Chronicle of Agnes Arpi Journalist, freelance columnist Althing The adoption investigation shows that the critical voices deserve an apology

The investigation speaks clearly: Swedish authorities and organizations have accepted procedures and acted in ways that have made it difficult and in some cases impossible to assess whether an adoption is in the best interests of the child, writes Agnes Arpi.

So there she finally stood on June 2, Anna Singer, professor of civil law and special investigator for the Adoption Commission, who has been investigating international adoptions to Sweden for more than three years. An investigation that has been characterized by several extended investigation periods, criticism of the expert group and leaks from the same .

Her conclusions were difficult for some to digest, especially the one that the placement of children for adoption in Sweden should be discontinued. For others, it is a long-awaited victory.

Ten countries, not ten cases

A reporter present at the press conference asked about the number of cases of child trafficking, and was told “ten”. The information was immediately spread. Is it really that much to talk about that only ten people out of 60,000 were victims? In Aktuellt that same evening, Singer was clear: the matter concerned ten countries investigated. So the dimensions changed in a second, but the desire to misunderstand and trivialize the extent remained in the open.

Is it really that much to talk about that only ten people out of 60,000 were exposed? In Aktuellt that same evening, Singer was clear: the matter concerned ten countries investigated.
 

In several appearances, as well as in the introduction to the report, Singer is exemplarily clear that it is not about quality of life, but about violations of rights. She writes :

"Many times during the course of my work I have received the view that there have been no irregularities and regardless, there is no point in looking for them, the children who have been adopted have done well. That is certainly the case in many cases. But whether a person has or has not had a good life cannot affect the answer to the question I have to investigate, namely whether that person's human and other rights have been violated. These are two different things that are not always so easy to keep apart, but which must each be answered separately."

The arguments echo hollowly

Yet even now, in the ensuing debate, the argument “they have had a good life” is heard. It rings hollow. Partly because, as Singer emphasizes, it is not part of the factual issue. But also because it does not rhyme well with the stark, nuanced reality.

All those who didn't get a "good life" then? Those who were abused in various ways in the homes they came to, by the people who were supposed to love them and protect them, Swedes who the whole society considered extra good and suitable? Those who were bullied, abused, suffered from mental illness and took their own lives? Those who are so clearly overrepresented in the statistics regarding loneliness, vulnerability and premature death?

This is not the point either, but for the sake of these people, we can at least acknowledge that they exist. Not least when another of the investigation's conclusions is that a national resource center for adopted people should be established to offer adoption-specific support. Something that was proposed but not heeded more than 20 years ago.

The crimes have been going on for decades

Another argument that stubbornly lives on is “in the majority of cases, things have gone right.” How do you know that, you in the comments section? Where do you get your opinion from besides the discomfort in the pit of your stomach and a desire for justice in the world? There is no such information.

What we know for sure is that the shortcomings and crimes have been going on for decades, that the actors involved have had a high level of trust when they should not have had it, and that the supervisory authority's mission has paradoxically also been to promote adoptions. What we know is, for example, this, as the investigation writes about Chile:

"Our review shows that there have been irregularities in adoptions from Chile to Sweden throughout the period that AC mediated adoptions from Chile. These include abducted children (also referred to as stolen or kidnapped children), lack of voluntary and informed consent to adoption from the child's parents, incorrect information about the children's background and how they became available for adoption, and deviations from the international adoption process. In addition, it is clear that Swedish authorities and organizations have accepted procedures and acted in ways that have made it difficult and in some cases impossible to assess whether an adoption is in the best interests of the child."

It happened when Kristersson was chairman of the Adoptionscentrum

The Adoption Commission has spent three and a half years investigating irregularities like these.

"It concerns isolated cases" echoes hollowly when you read about the scope and systematicity.

The same applies to "it was a long time ago". The investigation reports, among other things, the trade in Chinese children also in the 2000s, several of whom were adopted to Sweden. This was already known to the Swedish authorities when it happened, and the knowledge probably also reached the future Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, who was chairman of the Adoptionscentrum from 2003 to 2005. Now he has to deal with an investigation that proposes to put an end to what he has wanted to promote, and which is deeply critical of how the adoptions have been handled.

The investigation vindicates all those opposed

The inquiry also proposes a public apology to adoptees and their families. As its meaning and form are now being discussed, I would like to add that there is a group that deserves its own apology, and that is the people who have been saying the same things for many years that Anna Singer can now say with emphatically. The adoptees who have tried to attract attention for decades, who have discovered wrongdoings and human rights violations, who have written, debated and researched. Those who have been ridiculed and labeled as problematic, bitter and crazy. Those who have been silenced and opposed for decades, because their criticism has been unwelcome and considered dangerous.

The investigation's almost 2,000 pages are testimony that they were right. 

It may also be worth devoting at least some thought to the practices that have largely replaced adoption, but still involve separation at birth and that people are denied knowledge of and contact with their origins. Where are the fairy tales about the all-good created today? Where is it turned a blind eye the hardest? History likes to return and bite where it does the most harm. This is what international adoptions teach Sweden, a historical parenthesis that is now coming to an end.