abuse and exploitation both locally and internationally.

The US State Department ranks Kenya at Tier 2 Watch List for non-compliance with minimum standards for the elimination of human trafficking.

MORATORIUM

In an attempt to address the issue, the government issued a moratorium against all resident and inter-country adoptions (adoption of a Kenyan child by adopters who are non-Kenyans and those who live outside Kenya), and also cancelled licences for inter-country adoptions.

The objective of the ban was to enable the government to conduct a comprehensive audit of policy and legal framework, procedures and players involved in adoption.

In addition, it was to help scale up and ensure robust family tracing and reunification, enhance local alternative family care, and other child protection interventions.

Subsequently, an expert committee chaired by Ms Lydiah Muiru was appointed by the Labour Cabinet Secretary to implement the objectives of the moratorium with its secretariat being the Child Welfare Society of Kenya. Other members of the committee include Scholastica Omondi, Rose Wasike, Joseph Gitau, Callen Masaka and Anthony Gitai.

According to the committee records on statistics of children adopted in and from Kenya, over 496 children were taken out of the country between 2005 and 2014 under circumstances that raise constitutional, legal, policy and ethical questions under local and international legal instruments.

GUARDIAN

The report, presented to President Uhuru Kenyatta last December, has recommended among others that the Judiciary should play a key role in stopping further suffering made possible through orders issued in adoption cases filed in court.

The committee noted in the report that, “when adoption cases were presented to court and the court issued guardianship and custody orders that allowed the foreign guardian to travel with the child, the court did not give direction for production of the children in court after return back to the country. This is likely to rope in the Judiciary to the link to trafficking of children through guardianship.”

Most of the applicants seeking guardianship order could apply to travel to foreign countries with the children under the guise of “serious medical condition”, yet no medical documents were presented in court to support assertions that the children needed to go abroad.

“Instead, the court relied on the children officer’s report and affidavits by applicants, some of which lacked medical documentation,” reads the report, which added that there also seems to be intentions for foreign applicants to obtain a child permanently instead of following the proper adoption process.

ACCOUNTABILITY

Sampled cases also revealed that lost children are presumed to have been abandoned by their families and therefore available for adoption. This was revealed by inadequate investigations to trace their families from reliable records such as those maintained by hospitals and police.

Some documents presented in court also pointed to fabrication, forgery, deception and falsification. A birth certificate, for instance, indicated that the child was born in 2002 while the death certificate of the child’s father indicated that he died in 1995. In another, the name of the father in the death certificate was different from that in the child’s birth certificate.

“Surprisingly, these documents were recommended by the Department of Children Services and the court granted guardianship orders. This raises concern about accountability and the casual approach to the children’s well-being and safety,” said the report.

SAVIOURS

The committee has, in its second phase of the progress report, found that there exists major gaps in the legal framework, adoption process and that there is evidence linking adoption to child trafficking.

Further, 93 per cent of children in charitable children institutions (CCIs) have been recruited and have families and only seven per cent are in need of temporary care and protection. They said given resources, it is possible to reunify 80 per cent of all children in CCIs within three years.

The committee established that Kenya has enough parents available locally to adopt children. For every one child available for adoption, there are six Kenyan parents waiting to adopt him/her. The country only meets 15 per cent of children requests by local adoptive parents.

“There is, therefore, no justification for inter-country adoption in Kenya since there are adequate local solutions for Kenyan children,” reads the report.

Some Kenyan parents who have been approved for adoption wait for more than four years before they can get a child. Eighty-six per cent of these parents require children above one year, which has contradicted popular myth that parents do not desire such an age group.

The committee also noted the irony of the sins of the alleged ‘saviours’ in adoption. They are handled by charities in adoption societies in what a Unicef report describes as organised crime against children.

UNKNOWINGLY

In Kenya, illegal adoption agencies have used technocrats, political offices and even tried to use diplomatic offices to advance their “saviours to Kenyan child initiative”, while in actual sense they are benefiting from the exorbitant fees paid to them.

“They sell a picture of a needy child requiring a loving family. This story is told to people and officers outside the adoption profession to invoke emotion, sympathy and pity of such a needy child in a manner irresistible to those hearing to unknowingly deny them support,” the report states and further describes them as daring, ruthless, unmoved and heartless.

The report also established that leaving infants to private entities has proved to be a disaster as they are “merciless and act as mercenaries organised against the children and their families”.

There is verifiable evidence of serious child trade, child abuse and a cartel that clearly exploits children for commercial purposes.

PROFESSIONALISM

“In addition, we established that children homes are used to hold and hoard children for these purposes and children who do not require to be in the children’s home at all are held hostage and not released to their families or for local solutions such as foster care, guardianship and local adoption,” says report.

This is because the adoption societies have preselected and reserved these children for inter-country adoption clients.

Professionalism is also not followed in adoption processes in that whereas adoption is a very serious matter of permanent nature dealing with children’s lives, it is casually handled by people with no social work professional qualifications.

RECOMMENDATION

The committee recommends that adoption be done by professional social workers. In addition, CCIs be closed down immediately and children reunited with their families. The other recommendation is that the moratorium be upheld because it is the only lifeline for children, and has so far reduced the sale and theft of children in the country.

“There was no evidence that the children were beneficiaries of inter-country adoption. The committee established that many inter-country agencies had even written letters to Kenyan adoption societies indicating they needed healthy children,” adds report.

Nevertheless, the moratorium does not affect Kenyans living abroad as well as Kenyans married to non-Kenyans who may wish to adopt children. The committee has explained in the report that this is because they are either still Kenyans or if they had acquired the citizenship of another country, still enjoy dual citizenship which is supported by the Constitution.

Kenyans living abroad will adopt as Kenyans by way of domestic adoption and will only require a Home Study report from their country of residence.

“Laws should be enacted as a matter of urgency to save the lives of Kenyan children; these include the Adoption Policy, Social Workers Bill, and an Adoption Bill that clarifies the adoption process,” says the committee.

GRANDMOTHER

Private institutions should also be ordered to open up their homes for immediate assessment so that those children with families are reunified and those found adoptable are given to local parents. Licences for inter-country adoption to remain cancelled, the committee recommends.

“Inter-country adoption puts pressure on adoption personnel to provide children making them to go scouting for children,” reads the report.

Other recommendations are that no special consideration should be given to “children of special needs category” because this is another way of propaganda for branding and labelling children for trafficking. There is equally need for vetting of private practitioners dealing with children because they have strategically branded themselves as ‘saviours’.

A sample of the court cases attest to the need to have adoption declared a national disaster, as more and more people are taking advantage of vulnerable children. In one court case, a seven-day-old child was snatched from her mother. In another, a child was stolen from the uncle and branded abandoned. Another child was born prematurely and the mother died, this child was taken away from the grandmother. The affected parties are still fighting for custody of the children in court.

NEGLECT

There are 18 other court cases where children are living with foreign guardians in unclear circumstances. The malpractices have been found to be perpetuated by the same group of CCIs, lawyers, social workers and adoption societies.

Kenya has in recent years featured prominently as both a source and key destination and transit location for international child and human trafficking crimes.

According to the Global Report on Trafficking in Persons 2014, by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Kenya is cited as one of the countries that are in denial and neglect when it comes to reporting or prosecuting cases of human trafficking and as a source, transit and destination country in the vice.

A global alarm issued in June, 2014 by the Expert Group of the Hague Convention on inter-country Adoptions called upon state parties to take action against profit driven inter-country adoptions and child trafficking.

Kenya: Changes to Law Seek to Beat Child Traffickers At Their Own Game

$
0
0

1 JULY 2018
By Gakuu Mathenge
A raft of legal amendments in the National Assembly seeks to tighten laws and confront child trafficking involving wealthy and well-connected criminals.

Nairobi features regularly on international reports as a source and transit point for child trafficking, feeding into the cross border crime networks by exploiting a lax enforcement regime and a compromised legal environment.

The proposed changes are in the Statutes Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill.

Specific amendments proposed in the Children’s Act (2013), include giving powers to the Labour and Social Security Cabinet secretary to shut down and deregister charitable institutions whose operations or activities are found wanting.

CRIMINAL INTERESTS

The amendments also lay emphasis on state-supported foster care of children to replace the policy of placing needy minors in isolated homes and making them targets of commercial and criminal interests.

How children are sold to highest bidder in name of adoption

The amendments give power to the CS to refuse the registration of institutions if he or she believes they are not in the best interest of the child.

“Notwithstanding any provisions of this Act, the Cabinet secretary may direct the National Council of Children’s Services to cancel registration or shut down an institution where lives are in danger or where continued stay there is likely to endanger the children’s wellbeing,” the proposed amendment says.

Activists and human rights groups have been campaigning to have the law changed since 2008 when a Unicef and the Children’s Department report revealed a syndicate involving lawyers, judicial officers and adoption agencies sneaking Kenyan children to prospective “adoption” destinations abroad.

INTER-COUNTRY

“The fact that there is more money to be made from inter-country and resident adoptions than from local ones, and that there is pressure from foreign agencies to find babies for applicants may well distort inter-country adoptions against the local ones,” the report authored by John Murimi Njoka and John Parry-Williams said.

The report cited an incident in which an Italian agent showed up with 17 children in court seeking orders to fly them out of the country.

The adoption orders were initially granted but later overturned.

“A magistrate related how a lawyer tried to get her change a foster care into an adoption order. Lawyers occasionally use a certificate of urgency to speed up proceedings to cover up discrepancies in the affidavits,” the report added.

India: Writ against adoption by foreigners

$
0
0

This is the first time that minor girls from Bharatpur are being adopted by couples from foreign countries.

JAIPUR Jun 28, 2018
HT Correspondent

The five girls, aged between three to six years, are currently lodged in a children’s home under the social justice and empowerment department in Bharatpur.
The five girls, aged between three to six years, are currently lodged in a children’s home under the social justice and empowerment department in Bharatpur.

Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Bharatpur on Thursday filed a writ in a family court against adoption of five minor girls by foreigners from an orphanage in the city, raising question about adoptees security in alien countries.

The five girls, aged between three to six years, are currently lodged in a children’s home under the social justice and empowerment department in Bharatpur.

They have been adopted by couples from America, Spain and New Zealand after completing legal process of adoption. Three girls will go to Spain, one to New Zealand and one to America.

This is the first time that minor girls from Bharatpur are being adopted by couples from foreign countries.

Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) claimed to have completed the adoption process and gave its consent to a family court for adoption.

But CWC and president of Maharaja Surajmal Foundation Jitendra Foujdar filed a writ against the adoption process.

Labour of BSF jawan’s widow pays off, sons set to become doctors
CWC chairman Saroj Lohiya said though the Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of children) Act 2015 stipulates counselling of children before adoption by foreigners, the CARA did not follow the mandate.

The next hearing will be held in the family court on June 30, lawyer Bhagwat Singh said.

The court has asked the government to submit records of adopted children and living conditions of the adopted parents.

Union minister for women and child development Maneka Gandhi directed state’s deputy director of social justice and empowerment Mamta Singhal on June 20 to complete the process of children’s adoption.

Opposing the adoption, Singh said Indian children would find it difficult to adjust to a new culture and environment and there was no provision for their monitoring.

He said the girls could be exploited or killed and some such cases had been reported in the media.

Singh said he has submitted a report published by Hindustan Times about a 3-year-old girl from Karnataka being killed after adoption by foreigners.

Demonstration for subsidy of searches for biological parents

$
0
0

United Adoptees International, Plan Angel,  Shapla, Myroots and ACT handed in their formal request for funding of searches at the Dutch Parliament.

Translated from Dutch
5 July 2018

Dozens of adoptees from, among others, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Colombia and India today demonstrate in The Hague for financial support in the search for their biological parents. Recently, it emerged that many children from these countries were illegally adopted in the 1970s and 80s and that the Dutch government was looking away.

Because the adoption papers are often false, the chances are very small that adoptees can find their biological parents. This also applies to Dewi Deijle, she is adopted from Indonesia: “I started my search in 2010”, says Deijle. “When I arrived at the home where I used to be, they told me that my papers were not correct.” Because Deijle could not quite believe that her adoption would have been illegal, she went looking for the addresses she found in the documents. “That too turned out to be a dead end.”

Eventually Deijle went to the clinic where she was born. “It turned out to be completely wrong. In the clinic they told me that during that time adoptions like mine were the order of the day. Here, too, they could not help me any further. “At the moment Deijle has no clues and the track to her biological family seems to have run aground.

Pot for funding searches

The story of Deijle is not a unique story and that is what the Thursday demonstration is about. If the government makes more money available, this type of search can be successfully completed more often. “We would like to get an apology from the government about the fact that they knew about the adoptions, but did not do anything about it,” says Deijle. “We also want a pot of money from which we can fund searches for biological parents.”

Help deported adult adoptee Wazulu to get his indian passport back

$
0
0

 

In 2010, Wazulu who has been adopted via HOLT International from India, then re-homed and eventually  got forced back to India.

Since then he is homeless and literally living out on the road, trying to survive day to day.

Nobody had ever taken care of his US citizenship. He had been living with a green card and his indian passport in the US.

Once he came back from middle America and ICE told him he can either give up his green card and go back to India or he can go to jail.

He chose to go to Indi and they took away his indian passport on the flight. He only has a photocopy left. We found out that his passport was valid till July 2017.

Since 2010 he s literally living on the road and trying to survive. Roaming around, eating in temples.

His Indian family is not in a position to help him. He s a brilliant musician and his music has helped him to survive.

However without ID, he cannot earn money, not travel , not hold a simcard, nothing. We discovered that his passport was actually valid till June 2017. So it should be possible to apply for a fresh one, so that  he can have a life again. We need to go with him to Delhi and/ or Bangalore for a couple of days and get through the buerocracy jungle.

If we have 1500 EUR together we can start with the work…

Kindly donate for Wazulu´s Passport

Bank transfers can be made to:

Against Child Trafficking
Bank account 67 26 82 060
IBAN: NL41 INGB 0672 6820 60
BIC: INGBNL2A
Amsterdam

OR YOU CAN USE PAYPAL:

In US Dollars:

 

In Euros:

 

THANK YOU!

 

 

*note this fundraiser is towards expenses, boarding and lodging,  lawyers fees etc. We will not cover his living expenses, other then when we travel together for the work

Viewing all 663 articles
Browse latest View live