Ethiopia, Infanticide and Agendas

I just finished reading an article on CNN.com that is currently starting to make the rounds on Facebook (usually along with some sort of value statement)

Since Nov. 6 is also Orphan Sunday it seems fitting to talk about this today. Orphan Sunday is a day when Christian churchgoers focus on the "needs of the fatherless" (which by the way is not the same as the needs of the parentless)  It is a day that could be potentially used to highlight the needs of foster children who need forever families or children in other countries who need support to keep from losing their families, either through death or separation, due to factors related to poverty.  But instead, Orphan Sunday though often becomes more of a guilt induced mission to "rescue and save" a child and this article seems to fall right in line with the "save the pagan babies" mentality.

The article originally appeared in Christianity Today but was picked up by CNN.com

Entitled "Is the tide turning against the killing of 'cursed' infants in Ethiopia?" it certainly sets a tone for the story that follows.  Unfortunately, after reading the article I am forced to be somewhat skeptical of not just the whole story but considering the original publication source, also the REAL agenda behind it.

The first issue is the headlines' implication is that the issue is widespread throughout Ethiopia.  The "tide turning" implies a large action with a swelling of people.  The problem is not, however, widespread or systemic throughout Ethiopia and in fact is only a practice in several of the small traditional tribes.  Tribes that pre-date written history and remain largely unchanged in terms of geography, tradition and custom.  The Kara, representing fewer than 3000 people, the Bana representing about 20,000 people and the Hamar, representing approx. 42,000 people.  Even combined together they total less than 0.08% of Ethiopia's population.  So hardly a widespread practice and more like a ripple than a tide.  

But now that you are in the intended state of mind the article spells out in heartbreaking detail the practice of infanticide when children are thought to be cursed. 

But then it says these things which make me wonder if this isn't more about the savior complex of adoption or even worse a "look at how awful this will be if we don't take these kids far away"  If the alternative is believed to be death, how easy is it to overlook any ethical breech.  At a time when people should be questioning adoption from Ethiopia, this article provides a compelling reason to ignore all those questions. 

"Meanwhile, a small band of Banna Christians has taken it upon itself to give sanctuary to the mingi children of their tribe; an enlightenment among some young and educated tribesmen of the Kara has spawned an orphanage for the condemned; and global Samaritans, drawn by the plights of these defenseless children, have offered money and adoptive homes."

Because nothing solves a cultural problem like an influx of Western money and a "save the heathen babies" mentality.  Isn't that the exact thing that has caused the corruption in the Ethiopian (and to some degree entire International Adoption) program?

"No one, least of all Zelle, would argue that the rescue mission isn't preferable to death for mingi children. But the orphanage has nonetheless been a controversial solution. A Christian group that supported the effort for two years withdrew its backing this spring after accusing the orphanage's director of stealing money donated by American benefactors.

Orphanage officials counter-accused the Americans — who had helped arrange the adoptions of four mingi babies — of stealing the children from their families. The adoptions were, in fact, all legal under Ethiopian law, which treats mingi children as abandoned. But the orphanage leaders have argued that the biological parents surrendered their babies under cultural duress and should have the right to reclaim those children if their situation were to change."

The Ethiopian adoption program is full of well documented stories of corrupt adoptions that were "legal" under Ethiopian law.  And given the state of duress of the mothers it goes without saying that none of these adoptions, regardless of legality, were ethical.

"Last year, rescue mission leaders learned that a Kara woman had given birth to a mingi boy whom tribal elders had promptly attempted to kill by ripping out his umbilical cord. The wounds had quickly gone septic, and there was no time to send a car to retrieve the child. Evacuation by air was the only solution; chartering the aircraft cost $3,500.

"That was the sum of all the money we had," said Levi Benkert, Jessie's husband. "And we couldn't be certain that, even if we did it, he was going to live."

They did it anyway — and saved the boy. An online fundraising effort quickly recouped the costs of the evacuation, but rescue mission officials knew they couldn't sustain those sorts of expenses. And, in any case, they've since been pushed out of the Omo River Valley by local government officials who have sided with the orphanage's Ethiopian director."

But here is the statement from a missionary on the ground in the Omo Region- and these are the most telling words.  They reveal the crux of the issue and the disconnect between the children we help and those we don't. [emphasis added is mine]

"Far more children are dying in other ways," he [a German missionary] says. "These are ways that we can address and prevent immediately if we just cared enough. Before we judge, we have to ask ourselves what we have done to help these children."

And there is the bulk of my skepticism- we (the West) are not worried about the other ways that far more children are dying- ways that are likely equally preventable and would allow children to remain safely IN THEIR FAMILIES.  We are focused the much smaller number of children who are mingi.  And why do we worry more about those children? Why are these the children we spend thousands to save and rescue when that same amount could save hundreds of other children?  Could it be because mingi children can easily be fed into the international system of adoption in many cases at birth or shortly thereafter?  So yes, it is absolutely a tragic situation- however, it is a situation that must be changed from within, rather than from outside.  And even the article discusses the changes that are happening within the tribes.   So are we really worried about saving the lives of children or finding another avenue in which to justify and feed a system that seeks to acquire infants as young and as easily as possible.