Russian Politicians Doom Orphans as Orthodox Christmas Approaches

On December 26th, 2012 the Federation Council, Russia's upper house of Parliament, upheld a controversial new law [GV] banning adoptions of Russian children by Americans. In the biting cold of Russian winter bloggers took to Twitter, rather than the streets, to vent about the unanimity of the vote. Echo Moskvy's Tonia Samsonova was particularly disappointed [ru] by one of the Senators:

Я отказываюсь верить, что Светлана Журова голосовала ЗА. Мне плохо от этого.

I refuse to believe that [Olympic speed-skating champion] Svetlana Zhurova voted AYE. Makes me feel sick.

Others, like photographer Vladimir Ternovsky, turned to humor [ru]:

В Совете Федерации только один разумный человек. Некто Ноль, проголосовавший против закона “Димы Яковлева”

In the Federation Council there is only one sensible person. Someone named Zero, who voted against the “Dima Yakovlev” law.

Since Vladimir Putin has signaled that he will sign the legislation, humor may be the only response left. After all, the unanimous vote throws into stark contrast the failure of the prolific online campaign against the law. People signed online petitions, activists threw eggs at the State Duma, social workers blogged first hand accounts of life in the Russian orphanages. Many hoped that as a result at least some politicians would be swayed to take a principled stance, all to no avail.

Of course, some blame the public campaign itself for the entrenchment of anti-adoption advocates. On December 23rd Maksim Kononenko, an opponent of the law, wrote a post titled “Good Defeats Good,” wherein he criticized [ru] a new approach taken by online activists:

Вот правильно говорят, что страшнее дурака — дурак с инициативой. Во всей этой дискуссии вокруг запрета на усыновление на стороне противников запрета было колоссальное моральное преимущество. […] ради бессмысленного позерского фокуса дураки с инициативой загубили самую важную гражданскую кампанию в постсоветской истории.

It's true what they say, a fool with initiative is more dangerous than just a fool. In the debates over the adoption ban the opponents had a colossal moral advantage. […] for a pointless pretentious trick, fools with initiative destroyed the most important civic campaign in post-Soviet history.

We the People petition on Screenshot. December 27, 2012.

Kononenko was referring to a petition [en] that was created on December 21st using the White House's direct-democracy “We the People” initiative. “We the People” guarantees review by the Administration of any petition that reaches 25,000 signatures within a month. The petition in question, written in somewhat awkward English, urges the United States to “Identify Russian law-makers jeopardizing lives of Russian orphans,” that is, any MP who votes for the adoption ban. Furthermore, the petition asks that these MPs be included in the list of Russian officials banned from travel to the US by the “Magnitsky Act.” [GV]

Shortly after it was created, the petition was endorsed by popular opposition bloggers Rustem Adagamov [ru] and Andrei Malgin [ru], who pushed forth the idea that one does not have to be an American citizen to sign the petition. As Adagamov wrote [ru] a day later:

В числе подписавших, в основном, россияне, однако, в правилах подписания петиции ничего не говорится о гражданстве подписавшего

The signers are mainly Russian, but, nowhere in the petition rules does it say anything about the citizenship of the undersigned

Such a petition is surreal on many levels. First, it is a fine irony that the Magnitsky Act is called to combat a law that was developed by Russian parliamentarians in direct retaliation to the Magnitsky Act in the first place. Second, quite obviously the White House did not foresee an occasion where foreigners would want lodge a petition with the US President, and so failed to include any citizenship limitations. This lead Roman Leibov, a University of Tartu professor and one of the first Russian users of LiveJournal, to exclaim [ru] on Facebook:

Не надо подписывать дурацких петиций! И распространять на них ссылок тоже не надо! Сайт Белого Дома – это какой-то подвергшийся сексуальному надругательству стыд, там нет ни системы гражданской идентификации, ни системы борьбы с накрутками. В результате под петициями красуются подписи Вуглускра И., а телеящик в понедельник расскажет об этой комедии всем потребителям телеящика.

Don't sign any foolish petitions! And don't disseminate links either! The White House website is a sexually desecrated disgrace, there is no system of citizen ID, no system of fighting fraud. As a result petitions are signed by the proverbial Mike Rotch, and come Monday the TV well make sure to tell all TV consumers of this joke.

DemVybor's Kirill Shulika latched on to yet a third issue [ru]:

Я занимаюсь политикой в России и поэтому решать свои внутренние проблемы я буду сам. И вам советую. Депутатов, что приняли людоедский закон надо не в Америку не пускать, а переизбирать и выгонять отовсюду в России с волчьим билетом.

I do politics in Russia, and I will solve my internal problems on my own. And I suggest you do too. Deputies who adopted the inhumane law shouldn't be banned from America, but should rather stand for reelection and be expelled from Russia with no chance of return.

The dissident ecologist Suren Gazaryan, on the run from law for trespassing on government property, agreed [ru]:

Это именно то, что бесит меня в нашем обществе. Наивная и необоснованная надежда на помощь Обамы, который накажет наших идиотов-депутатов.

This is what drives me insane about your society. A naive and unsubstantiated hope for help from Obama, who will punish our idiot deputies.

On the other hand, Dmitry Olshansky, until recently a staunch defender of the status quo, argued [ru] that lodging a complaint can be a good thing, even if it subverts the “chain of command”:

Вероятность, что жалобу там рассмотрят так, как хотели бы здесь, весьма мала – там тоже сидят бюрократы и лицемеры, – но это все равно лучше, чем ничего. […] “Суверенитет” здесь – это типичная бандитская ловушка. “Не смей говорить родителям, не смей говорить завучу, не смей говорить милиции, сиди и молчи, у нашего класса в школе суверенитет, и поэтому мы и дальше будем бить тебя ногами”.

The possibility that the complaint will be examined the way people would want it to is rather small – there they are also bureaucrats and hypocrites, – but it's still better than nothing. […] “Sovereignty” here is a classic gangster trap. “Don't you dare tell your parents, or the dean, or the police, sit down and shut up, our classroom has sovereignty at this school, and so we will continue to beat you.”

In the comments to his post Olshansky was attacked by conservative publicists Egor Kholmogorov and Maksim Sokolov, who accused him of being a flip-flopper or worse, a provocateur. Kholmogorov insinuated [ru] that people who sign the petition would be in danger from the Russian secret services if a list of their names ever got out.

That would be quite a list, since the petition reached 54,521 signatures by the time the signing process was closed by website administrators, thus passing the 25,000 mark required for review. Shortly afterward, a statement by the National Security Staff appeared on the page:

The United States shares your concerns regarding the bill passed by the Russian Duma […] We will continue to raise these concerns with Russian government.

This amused [ru] publicist Stanislav Yakovlev to no end:

Хохочу. Извините. Кстати, подобные ответы со стороны российского правительства принято называть – в определенной среде – “циничными отписками”.

Roaring with laughter. Sorry. By the way, in some circles such responses from the Russian government are known as “cynical come-offs”.

Unfortunately it looks like Russia won't be able to borrow American democracy or create a civil society from scratch. It will have to develop its own — as painful as the process has proven to be so far.

Update: On December 28th Putin signed the law, disappointing some, like DemVybor's leader Vladimir Milov [ru], who until the last moment believed that he wouldn't. Many, like Echo Moskvy's Vladmir Varfolomeev have noted [ru] that:

Царь Путин подписал антисиротский закон в день, когда чтят память младенцев, убитых по приказу царя Ирода. Это он специально?

King Putin signed the anti-orphan law on the day, when we honor the memory of the infants slaughtered at the behest of King Herod. Was that on purpose?


  • “Doom” orphans? Come on!!! Don’t portray US as the savior of Russian children. There are other people willing to adopt these kids in Russia and elsewhere across the world. It’s not that these children are “doomed” without Americans.

    • “These kids” are some of the 760,000 children not in parental custody in Russia. Russian family rarely adopt orphans after the age of 3-4. And it’s not about Americans being the savior of Russian Orphans, it’s that they are taking away an opportunity of these kids getting loving homes, so Putin can make a political statement.

      • Mark

        I hope the implication is not that nice Americans will be glad to adopt all your orphans that Russians will not take. According to State Department figures, the vast majority of intercountry adoptions that took place in the USA involved children less than 3 years old. A further significant majority were girls.

        Furthermore, intercountry adoptions by Americans have fallen by half in the past 7 years, from a high point in 2004. Intercountry adoptions have grown steadily more expensive and time-consuming, which is why adoptive countries jump on any nation that takes shortcuts, like Guatemala – from which the western governments now no longer permit adoption.

        The USA has a huge backlog of nearly a half-million children either awaiting adoptive homes or in foster care. Many of them are African-American. Those kids need homes, too. Is the assumption that a U.S. group home is so much superior to a Russian orphanage that American kids should be glad to live there until they’re too old to receive state support any longer, and have to move out?

        Countries that signed the Hague Convention of 1993 have to comply with strict international standards, and – as well – Russia already mandates that before a child can be adopted from abroad, there must be a six-month search for adoptive parents within Russia. That one results from the U.S. woman who sent her 7-year-old adopted son back to Russia on a plane, unaccompanied, in 2010.

        Russian complainers are going about this all wrong. Instead of fighting against the government decision – the alternative to which is to raise your face for more spit every time the USA decides to spit in it with some other new law that punishes Russians without even the benefit of a trial – would be to press the government for stronger incentives that would induce more Russians to adopt. It is unthinkable the Russian government would not respond to the Magnitsky Act, which already has the Russian opposition joyfully knocking on the door with new lists of people it wants added to the list because they didn’t vote the way they wanted, or helped approve the NGO law. Those issues have nothing whatever to do with Sergei Magnitsky.

  • […] post [ru], ntv stated as a fait accompli that Adagamov, who has recently been speaking out against Russia's anti-adoption law, is a pedophile. He also stated that he contacted Delsal to confirm her identity as the author of […]

  • […] such material), and—more recently—they passed a law to put an end to the scourge of American adoptions of Russian orphans. Law-makers have now zeroed in on the next heinous threat: “homosexual […]

  • […] orphans. First they became unwitting pawns in Russia’s diplomatic spat with the US, and adoptions by Americans were banned [GV] in retaliation for the American “Magnitsky List” back in December […]

  • […] на дипломатската препирка на Русија и САД, со што посвојувањето на деца од страна на Американци беше заб… во знак на одмазда за американската „Магнитцки […]

  • […] orphans. First they became unwitting pawns in Russia’s diplomatic spat with the US, and adoptions by Americans were banned [GV] in retaliation for the American “Magnitsky List” back in December 2012. Then, on […]

  • […] ロシア議会による、少々過度とも言える子供たちへの保護活動はまだまだ続く。昨年は、ロシアの青少年を児童ポルノや薬物使用、自殺を誘発するようなウェブサイトから護るべく、ブラックリストを作るなど、ロシア下院議員たちは躍起になって活動した。また最近ではアメリカの家族に養子にされた後、アメリカ人の養親からロシア孤児への虐待に終止符を打つための法律(訳注:アメリカへの養子縁組禁止法)を可決した。 […]

Join the conversation

Authors, please log in »


  • All comments are reviewed by a moderator. Do not submit your comment more than once or it may be identified as spam.
  • Please treat others with respect. Comments containing hate speech, obscenity, and personal attacks will not be approved.