In the Hands of Children: How Does Intercountry Adoption Affect US Diplomacy with Russia and China?
When I applied to be a Global Scholars Diploma (GSD) candidate, I had a vague idea of what my project would encompass. That is, related to intercountry adoption. Being adopted from China, this topic has been a sore spot for me. I struggled to celebrate my adoption and oftentimes, was embarrassed by this key part of my identity. In recent years, I have come to appreciate my unique past and became curious about the process as a whole. In my GSD application and interview, I displayed interest in the transracial adoption aspect of intercountry adoption. It wasn’t until early September of 2021, that I considered incorporating international relations and politics into my project. Much of my decision in doing so was influenced by corruption in international adoption that prioritized competition within nations over the well-being of the child. After many revisions, this became my project topic. However, throughout this project and my research, the geopolitics of the situation have changed, specifically with the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Much of my research took place before this event, and thus the US’s relationship, especially with Russia, has been altered from what I researched. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has also affected intercountry adoption, creating outlier data which I tried my best to avoid. This shows that these issues are ongoing and will continue to change as time passes.
“Are you going to be my new parents,” asked little Alyosha to Maria and Yvan Drewinsky. To this, they “choked up and asked him, ‘Would you like that to happen?’ He said ‘yes’ in such a lovely voice-full of hope- that [they] melted completely” (Herszenhorn). For months, the couple prepared to bring Alyosha into their family. They had already visited him twice in Russia and called him two times a week. On paper, they were considered capable parents for the young boy. They had gone through the necessary precautions, courses, and tests. But more than that, they cared for him and developed a bond with him. They are first-generation Russian Americans who are fluent in Russian and belong to the Orthodox Church. They would have brought him up in a Russian household so that he would’ve stayed in touch with his culture. They would’ve provided for what he missed out on as a young boy. At age three, he was wandering the streets because his birth mother suffered from various serious psychiatric illnesses and was unable to care for him. His relatives wouldn’t take him in.
Truly, international adoption was the best option for him, and he was ready for a family to call his own. They were all ready. Maria and Yvan had already set up his bedroom and referred to him as their son (Memmott). But, then the unthinkable happened. Russia banned US citizens from adopting children. “The Drewinskys said they didn't know how they would break the news to the child that he may not be coming to live with them after all” (abc7NY).
Since the mid-1900s images of foreign poverty-stricken and disadvantaged orphans have filled the media, prompting Americans, in particular, to adopt these children, thereby providing them with a higher quality of life. This intercountry adoption relationship is linked to a power imbalance between the receiving and the giving countries, where the receiving nation is perceived to be superior. However, for some time children adopted from China and Russia were the highest numbers in America, despite China’s and Russia’s status as global superpowers. Due to adoption’s imbalance between countries, this dynamic is creating tension in relationships that would normally be balanced. By comparing intercountry adoption to the United States from these countries, this project analyzes how American diplomatic relations with these countries have evolved as a result of a greater understanding of children’s rights and public opinion, the economy of the country of origin, and the perception of political opportunism. Growing tensions between these countries and their improving economies indicate that this situation is unlikely to improve in the near future.
Before the late 1940s, intercountry adoption was unheard of. The adoption of children from another country wasn’t a process that parents had considered or attempted. It wasn’t until the aftermath of World War II and the beginning of the Cold War that “intercountry adoption started in North America primarily as a philanthropic response” (Mather). With technological advancements, and thus the improvement in media coverage, the world witnessed the horrors of the wars from their home. Though many couldn’t help in war efforts, they found a way through “orphan-rescue missions in the wake of military conflicts, beginning with the airlift of German and Japanese orphans at the end of the Second World War. Similar rescues followed the Korean War, in 1953, the Bay of Pigs debacle, in 1961, and the Vietnam War, in 1975” (Mather).
Marijke Breuning, a professor of political science at the University of Northern Texas, distinguishes those who adopt internationally into two categories: “Samaritans” and “family builders”. Samaritans are fueled by the humanitarian impulse and desire to be of service to others, while family builders seek to create a family (Breuning). The Samaritan explanation accounts for the sudden interest in international adoption that rose in the West. Many see intercountry adoption as Western Imperialism and worry about coercion because of poverty and powerless influence from the country of birth.
In the United States, the first major adoption that prompted a widespread response was the Holt family, who received special accommodation from Congress which enabled them to adopt eight Korean war orphans (Holt International). The Holt family became an inspiration to many other Americans and prompted the creation of Holt International, one of the many adoption agencies in America.
Due to this rapid movement towards international adoption, many organizations and agencies formed to profit from the trend. There were little to no regulations as the concept was fairly new, leading to corruption within the organizations. Prospective parents were overwhelmed by various agencies and were misled by a perilous process with no standard to compare to. Some birth parents didn’t understand the finality of adoption because of differences in cultural norms, leading them to unintentionally abandon their children under the pretense that their child would just be getting a good education (Breuning). It wasn’t until about 40 years after the beginning of intercountry adoption that international law was created.
In 1986, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on Social and Legal Principles Relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children. Then, in 1989, the United Nations added more to The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is the most widely signed human rights treaty, stating the rights of internationally adopted children and the requirements to ensure that those rights were protected. Although vague, it presented a basis for future international laws and multilateral agreements. To combat the rise of untrustworthy organizations, Article 21 states that state parties shall “ensure that the adoption of a child is authorized only by competent authorities” (UN General Assembly). Additionally, it is required that “…the persons concerned have given their informed consent to the adoption” and that the procedure “... does not result in improper financial gain for those involved in it” to prevent misinformation about adoption and limit child trafficking (UN General Assembly). Being the most signed treaty, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child’s inclusion of the rights of an adoptive child allowed for exposure and protection for their rights; however, it lacked prevention of violating these rights.
To make up for what the UN Convention lacked, in 1993, the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption was created. Although far fewer nations have ratified the document, the Hague Convention reinforces the protection of the child and prioritizes actions that ensure the well-being of the child. Nations that signed the document need to “... have established that the child is adoptable” with “...the consent of the mother” again to prevent child trafficking (Hague Convention). They also have to “... have determined that the prospective adoptive parents are eligible and suited to adopt” (Hague Convention). While the Hague Convention seems redundant to the UN Convention, there are required standards that the countries within the convention have to behold. For example, when the US deals with a Hague country concerning Provisional Petition Approval (Child’s Eligibility), the child has to be deemed adoptable with the Convention's consent. When dealing with non-Hague countries, the child just must meet the orphan definition. Just like most things, the definition of an orphan differs from country to country. Additionally, with Child’s Medical Records, Hague countries need to prepare and provide records from competent authorities and the prospective adoptive parents are given at least two weeks to review before following through with the adoption. There are no requirements with non-Hague countries.
Despite the lack of international required standards in non-Hague countries, adopting from those countries isn’t necessarily unreliable. Many countries are unable to fully comply with the Hague standards as it is economically challenging; therefore, they create bilateral and multilateral agreements with other countries so that the child’s well-being is still ensured. There is evidence that a bilateral agreement in addition to the Hague Convention yields better results for the success of adoptions between countries.
In all agreements, it is stated that domestic adoption is preferred over international adoption; however, in the cases of long-term institutionalized care, international adoption is favored. Even with the slight improvement in specifications concerning intercountry adoption with the Hague Convention, both the international treaties and bilateral agreements lack enforcement. But, this may not matter anymore as the trend of international adoption has been decreasing over the years.
From the late 1900s to the early 2000s, international adoption was overflowing. Recently, the United States, in 2020, had only 1,622 adoptions, which is 93% less than the peak in 2004 (US Department of State). While COVID-19 played a role in the drastic decline, intercountry adoption has been steadily declining since 2010. This isn’t just the case for the United States; the world has seen a decrease in international adoptions due to the increase in domestic restrictions and the cut in sending children abroad. This decrease is mostly credited to China and Russia, as they accounted for almost half of adoption in the United States (Budiman).
Although there isn’t much information about domestic adoption within Russia, there is plenty about international adoption. From 1993 to 2004, there was an increase in adoption from Russia, which coincided with the dissolution of the USSR and its aftermath. “Initially, Americans adopted few Russian children in the early years after the Soviet Union disbanded. After 1993, the number of adoptions steadily increased before reaching its peak in 2004” (Allen).
Due to the disbandment of the Soviet Union, “Russian children were increasingly abandoned by parents or removed from their parents’ homes by the state due to their inability to care for or financially support their children” (Allen). Soon after, the system and the orphanages became overcrowded with children leading to stories of poor conditions flooding the media. “The same financial issues that led so many to Russian orphanages also resulted in an inability of the state to care for the children once there” (Allen). News reached Americans and the humanitarian component was born.
For many reasons, Russian adoption was more readily accessible and preferred than other countries’ adoption and even domestic adoption. Russia has a past of being lenient with adoptions. While it can take up to two years for domestic adoption, it only takes six months with Russian adoption, allowing eager parents to go through the process quickly.
Additionally, “Russia satisfied the demand for Caucasian children'' (Allen). This way prospective parents could avoid transracial adoption and the differences that came with that. This wasn’t only a preference for certain parents. “For some time, the US policy preference was to avoid interracial placements, resulting in a relatively small pool of adoptable children for Caucasian parents” (Allen). Even if parents just wanted to adopt, no matter the race, US policy made it impossible for them to; therefore, Russian adoption provided adoptable children. Another preference that encouraged international adoption was the avoidance of open adoptions. In an open adoption, the birth parents are still involved, allowing for conflicts to occur. In a survey of 523 parents who adopted internationally, “just over half (52.4%) were motivated at least in part by the desire for a closed adoption” (Breuning). With domestic adoptions, open adoptions are becoming more and more common. This is near impossible with intercountry adoption; information on birth parents is limited.
Russian adoption also allowed something that neither domestic adoption nor other intercountry adoptions could. “Russia, unlike the United States, allowed for single-parent adoption and same-sex parents adoptions” and “individuals over sixty” (Allen). There are a lot of requirements prospective parents need to meet, such as age, marital status, and economic status concerning adoption. Russian adoption created a way for those who were ineligible otherwise to still create a family.
The Russian Federation is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child; however, did not sign the Hague Convention. It relies on bilateral agreements, eg. the Agreement between the United States and the Russian Federation Regarding Cooperation in Adoption of Children (US-Russian Agreement).
For years, China has struggled with adoptions related to females, both international and domestic, as the traditional preference is given to males. “Not only has it always fallen to the males to continue the family name, and all that this had come to represent in the community, but they also had the exclusive responsibility of performing ancestor worship duties” (O’Halloran). Therefore, daughters-in-law were important in increasing the chances of a male heir; thus, 童养媳 (tóngyǎngxí) or “foster daughter-in-law” was created to raise a future wife for their son (Johnson). However, this was banned with the introduction of the Marriage Law of 1950. Similarly, many girls were adopted for servitude reasons, which was also banned in 1949.
These bans led to virtually no domestic adoptions. A Chinese-born head of a US adoption agency credits this fact to the “‘concept (of adoption) hardly exists in Chinese culture. Nobody knows about it’” (Johnson). He even goes as far as to say that “‘to a Chinese, if a child is not of his flesh and blood, he may not love the child as much as he loves his own children’” (Johnson). This idea can be associated with Confucianism, the ancient Chinese belief system, and the reasoning behind most adoptions being by family members.
Yet, “there was a popular adoption ideology that competed with the dominant Confucianism-based ideology and legal codes that restricted adoption to bloodlines” (Johnson). The term minglingzi or “mulberry insect children'' folktale implied that the children were “transformed into the likeness of the parents who raise them,” which is “near-total denial of the significance of biological heredity in shaping the child” (Johnson). While this folktale reinforced the idea of domestic adoption and halted the argument over biological importance, it didn’t overcome the distinct feature of the Chinese demographic system; the preference for boys over girls.
In 1979, China implemented 一孩政策 (yī hái zhèngcè) or the One-Child Policy. This set of regulations limited families to only one child to combat poverty and overpopulation. Unsurprisingly, it led to the abandonment and the surplus of girls in orphanages (Johnson). Due to the One-Child Policy, China became one of the top three countries sending children to the United States.
The People’s Republic of China is currently a signatory to the UN Convention on Children’s Rights and the Hague Convention.
The decline in intercountry adoption as a whole has been credited to economies of the developing world increasing after conflict. Economic issues are what brought them to take on intercountry adoption, so it would be reasonable for the improvement of the economy to lead to the reduction of adoption.
Not only is international adoption an effect of a conflict, but it is also one of the many solutions to transitioning the country back to its original stance in the world. Money drives the system of international adoption. Training and preparation for adoption can cost up to $20,000. Legal fees and documentation cost up to another $16,000 (Considering Adoption). Those are just some of the tangible benefits that go directly to the authorities or the orphanages. There are benefits from parents traveling to the country as well. “The travel time for your adoption can be as short as 5 or 6 days to as long as four weeks, and this time may be divided over multiple trips” (Considering Adoption). Staying for weeks requires food, a hotel, and transportation, fueling the tourism economy. Some agencies even require parents to sightsee around the country to get to know their child’s culture, depending on the country. Russia required two separate visits prior to adopting. This in addition to spending less on the child welfare program due to fewer children in institutions, allows countries to focus on recovering.
South Korea is one of the top sending countries that has decreased adoption as its economic environment improved. It “perfected a program that persists even as the nation is one of the world’s global leaders” (McKee). In 2002, Kay Johnson wrote,
While international adoption from Korea began in the midst of the devastation created by the Korean War, it continued well beyond the Korean economic recovery and the subsequent ‘economic miracle,’ during which Korea witnessed some of the highest economic growth rates in the world (Johnson).
While that may have been the case then, that isn’t true anymore. Korea’s amount of adoptions has been slowly declining since that point and “coincides with the significant economic growth that transformed Korean society” (Breuning). In 2003, the United States adopted 1,793 children from Korea. Fifteen years later, the US only adopted 206 children (US Department of State).
Although on a smaller scale, China has also experienced a decline in adoption rates due to economic growth. China implemented the One-Child policy to combat overpopulation and alleviate poverty (Mullen). “It restricted most couples to only a single offspring, and for years authorities argued it was a key factor in supporting the country’s economic boom” (Mullen). Now, China has replaced it with the two-child policy in 2016 and more recently, the three-child policy in 2021, indicating the success in improving the economic environment. The consequences of the One-Child policy have not only created the pool of children for international adoption but also have led to the focus on domestic adoptions as the fertility rate has decreased significantly and the stigma around adoption has reduced. In an episode of The Defender Podcast, Karla Thrasher, an expert, and mother, who also went through the adoption process, addressed the concerns of new regulations that China put in place in 2017. Many parents were worried about the increased restrictions on adoption, to which she replied that China historically releases updates every two years and has been slowly restricting, so it was normal. She expressed no concern over the issue (Newell). Her lack of concern is further proved by the steady decrease in children being adopted into the US, from 6,857 in 2003 to 1,475 in 2018 to 819 in 2019 (US Department of State). It is unclear whether this drastic change is related to the COVID-19 pandemic because the disease was discovered in December of 2019. There are no other major events that could have contributed to the decrease.
Russia, on the other hand, before the ban, only showed a slight decline in sending despite the economy improving. The end of the Cold War in 1991 proved to be a difficult political and economic transition for Russia. Creating a new state required a vast amount of money that they didn’t have due to coming out of war. “At that time, Russia’s economy was in free fall and its severe economic problems had repercussions for its children” (Breuning). Russia experienced a similar decrease to that of China; however, when considering the total population of the respective countries, Russia had a greater percentage of adoptees. This shows that economic need forced Russia to become a sending-country role and also that economic recovery reduced that will but did not lead it to abandon the role. This inconsistency was not unnoticed, as Russian politician Yekaterina Lakhova stated, “‘Normally economically developed countries don’t give up their children, not a single of them. I am a Russian patriot’” (Lipman). It is unclear why Russia had continued international adoption despite its economic growth, but Lakhova’s opinion soon became common in the government.
As mentioned before, current conventions and agreements are limited in their ability to enforce laws and regulations. They are a “legally binding instrument but no judicial forum”, meaning that there is no court of justice for violations, and the only major consequence would be sanctioning the country (Allen). This weakness allows for much corruption and conflict between countries, from minuscule issues like caretaking differences to major issues such as child abuse and neglect.
Even though both the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child and the Hague Convention make a clear stance on the prevention of child trafficking, intercountry adoption is still weak in that area. Despite the severity of the network of child trafficking within international adoptions, it isn’t always covered in the media or researched as much as child abuse. As a receiving country that can use power over another country, some use the powerless to their advantage.
A recent case regarding child trafficking initiated by the receiving country was US politician, Paul Peterson, and his smuggling scheme with women from the Marshall Islands. “The charges span about three years and involve some 75 adoptions” with “$25,000-$40,000 per adoption and brought about $2.7 million into a bank account for adoption fees in less than two years” (Cooper). Without specifically looking into the corruption of intercountry adoption, one may not have found this case. Additionally, many US-based adoption agencies have been accused of child trafficking, such as Celebrate Children International.
Sending countries also struggle with child trafficking and media coverage over it; a case in point is China. Chinese child trafficking “is a taboo topic for the Chinese government, which acknowledges the problem exists but also does not make public statistics about the number of children kidnapped or the number of children sold into adoption” (Custer). There are hardly any statistics about the topic, as “neither child trafficking nor baby buying in Chinese international adoptions are widely studied” (Custer). Even when explicitly researching the topic, hardly any can be found. Fortunately, there has been media coverage of some incidents.
One incident that caught the Chinese media’s attention was a report of several infants from Hunan as well as other provinces being bought by orphanages. They were bought for “800 yuan (US$98.89) to 1,200 yuan and resold to other orphanages or families at a much higher price” (Xinhua-English). Although the world became aware of the situation, it was hard to tell which kids adopted from that area were connected to the scandal. Also, “a month later, China disallowed all press coverage regarding the scandal, in an obvious attempt to control the damage the episode was having on the world stage” (Research-China.org). Also, a US official stated that,
The CCAA informed us that it had concluded its investigation into all of the children from Hengyang adopted by Americans and found that all of these children were legitimately orphaned or abandoned and that there are no biological parents searching for them (ChinaDaily).
Leading many Americans to believe that the situation was handled and did not pertain to their adoptions; unfortunately, that was not the case.
After her adopted daughter constantly asked for her mother, Rose Candis (pseudonym for the safety of the daughter) began to investigate the adoption leading her back to the 2005 Hunan scandal. When meeting with the man that supposedly found her daughter, he “admitted candidly that he had never found any child. He was simply friends with one of the Qujiang orphanage’s directors” (Custer). Rose Candis has yet to find the mother whom her daughter longed for.
It is evident from the censorship the month following the scandal that there would be a lack of information from the Chinese government. But, surprisingly, “America’s adoption community does not want to talk about trafficking in China… refused to comment or ignored the request entirely” (Custer). (Note: I also came across this issue when inquiring for an interview, both regarding Chinese and Russian adoption.) Many believe this to be due to the money gained from adoption. In addition to the lack of information from either country, there isn’t the curiosity from adoptive parents that Candis displayed over her adoption process because they are afraid that they will lose their children.
Recently, as the adopted child grows older and inquisitive over their adoption, several other stories have been portrayed in the media; however, all of these adoptions were from the early 2000s. Due to the lack of coverage or research during that time, the issue wasn’t considered a big deal and now it is considered too late. With China’s focus on domestic adoptions rather than international, there is little room for corruption with child trafficking to the US now.
“We were very lucky,” stated Nancy, the mother of a Russian adoptee, in an interview. When she first adopted her son in 1998, her biggest concern was whether or not her son would attach to her. She “could definitely see that there were some issues, he would hoard food in his cheeks. He would just eat so fast, hoard food in his cheeks” (Doe). And instead of not being able to attach to her, he would go everywhere with her. While these attributes were concerning, they paled in comparison to what Russian adoption’s reputation displayed in the years following.
Although “the number of failed foreign adoptions parallels the studies of failed domestic adoptions of children older than 3 — about 15 percent”, Russian adoption has oftentimes been associated with corruption and child abuse (Tedford). Stories of children dying, abuse, and further abandonment filled the media, angering not only Russian citizens but the Russian government as well. This sometimes leads to improvements within the bilateral agreement between Russia and the US to allow for safer adoptions.
Nina Hilt (Viktoria Bazhenova) was only two and a half years old when she died from blunt trauma to the abdomen from her adoptive mother, Peggy Sue Hilt. Her mother initially stated that Nina had fallen down the stairs, but then admitted to having been suffering for the 18 months she had Nina (Hegar). Nina had been displaying disruptive behavior, and Peggy was depressed and became an alcoholic around the time Nina was adopted. After this incident, the Russian Ministry sought to enact legislation that would require psychological testing for parents. This, then, became a requirement in the US-Russian Agreement. However, this wasn’t the only alarming part of Nina’s adoption. “Although she [Peggy] and her husband only saw Nina once; Russian adoption agency officials insisted the Hilts sign paperwork indicating that they had spent more time with Nina than they had” (Allen). This issue was unresolved and not mentioned afterward.
Another adoption related to disruptive and harmful behavior was David Polreis (Konstin Shlepin), who only spent six months with his new family before he died at the age of two. The initial explanation was self-harm as David suffered from Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) which caused him to injure himself (Hegar). It was later found out that “evidence discovered in the home and Mrs. Polreis’s phone call to the family therapist suggested that she inflicted the final blows”, so Rene Polreis was sentenced to twenty-two years in prison. David’s death led to the increased disclosure of prospective adoptees' medical records to alert parents to any potential issues before the adoption was finalized.
Nathaniel Craver (Ivan Skorobogatov) had a similar experience, but his parents’ outcomes differed. Nathaniel had spent a total of six years with his adoptive parents, which is a considerable amount more than the other children. At seven, he died from brain injuries. It was noted that he was predisposed to destructive behavior and self-mutilations. At first, “Nathaniel's adoptive parents were charged with first-degree murder, third-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, endangering child welfare, and criminal homicide” (Allen). During the investigation, they found “over eighty external injuries including twenty to his head” (Allen). Despite this, the Cravers’ sentence lessened to involuntary manslaughter and sixteen months to four years in comparison to the twenty-two years that Rene Polreis was sentenced. This sentencing created a commotion in Russia. Officials sought to investigate the couple and the legality of adoption; ultimately, placing the couple on the Russian international wanted list.
Not all cases of Russian child abuse resulted in death. Masha Allen's (Maria Nikolaevna Yashenkova) “story is atypical of most Russian adoptions, but it highlights serious weaknesses in the international adoption system” (Allen). Masha was adopted by divorced Matthew Mancuso, who was found later to be a pedophile and had molested her for nearly five years. She was raped and sexually exploited on the internet. Matthew Mancuso was sentenced to thirty-five to seventy years for his crimes. The public, not just Russians, were upset over the ordeal, and rightly so. However, Family Adoption Center, which screened Mancuso, was defensive over the situation and “placed the blame on Mr. Mancuso’s deceptive behavior” (Allen). Masha’s case increased the parental pre-screening and post-adoption follow-ups in the US-Russian Agreement.
Even after amending and improving the agreement, cases of abuse still prevailed. In response, the Russian government on many occasions threatened to suspend adoptions to Americans. Each time, they never fully committed to banning adoptions, starting the cycle of refining the US-Russian Agreement and Russian Family Code. Although Russia is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, no evidence proves that this has caused issues, as the United States is a signatory.
Due to the cases above, rules for screening and post-adoptive care increased. When Nancy was adopting her son in 1998, she only had social worker visits six months, one year, and two years into the adoption. “In 2000, and again in 2003, Russia insisted foreign adoptions be handled only by accredited agencies that would be required to provide Russia with reports including at-home visits by a social worker at six months and one, two, and three post-placement” (Riben). They added a requirement for “accredited agencies” and an additional visit. According to a revision of the Russian Family Code, non-Russian adoption agencies now have to be registered as non-government agencies and the duration the child had to remain in the state database increased to six months before being adopted. Additionally, Russia introduced legislation requiring “mandatory training programs and psychological testing” (Allen). Overall, there have been an overwhelming amount of revisions and increasing restrictions. Yet, that still wasn’t enough.
In 2012, the Dima Yakovlev law was passed with a unanimous vote by the Federation Council. The law was named after Dmitri Yakovlev, a toddler who died from heatstroke after his father claimed he forgot him in the car when going to work. Like Nathaniel Craver’s parents, Miles Harrison, Dmitri's adoptive father, was accused of involuntary manslaughter. Once again, this created outrage in the Russian community. “‘When we give our children to the West and they die, for some reason the West always tells us it was just an accident. It’s hard to believe,’” voiced one government official (Barry). While Dmitri's incident was pure neglect, this was the last straw for Russia. The Dima Yakovlev law banned all adoptions from US citizens. Over 46 children were blocked from getting adopted.
Even though corruption within Russian adoption is comparable to corruption in Chinese adoption and even domestic adoption, the media coverage of the issues is vastly different. The small percentage of human rights abuse strained the United States’ relationship with Russia causing the whole system between them to shut down. The lack of attention on child trafficking allowed the US to be unphased over the issue, ultimately having no effect.
For many reasons, the United States has complex relationships with both Russia and China. These respective countries have ties to communist ideology, which the United States spent half of the 20th century combating. The idea of democracy and the idea of communism are oftentimes at odds with one another, suggesting the relationship between the US and the countries is bound to be incompatible.
Although maintaining a bilateral economic relationship, there is still a lot of competition with China. The US Department of State states that “strategic competition is the frame through which the United States views its relationship with the People’s Republic of China (PRC)”, suggesting that when beneficial to the US, they will conduct diplomacy with China. But with issues that are not shared challenges, there is a focus to “counter Beijing’s aggressive and coercive actions… and stand up to Beijing when PRC authorities are violating human rights and fundamental freedoms” (US Department of State). The China-US relationship is complex as both sides use one another to their advantage.
Likewise, Russia and the US have a very competitive relationship dating back to the Cold War. According to the US Department of State, “the United States has long sought a full and constructive relationship with Russia”; however, “Russia ultimately rejected this approach”. The Department of State even goes so far as to say “Russia must take demonstrable steps to show it is willing to be a responsible global actor” for the US to stabilize the relationship (US Department of State). Neither side is willing to take the first step toward increasing relations.
It is clear that the competitive attitude is mutual between the countries as all three are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. While no evidence directly links the difference in government type to the drastic decrease in intercountry adoption, there is a correlation between power dynamics and adoption that has greatly affected political decisions over adoption.
Intercountry adoption isn’t just about the children being adopted; it’s also a relationship between the sending and receiving nations. There are two basic roles that countries can take on on the world stage, the master role and the auxiliary role. The master role is seen as powerful and thus good, while the auxiliary role is weak and bad. A country may take on both of these roles; however, the auxiliary role will ultimately be a disadvantage to its master role (Breuning). This is the case concerning Russia and China being sending countries as well as superpowers in the world. To keep the same power, the countries need to either abandon or modify the auxiliary role, meaning they need to ban adoption or mitigate it. Even so, this may not always be economically possible.
Countries may have to take on the auxiliary role of being a sending country because “the state’s population of orphans and vulnerable children exceeds the capacity of the state’s welfare system” (Breuning). This fact enforces the idea that the nation can’t even protect its most vulnerable citizens; thus an auxiliary role. Along with the inability to protect its vulnerable population, intercountry adoption also indicates the need for tangible benefits, reinforcing the powerlessness of the nation. Countries that are forced into the weaker, sending character are usually poorer, less developed, transitional, or post-conflict countries, and the receiving countries are richer and more developed (Breuning).
Both China and Russia, when they started international adoption, fell under the category of transitional or post-conflict, so it was normal for them to take on this role. The only issue is that “most countries that enact the auxiliary role send only small numbers of children” and for those countries “the role remains largely unnoticed by the domestic public and by decision makers who are not directly involved in the process” (Breuning). In other words, to most countries, the role of being a sending country is a minuscule issue. China and Russia were not like most countries regarding this aspect. While other countries sent less than a hundred children yearly, they sent thousands of children, displaying their inferior role.
Additionally, “acute role conflict can also be triggered by an external event- and especially scandals- that highlight the dissonance of the sending country role with their master foreign policy role” (Breuning). When there was harm to children in their adoptive home and country, it again supported the idea that the birth country was unable to protect its citizens, threatening its master role and status. This was proved when seven-year-old Artyom Savelyov was sent back alone to Russia with a note that said “I no longer wish to parent this child and I am returning him to your guardianship” (Bratersky). This case differed from most other scandals as Arytom was a living child. His being sent back to Russia was equivalent to returning unwanted merchandise and hinted at the commodification of Russian children. It was a blow to the country’s self-image as a major power.
Because of these distinct factors, there is a very clear power dynamic between the sending and receiving nations, especially concerning Russia and China.
With the characteristics of intercountry adoption relating to power, countries are bound to use this to their advantage. This relates to the Samaritan aspect of intercountry adoption mentioned prior and why many see it as another form of Western imperialism.
According to John Seabrook in The New Yorker, in the United States, [regarding] international adoption: “...These “babylifts'' were, in part, political, fueled by a new superpower’s desire both to demonstrate its good will to the rest of the world and to rescue children from Communism…” (Mather).
The beginning of the United States’ pursuit of adoption was in no doubt influenced by political efforts to secure itself as a superpower, confirming it by being able to take on additional children. This is not the case anymore; in fact, most receiving countries don’t care much about intercountry adoption unless it results in a negative reporting about intercountry adoption in the media and public outcry about the violation of rights of children and birth parents (Breuning).
The violation of the rights of children and their birth parents isn’t only an embarrassment for the receiving country. It also highlights the auxiliary role the sending country has as mentioned previously. To combat the conflict between the master and auxiliary roles, an increased amount of nationalism rose in Russia. The chairman of the President’s Council for Human Rights claimed that many members thought that international adoption was a “disgrace for Russia”, again referring back to the struggle as a superpower nation in an auxiliary position (Lipman). There had always been some humiliation when it came to Russian adoption. So when the opportunity arose for Russia to retaliate against the United States with adoption, they took it. Even though the Russian adoption ban is called the Dima Yakovlev law, it is also referred to as the anti-Magnitsky law.
The Magnitsky Act is named after Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who “untangled a dense web of tax fraud and graft involving 23 companies and a total of $230 million linked to the Kremlin and individuals close to the government” (Horton). While in jail, he mysteriously died, and in the investigations that followed, it was determined that he didn’t have adequate care. The law signed by President Obama blocked “18 Russian government officials and businessmen from entering the United States, froze any assets held by US banks and banned their future use of US banking systems” as they were involved in human rights violations (Horton). Many Russians saw this act to be hypocritical of the United States because the US government has also been involved in various human rights violations, such as in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq. Then, with Russian adoptions, there have also been children’s rights violations. During his press conference, Vladimir Putin responded with, “If we are slapped, we need to respond. Otherwise we will be slapped all the time” (Lipman), hinting at the intentions behind the adoption ban.
The Dima Yakovlev law split the Russian public into two. Some expressed worry for the orphans who would be affected, and some became adamant about Russians caring for their own. The Russian Orthodox Church split as well. One side supported the ban, but “Bishop Panteleimon, in charge of the church’s charities, suggested that decisions having to do with children had been guided by ‘political opportunism’” (Lipman).
The United States also had a jarring reaction to the ban. Officials “urged the Russian government not to entangle orphaned children in politics” (Herzenhorn). One of the lucky parents who still managed to adopt their Russian child despite the ban expressed their frustration with, “‘I can’t even fathom what is happening, something so political that has absolutely nothing to do with children’” (Herszenhorn). Despite all the pushback and criticism for dragging children into politics, Russia maintains the ban in what many see as spite towards the US.
China was also put in the position of having to balance its master role with its auxiliary role as a sending country. However, their approach greatly differed from Russia's. In fact, it is reminiscent of the United State’s initial intent on intercountry adoption. China fully embraced its role as a sending country and used it to its advantage. Leslie K. Wang in her book Outsourced Children: Orphanage Care and Adoption in Globalizing China, claims that China’s international adoption system is a means of soft globalization. She also acknowledges China’s “desire for “high quality”, or suzhi gao [素质高], citizens to represent the country’s global image” (Samura). For the highest quality of citizens, the highest quality of resources is required. This was near impossible at the time as there was a lack of resources in general; therefore, the One-Child policy was formed.
As mentioned before, girls and those with special needs were abandoned leaving them in orphanages for Westerns to adopt. But, they weren’t forgotten in China’s effort to maintain a high-quality image. China outsourced “the care of locally devalued children to Westerners who, using their own resources, remake them into global citizens” (Wang). In other words, China had Western volunteers care for the children so that they would be more appealing to the Western audience. The adoptees would become “high quality” citizens in the Western world which would “secure the country’s future, enhance China’s image abroad, and fund the local child welfare system” (Samura). With the lack of publicized scandals and the use of “outsourced intimacy”, China’s auxiliary role of being a sending country is often disregarded.
Furthermore, adoptions from East Asian countries have been romanticized with the tale of The Invisible Red Thread. The traditional Chinese folktale, “an invisible red thread connects those destined to meet, regardless of the time, place, or circumstance. The thread may stretch or tangle, but never break”, has been adapted to portray the connection of Chinese adoptees with Western parents to be predestined (Nguyen). This further indicates China fully embracing adoption which it would use to its advantage in its quest for “high quality”.
It is evident that international adoption is more than the transfer of children to a better home. The very history of intercountry adoption was built on competition between nations. It is a symbol of power or lack of. It creates another dimension to international relations as it further connects countries to one another. There is a clear power dynamic between the sending and receiving nations that alters diplomacy with one another, ultimately harming the children they are supposedly helping.
A significant example of this is with Russia and the United States. Despite a growing economy, Russia maintained a weaker role by still sending children abroad. It affected its major role on the world stage as a superpower nation, creating bitterness and embarrassment over the situation. The nation was further bothered by news of child abuse in the United States. To them, that indicated that Russian children were just commodities to Americans, even though the overall percentage was exaggerated. With the introduction of the Magnitsky Law, Russia became infuriated with the hypocrisy of the US and retaliated. Children were then forced into politics and the relationship between the countries became even more strained. Intercountry adoption became a weapon in the nation’s competition.
On the contrary, intercountry adoption didn’t seem to have much impact on US-China relations. Most of the reason international adoption from China has gone down is due to its increasing economy and the new focus on domestic adoption. The child trafficking scandals gained little media attention until recently, when it became too late. If the stories had gained traction when they occurred, there might’ve been a similar reaction to the Uyghur genocide from both the US public and government. However, this didn’t happen and adoption continued. China was unaffected by its status as a sending country and instead embraced it to advance itself as a global superpower. In a way, intercountry adoption was also a tool for China in its battle for recognition.
Although China and Russia have a similarly complex relationship with the United States, the effects of intercountry adoption on diplomacy differed, indicating the intricacy of intercountry adoption relating to power dynamics. Intercountry adoption shattered a part of the US’s connection with Russia and virtually did nothing with China. As China’s economy continues to improve, intercountry adoption will steadily decline as it has for the past decade. And with growing tensions between Russia and the United States, it is unlikely that a system of adoption will ever reform. There is no telling of what the future of intercountry adoption will be as other sending countries undergo similar situations to that of China and Russia.
abc7NY. “Couple in International Tug-of-War over over Child They Are Hoping to Adopt from Russia: Abc7 New York.” ABC7 New York, https://abc7ny.com/archive/8934130/.
Holt International. “About.” Holt International, 30 Mar. 2022, https://www.holtinternational.org/about/.
“Adoption Statistics.” U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/Intercountry-Adoption/adopt_ref/adoption-statistics-esri.html.
Allen, Cheryl L. "The US-Russian Child Adoption Agreement: An End to Failed Adoptions." Fordham International Law Journal, vol. 35, no. 6, November 2012, p. 1690-1742. HeinOnline.
Barry, Ellen. “Russian Furor over U.S. Adoptions Follows American's Acquittal in Boy's Death.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 Jan. 2009, https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/world/europe/04adopt.html.
Brandeis University. “History of International Adoption.” The Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism, https://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/adoption/history.html.
Bratersky, Alexander. “15 Months Later, Boy Rejected by U.S. Mother Lives in Orphanage.” The Moscow Times, The Moscow Times, 27 Apr. 2022, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2011/07/27/15-months-later-boy-rejected-by-us-mother-lives-in-orphanage-a8548.
Breuning, Marijke. “Samaritans, Family Builders, and the Politics of Intercountry Adoption.” International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 14, no. 4, Special Issue on Feminism in International Relations, Nov. 2013, pp. 417–435.
Breuning, Marijke. “What Explains Openness to Intercountry Adoption?” Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 94, No. 1 (MARCH 2013), 2013, pp. 113–130.
Breuning, Marijke, and Anna Pechenina. “Role Dissonance in Foreign Policy: Russia, Power, and Intercountry Adoption.” Foreign Policy Analysis, vol. 16, no. 1, 2019, pp. 21–40., https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orz004.
Budiman, Abby, and Mark Hugo Lopez. “Amid Decline in International Adoptions to U.S., Boys Outnumber Girls for the First Time.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 30 May 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/17/amid-decline-in-international-adoptions-to-u-s-boys-outnumber-girls-for-the-first-time/.
ChinaDaily. “No Babies in Trafficking Case Sent to US.” China, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-03/17/content_542254.htm.
Cooper, Jonathan J. “Politician Charged in Human Trafficking Adoption Scheme.” AP NEWS, Associated Press, 10 Oct. 2019, https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-us-news-arizona-arkansas-phoenix-dfd0e122c2034c84b051343ccf09b105.
Custer, Charlie. “Kidnapped and Sold: Inside the Dark World of Child Trafficking in China.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 14 Apr. 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/07/kidnapped-and-sold-inside-the-dark-world-of-child-trafficking-in-china/278107/.
Doe, Nancy. Zoom interview. 28 February 2022.
*interviewee didn’t want use of their last name
Hagar, Rebecca L. “Child Fatality in Intercountry Adoption: What Media Reports Suggest about Deaths of Children in the US.” Children and Youth Services Review, vol. 55, 6 June 2015, pp. 182–192.
Hague Conference on Private International Law, Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, 29 May 1993, 33, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ddcb1794.html [accessed 19 April 2022]
Herszenhorn, David M., and Erick Eckholm. “Putin Signs Bill That Bars U.S. Adoptions, Upending Families.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 Dec. 2012, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/28/world/europe/putin-to-sign-ban-on-us-adoptions-of-russian-children.html.
Horton, Alex. “Analysis | the Magnitsky Act, Explained.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 25 Nov. 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/14/the-magnitsky-act-explained/.
Johnson, Kay. “Politics of International and Domestic Adoption in China .” Law & Society Review, Vol. 36, No.2 Special Issue on Nonbiological Parenting, 2002, pp. 379–396.
Lipman, Masha. “What's behind the Russian Adoption Ban?” The New Yorker, 21 Dec. 2012, https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/whats-behind-the-russian-adoption-ban.
McKee, Kimberly. Disrupting Kinship: Transnational Politics of Korean Adoption in the United States. University of Illinois Press, 2019.
Memmott, Mark. “U.S. Families Stunned by Russia's Ban on Adoptions.” NPR, NPR, 28 Dec. 2012, https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/12/28/168186652/u-s-families-stunned-by-russias-ban-on-adoptions.
Mignot, Jean-François. “Why Is Intercountry Adoption Declining Worldwide? | Cairn ...” Cairn Info , https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_POPSOC_519_0001--why-is-intercountry-adoption-declining.htm.
Mirah Riben, Facing the Real Issues in International Adoption, Russ. BEYOND THE HEADLINES (May 21, 2010), http:/irbth.ru/articlesi2010,05/21 lacing issues_international-adoptions.html (highlighting the previous difficulty of follow-ups due to the American citizenship status of the adoptees).
Mullen, Andrew. “What Was China's One-Child Policy and Why Was It so Controversial?” South China Morning Post, 1 June 2021, https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3135510/chinas-one-child-policy-what-was-it-and-what-impact-did-it.
Newell, Herbie. “China Adoption with Karla Thrasher.” The Defender Podcast, Lifeline Children’s Services, Jul 2017. Spotify app.
Nguyen, Jeff, et al. “About This Site.” Red Thread Broken, 3 Nov. 2015, https://redthreadbroken.wordpress.com/about/this-site/.
Research-China.Org. “Hunan -- One Year after -- Part One.” Hunan -- One Year After -- Part One, 1 Jan. 1970, http://research-china.blogspot.com/2006/10/hunan-one-year-after-part-one.html.
Samura, Michelle, et al. “Outsourced Children: Orphanage Care and Adoption in Globalizing China by Leslie K. Wang (Review).” Journal of Asian American Studies, vol. 22, no. 2, June 2019, pp. 270–272.
Seabrook, John, et al. “The Last Babylift.” The New Yorker, 3 May 2010, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/05/10/the-last-babylift.
Tedford, Deborah. “Russian Case Spotlights Potential Adoption Risks.” NPR, NPR, 13 Apr. 2010, https://www.npr.org/2010/04/13/125903954/russian-case-spotlights-potential-adoption-risks.
UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, p. 3, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b38f0.html [accessed 19 April 2022]
UN General Assembly, Declaration on Social and Legal Principles relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children, with special reference to Foster Placement and Adoption Nationally and Internationally : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 6 February 1987, A/RES/41/85, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/5290a1cf4.html [accessed 25 April 2022]
“U.S. Relations with China - United States Department of State.” U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, 27 May 2021, https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-china/.
“U.S. Relations with Russia - United States Department of State.” U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, 23 Feb. 2022, https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-russia/.
Wang, Leslie K. Outsourced Children: Orphanage Care and Adoption in Globalizing China. Stanford University Press, 2016.
Xinhua-English. “Hunan Scandal.” China | English.news.cn, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-11/24/content_3828880.htm.