The main goal, per the Return, was “An End to the Orphanage System.” In it, “The Centres for Family Support and Child Protection supported by the Trust have pioneered family based care for vulnerable Romanian children… in ’96, the Trust said their objective was to begin its push towards this final goal: an end to the orphanage system. This will involve…lobbying for legislative change and a pilot project in Bacau.” Now, lobbying costs big money. So much, that the report estimates allocating 200k pounds to achieve what they deemed was a crucial goal. With aid money drying up, though, the incentive was clearly for a different reason.
In 1996-97, conditions in the country were worse than ever. Unsurprisingly, the intense budget cuts imposed by the EU/IMF didn't help, because now the state had no money left to put in these institutions and the foreign recipients of aid money had since cannibalized it among themselves and corrupt officials.
Journalist Nick Davies cites that British charities closed up shop, many severed ties with their on-the-ground partners at the homes, and any work that was achieved was left to languish. Like many other NGOs, The Romanian Orphanage Trust mentioned its attention was going to be focused on "technical assistance," which Davies describes as "drawing up programs, setting up experiments, and conducting studies." Just two years later, a UK minister visiting a separate site of the Trust shared to the Parliament, "I should like to mention that the [Trust]...has been working in Romania since the problems there began, and it is now closing orphanages because it has found good foster homes for the children."
By 1997 the foreign trusts got one step closer to their wish of shutting down those big bad orphanages and developing privatized, locally managed homes. Per a Guardian article: “Things began to change in 1997, when Emil Constantinescu replaced Iliescu… Constantinescu ushered in a period of greater reform. His government established a new Child Protection Authority, promoted the “family-type” apartments and introduced foster care, which had never existed in Romania.” Constantinescu was also known for another feat: accepting more IMF reforms, opening the country to foreign direct investment and liberalizing the banking sector (surprise!)
So now a lot of questions should come to mind: Why did the Trust spend so much money on government officials? If you’re running a Trust, and you’re the ones setting up the group homes for these kids as a way of getting tax dollars… then why is there the need to “collaborate” so much with the leaders of these counties at great personal expense? Why send them on lavish trips to Italy? Why create such a wide network?
They were laying the groundwork for a much more lucrative gig: trafficking and pedophilia material collection/distribution (discussed in Part II). The notion of “keeping children outside of a government-run institution” sounds like a good idea, but in fact, it led to the creation of a trafficking network that operates with impressive corporate efficiency.
By 1997, the Trust had expanded into other markets countries: Moldova, Ukraine, Bulgaria, and Albania. They had also shed their name of the Romanian Orphanage Trust and took on a new name: the European Children's Trust.
Moldova is a carbon copy of what happened in Romania, economically, legally, and the work carried out by this trust and all prominent ones in the European NGO sphere.
Moldova’s economy got f’ed harder than most, all by the same machinations as what happened in Romania: per the book Sex Trafficking—“Moldova suffered the steepest decline, as its economy shrank to 35% its size in 1990… in 1990, Moldova had no external debt. By the end of 2006, Moldova’s debt had escalated to $2.1 billion, almost the same size as the entire Moldovan economy. Much of this debt took the form of structural adjustment loans from the IMF, which mandated the sharp cutbacks in government spending above.”
Oh, Soros also set up “The Soros Foundation-Moldova” in 1992, the same year as they received a spot in the UN. It should go without saying that where Soros went, so too did these children's charities. And, like these Trusts, he too made sure he bought government cooperation: Here he is buying off staff members of the Prime Minister in 2014.
Also, Soros's group communicates with Stratfor, the UK intelligence agency. Thus, democracy is only promoted if it benefits his brand of it, and no one else's.
Like so many post-Communist states, Moldova had big problems with organized criminals being indistinguishable from politicians. According to the book, “Conflict, Crime, and the State of Post-Communist Eurasia,”:
Organized crime in Moldova, particularly in the Transnistrian region, can be roughly divided in two main categories. Criminal networks that have evolved from the Soviet “thieves in law” tradition represent the first category. The second category is organized criminal activity controlled by political and economic elites…”
Trust Activities in Moldova
A lot of what the Trust did in Moldova has the same blueprint as Romania: state how deplorable the government conditions are, express the desire to totally abolish orphanages, “decentralize social services” (and put it in their hands), make best buddies with the authorities, and use those connections to develop “cross links” between Italy, Greece, and Romania. In Moldova, they worked in the regions of Chisinad, Cricova, and with the Tiraspol Town Council. Important fact: they made an alliance of sorts between Moldova and Romania. The Trust also reached into Transnistria, which is a Russia-dominated, lawless faction of Moldova.
The easy PR-based money grabs kept on, too, with captivating, gruesome imagery used as the bait. In one appeal to donors a "staff member" Peter Bailey (who I can't find anywhere, other than being a Romanian writer frequenting in the same circles as Soros) claimed, "last winter was the worst I've ever witnessed. In Casa de Coppii some of the girls froze to their beds and several died in agony. This orphanage needs 1,600,000 Moldovan lei (around pounds 40,000) a year to keep it running... unless funds are raised elsewhere in Europe, many of these children will be dead by Christmas." Also, before anyone believes that this could actually happen, the EU Commission would sooner step in and offer emergency humanitarian support--EU Commissioner Roesli describes hearing several such hyperbolic claims, only to call those with boots on the ground to learn of no such catastrophe. Such PR also came with a classic "appeal to authority" by mentioning the Trust was run by "The Rt Hon Lord Younger of Prestwick, KT, KCVO, TD, DL," "...chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Romanian Orphanage Trust - the agency which successfully led Britain's response to the orphanage situation in Romania 1990."
The European Children's Trust's on-the-ground work entailed the usual meetings and buy-ins of local officials. . I’ll just copy and paste their work here, taken from these sources.
"Social work services in Moldova have greatly benefited from both the previous project inherited by North Lanarkshire Council, and from the study visit to the area undertaken earlier this year. The members and officers involved in the study group have subsequently reshaped their child care services, drawing heavily on the models they observed in North Lanarkshire, and particularly on the decentralised social work structure."
Highland Council, Piemonte Region in Italy, the European Childrens’ Trust, Bacau County Council in Romania, ChisinadCricova Municipality of Moldova, and the Tiraspol Town Council in Moldova.
The earliest documented intervention by ECT in Moldova is the 1995 Protocol of Collaboration concluded between the Mayor of Chişinău and ECT. The document outlines agreement under the Ouverture Programme to link the Strathclyde Regional Council in Scotland, the Regional Government of Piedmont in Italy and Bacău County Council in Romania to support the Chişinău Municipality in establishing a child protection working group with the guidance of ECT. This four-way collaboration had the following objectives: _ To identify cases of abandoned children and achieve their family reintegration _ To organize joint actions of the actors involved in child protection _ To process and provide information to the administration of the Chişinău Municipality and other authorities involved in child protection decision-making
4.1 Innovative Direct Service Models In Hîncești, ECT assessed all the girls and made recommendations for deinstitutionalisation, as well as working to prevent new admissions. At the time these were new and innovative service models, which were virtually non-existent in Moldova prior to the assessment. In the early years, ECT focused on developing innovative approaches based solidly in modern social work and case management practice which targeted the most vulnerable families and children at risk of being placed in institutions...The first foster care service pilot was launched in Chişinău in collaboration with the Municipal Directorate of Child Rights Protection.
Rinse, wash and repeat.