The trafficking watchlist may be flawed, but it's the best measure we have (original) (raw)

Last week the US launched its 13th annual trafficking in persons report. Its influence is undeniable. While many factors determine how governments respond to such activity, it is the TiP reports, which grade countries on their anti-trafficking efforts, that have proved to be the single greatest impetus for change.

Governments may distrust the report and question its findings, but they dread a negative assessment. Recent revelations that Thailand retained expensive Washington lobbyists in an effort to avoid a downgrade come as no surprise when one considers the scale of the diplomatic and economic fallout it was seeking to avoid.

Since 2001, I have frequently seen new laws passed, shelters established, traffickers arrested and victims rescued – solely or principally because of fear of an adverse assessment by the US. And it is not just the poor performers who are subject to influence. Even those countries that are virtually guaranteed a favourable assessment go to considerable effort each year to demonstrate their commitment to addressing trafficking.

The TiP reports have come a long way since 2000, when the US passed an anti-trafficking law that included a requirement for the state department to report on what other countries affected by trafficking were doing. The first trafficking in persons report was released in 2001, and was not very impressive. The brief country assessments were mostly restricted to evaluating laws and prosecutions in relation to trafficking for sexual exploitation.

The report's self-proclaimed "rigorous" evaluative methodology was, in reality, little more than a crude information-collection exercise, delegated to untrained embassy officials. Most countries were understandably annoyed by the amateurish US effort to play global sheriff on this difficult issue.

Fast forward to 2014 and much has changed. The TiP reports include detailed assessment of every country – including, since 2010, the US. The criteria is explicit and detailed, still focusing strongly on criminalisation and prosecution, but now including consideration of how victims are protected and supported.

While trafficking for sexual exploitation continues to receive disproportionate attention, the reports make a conscious attempt to identify the many ways in which individuals are exploited.

But this is not a simple good news story. Some old problems with the reports have not been solved and new ones are emerging. An ongoing issue relates to the quality of data and information. Despite confident assertions to the contrary, we do not actually know how many people are trafficked, or how much money trafficking contributes to the global economy.

By failing to admit to these uncertainties, the reports lose credibility. They also hide the elusiveness of trafficking: we do not yet fully understand, for example, when a migrant worker in a difficult situation becomes a victim of trafficking.

The reports also fail to properly acknowledge that anti-trafficking responses can sometimes have terrible costs in terms of human rights. Examples include detention of trafficked persons in shelters; their prosecution for illegal entry or illegal work; denial of protection and support to victims who will not or cannot cooperate with criminal justice authorities; and being forced return to a situation of danger.

The pressure on governments to demonstrate their anti-trafficking commitment through increased prosecutions has also resulted in unsafe convictions and the imposition of penalties that are disproportionate to the offence. The US must acknowledge its role in exacerbating such "collateral damage".

While the reliability of individual country assessments has improved over the years, there is still a strong correlation between US government's attitude towards a particular country and the ranking allocated to it.

This should not come as a surprise. The reports are political creatures, produced through a political process and serving specific political ends – and that is particularly evident at the sharp edges of US foreign relations. Important allies will need to perform much worse than less-valued ones to be bumped off the top grade.

Extreme political and ideological opponents of the US may never be moved from the lowest grade, no matter what they try to do to impress. Burma endured more than a decade at the bottom, only to rise in 2013 when changes in the political relationship made that shift both feasible and tactically beneficial for the US.

My sympathies with those who complain about the US judging their conduct have lessened considerably over the years as it has become obvious that the only alternative – an international monitoring system – is even more unwelcome.

While almost every country professes to support a tough response to trafficking, the reality is often much more complicated. Many derive great benefit from cheap foreign labour that, deliberately unprotected by law, can be criminalised or shoved aside when circumstances require. Some that maintain a strong policy position against prostitution are nevertheless comfortable with a marginalised and closeted sex industry comprised principally of exploited foreigners. Countries that rely heavily on the remittances of their overseas workers may be reluctant to interfere with a system that brings economic benefits, even if it is clear that some of their citizens are being harmed. Any mechanism that helps expose these uncomfortable realities, however imperfect, deserves to be supported.

Ultimately, the greatest challenge to the TiP reports lies in the nature and scale of trafficking. Exploitation has built our world and continues to power global economic growth. Cheap labour, cheap sex and cheap goods produced through that exploitation are woven into the fabric of our national economies, our communities and our lives. Any anti-trafficking effort that fails to challenge the status quo – the political, economic and structural forces that facilitate exploitation – will inevitably be limited in its capacity to engender real and lasting change.

Anne Gallagher is an international lawyer and UN adviser