As a result of a profound speech made by President Obama at the Clinton Foundation on September 25th 2012, there has been much hope, especially since his later re-election, that the issue and barbarity that is Human Trafficking would take a prioritised place in US Foreign Policy. Statements such as,
“I want to discuss an issue that…ought to concern every person, because it’s a debasement of our common humanity”
rang out powerfully from the centre stage in a room packed full of leaders. Supposedly since the end of the Cold War we now live in an era where Human Security, as opposed to the interests and security of the State, plays a more central role in governing foreign policy decisions – particularly for the most powerful nation in the world.
Surely Human Trafficking- the deception and movement of people for the purpose of exploitation which results in the modern day enslavement of millions- is one if not THE biggest threat to the human security of our populations as it is so detrimental to our society that it transcends all barriers, borders, ages and races. The question is however, is human trafficking going take its deserved place in international affairs, or it is that an American dream fraught with hypocrisy?
From a domestic perspective: the progress looks promising, there is a definite and concerted effort to eradicate human trafficking within the United States.
As recently as 9th of April 2013 the White House hosted the Forum to Combat Human Trafficking, bringing together public and private sector leaders to discuss how to curb trafficking in the country. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has estimated that in some 17, 500 people are trafficked in to the continental US every year and that around 100, 000 children have been victims of trafficking. In terms of combating human trafficking the main legal framework rests in the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 and its subsequent re-authorizations up to 2008. It aims to eliminate human trafficking by creating international and domestic grant programs for both victims and law enforcement, creating new criminal laws, and conducting oversight on the effectiveness and implications of U.S. anti-Trafficking In Persons policy.
More importantly, funding for programs to fight Human trafficking in the US has risen in recent times. The total amount of taxpayer money that was spent on the issue was $191.3 million in the fiscal year of 2011. This is a huge increase from the $109.5 million that was spent in 2010. Compare this to the paltry sum being spent by the United Kingdom at just £2 million, even when population differences and currency rates are taken into account, the UK would need to spend 15 times that to be on par with the Anti-trafficking investment of the US in proportion to its population. Thus it is easy to say that the US is committed to combating human trafficking internally and much more so than its western counter-part.
However, this may not translate into foreign policy priorities of the US and it has been severely criticised for letting economic and security interests overshadow its commitment to human rights.
The US is seen across the world as the beacon of hope, liberty, freedom and the protection of human rights. Yet when its leaders go abroad in this so called era of ‘Human Security’, they do not seem to do enough to advance their foreign policies in line with the moral values for which they stand. It may be much like the United States valuing the principles of Democracy and have fought many wars in the name of it, whilst at the same time finding justification for overthrowing or attempting to overthrow democratically elected governments such as Iran in 1953, Chile 1973 and Nicaragua in 1984 when they threatened their national interest.
Today, instead of Cold War politics taking priority over democracy, it now appears to be economic benefits outweighing human rights. In 2009 when former-Secretary of State Hilary Clinton visited China on her first trip abroad, she was heavily criticised for not raising the issue of China’s Human Rights record. Instead there were agreements on trade and economic issues that were better for the US taxpayer and workforce. This is especially poignant because China is a major source, if not the single largest source country for trafficked victims. In this case, instead of America’s leadership in the international system being used as a beacon to address issues of human rights it is its hegemony that allows it to ignore and prioritise at will. The current-Secretary of State John Kerry is coincidentally also in China at the moment, handling more pressing issues, like North Korea, Syria and Iran. Security issues, no matter how important, will always overshadow the long-term plight of millions of individual citizens, especially in China where the numbers trafficked are absolutely huge, but the people are also disposable.
However not only authoritarian governments should be scrutinised, and the US as with China could use its economic clout to influence change. The US spent $664.85 billion in 2011 on its military defense budget, and its biggest recipient of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) until 2010 totalling $521.4billion (US bureau of Economic Analysis) was surprisingly not China, but the Netherlands. Compared to the budget for fighting Human Trafficking in the US itself, it makes the latter seem infantile in terms of the bigger picture. The Netherlands is a notorious destination and transit point for human trafficking in Western Europe, and as the US government has little control over FDI as most of it is controlled by corporations and private investors the money is most likely not invested in combating this crime overseas.
The important question for the current Obama administration is whether it can step away from geo-strategic interests and focus on the rights of people when the time is crucial.
This is a massive expectation especially in a time of continued financial difficulty, the war on terror continuing and heightened tensions on the Korean Peninsula; a genuine prioritisation of human rights in foreign policy is unlikely. Despite this, there is significant work happening where press conferences and presidents themselves don’t tread.
When asked about the subject of why Human Trafficking is not a major interest for the US to pursue abroad, in November 2012 the Human Rights Officer for the US Embassy in London attacked the very premise of the question. She pointed instead to the extensive amount of work done by the United States in coordination with governmental and non-governmental organisations to make real advances in this issue, specifically through the annual Trafficking in Persons report researched and produced by the United States embassies in each country which aims to hold every government accountable for both advances and failures in prevention, protection and prosecution in human trafficking. In other words, it is an issue that is dealt with behind the scenes so they can actually attempt to ‘get things done.’ It may be better to focus on such issues away from the spotlight that accompanies a US presidential trip as it may lead to tension in overall relations especially with China or Israel which could harm co-operation in the future.
This is an approach debated domestically in countries also.
A recent report published by the Centre for Social Justice about Human Trafficking in the UK in March 2013 slammed the government for its failure to root out trafficking. This shocking and highly critical report had the benefit of garnering media attention, and further discussion of the issue as never seen before. However, according to anti-slavery activists within the government such as Baroness Butler-Sloss, it may prove fruitless to fight governments in order to achieve action as they hold the resources and structural capabilities to make real gains on human trafficking. Pressure is necessarily, however governments respond poorly to an ambush. Consultation, moderate pressure and combined action is needed.
Despite the President Obama’s sincerest intentions to combat slavery, Congress is the arm of government that controls spending on human trafficking…
…and pressuring Congress to do anything is very problematic. Until there comes a human trafficking lobby, or more generally a human rights lobby that is as powerful and has the resources of say the NRA or Israel lobby then there will not be substantive change in the interests of Congressman and Senators because the incentive to go down the route of human rights does not overwhelm others. To talk of hypocrisy abroad seems naïve when looking at the system at home that inherently reflects pandering to the interests that keeps one in office and keeps the ‘revolving door’ moving. One of the worst moments for human security was the Rwandan genocide in 1994, it was a stark example of what the US government had learnt in the 90s after the catastrophe in Somalia: they were not going to overtly change the major priorities of their foreign policy unless it was in the US’s vital national interest.
Ultimately it remains to be seen whether the renewed effort internally by the US and its behind the scenes approach to Human Rights ends up trickling down into foreign policy priorities…
…and results in consequences for nations if certain standards are not adhered to as well as countries following their example. It could be concluded that there seems to be a hypocrisy in the global affairs of the United States, however despite this it may not matter that Human Trafficking is not publically put-forward in the international arena. It gives the space to US diplomats, NGOs and consultants away from the spotlight who can conduct their work with expertise and integrity, without the interference of ulterior motivations or priorities. The danger is to become complacent about the current work and steady progress already being made.
Debate must be open and there should be real consequences for nations ignoring modern slavery, whether they are allies or not, if the US wants to be both the moral beacon of hope to the world as well as its superpower leader.
For Barack Obama’s to implore so powerfully that,
“Nations must speak with one voice—our people, our children, are not for sale.”
the time for economic and geostrategic interests to nearly always trump human rights must end. Besides, America can never truly be the ‘Leader of the Free World.’, when so many in the world, even in the US and Britain, are so consistently denied their freedom.
Researched and Written by: Mike Spaan & Gail Commandeur
UKC Against Human Trafficking 
As students, we love a debate, if you want to write a response piece to any of our essays and feature articles please get in touch.