Anonymous "journalist who lived in Guatemala" writes: "For this reason, UNICEF, the UN, and human rights organizations are all wary of international adoptions. The demographic explosion of US couples seeking international adoptions is having unforeseen effects, not all of them positive."

The Facts...

Guatemala is mired in poverty, and it is likely that it will continue to be so during our lifetimes.

A poor child in many regions of Guatemala has about a 2 in 5 chance of not making it to his or her fifth birthday, due to malnutrition or disease.

There are limited to no social services for the poor in Guatemala -- including medical care and food aid. And with a series of corrupt, ineept, and actively racist governments that discriminate against the poor, who are most often Mayan indigenous people, this is not likely to improve for decades.

While some mothers may be giving birth and putting children up for adoption to generate income, the vast majority are extremely indigent women with no means to care for their babies who are not deliberately conceived for profit. With a monthly income of $100, and the women need to work full-time to earn that $100, these mothers can't even breastfeed, and baby formula (which costs well over $100 a month) is beyond their reach. These infants end up being fed watered down milk, and sometimes even coffee. Unless Unicef and the UN have some sort of secret, hidden and unshared plan to provide medical care and food to every one of these women who would have otherwise put a child up for adoption, exactly what will become of these babies?

You had babies in a system of private foster care, with the vast majority of foster families providing a loving start for these infants. Now, the government's aim is to institutionalize them in goverment-run institutions, with a typical adoption taking at least 2 years, according to Guatemalan government officials.

Coincidentally, researchers have just put out a study that demonstrates, definitively, that growing up in an institution like an orphanage stunts children’s mental development, as compared to foster care.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/us/21foster.html?ref=us

So could someone please explain where Unicef and the UN's concerns are for the welfare of the children of Guatemala?

When the malnutrition and death rate of children goes up, and the children who are institutionalized suffer, and develop attachment disorders, who will be worrying about and caring for the children then?

EVERY SYSTEM IS FLAWED. Yes, there are some corrupt lawyers in Guatemala, and some women are being encouraged to birth babies for economic reasons.

But the Guatemalans don't want to care for their poor children, and they don't want to adopt them either. And they don't want to fix their system, because they are just shifting the economic benefits...Now, Unicef will hand over bucks to the government to help subsidize some of these institutions.

And let's just see how much of it actually translates to food, medical care, or loving care for these children. My guess -- little to none. It's going to end up in the pockets of the corrupt Guatemalan bureaucrats, as usual.

They are throwing out an entire system, and condemning thousands of children to the hell of inept institutionalized care -- and this so-called care is coming from a corrupt, racist and uncaring government that is doing it primarily to skim the international aid designated for their huge population of poor children.

It's a complete travesty, and no one seems to care...

What will happen to the thousands of poor children from Guatemala who have no where to go, no one to feed them, no one to care for them, no one to provide medical care, no one to educate them, and no one to love them?

Thanks for an excellent summary of the Guatemala situation. You explained it far better than I could.

And thanks also for the point about charity. I cringe when anyone says "Oh, you saved him from a life of..." about my son. We didn't adopt my son as a philanthropic gesture. We wanted another child very much, and he is a joy in our lives.

Every day I try to do my best to be a good Mom to him -- and that's not an expression of charity or philanthropy -- it's just boring old mother love for a darling boy.

but unfortunately, you're getting the spillover of bad Salon juju that has been continually generated -- and continues to be just this week -- by your editor Joan Walsh, in her anti-Obama, pro-Hillary shilling campaign.

Unfortunately, the laughable claims of impartiality on Joan's part have made many of us understandably suspicious. Frankly, there have sometimes seemed to be a quota of anti-Obama/pro-Hillary articles at Salon, with Joan and her blog at the helm.

I give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you write it like you saw it. Because I think you've proven time and again that you have integrity.

But do realize that some of the company you keep do not enjoy that same trust from many Salon readers, including some of us long-time "former" subscribers. I did put my money where my mouth is and did NOT ante up -- after YEARS as a subscriber -- as long as Camille Paglia column, Debra Dickinson articles, and the anti-Obama/pro-Hillary campaign were going to remain.

I trust you to be one of the only unbiased sources of political coverage -- well, you are biased...toward telling the TRUTH!

and stop making excuses...

And if you keep making excuses, read Annie Lamott's "Bird by Bird" and cut it out!

for Joan's negative spin on the Obama win...

for Joan to figure out how to spin this negative for Barack, and suck up to Hillary yet again...

You said it!

Joan's typing it right now, and Walter Shapiro is doing his own sycophantic writeup about Hillary's 3rd place "win"...