After Syrian Regime’s Collapse, Revelations Of NGO Complicity In Disappearance Of Children

-Analysis-

DAMASCUS — The case of Dr. Rania Al-Abbasi and her children was the initial spark that shed light on the issue of both local and international child care institutions. Investigative reports indicate that these institutions were directly involved in concealing children and manipulating their official documents.

In 2013, Syrian regime forces detained Dr. Rania Al-Abbasi and her six children in Damascus. Despite her family’s efforts to obtain any information about their fate, no concrete details have emerged.

Her brother, Hassan Al-Abbasi, published a video recounting his communications with international NGO SOS Children’s Villages in Damascus after receiving information that his sister’s children might be there under false names.

In a statement, SOS Children’s Villages admitted that it did indeed receive the children of detainees at the request of the Syrian regime until 2019, and that it later requested the regime to stop transferring these children to them. This statement served as an official acknowledgment that the NGO housed children until 2019 and suggested that other institutions continued this practice either concurrently with or after SOS Children’s Villages stopped accepting children.

This raises critical questions about the role of childcare institutions and the functions they perform, whether they operate independently or are deeply embedded in the authoritarian system.

A political role

Historically, orphanages have played political roles and have not always served children’s best interests or represented the benevolent face of charitable work. Often, they have been tools used by authorities to erase authentic identities, manipulate children, and prepare them for submission to prevailing authorities, their cultures and their agendas.

For instance, in Canada, the institutional childcare system began in 1831 with the establishment of 139 residential schools that targeted more than 150,000 Indigenous children. In 1920, an Indigenous Affairs official declared that the primary goal of orphanages was to eliminate the “Indian problem,” which was perceived as an obstacle to colonial expansion and exploitation of natural resources in Indigenous territories.

The colonial legacy of institutional childcare models spread to all Arab countries subjected to colonialism.

These institutions, known as residential schools, separated children from their families, language, and local culture through compulsory missionary activities led by the Catholic Church. The results were catastrophic: Child mortality rates in these institutions reached 40%, only 3% of children advanced to middle school, and family and cultural ties were decimated, leaving generations grappling with profound psychological and social consequences.

Studies reveal that individuals who lived in these institutions lack social skills and struggle to form family relationships, contributing to high rates of addiction and crime. Many also suffered sexual abuse in church-run institutions.

Heavy legacy

This institutional childcare system left a heavy legacy, demanding significant reform efforts as successive generations continue to bear the scars of forced family separation. The colonial legacy of institutional childcare models spread to all Arab countries subjected to colonialism. This approach, despite its disastrous effects on children, flourished in the region, especially in Lebanon and Syria.

In Lebanon, the childcare system became sectarian, with each sect establishing its orphanages under the guise of charity. Yet these institutions sought to erase children’s individual identities, making them indebted to the caregiving system and, by extension, the sect, leader, or politician behind it.

Claims of mandatory compliance with local pressures do not justify such actions.

The SOS Children’s Villages’ model has not strayed far from this methodology. These villages spread worldwide, reflecting the colonial ethos of nations and their subjugation to local authorities.

It is also important to acknowledge that many international organizations operate under oppressive regimes in the countries where they are present, raising significant ethical concerns. During Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for example, Russia forcibly separated Ukrainian children from their families, transferring them to Russia for adoption or placing them in SOS Children’s Villages to erase their Ukrainian identities and assimilate them into the Russian system.

Flagrant violations

At the time, the organization faced significant criticism for implementing state policies. The international organization justified these actions in Russia as individual decisions by local staff under the regime’s influence. In response to European pressure, SOS Children’s Villages International decided on May 18, 2023, to sever ties with its operations in Russia.

This is not the first time SOS Children’s Villages, as an international organization or through its local affiliates, has been implicated in the disappearance of children. Claims of mandatory compliance with local pressures do not justify such actions, which represent a flagrant violation of children’s rights.

The international organization must take responsibility for providing information about the fate of these children and conduct a comprehensive review of institutional childcare practices. The forced separations in Canada, the discovery of unmarked graves beneath childcare institutions, the abuses revealed in Syria and prior incidents in Ukraine compel us to reconsider the viability of a childcare system that has repeatedly failed.