Madonna meets orphans during her trip to Malawi.
The Age, 16 October 2006
JO CHANDLER
Should we be cynical about the celebrity aid offered to the poverty-stricken of Africa? Or just be plain thankful?
THE baby's surname is Banda - the Smith of Malawi. His story is also commonplace in a nation distinguished by hardship. His mother died soon after his birth, his father hadn't the money or ability to care for him, and so he has spent his first year in an orphanage crowded with children abandoned by AIDS and poverty.
The photograph on the front of Britain's Sun newspaper shows him wrapped in a green chitenje, slung in the traditional way from the back of the woman carrying him, the fabric knotted across her chest.
The busily patterned chitenjes worn by the women of Malawi bring colour to a landscape dulled by drought, deforestation and dust. Bright sheets of fabric that flap from pegs in the market stalls, or around the legs of the women selling potatoes by the roadside, or - as with this baby - are twisted to cocoon an infant, leaving his carer's hands free for field-work or water-fetching or fire-building.
But the woman carrying 13-month-old David Banda need not concern herself with such tasks. She's come to south-eastern Africa, to a country of 12 million of the world's poorest people, on her private jet. She's brought with her - according to the barrage of accompanying press reports - an entourage of 10, a fleet of 4WD vehicles, a film crew and $US3 million to start an orphanage and school that aims to feed and educate 1000 children a day.
The woman is Madonna. With an estimated fortune of $A620 million, she's the world's highest-earning female performing artist. And she is, it now appears, the new mother of baby Banda. And suddenly his story becomes anything but ordinary.
Twelve months ago, Malawi was on the brink of catastrophe, but never did it get such attention. Then 4.7 million of its people, many of them already weakened or orphaned by HIV/AIDS, faced starvation because drought had destroyed the maize crop that feeds their tenuous existence.
The numbers became such that they could not be ignored, and the crisis found its way - modestly - into serious news magazines and newspapers like this one, which pondered how this could be happening just months after the G8 and Live8 hype that promised to end Africa's suffering.
On a trip to Malawi for The Age then, I visited villages of mud huts and failed crops with a local Caritas relief expert whose task was to identify the neediest of the needy. I sat under thin shade in the village meeting places with babies like Davie Banda. I remember rolling stones across the dirt in a giggly game with one Davie as the speeches of the elders droned on, and my translator wearied of interpreting the negotiations over who would get the rationed relief parcels.
The scene is revived by the picture of Madonna and child. My immediate reaction is visceral. Why must it take
Madonna for the world to see Davie? I question her motives, and the legacy of her actions. I ponder the fate of a child swept from his impoverished homeland and his grateful father into unimagined wealth. I wonder about the fate of the other children of Malawi. I recall the clutch of children who clamoured around me because they wanted - I finally twigged - my empty water bottles, and how I didn't know who to choose. I wonder how she

chose?
In an interview with Time in August, Madonna said that since becoming a mother "I have felt responsible for the children of the world. I've been doing bits and bobs about it, and I suppose I was looking for a big, big project I could sink my teeth into." Sight unseen, that became Malawi.
Apparently "good" is to the Noughties what greed was to the '80s. Philanthropy has become "celanthropy". Bill
Gates and Warren Buffet do it in the biggest way. And the stars. "First Bono, then Angelina Jolie, now Madonna," observed the Christian Science Monitor last week. To which add George Clooney (passionate about Darfur),
Jessica Lange (displaced people of the Democratic Republic of Congo), Oprah Winfrey (building a school in
Soweto, South Africa), Naomi Watts (AIDS in Zambia) Jessica Simpson (facial deformities in Kenya). Perhaps it is no different from you or me signing up to sponsor a child, but on a grander scale - gestures fed by conscience and guilt and hope.
The Monitor was preoccupied, like me, with the question of whether the stars' "splashy arrival in the serious world of humanitarian aid" would achieve long-term good. To which a CARE executive responded pragmatically that she was tired of singing to the choir. A celebrity reaches a wider crowd, and "to me that is really useful".
Enlisting celebrities to champion worthy causes is not new. Audrey Hepburn was revered for it. Local TV stars have lent their faces to appeals for years. But declaring themselves "The Champion" is something else. There's a whiff to it. I want to know if this unease is legitimate, to find a position.
I'm perturbed by the reports that an advance crew of Madonna Inc reconnoitred Malawi's orphanages to compile a shortlist of 12 children, from which she would choose one to take home. And by the aside in one report that until two weeks ago, she wanted a little girl. Are there parentless small girls and boys, I wonder, around Malawi who for a minute thought they might be taken home by a rich white woman? I choose to hope this is untrue.
I consider what I brought home from Malawi a year ago. Words and pictures that brought a gratifying, but shortlived spike in the coffers of Caritas. Then came Christmas, and it was gone again.
Whatever her motives - philanthropy, publicity, deification, redemption - Madonna has the canny wit to ensure her effort is not lost. She's taken advice from Bill Clinton and the esteemed Columbia University economist
Jeffrey Sachs. Sachs advises the United Nations on achieving its millennium goals to alleviate poverty. He also advises Bono. One wonders which he sees as the most useful.
Last year Sachs called on foreign donors to invest $1 billion a year in Malawi over the next decade in seed and fertiliser, irrigation and roads, electrification and drinking water. It didn't come. Of Madonna's efforts he told Time that in a "very noisy and complicated world", it took a Madonna to make a difference. "The cynics are just wrong.
They don't get it."
How should I feel about this?
I telephone my friend Carsterns Mulume of Caritas Malawi at his office in Lilongwe - a city in the grip of Madonna thrall. It was Mulume who drove me 1000 kilometres around Malawi surveying the crisis, one hand on the wheel of his beaten-up truck, the other holding his mobile phone, dispatching relief convoys. His relentless ringtone was
Ode to Joy.
Malawi, he tells me, is both better and much the same as when I left. Rain brought good crops to harvest in some parts of the country, and so the worst did not happen. But in other parts - in the villages we visited - people are still hungry. He's lobbying the government to buy the surplus and move it to areas of need. He wants to improve irrigation agriculture, drawing on the wells and rivers, and end reliance on vanishing rain.
"I have another question," I say. "Is Madonna good for Malawi?"
He responds with a deep laugh. I had forgotten the equanimity that distinguishes a veteran aid worker. "I am sure the world attention on Malawi is good for the children.
"There are so many children here who suffer badly," he says. Not just from drought and disease, but from a lack of education, from abuse, and from a culture where too-early marriage and fieldwork is stealing childhood.
"Madonna can bring attention to the children of Malawi, to the rights of the children. We don't have the resources to do this advocacy. It is important here for the children to know they have rights. For parents to be educated on how to protect the rights."
His own children are well, he says. One is in kinder. Born into Malawi's educated minority, their prospects are

good. No, they do not know who Madonna is. Not yet.
"I am happy that of all the countries in Africa, she is here," he says.
Cynicism, I must conclude, is another luxury of the rich.
 Madonna’s own arguments for adopting Davie Banda
 Other people’s arguments about Madonna adopting Davie Banda

1. Let’s not forget that Jo Chandler is not trying to persuade us one way or another on this issue. She is presenting some arguments and wondering out loud about a few aspects of the case.
2. Jo Chandle r mentions the fact that Madonna brought an entourage of ten people, a “fleet” of
4WD vehicles and a film crew with her when she came to get Davie. Chandler does not pass comment on this. So we are left guessing why it was mentioned.

Perhaps there is an implication that the film crew is there to publicise
Madonna herself (rather than help Davie)?

Perhaps it is mentioned to underscore just how rich Madonna is?

Perhaps it is meant to contrast with the way Malawian mothers carry their babies in a chitenje , so that their hands are free to continue with manual work – unlike Madonna, who does not need to do manual labour?
3. Chandler presents an irony . When Malawi was facing great hardship, when it was “on the brink of catastrophe”, it did not get attention from the world. But when a famous Westerner tried to adopt a Malawian boy, suddenly Malawi was being noticed.
Chandler says she recalled her own experiences in Malawi in the light of Madonna’s visit and her reaction was “visceral”. She felt the irony of this story very deeply.
4. Chandler does not make arguments clearly and directly against Madonna’s action. Instead she wonders several things. Some of the wondering is rhetorical and some of the wondering is not rhetorical .

Does Madonna have good or
 “How should I feel about this?” appropriate motives? (The implication is that probably she does not.)

What will happen to a child who is
“swept from his impoverished homeland and his grateful father into ‘unimagined’ wealth”?
(The implication is that this will probably not all be good for Davie)

She wonders (along with the Christian
Science Monitor) about Madonna’s
“splashy arrival in the serious world of humanitarian aid”.
(The implication is that “splashy” behaviour is frivolous –
(Chandler really does not know how she should feel about it all. So this is not a loaded question.)
 “I wonder how she chose?” (Chandler found it hard to choose a ‘deserving’ child when many of them were hassling her for an empty water bottle. If that was a difficult choice, Chandler wonders, how could one choose a
‘deserving’ child, out of so many, for adoption?) not appropriate in the face of such big and serious problems. Perhaps splashiness is disrespectful too?)

Is Madonna going further than people like Audrey Hepburn. Is she taking on the role of “The Champion” of poor children? (The implication is that
Madonna might have a ‘ Messiah complex’ , thinking that only she can save everyone)

Could the reconnoitring process, in

which Madonna’s employees created a shortlist of candidates for adoption may have given some of those kids false hopes about being adopted. (Perhaps
Chandler is also insinuating that it was wrong of Madonna to send people to do this for her rather than do it face to face, herself, with the children).
5. There are some interesting metaphors .
“She was tired of singing to the choir”.
Usually we sing with a choir to an audience. Singing to the choir would be pointless because they already know the melody and the lyrics. This metaphor underlines the idea of wasting your breath making a performance when the people you want to influence are not listening.
“children abandoned by AIDS and poverty”
Actually AIDS and poverty cannot abandon anyone. Only a person can ‘abandon’ children. This type of metaphor is called metonymy . The word AIDS here really means
‘people who have died from AIDS so they cannot look after their own children anymore”. OR you could say it is
‘ anthropomorphism ’: speaking as if an abstract idea is a
“too-early marriage and fieldwork is stealing childhood”
“one Davie” (paragraph 9)
“clutch of children” person.
Once again, marriage and fieldwork can’t steal anything.
The word ‘steal’ is a more dramatic way of saying ‘have the effect of depriving the children of their childhood’.
This is not ‘the’ Davie Banda, it is another kid who is similar to Davie because h??e too is poor, orphaned and
Malawian.
We usually speak of a “clutch” of chicks or chickens. This reinforces the picture of creatures that gather around hassling you for a handout.
“Madonna Inc” This means Madonna Incorporated, as if she were a corporation rather than a human being.
6. There is Appeal to Expertise , because Jeffrey Sachs is described as “esteemed”. Chandler also seems to defer to the opinion of Carstems Mulume because he has been working on
Malawi’s poverty problems for many years; he is a “ veteran aid worker”.
?????

October 16, 2006 By Simon Hooper for CNN
(CNN) -- The world's worst-kept secret was confirmed on Friday as Madonna flew out of Malawi after her nine-day "humanitarian mission" having apparently made arrangements to adopt a 13-month old boy.
Government officials confirmed the 48-year-old pop star had been granted permission to adopt the child, named as David Banda, who has spent most of his young life in an orphanage in the southern African country.
Malawian law, which prohibits adoption by non-residents, was even waivered in Madonna's case, although a group of charities say they will seek an injunction to overturn that ruling on Monday.
Regarded earlier in her career as a trendsetter, on this occasion Madonna, who already has two children with film director husband Guy Ritchie, could merely be seen as jumping onto the latest celebrity bandwagon.
Actress Mia Farrow has adopted 10 children from developing countries since the 1970s while Angelina Jolie started the current trend for Hollywood adoptions with her four-year-old Cambodian son and 19-month-old
Ethiopian daughter.
She is now considering adopting further children with Brad Pitt, with whom she also has a daughter. And while some prospective parents may enjoy being kept guessing as to which sex their child will be, Jolie and Pitt take things one stage further.
"We don't know from which country," Jolie told CNN recently. "It's you know, another boy, another girl, which country, which race would fit best with the kids?"
In simple terms, Madonna's action may save the life of a child otherwise trapped in a society ravaged by AIDS and malnutrition. Although his father is still alive, Banda has lived in the orphanage since his mother died, with one villager admitting that, if it were not for the adoption, "we would have buried him."
Yet it's also tempting to see such actions as merely another example of the power of rampant celebrity ego in an age in which rock stars are considered authorities on global poverty and Hollywood actors are invited to address the United Nations on humanitarian crises.
Regardless of the motives of their adoptive parents, a child picked up from a developing country and dropped straight into the inevitable media spotlight becomes an unwitting poster child for poverty.
"I'm afraid only two words spring to mind: vanity project," wrote Hannah Pool, herself adopted from an Eritrean orphanage as a child, in the UK's Guardian newspaper.
"No doubt she thinks she's doing the child a favour -- but, really, this is all about her. The money she will have spent on the adoption and will spend on the child could have gone to help many more children in Malawi. But then she wouldn't have a cute black child to show off."
Although Madonna has pledged $3 million to the Raising Malawi charity, which aims to provide care and support for the country's one million (out of a total population of 12 million) orphans, even that generosity is tempered by the fact that the multi-million album-selling artist already has a fortune estimated to be worth some $460 million.
Many also argue that in most cases international adoption, whether by celebrities or mere ordinary mortals, is not in a child's best interests.
Eye of the Child, a Malawian advocacy group that is leading the campaign to stop Madonna adopting Banda, said in a statement, "It's not like selling property. It is about safeguarding the future of a human being who,

because of age, cannot express an opinion."
Save the Children's exploited children advisor Daniela Reale told CNN that the best place for a child was in their home country.
"Where it is not possible for children to be with their parents or extended family then it is preferable for the child to be cared for in their home community or adopted within their own country," Reale said.
"Clearly there are situations where this is not possible and in those circumstances international adoption may be preferable to children being kept in institutions."
Perhaps there are good reasons for concern. In 2004 UNICEF warned that "substantial" "growth in international adoptions had spurred the development of an industry driven by profit rather than the interests of the children involved.
"Abuses include the sale and abduction of children, coercion of parents, and bribery, as well as trafficking to individuals whose intentions are to exploit rather than care for children," UNICEF said.
And in a world in which celebrity tastes in clothes, haircuts and diets often evolve into wider lifestyle trends, the actions of Madonna and Jolie are unlikely to help curb such practices.
Harvey Gallagher of the British Association for Adopting and Fostering emphasized to CNN that adopting a child from overseas was "not an easy option" but said that some children had benefited from the experience -- and urged those considering adoption to look closer to home as well.
"There are many children who have benefited from intercountry adoption, but we would like to remind people that there are also as many as 4,000 children across the UK right now who are waiting for permanent and loving homes," said Gallagher.
October 24, 2006
Billy Jivetti
Opinion Columnist
Is it fathomable that someone can fly from an African country to Europe or U.S., pick and adopt a child of choice within a span of a week?
A week ago, pop singer Madonna flew into Malawi on an adoption escapade whose procedures were hastily conducted raising widespread condemnation around the world. So what are the motives behind the emerging trend by celebrities and their gig in Africa?
Malawi is a densely populated country in south-eastern Africa with a low income, poor access to medication or education, and higher prevalence of HIV-AIDS. According to the UN estimates of 2005, the life expectancy in Malawi is less than 40 years.
In a 2002 State of the World’s Mothers report by Save the Children, a US-based international non-profit working to save children, Malawi is among the leading countries highlighted for more attention. The
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) estimates about half million orphaned children in Malawi under the care of hard-up relatives.
In Malawi, international adoptions in Malawi are forbidden and anyone wishing to adopt has to be monitored by social workers for one and half years at least. The basis of such enactments is to protect children from negligent would-be parents.

Civil rights organizations are apparently angered that the Malawi government abrogated the law just to please her celebrity visitor and for the sake of international ‘publicity’ it was poised to generate.
For the Madonnas of this world, if you are rich and famous, you automatically qualify to adopt from
Africa. This is a dangerous precedent. How many of them ever put Africa in their discography?
A quick background check into the stage and social life of Madonna negates her ability to be a good model and therefore a mother for African children. All those wishing to adopt must have a clean background. A tainted and doubtful integrity is an affront to the sanctity of African cultures.
Madonna opens a conduit for celebrity misfits or perverts like sex offenders and child traffickers to begin prowling the shores of Africa for adoption. To some, African babies have been reduced to another stylish accessory that is a must-have.
The decision by Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie to have their baby born in Namibia earlier this year was great. But wasn’t it just another gimmick to attract media attention that wouldn’t have come from a delivery at a Beverly Hills Hospital where other ordinary ‘stars’ and people go for delivery?
My heart goes to U2’s Bono for his relentless efforts to highlight the poverty, debt, Aids, and other problems of Africa. He has used his wealth and status to traverse the African continent many times and continues to lobby around the world for Africa’s issues. He teamed up with Oprah recently to launch an iPod whose proceeds will go towards helping those with AIDS.
There will be more than 18 million orphans in Africa by the end of the decade, a UN report posits. Each of these children deserves to be given a second chance to experience a normal life and a lot needs to be done.
Adoptions are welcome for anybody but not the necessary means to address the problem. Rather than just pick one child out of thousands, it would be better to channel the few resources to help an entire village.
Adoptions should never be used as a subterfuge to boost one’s ego or career. Be reminded that charity begins at home. They should not pretend to be concerned about Africa while they remain insulated to the plight of destitute and disadvantaged children in these Western societies.
Oprah did not adopt, she built a school for a village, and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are helping provide technology for rural African schools. Mutombo Dikembe, a professional NBA star is constructing a multi-million dollar hospital in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Last year, African songsters gathered for a concert about malaria in Africa. Nelson Mandela, Africa’s all time celebrity always celebrates his birthdays amidst hundreds of children. That is the true spirit of
Africans.
If Madonna was to adopt a pet, she would pretty much follow the some set rules, and if that is true, then much more caution is needed for adopting children. That is why I condemn her actions as unwelcome and illegal. However, the buck stops with African nations that must not be decoyed by the whims of such self-seeking individuals.


o
o
o
o

There is a lot of debate in the adoption community about whether these celebrity adoptions are a positive or negative development. Everyone has their own opinion and each argument seems to have its' merit. So, do celebrity adoptions really hurt the adoption community?
We are a nation obsessed by celebrities. People strive to be like their favorite musicians and actors - whether it be by imitating their dress and activities or by mimicking their behavior. Unfortunately, most of what celebrities display is not very positive. However, some celebrities are doing wonderful things. They support charity organizations, become involved in relief work and encourage the public to step up and take responsibility for our world as a whole.
There are millions of orphans worldwide. These children aren't just without parents. Most of them are also doing without the basic things that we take for granted - food, clothing, a safe place to live. In addition to that, these children have no future. In my mind, there is nothing more important than improving a life of a child. In this nation that idolizes celebrities, Americans are starting to take notice of the fact that celebrities are adopting and it is increasing the numbers of people who are also interested in taking that step. Adoption agencies report that inquiries into their adoption programs rise drastically when a celebrity adoption is in the news. Certainly, many of these inquiries do not go anywhere, but some of them do and that increases the number of children who find homes.
In addition to encouraging others to adopt, celebrity adoptions play the part of making adoption a more accepted part of our society. Even though adoptions have become more and more common, adoptive families still face a lot of criticism and scrutiny in everyday life. When celebrities adopt, the idea of adoption becomes more accepted and thus more "normal" to the general public. In the long run, adoptive families become less of an oddity and instead they are simply another way of forming a loving family.
So, even though there are controversies surrounding celebrity adoptions, I believe that overall their decision to adopt is helping to encourage others to do the same. Because of that, more children are finding the loving homes and the promising futures that they deserve.