Pentru prietenii noștri români

Mai 2010


Question about the international pressure on Romania to resume ICA.

I will not avoid the word mafia for this lobby, because there are elements which these lobby organisations use that are similar to the mafia. It is not clear and explicit which sources fund their projects. These NGOs working for intercountry adoption never cared to see what happened to the children sent abroad. They know very little or nothing about those children.

There a quote in the book (Romania- for export only) where an Italian social worker scribbled three basic sentences about a child, at his office, without visiting the child. Not least, their pressure at the European Parliament, where I came across it, is an almost permanent activity; it is aggressive and comes through dark channels.

One would expect open meetings with those who deal with this so both sides put arguments on the table and draw conclusions. But it never happens that way. It’s just them and they bring another two or four MEPs who are advocates of international adoptions but they never accept or have a transparent approach. I was part of an event that illustrates that. There, Patrizia de Luca said she was organising an event on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, but it was organised as a sort of Mafia-type event, only ‘us ourselves’ kind of approach. we invite only the NGOs we want, the NGOs pay the expenses of some guests. And at the end, a position is adopted which seemingly is issued by an international institution, or like the outcome of an international event. All of these elements confirm that, at least apparently, we are confronted with a mafia-type structure.

These NGOs have branches or supporters in Romania as well. There are two most vocal NGOs, SERA and Amici dei Bambini – who hired people from child protection directorates – who are connected to the system. Also in the US, there were interests and the lobby went up to the highest level, and often on a bilateral political agenda, the international agenda, which is unacceptable and shows a lack of verticality of the Romanian representatives.

The reason why these NGOs stay in Romania is a strategic one: for Romania to reopen intercountry adoption. They are dormant to have the necessary structures. Once Romania starts intercountry adoptions following international pressure or a domestic initiative, they will resume activity. Secondly, Romania as a fairly big country can serve as a positive or negative example. Other countries will be tempted to follow Romania’s example which will be a lethal strike for the intercountry adoption lobby. If Romania reopens, they will start immediately to identify children and prepare them for export. It is well-known that there used to be lists of children for intercountry adoptions, they had a special treatment, were in separate rooms, dressed and fed differently, their pictures were on the Internet as an offer. They were a commodity ready for international business. This should never happen again in this country.

(… Off-topic …)

Journalists ask if he was threatened because of this subject

I did not think I would be congratulated by these groups and I thought I could become their target and lots of set-ups can be created.

At some point, I notified the Romanian secret services about the potential risk regarding my security, I don’t know if any measure was taken at all, I was not told but I am not going to change my opinion.

If I was not afraid in December 1989 when there were bullets in the street, I am not going to be afraid now although the means now are much more sophisticated.

However, it is clear that they are extremely perverse and I shall refer to what Patricia de Luca told me after the first debate in the Commission when I drew her attention to the fact that the Romanian legislation and institutional framework was imposed by the European Commission and the European Parliament.

Romania benefitted from EU support, financial and technical from the European Commission. Former Vice-President Gunter Verheugen played an exceptional role and I thank him for the good he did for my country. This lady [Patrizia de Luca], who is only a head of unit, told me on an angry tone: ‘But he’s not anymore the Vice-President of the European Commission’ as if the Commission is the Commissioner’s property during his mandate and the acts and actions cease to exist when he leaves office.

That means that those who represent the lobby have no limits, they are not refrained by anything. They have no scruples and they are ready to sacrifice even their career, at least the visible one, for that objective.