Government & Legal Efforts on Human Trafficking
Saudi Arabia Increases Trafficking Penalties
Published July 15, 2009 @ 07:00AM PT
It's great to see the State Department's Trafficking in Persons Report already in motion! Based on the U.S. criticisms of Saudi Arabia's lack of effort on the issue of human trafficking and Saudi Arabia's Tier 3 ranking, Saudi Arabia has announced tougher new penalties for those who would traffic. It's certainly not going to solve the rampant trafficking of women and children from all over the world, but it's a great step in the right direction.
Now, a person who traffics their own child or spouse or a person with a disability can get up to 15 years in prison and a fine of over $200,000. Trafficking of men and non-family members carries a lesser penalty still. It is interesting that the Saudi government in passing these provisions specifically acknowledge the connection between human trafficking and family violence. However, I find the unequal protection for men problematic; it may increase trafficking into forced labor sectors.
The new law is well-received in Saudi Arabia. Second Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz has said it embodies the principles of Islamic sharia law which prohibit attacks on the rights of another human being. It's exciting that the connection between Islamic sharia law and human trafficking is being made, since human trafficking violates the basic principles of all major world religions. However, we will still have to wait and see how issues of Islam and trafficking shake out in other countries.
For now, congratulations Saudi Arabia on your improvements.
Image from theodora.com
Can Obama Save Afghanistan and Pakistan from Walmart?
Published June 30, 2009 @ 12:00PM PT
President Obama is currrently deep in negotiations with national retailers and Democrats about giving duty-free access to imports from Afganistan and Pakistan to U.S.-based companies, particularly Wal-Mart. The legislation has hit some snags, however, in part because of Wal-Mart's complaints over the "pretty onerous" labor rules. I'll wait while you pick your jaw off the ground.
The labor regulations are not, in fact, onerous. They would require the U.S. to appoint an indepepndent party to monitor labor conditions at textile and apparel factories in Pakistan or Afghanistan. They would also refuse to allow duty-free imports from factories that don’t adhere to core international labor standards, such as prohibiting forced labor and child labor and guaranteeing the right to organize a union. In other words, these regulations would provide workers their basic human rights and attempt to prevent trafficking in factories in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, however, have complained that these labor regulations are “counterproductive and unworkable new labor criteria and monitoring requirements.”
I'm sure very few of you will be surprised to hear that Wal-Mart has a long, long history of being a terrible company for workers, both those who work in their stores and those who make the products they sell. And I'm sure even fewer will be surprised to know that the recent conflict, political turmoil, and economic toubles which have plagued Afghanistan and Pakistan have left thousands jobless and vulnerable to trafficking. Plus, Pakistan especially has had significant child labor problems. Without proper safeguards and protections for workers, Wal-Mart plus Pakistan sounds like a recipe for trafficking.
So can Obama and the Democrats stand up and save Afghanistan and Pakistan from "jobs" that may be little more than forms of exploitation? Can they strike a blanace between business interests and workers' freedom from exploitation? Or will Pakistan be the next hotspot fo men, women and children trafficked into textiles?
Image from latenightwallflower.com
Las Vegas Cracks Down on Child Prostitution
Published June 27, 2009 @ 09:00AM PT
Everyone's favorite "hotbed of moral turpitude" city is back in the news again, though this time not because of discussions around legalizing prostitution in the city. On the contrary, this time Sin City is cracking down on child prostitution. According to U.S. law, any person under 18 involved in any form of commercial sex (prostitution, stripping, pornography, etc.) is a victim of human trafficking; anyone who sells that child (i.e., a pimp) is a trafficker. And Vegas's new law, will be one of the toughest in the country against child traffickers.
The law specifically goes after pimps' and traffickers' money, which is the one thing most of them actually care about, the one thing that it would hurt them to lose. If you're a pimp selling a child under 14, Las Vegas can take up to $500,000 from you; if you sell kids 14-17, they can take up to $100,000. This legislative change comes after a 2007 study from Shared Hope International found 400 child trafficking victims being exploited in Las Vegas in a single month. Do the math- Las Vegas is looking at almost 5000 prostituted children a year, which could net the city millions if their pimps are nabbed. Looks like for those pimps, what happens in Vegas will stay in the local government's bank account.
On a related-but-different-note, I've been disappointed by a lot of the media coverage of this law, specifically because the language they use includes phrases like "child prostitutes" and "children working in prostitution". Unlike adult women, children cannot legally choose to "work" in prostituion because they cannot legally consent to sex. Therefore, to refer to a child as a "child prostitute" or the exploitation that is happening to these children as "work" is a misnomer and does not identify the child as a legal victim. Whenever possible, I try and use phrases such as "children in prostitution" or "child trafficking/exploitation victims", which are more accurate.
Despite the issue of imprecise language, I hope this law makes it a lot harder out there to be a pimp who exploits young kids.
Human Trafficking and International Marriage Brokers
Published June 24, 2009 @ 12:00PM PT
Editor's Note: Special thanks to the Tahirih Justice Center, experts on the potential for abuse and exploitation through the international marriage broker industry, for providing the background information for my comments here. You can read more about their great work protecting women and girls at www.tahirih.org.
Recently, Change.org community members rallied together and successfully asked Diners Club to stop financing mail order brides. This was a great victory because of the incredible potential of abuse and trafficking of women through international marriage broker (IMB) and mail order bride agencies. A woman recruited by an IMB is particularly susceptible to abuse for many reasons: she has less opportunity to get to know her future husband personally, she may not know her rights, she may not speak much English, her husband may expect her to be submissive, her husband may feel like her owns her since he paid for her, and her dependence on her husband for immigration status and financial support may keep her trapped in a violent relationship.
Fortunately, in 2006, we got the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) to help protect women who use IMBs from becoming trapped in trafficking or domestic violence. IMBRA provides foreign fiancés/spouses with information about the violent criminal history of their American fiancés/spouses and the rights and resources available to domestic violence victims to help them make informed decisions. It also prevents IMBs from advertising minors. What IMBRA doesn't prevent is law-abiding people from marrying whomever they choose; it instead empowers women to make informed choices and prevents serial predators from using international marriage as a way to lure victims.
IMBRA doesn't regulate even-playing-field services like Match.com, because IMBs' profit model and marketing practices uniquely place women at greater risk for abuse. The economic motivation to satisfy the American male who is the paying client, without regard for the safety of the non-paying foreign female recruit, who is typically from a poor or economically depressed country, simply does not exist with other types of services that do not profit from the satisfaction of only one party.
One of the things I find most upsetting about these IMBs is the blatant objectification and racism that they use to sell women. Many frame women as objects, using phrases like "satisfaction guaranteed", "add Olga to my order", and compare the process to "ordering a pizza." Here are some examples of racist quotes from real websites:
"Women from Asia are feminine. They are normally petite and slender with delicate bone structure...Women from Asia value marriage. They do not believe in divorce. They marry for life... Husband and children never take second place to her career." (http://www.heart-of-asia.com/gen/whyasia.html)
"[Russian women] are much more patient and can tolerate things that Western women will never be able to bear. ... Another important difference is that Russian women (and Russians in general) have very low self-esteem." (http://www.womenrussia.com/faq.htm#husbands)
To say that all Asian women choose family over their career is racist and unfair to the many hardworking, career-focused Asian women in the world trying to be recognized for their achievements. And to market a woman as "having low self-esteem"? That to me is nauseating and unacceptable. IMBs pose not only a danger to individual women who use them, but they objectify and degrade women as a whole.
Image from current.com
State Department Smackdown: 2009 TIP Report Analysis
Published June 19, 2009 @ 07:00AM PT
The State Department's first annual Trafficking in Persons Report under President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton came out this week, which is pretty much the Tyson v. Holyfield of trafficking reports this year. The questions have been burning. Will Obama be tougher or laxer on countries than Bush was? Will he lay the sanctional smack down on the worst offenders? Or will these "evildoers" get off with a slap on the wrist? And most importantly, will every report come with a little snack pack of Grey Poupon? Well, here's my take on the smack down.
First of all, for those not familiar with how the TIP Report rates countries, here's a very informal summary:
- Tier 1 countries still have trafficking problems, but are doing a pretty darn good job of finding solutions;
- Tier 2 countries aren't finding solutions, but are trying real hard (or, at least in the Bush administration, aren't trying but are America's buddies);
- Tier 2 Watch list countries are in a serious danger zone- they better get their anti-trafficking act together or we're gonna be pissed;
- Tier 3 countries fighting trafficking are like Daria playing volleyball- they either suck at it or they don't care, or both.
It's important to note that while non-humanitarian sanctions can be enforced on Tier 3 countries, none have been yet as a direct reulst of TIP REport ranking. Now, on the the ratings.
The Big News: 52 countries are now on the Tier 2 Watch List. That's a 30% increase, which says pretty loudly that this administration is more than willing to call countries out on their lack of effort, despite diplomatic ramifications.
The Biggest Surprises: Malaysia got (in my opinion rightfully) bumped to Tier 3, for which Amb. Lagon over at Polaris Project gives props to Secretary Clinton, despite the "turbulence" it will likely cause. And it has caused turbulence in the otherwise friendly relationship; Malaysia is pretty pissed. Ireland got bumped to Tier 2, which I wasn't expecting, and Japan stayed where it's been (in my opinion undeservedly) on Tier 2. I'm also surprised to see that Moldova and Cambodia aren't doing better, since both have had a number of major anti-trafficking initiatives by NGOs recently. Go figure.
Cool Features: The section about trafficking and the economic crisis was timely, if not particularly in depth. Also, the section where the U.S. talks about its own anti-trafficking efforts was back, which is great, even though they still don't rate themselves by the same criteria as other countries. But my fav this year is the breaking down of the language of human trafficking, which sent the etymologist nerd that lives inside me into fits of glee.
What's Missing: As usual, what's missing is any attempt to determine the scope of trafficking in the world. I know that statistics are hard, and that if you say a definitive number someone might try and disprove you, but we desperately need to get a better handle on how big this problem is and who it affects. Right now we've got statistical ranges from 27 million to a few hundred thousand, and agruments about who those people are. I think we could do a better job if we were working with better numbers. So please, TIP Office, at least try next year?
Overall, good report. Perhaps not beach reading, but certainly informative. And on a completely superficial note, this year's report is red. Woohoo!
Neon Robo-Ferret Identifies Trafficked Persons
Published June 18, 2009 @ 12:00PM PT
If you asked me to guess the five technological developments this year that will help end human trafficking, a neon robotic cargo-sniffing ferret would not have been on that list. But that's exactly what the UK-based Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) has developed as a way to identify trafficking victims being smuggled into the country.
This new machine can apparently identify not just humans, but also guns and drugs being moved illegally. The technology is a pretty far leap ahead of what has existed, since it will allow border patrol officials to identify what substance something is made out of (i.e. human flesh, wood, powder, etc.) as opposed to only the density. Very cool technology, but I'm at a loss as to why they call it a ferret. It looks more like three thread spools designed in 1986 connected by Legos. The last ferret I saw in person was at a 6th grade show-an-tell and it was significantly furrier (and smellier) than the one pictured here. So what about this machine could possibly be ferret-like? Well, according to developer Dr. Tony Todd,
"The ferret will be able to drop small probes down through the cargo and so pinpoint exactly where contraband is concealed."
Back in 6th grade, we referred to what a ferret would drop as "ferret-pellets", but I see this research team has gone with the more scientific "probes." And while we grown-up and educated scientists and activists may see the distinct difference, a 6th grader reading this story will come to a simpler and wiser conclusion: that the future of anti-trafficking technology is robot poop. In this field, I never cease to be surprised.
And for those of you who thought this blog was too high-minded for the occasional poop joke, I hope you never cease to be either.
U.S., Europe Tackle Diplomats as Traffickers
Published June 18, 2009 @ 06:05AM PT
A few years ago, a Tanzanian man living in Maryland enslaved a girl in his home, forcing her to work for no pay in horrid conditions, including forcing her to shovel snow in her bare feet. Was this man a war lord? A career criminal or mob boss? No. He was a diplomat.
While it may seem shocking that diplomats can be traffickers, it is not at all uncommon. It's usual for a diplomat or his family to bring over someone from their home country (usually female) to work (usually in the home). However, the trafficking begins when that working situation becomes exploitative- the worker cannot leave, wages are withheld, beatings administered, sexual advances made, etc.
The U.S., France, and Belgium are all focusing on developing strategies to identify and bring to justice this particularly slippery brand of trafficker. Why are they so difficult to hold accountable? Diplomats enjoy something called "diplomatic immunity", which basically means they can't be sued or prosecuted while doing their jobs. There are more complex laws regarding what under what circumstances a diplomat can be held accountable legally, but immunity makes diplomats much harder to prosecute than average citizens. It's a great protection for diplomats doing their jobs in conflict zones, but also unfortunately for diplomats who traffic workers.
It's an uphill battle, but there are ways to better protect diplomats' workers. The U.S. is building a database to better track diplomats' workers, while France is working to improve victim identification in this population. Belgium has started prosecuting diplomatic offenders. Hopefully, the example set by these three countries will lead others to recognize that diplomat-traffickers are a real issue, and that not some traffickers will appear to upstanding citizens on the outside. To know the truth, we must look beneath the surface.
Image from upload.wikimedia.org
