"Human Trafficking, Migration and Globalization in Southeast Asia "
an interactive learning session by
Professor Therese Caouette

(summary by Pangea member Dan Crouse)

Therese has been working for 25 years to resolve the problems of displaced people in the region.  She brings a lifelong learning approach to the subject, with a strong emphasis on discourse as the foundation of real solutions. 
 
Her presentation focused on four questions.  The questions gave attendees a chance to discuss a key issue relevant to trafficking.  Following each question, Therese briefly shared some first-hand experiences and identified some challenges that Pangea may face it decides to fund solutions to trafficking-related problems in Southeast Asia.
 
Question 1:  “How would you define trafficking?”  Some elements that occurred to one table of attendees include: transportation or dislocation of people that is involuntary; controlled through force or some other form of coercion; encouraged through misinformation; maintained through an imbalance of power, education or social standing; and/or orchestrated by a group or groups of people. 
 
Therese then shared one of her early experiences in Southeast Asia.  Young girls from Burma were being trafficked into Thailand as sex workers.  At that time, human rights organizations tended to be more interested in addressing issues relating to political prisoners.  To try to promote awareness of the problems associated with trafficking, Therese began collecting data, including interviews with Burmese girls, and wrote her first report.
 
Even with a thorough report available, however, interest was slow to develop.  Therese had a hard time finding an organization interested in publishing the report for broader distribution.  And, the typical response to the report was “were these girls really forced into prostitution?”
 
As a result, Therese began another investigation that illustrated the abuses that may occur, even when the people being trafficked might initially been voluntary participants.  Specifically, she investigated the situation of Thai women who went to Japan as sex workers.  Often, they ended up under the control of the Japanese crime syndicate, with no apparent rights or limitations on their treatment.  Although they were, in some ways, voluntary participants, their situation was arguably worse than that of the Burmese sex workers in Thailand.    
 
Over time, Therese has become interested in the trafficking in contexts beyond sex work, including factory workers.  The sex trade, itself, has become grayer; once it explicitly manifested itself as brothels, now it’s more hidden in massage parlors and other services.  At the same as Therese’s interest expanded, the problem mushroomed, due in significant part to the opening of borders, transportation routes, and communication channels across Southeast Asia.
 
Returning to the definition of “trafficking,” it’s an issue that the international community has struggled with, yet has gradually expanded over the years.  The 1926 Convention on Slavery used a definition based on forced labor.  That was followed, in 1949, by the Convention for Suppression of Trafficking in Persons, which focused on prostitution but allowed debate over whether the impact of consensual conduct by those being trafficked.  Next, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in 2002, emphasized the definition and age of covered children.  Ironically, the only two countries not to have ratified that Convention are the United States and Sudan.  Then, the 2003 Convention Against Transnational Trafficking reached the migrant community, but was primarily intended to control migrant work flow as part of the international response to terrorism.  Some protection of migrants and their families was offered, however, through the 2003 Convention on Rights of Migrants.      
 
Along with these conventions, other efforts have been made to apply broader definitions of trafficking.  Examples include:  the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women in 1994, the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons in 2004 (which focused especially on women and children), and the International Labor Organization (which has sought to give women more power to negotiate informal jobs).  One challenge presented to those advocating broad definitions of trafficking is that many people are resistant to applying laws and controls to traditionally informal jobs such as domestic work and caregiving. 
 
Under the Clinton Administration, one billion dollars were allocated to address the problem of trafficking, but significant programs weren’t in place until the Bush Administration, which focused on sex trafficking. 
 
Government-to-government, the U.S. government has a “three tier” strategy, under which it judges all other countries’ response to trafficking problems and designates them as Tier 1 (good response), Tier 2 (response needs work but no sanctions applied), or Tier 3 (response is sufficiently problematic that the U.S. may withdraw non-humanitarian and non-trade-related assistance.  
 
U.S. policy is also based on the “3 P’s” (prosecution, prevention, and protection, or in a more detailed version: prevention, rescue, return, and reintegration).  But this simplistic approach has not necessarily been effective for a number of somewhat complicated reasons.  Rescue attempts in Southeast Asia are often unsuccessful, because the “rescued” women don’t view a return to Burma that fails to address any of the underlying economic and social issues as a “rescue.”
 
Therese concluded this portion of the discussion with a first challenge for Pangea:  “How will we define trafficking and why?”  She now looks at trafficking from the broad perspective of migrant and labor rights, in part, because that’s how the people she works with perceive the problem and because it avoids some of the grayness in other views discussed above.
 
Question 2:  “What are some appropriate responses to trafficking?”  Some elements that occurred to one table of attendees include:  education and economic opportunity, strengthening the rule of law, and gender equality programs, in both the countries of origin and destination countries of people being trafficked. 
 
Therese’s initial report was mind-blowing in terms of the scope of the problem identified but, despite creative efforts such as documentaries, the word really wasn’t getting out.  Therese reported the results to people who were studied.  Many acknowledged the terrible problems depicted in the report, but did see themselves as having been victimized (perhaps because of shame, cultural expectations, or their view that the depicted problems still reflected the starting path to a better life).  Also, international aid organizations weren’t very interested in funding the translations needed to put the report in the 40-50 major languages of Southeast Asia. 
 
Therese realized that she had to change her approach, talking to people locally about how they saw the situation, understanding their issues (which may not be seen through the lens of trafficking), and working with them to document problems and develop actions.  Her lesson was that you have to think out responses without victimizing the people; after all, many times, the people being trafficked are the best and brightest of their area, anxious to pursue greater opportunities elsewhere. 
 
Therese also noted several other challenges to implementing responses.   For example, in cross-border trafficking, the greatest stakeholders may be in country illegally with limited opportunities to organize and act.  Also, important local groups may not qualify as 501(c)(3) organizations, limiting the willingness of many groups to support those organizations.  And human (and drug) trafficking are very decentralized problems, lacking simple corrections.
 
Therese then presented a second challenge for Pangea: “Who will define the problems, needs and responses we pursue?”  She noted an example of a type of project that larger organizations might avoid, but Pangea could support.  One of the biggest problems facing Burmese border youth is meth addiction, often as a hold over people who’ve been trafficked.  Large aid organizations aren’t very interested in addressing the drug problem, preferring issues like HIV/AIDS treatment instead. 
 
Question 3: “How is migration in Southeast Asia affecting trafficking?”  Up until 1994, most of the borders in Southeast Asia were locked solid, now you can drive all over the region.  The movement includes: internal migration, cross border migration, and transnational migration. 
 
The routes are both official and unofficial.  Official routes are supported by the government providing foreign remittances and increased job opportunities (particularly if they are 3D – dirty, difficult and dangerous).  For a period of time, Cambodia was sending 4000 people a month to work in Israel.  The unofficial routes tend to be underground and more likely to involve criminal activities.  But lots of people don’t  know which routes are official and unofficial.
 
Therese sees these trends continuing, fueled by globalization, a race to the bottom for cheap labor, and many countries interest in exporting labor as a way of addressing unemployment and obtaining foreign exchange. 
 
As people migrate, their situation is influenced by a number of unfortunate realities:  many are undocumented, considered illegal with no rights, with no control over their means of migrating, easily exploited, subject to poor labor/living standards, and sometimes stateless. 
 
Therese told a story about a village in Laos where she once worked.  Her daughter had been with her and became friends with many of the village children.  Her daughter had the opportunity to visit the village recently, only to find that nearly all of her friends had left for Bangkok.  She asked their parents for contact information so that she could visit them in Bangkok.  Not one of the parents had heard from their kids or knew how to get in touch with them, but they were excited about the opportunities their children pursued. 
 
Therese then presented a third challenge to Pangea:  “How will you educate yourselves?”  She noted that, as we educate ourselves, it is important to keep in mind who we are listening to and whose voice is not being heard.  People have a wide range of opinions regarding trafficking and we should seek them out.
 
Question 4:  “What are some of the underlying elements of change?”  Therese shared a number of aspects of her evolving vision.  She thinks its helpful not to focus on trafficking, but look at the bigger picture of migrant and worker rights.  She cautioned us to be aware of “othering;” people have very different life experiences and the views of migrants in developing countries may be quite different from expectations.  Therese encouraged us to work to increase tolerance and understanding and educate ourselves about labor and migrant rights.  She noted the importance of recognizing, and seeking to formalize, traditional work of women.  Therese thinks that law enforcement is more constructively focused on labor exploitation, rather than controlling the movement of people.  She thinks migration for unmet labor should be facilitated and migrants educated about how to protect themselves.  And, perhaps most importantly, it is important to work with communities on the ground to meet their needs and aspirations.
 
Therese’s final challenge to Pangea was to: “How will you develop our own vision of change and what will it include?”
 
Question and Answer Session:
 
Q1:  Is there a strong rural-urban component to this issue?  Therese noted that within a given country or in a cross-border situation, trafficking often occurs from a rural origination locale to an urban destination locale.  But, as trafficking becomes more multinational, trafficking often occurs between larger cities.  As an example, in Thailand, there is rural-urban trafficking for sex workers from Burma to urban areas of Thailand, and urban-urban trafficking of workers from Bangkok to major Japanese cities.
 
Q2:  How important is the difference between situations involving force?  Therese noted that trafficking involves a relatively complicated and unorganized system of participants, motivations, and outcomes; every experience is different.  She cautioned us not to be aware that, even in situations where no “bad” conduct has been reported by workers, their reports may not be accurate due to shame or other considerations.
 
Q3:  Which presidential candidate would be best on trafficking?  Therese noted that it’s hard to say.  Their positions are not particularly well developed; although it may be useful to look at their positions on domestic immigration as a proxy. 
 
Q4:  Where should Pangea look for some unique opportunities to help?  Therese noted that there are many organizations in this region that are relatively unsophisticated and still trying to figure things out themselves.  Some of those groups may be able to do great work, but are less likely to be funded by bigger organizations. 
 
Q5:  With the dramatic improvement of transportation systems, why isn’t there a better system of communication (e.g., between Bangkok and the Laotian village Therese described)?  Electricity is a big problem.  But communications are improving rapidly (e.g., cell phone systems and solar power chargers) and effective communication is a big part of the solution.
 
Q6:  What can be done to reduce the need for migration?  Therese noted that a unique vision would be to make the migration that does occur a success.  For example, ensuring that money earned by migrants gets back home safely, is preserved for the migrants use, and is supplemented with support to promote local economic development.
 
Q7:  Is there a good “model labor law?”  Therese noted that the International Labor Organization has done good work on this subject; although the United States has ratified only three of its conventions.  She also noted that there are studies (particularly from labor-exporting countries).