Jan 19

The Connection Between Human Trafficking and Terrorism

Human trafficking and terrorism are two huge social and political issues which plague our society with the responsibility to identify and eliminate the root causes.  As I stated in my first blog earlier this week, it is not enough to just educate society, monitor progress and sanction countries who do not fall into compliance with what the U.S. deems an acceptable level of action in regards to counter-human trafficking efforts.  We must look at efforts to activate public policy change in order to deal with these two conjunctive issues more effectively.  Education is helpful but let’s face it education does not effectuate change.

Before I go on I want to communicate to you that I am interested in your thoughts or ideas on these two crucial issues.  What are your unique perspectives on public policy change in regards to human trafficking and terrorism?  Perhaps you have ideas or thoughts I have not considered.  I am interested in learning from other’s with regards to these issues as no one person has all the answers and if we find the resolution to these two important conflicts it will more than likely be a collaborative effort of many.

I am definitely not the first researcher to believe in the connection between human trafficking and terrorism.  In 2000, a researcher by the name of Christine Dolan conducted a 9 week study throughout Europe in which she interviewed over 500 local people including children, pimps, police and prostitutes and concluded there is definitively a connection between human trafficking and terrorism.  Her study entitled, “Shattered Innocence, Millennium Holocaust” was mentioned in the Spring 2002 Initiative Against Sex Trafficking Report and reported that human trafficking is enabling international criminals to play into a wider field of international drug trafficking, weapons and arms dealing, and even piracy, to name a few.

At the beginning of the Millennium, around the same time when the Taliban was being originally moved out of Afghanistan, there were multiple abductions of women and children reported in Afghanistan.  The Taliban were reportedly abducting women and children and selling them as sexual slaves, using them as concubines or even collecting them as war booty.  When the Taliban was finally moved out of Afghanistan they left several of the victims behind but then collected several more.

I believe it is imperative that we are able to connect human trafficking and terrorism and create a Nexus between them in order to obtain greater public policy change.  Currently, human trafficking is treated more as a social issue than as a matter of national security.  Albeit there are certain social problems created by human trafficking, it is most definitely more than a social issue.  Trafficking is a political issue as is terrorism and as such it should be treated in the same manner.  Should trafficking be treated as a matter of national security, instead of solely a social issue, public policy could be changed in a way in which substantial impact could be made.

As an example, let’s analyze a case scenario.  Women and children are trafficked into the U.S. every day through Mexico and Canada as well as Florida and other minor points of entry for the purpose of prostitution.  Terrorist organizations not only utilize human trafficking for financial support, they can also align themselves with trafficking groups to obtain a point of entry into the U.S.  Those who are trafficked into the U.S. for the purpose of prostitution could also potentially be utilized for terrorist activities.  Al Qaeda has been successful at setting up terrorist cells within the U.S. and is also known to use human trafficking, prostitution and other illegal activities to fund their organization.  What is to stop them from using a prostitute or someone closely affiliated to their sex trafficking activities to carry out an attack within U.S. borders?  This is a frightening thought but the U.S. government has already considered this possibility.  Cutting off the funding prostitution provides to terrorist activities would be a step in the right direction.

I believe major progress can be achieved by changing our own views of prostitution.  Many still view prostitution as a simple vice instead of a major crime and breach of national security.  If we change how we view this industry we can start a major shift in public opinion and perhaps public policy.

It may sound extreme to you but if policy was changed to treat prostitution as a serious offense when certain factors are present that suggest trafficking, that may have an impact on the sex trade.  If forced domestic servitude and forced slavery of any kind was treated as a breach of national security here in the U.S. we may be able to get a handle on our own domestic trafficking problem.  If trafficking of a U.S. citizen in the international community was treated as serious as a terrorist threat because of the Nexus between the two, there may be some decline in that activity.  If the U.S. shows the global community that it views trafficking as a contributor to terrorism perhaps that would persuade more global action.  Do you have other suggestions?

Share

Jan 19

Responsible Tourism Reaches Egypt

I’ve written a fair amount about Egypt and the Arab Spring over the course of my internship, but today I’m going to write about something a little different from the usual discussion of politics, revolution, and violence: responsible tourism.  Can it take root in Egypt?  Or is there too much conflict?

The Sinai Peninsula is a highly contested piece of real estate that connects Asia and Africa.  It was occupied by Israel during the Six-Day War in June 1967 and returned to Egypt in 1979, and currently remains under Egyptian jurisdiction.  In the 30 years since the Sinai was returned to Egypt little has been done with the land, and its Bedouin population of 500,000 has been isolated from the rest of the country.  The new Muslim Brotherhood government is seeking to change this.  On January 16th-18th the First International Conference on Sinai for New Egypt will be held to discuss the possible benefits of renewable energy, environmental management, and ecotourism for the region.  The ultimate goal of the conference is to consolidate all of these ideas into coherent arguments to present to the future authority so that development of the Peninsula can proceed.

Promoting environmentally friendly ecotourism could help the region, and Egypt as a whole, quite a bit, especially considering the dramatic drop-off in tourism revenue the country has seen since the beginning of the Arab Spring.  The country is still struggling economically, and tourism could provide a much-needed infusion of cash.  The environmentally-friendly aspect is especially significant as previous tourism has taken quite a toll on the many historic sites on the Peninsula and throughout Europe.  The coral reefs of Sharm el-Sheikh, for example, are in danger because of dust caused by erosion from all the tourists, and so it is fitting that one of the topics of the conference was how to make cities like Sharm el-Sheikh models of sustainable development.

Turning the Sinai Peninsula into a sustainable, environmentally-friendly tourist destination and farming community will not be easy, however.  As of now there is no infrastructure to support such a proposal, so the government would have to step in to impose regulations to ensure that the tourism industry does not grow at the expense of local communities.

Establishing infrastructure is the least of the government’s worries, however.  The Sinai Peninsula has long been a troubled region, and the situation hasn’t improved since the revolution.  Last Friday Bedouin leaders warned the new government that they might take up arms to achieve greater representation in the new parliament, and has accused the government of treason against Egypt.  Bedouin tribe members frequently engage in illegal activities, including smuggling and human trafficking, and recently held 50 tourists hostage at the popular St. Catherine’s monastery.  They feel that they have been neglected by the new government in Cairo and have responded by blocking access to towns and villages and attacking police stations.  Egyptian troops are currently stationed in the Peninsula in the face of a growing threat from Islamist extremists, as well as threats of cells sympathetic to al Qaeda emerging in the region.

Clearly, establishing an environmentally friendly, sustainable tourism program is going to be difficult.  The Bedouin community could benefit from the income from responsible tourism, as well as the renewable energy and sustainable agriculture initiatives, but only if the government is able to work with the Bedouin community.  Islamist extremist groups certainly aren’t conducive to tourism, either.  Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula are so full of history, though, that I hope some sort of stable political situation can be reached so that a sustainable tourism initiative can take root.

Michelle Bovée is a SISGI Group Program and Research Intern focused on international affairs, economic development, and responsible tourism. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org

Share

Jan 19

Policy through Principle

In my last look at the U. S. terrorist detention policy, with a focus on Gitmo, I argued that now is the time to craft a better policy. The emphasis on property/geography, while relevant, distracts us from the real core issue to be resolved: principle. We as a nation are going about it backwards. Principle should dictate policy and not the other way around. I believe that the Federal System is the best way forward not only in upholding principle but in crafting policy.

In an Executive Order issued on Nov. 13, 2001, President Bush ordered the formation of military tribunals to try non-U.S. citizens outside the jurisdiction of federal and military courts. In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled the tribunals unconstitutional stating that the President had no authority to create a new judiciary system; this power rested with Congress. So, Congress revised the tribunals and things moved forward. Or, so we were led to believe.

Upon taking office in 2009, President Obama attempted to keep his campaign pledge close Guantanamo and stop the tribunal system. Attorney General Eric Holder, in late 2009, announced that the administration would hold the trials of the 9/11 planners in New York Federal Court. Due to opposition by Congress and New York officials, this idea had to be abandoned. Guantanamo and the tribunals are once again up and running. Recently, Congress proposed that all foreign terrorism suspects, even those captured in the U. S., be tried by the tribunals.

In March of 2011, President Obama signed a new Executive Order detailing the periodic review of detainees. It would require a review of their status within a year and every three years thereafter. This determination would be to consider if they are still a threat, have a trial scheduled or be released. Additionally, it would require compliance with the Geneva Convention ban on torture and treatment of prisoners.

So how have we been doing in convicting our terrorist suspects in the tribunal system? After 9/11, the Bush Administration charged 828 people, indicted 593, convicted 523 and 235 suspects still had pending trials. An impressive record, no? An 88% conviction rate! Except that this was in Federal civilian courts. The tribunals? The Bush Administration instituted 20 cases and only had 3 convictions under the Military Commission system. The Center on Law and Security of the NYU School of Law has been keeping a “Report Card” of the terrorism trials.

The question remains, “Why are we not utilizing our best systemic criminal justice organ as a policy foundation for the prosecution, conviction and detention of terrorist suspects?” The answer is that in actuality, we are. To date, our Federal Criminal Justice System has been the most effective tool in our Counter-Terrorism arsenal. See, the tribunal system at its core is not about prosecuting terrorists but about the reach of Executive Power and the reinforcement of state sovereignty in the face of growing international encroachment.

This leads us back to the idea of principle dictating policy and not policy dictating principle. Before, Sept. 11th, the Bush Administration’s policy was geared towards reclaiming the United States’ role as a superpower on the world stage. This meant the formation and implementation of a unilateral foreign policy that was meant to send the message that we were the force to be reckoned with. In projecting this image of force, we could disregard the international norms that were felt to be inconsistent with our policy.

Unfortunately, the events of 9/11 further exacerbated this range, use and abuse of this power to the domestic policy front. If the Administration could ignore the world at large, what were a few million people within its borders? This is where the tribunal system comes in. If the Administration had had faith in our own institutions to effect the policy changes and outcomes they wanted, with or without public agreement; the principle of our constitutional sovereignty would not be in jeopardy. As it stands, there has been and will continue to be debate, inaction and partisanship on an issue that is central to our National Security.

September 11, 2001 was unarguably and undeniably a tragedy of huge magnitude not just for the United States but for every person who lost a loved one. Let us remember this truth. The attackers and others like them are not attacking us for our policies, for that can be remedied by their own governments’ agreements and relations with us. They are attacking us for the principle by which we dare to try and live by. Freedom through Rule of Law. This is embodied first and foremost in our Constitution but is actualized through our Federal Legal System. In ensuring this principle to those we may despise the most, we uphold it to its highest standard for ourselves. However hard this may be.

Michael Best is a Program and Research Intern for SISGI Group focused on the issues of Human Rights, Youth Development and Corporate Social Responsibility. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Social and Criminal Justice from Ashford University and is currently a Graduate student at Norwich University with a major in Diplomacy with a specialization in International Conflict Management.
Share

Jan 18

The Missing in Latin America

Insecurity along the U.S border is a daily reality experienced by those who cross to and from Mexico each day. Media coverage has shown how everyone has been affected including businesspeople, tourists and children who live in one country but study in the neighboring one. Apart from the killings and rapes that are highlighted in news stories, there is another reality that people fear. They fear vanishing or disappearing at the hands of the violent groups who reign terror in the region.

Historically, forced disappearances have been a method of control used in several Latin American countries. Most of the time, it was at the hands of the government or those who supported their cause. In the 1970s, Argentina experienced a dark period in which the internal struggle between the government and its opposition resorted to violent means to push their agenda. As a result, approximately, 30,000 people went missing at the hands of those in power. Neighboring Chile experienced a similar fate in the 70s when those who openly criticized the government were torture, exiled or vanished.

Today, disappearances are still common. The pain experienced by their loved ones, their pursuit for justice and the search for the missing remains the same. However, the faces of the missing keeps changing and so do the ways and reasons they become targets.

 When Maria Herrera Magdalena gives her grandson a bath, one thought passes through her mind. He is just like his father — the way he moves, the words he says. But for this grandchild and several others, having a father is a distant memory. Four of Herrera’s eight children disappeared on gold-buying trips — a business for which their small town of Pajacuaran in the central Mexican state of Michoacan is known. Three of them left behind young children who still cry out for their fathers.

Mexico’s president acknowledges the disappearances and said the “very high” number of missing people was a growing concern. He listed them among the victims of violence that he described as “open wounds” in Mexican society. Unfortunately, since no one tracked this as its own crime, no exact numbers are available.

What we do know is that hundreds of women have gone missing in Ciudad Juarez in Mexico. This city is notorious for its murder rate and the violence at the hand of the cartels. Theories abound regarding the disappeared women including the presence of a serial killer or that they are missing as a result of the drug war along the U.S and Mexico border.

Further south, others have disappeared. Migrants from Honduras, El Salvador and other Central American countries try to enter the United States each year. But they not only face a dangerous journey across difficult terrain and scorching climates, but also through a violent region ruled by criminals and others looking to exploit these men, women and children.

Lastly, in the jungles of Colombia, journalists, public officials and those unfortunate to trespass into the region, have been held captive by the FARC, a guerilla group as well as warring paramilitary groups. Some have been held captive for over a decade before managing to escape the grasps of these militant groups.

Julia Alonso, the mother of a missing Mexican man states a shared sentiment common to those who remain, wondering what has occurred to their loved ones:  “For family members of victims who have died, at least they know that they are dead,” she says. “We are anxious. It is a situation of not knowing. … We are the ones that push the most because we have the illusion that they will be found alive.”

While the governments recognize the problem, little progress has been formally accomplished. Instead organizations like Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo in Argentina and the Mesoamerican Migrants Movement, or MMM are working hard to raise awareness. These grassroots groups use the power of storytelling and victim statements to share their story and that of their missing family member. The MMM’s “slogan is, ‘I follow your footprints with the hope of finding you.’ These women have travelled in caravan through Central America to find their sons, husbands and fathers and also show others the perils of the journey to “el norte” or the North. Through their actions they hope to stop the vulnerable from becoming prey to a growing criminal enterprise along the border. Through their work, they hope to prevent others from experiencing their pain.

Please click on the following links to learn more about the work of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo and Mesoamerican Migrants Movement, or MMM.

Regina Bernadin is a doctoral student at Nova Southeastern University focusing on Conflict Analysis and Resolution. As a SISGI intern, her primary areas of interest are conflict resolution, human rights and Latin American political, economic and socio-cultural issues. Her interest in the development of human rights abroad has taken her to several Latin American countries, including Colombia, Ecuador and Suriname.
Share

Jan 18

Climate Change Resolutions

It’s the New Year, and we all know what that means; making resolutions we have no intention of fulfilling.  We set our goal; maybe it’s even the same one from last year.  The first day goes by and we think about it, consider it, and plan on how we’ll start on it tomorrow.  Tomorrow comes, and the next day and the next day.  Before we know it we still haven’t finished War and Peace, or had eight glasses of water in a day, or lost those last five pounds.  These things are okay.  They are not life threatening, and they might legitimately be accomplished when you make them your resolution next year.  When it comes to climate change, world leaders are treating the issue like it’s their New Year’s Resolution; something they’ll figure out or get started on at some other time.  Since the beginning of climate change talks, world leaders have procrastinated on truly committing to enforceable, achievable targets, and we’re running out of time.

Let’s start at the beginning.  In 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, countries from around the world met at an “Earth Summit” and produced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international, non-legally binding treaty.  The signatories of this treaty recognized that the current amount of environment degradation would inevitably lead to rising temperatures and the disruption of ecosystems, the change of weather patterns, and countless other life threatening issues.  The treaty itself contained no legally binding agreements, no country-specific emissions targets, and no enforcement mechanisms, thus leading to the start of a worldwide procrastination scheme.

Finally realizing two years later the error of their ways, the UNFCCC reconvened to adopt the first binding, and “enforceable” agreement to address climate change, the Kyoto Protocol.  Currently 191 countries have signed the Protocol, committing themselves to the guidelines outlined.  Among these countries, 37 industrialized countries (Annex 1), agreed to target their greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs).  During the negotiations the parties were able to reach a consensus to lower GHGs emissions by a collective average of 5.2% (based on 1990 average emissions) from 2008-2012.  The Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997, meaning although countries were “bound” to this agreement, in reality they parted ways and gave themselves a ten-year summer vacation before their homework began.

Some smart decisions were made at the Conference of the Parties in Japan.  First a realistic goal was set.  To ensure countries had tools to reach this goal, several “flexible mechanisms” allow countries to collaborate and work together to meet their common goal.  For example, the Kyoto Protocol permits emissions trading, that allows countries to increase their emissions by swapping with another country (obviously in exchange for some other benefit).  Also, the clean development mechanism allows developed countries to invest in clean technology in cheaper, or developing countries; however, this rule is not strongly enforced as emissions reduction projects are being fraudulently accredited.  Thirdly, joint implementation strategy offers credit for swapping high emissions technology for low emissions technology.  This circumstance usually takes place in more developed countries.  Although Kyoto has some strong strategies for emissions reduction, it has no enforcement mechanism.  If a country fails to reach its emissions targets by the end of the first commitment period, that nation will need to make up the difference plus 30% in the second commitment period, once again pushing off the problem to the next generation of policy makers.

Following Kyoto, multiple rounds of climate change talks have been held to deal with the lingering issues.  By researching the results documented on the official UNFCCC website we can see a pattern develop.  Looking at Bali in 2007, we observe the goal of this conference was to create a “new, comprehensive process to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action, now, up to and beyond 2012”.  The agreement at this round of talks was that they would agree to a plan of implementation at the COP 15 in Copenhagen.

In Copenhagen, the talks were aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions so as not to raise the average global temperature more that 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels; the result of this discussion was that “no agreement on how to do this in practical terms” was reached, and options and decisions “needed to be made later on in the negotiations.”

At COP 16 in Cancun, progress seemed possible.  Developing countries were asked to propose mitigation strategies, and developed countries created a fund to assist in implementation of these strategies; however, with the ever present battle surrounding common but differentiated responsibilities, developed countries, namely the U.S., are unwilling to contribute funds when BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) emit massive amounts of greenhouse gases and are gaining an economic advantage.  Mitigation strategies could not be implemented until future funds were provided.

Finally in COP 17 in Durban, South Africa, possibly the most elusive agreement was reached yet: a new universal, legally binding climate change agreement would be adopted “as soon as possible”.

Unfortunately, the Earth isn’t as big of a procrastinator as the people that live on it and take advantage of it.  With the ozone depleting at its own rapid rate, can we really afford to make decisions “as soon as possible”?  It’s time the U.S. becomes the world leader it claims to be and begins to take a real and aggressive stance on climate change.  World leaders need to not allow their politics and personalities interfere with the very survival of our planet.  The time for next year’s resolution is over, now is the time to make real, impactful changes to our environmental policy.

 

Share

Jan 18

Honor Killings – Culture and Education

Honor killings are generally associated with cultures that treat women with contempt. These cultures see females as objects that can be owned, sold, and handled in whatever way is deemed appropriate by a male. When a woman commits an act that traditionally “brings shame” to a family or community, she is killed. More often than not, she is killed in a horrendously brutal way; think hangings, rat poison, and stabbings, for instance.

Actions that might seem trivial to some are considered life-ending for others. For example, in several areas of the world, women are murdered for refusing to enter an arranged marriage, being a victim of sexual assault, seeking divorce, marrying without an elder’s permission, committing adultery or being accused of adultery, and homosexuality, among others. You get the idea. If a women does something wrong, she has brought shame on her family, and is thus put to death.

The United Nations Population Fund has estimated that at least 5,000 women and girls are killed each year by members of their own family. However, many believe this approximation to be greatly miscalculated. In an effort to escape attention for committing an honor killing, many families will report that their daughters or wives have gone missing or committed suicide. With this being the case, it is almost impossible to find an exact number of honor killings that are committed per year.

Compared to the other pressing issues that our world constantly strives to deal with and resolve, honor killings are actions that consistently receive rudimentary attention not only from organizations, but from governments as well. The reason for this, though, is not due to the turning of a blind eye; the problem is culture. Embedded into numerous cultures is the perceived fact that honor killings are a perfectly acceptable means of shedding the shame that a person has brought upon a family.

Judges, police, other legal officials, men, and even female victims have been ingrained with the idea that honor killings are simply a part of life. The HBO series “Love Crimes of Kabul” cringingly reveals how Afghan women, who have simply been accused of adultery (even after being medically examined and claimed as virgins), are sentenced years in jail. Extremely eye opening were the interviews with these women where they openly agreed that they deserved to be punished for their actions.

As hard as it is to imagine, about 77% of honor killings in Pakistan alone end with the acquittal of the criminal. A court’s lack of information, a lack of consolidated data, and a reluctance of people to give information about the incident typically leads to the criminal being set free, and the victim ending up either in jail, or dead.

The question is how do we put an end to honor killings?

Since culture is a huge aspect in this issue, the grounds are difficult to tread upon. Some activists propose setting up women’s shelters in areas where honor killings are routinely committed. The problem I see with this is that shelters do not provide a sustainable solution. Even if there were enough shelters to provide housing for the amount of women who need them, which there are not, where do these victims go afterwards? They cannot return home; their family’s shame will not dissipate over time. They cannot move away and start a life of their own; they are rarely educated and receive no financial income of their own. And how will their children grow up in a shelter? And what happens when the government does not provide security for the shelters? In some cases, women are only allowed to take advantage of what little comfort the shelters provide for up to three months. The problems are numerous and obvious.

Turkey came up with a plan to dissolve the happenings of honor crimes within the country. A national campaign was launched to raise awareness of the issue, where people were reached through billboard ads, fliers, television commercials, and radio broadcasts. National celebrities were used as the campaign’s face in order to garner support from the public. The main directive in this action was to educate the public about why honor killings are wrong, and why they have to stop.

While the success of the program is not yet found, I believe that education is what makes this campaign stand out. I stand strong with the idea that education is the key to progression. Showing people that women can serve a purpose other than providing labor or helping a family obtain a bride price is something that many have never even imagined.

While this method would take time to permanently implement itself into the culture, it might be the best first step to take. Not only do families need to be educated about the issue of honor killings, but judges and police have to be better informed in order to impact the legal aspect of the problem as well. As minds slowly start to change, the amount of unnecessary deaths will gradually decline.

With the topic of honor killings being so hesitant to approach, it is difficult to come up with an immediate solution. Do you think that Turkey’s approach, with its soft but definite impact, is a smart way to handle the problem? If not, what might be a better solution?

Kristen Youngs is a senior at the University of North Texas. She is majoring in Applied Arts and Sciences with concentrations in nonprofit management and anthropology. Her research focus areas while at the SISGI Group are international LGBT issues, education development in impoverished and rural areas, and global women’s rights.
Share

Jan 17

Monitoring Global Human Trafficking

If I asked you what your idea of a perfect world would be you may say something like “I want to see the end of poverty”, or “I would like to see the end of war and destruction.”  For me, I want to see the end of human trafficking.  Human trafficking is the forced service of a human being to perform sexual acts, debt bondage, or domestic and forced servitude and also includes child soldiers and child sex trafficking.  Of course human trafficking is a horrific crime suffered by people all over the world and any one of the factors just mentioned is terrible enough to understand why we need its elimination.  However, the other reason this is an issue so close to my heart and on my mind constantly is because human trafficking funds international terrorism and gives it the means to continue.

The U.S. State Department is the World’s Watch Dog over human trafficking affairs.  The State Department issues an annual Trafficking In Persons Report in which they list every country in the world and rate their participation in addressing human trafficking issues in their own country in accordance with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act which sets the bar for minimum compliance.  Tier 1 is an acceptable level of participation to actively stop trafficking.  Tier 2 is somewhat of a middle level or what we may call a “needs improvement” level.  Tier 3 is completely unacceptable and means that particular country is lacking of any involvement or is unwilling to address the issue.

Tied to this tier rating system are possible economic sanctions from the U.S. after a country is rated continuously as a Tier 3.  However the sanctions don’t involve humanitarian or non-trade sanctions.  The question of course is how effective is the State Department’s system?  That is a difficult question to answer as every year more countries come into compliance and some slip behind.  Sometimes a countries’ government will take steps to educate the general public or stop sex trafficking within certain communities.  Other times countries will slip and get moved back a tier as they have fallen out of compliance when trafficking activities increase.

Although the system is not fool proof and is not the direct answer to ending human trafficking, it is the best system currently in place and it is a start.  Also recently, the U.S. was added to the list last year in 2011 for the first time which set forth an acknowledgement of the fact that the U.S. has trafficking problems along with the rest of the world.  This inclusion also sent a strong message that the U.S. is going to address their own problems at home as well as abroad.

What could be improved with regards to this system or is there a better system we could use?  The truth is that some of these countries don’t have the resources to attack the root of the problem which is that human trafficking creates a ridiculous amount of repeat revenue.  Ponder this, a drug such as cocaine or heroine can be sold as a product once.  A human being can be sold over and over again in the form of prostitution, domestic servitude, or even as a child soldier or organ donor.  The profit from this crime is outrageous and some countries have terrorist organizations utilizing trafficking to fund their activities.  In some situations the terrorist organization has a higher level of revenue than the government of the country or region in which they reside.  In these situations it is almost impossible for the government to control or combat trafficking.

One way to improve the situation is to gain global power and momentum.  The U.S. carries a huge burden in trying to oversee the global human trafficking issue.  Perhaps if the U.S. was to try to partner with other global super powers such as China, India and Brazil to develop a conglomerate power over sanctioning other countries not in compliance and/or to pool resources to support efforts to end trafficking it might prove more successful.  However, prior to taking that action these countries would need to address their own trafficking issues.

Regardless, I believe the answer to the beginning of the end of human trafficking is to realize the connection to terrorism that it holds, educate the public and international community on the importance of the issue, and finally to change global and domestic public policy to address the issue in a way in which lasting and permanent change can be made.  It is not enough to just educate, monitor and sanction.  We need to continuously analyze how public policy can be improved to end human trafficking.

Sarah Anderson is working towards her Ph.D. at Nova Southeastern University with a focus on Conflict Analysis and Resolution.  She also holds a Master’s degree in Diplomacy with a concentration in international conflict resolution from Norwich University.  Sarah has ten years of experience working in plaintiff’s civil litigation with an emphasis on civil rights issues.  She has experience in community mediation, restorative justice, and community conflict resolution.  She has a general passion for Diplomacy and improved Public Policy Change with regards to issues of terrorism and human trafficking.  Sarah’s focus areas with the SISGI Group are global public policy on terrorism and human trafficking, the growth of U.S. domestic poverty, and international women’s issues.
Share

Jan 17

Guantanamo – 10 Years at the Starting Line

It was ten years ago that the United States opened up the now infamous detention facility nicknamed “Gitmo”. Gitmo, or Guantanamo Bay as it is formally known was first leased to the United States in 1903. Under the terms of a lease provision by Cuban dictator Batista in 1934, it cannot be terminated except by mutual consent.

After Sept. 11, the Bush Administration decided to use Gitmo to hold prisoners captured in the War on Terror. These individuals, being dubbed “unlawful combatants” not prisoners of war, were first brought to Guantanamo on January 11, 2002. Since that time, America has witnessed a maelstrom of controversy over the detention policy, torture and constitutionality of its existence.

A issue that once dominated the national conversation has now been relegated to the basement of our national consciousness. What is really interesting is the debate that has been absent about the future of our detention policy vis-à-vis now that we have withdrawn our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan will soon follow. Though major force fighting may not be in our immediate future, there will still be the odd individual or group that will be apprehended due to associated or initiated acts of alleged terrorist activity.

So, the question is not what we do with Guantanamo but what do we do with our current detention policy? Guantanamo will always be Guantanamo and if it is closed down, then there will be a new Gitmo located somewhere else; more than likely at one of those secret CIA detention facilities where human rights can be violated in worse ways. See, the problem was never Guantanamo itself, but our hurried and knee-jerk reaction and solution to an intelligence-gathering failure that resulted in 9/11.

The truth of the matter is that the United States needs a Guantanamo-type facility, a human rights-based due process policy and a national detention policy that incorporates the best of our Federal system. Though the War on Terror has abated somewhat, there are those domestically and internationally, that are still willing to engage in terrorist activities against the U.S. It would serve us best if we determine the direction we shall take in the next decade and beyond now; when our thinking is not stunted due to emotion, fear and hatred.

Despite his campaign promise to close Gitmo, President Obama has not been able to do this due to an uncompromising Congress. Lacking the political will or having the political foresight (you choose) to leave it alone, the Obama Administration found it easier to withdraw troops from an unpopular war than to close down an unpopular prison.

Politics and policy have clashed in the past but we can make sure now that the two can serve as the beginning of a new national policy for the detention of terrorism suspects that we capture. Politics have become personal and policy has become partisan. But, one of the founding and grounding principle of our democracy is the right to due process. This should be the first principle upon which our detention policy should be based as was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which habeas corpus rights were upheld for detainees.

So, what would such a policy look like? The one already in place in our federal system which we have used to imprison terrorism suspects, while still upholding the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. As we go forward into the War on Terror with less fanfare and hopefully more rationality, let us realize that the issue at stake the whole time has not been whether to keep open or close Guantanamo. It is just a geographic place with inanimate objects that can be utilized as seen fit. The real issue is our policy of detention and treatment of prisoners, no matter whether they are classified as common criminals, prisoners of war or unlawful combatants. As you watch and hear all the hyperbole, criticism and inflammatory rhetoric that is sure to come in the media, remember that it’s not about the property but the principle. Let us not forget the phrase that started it all, “We the People…”.   

Michael Best is a Program and Research Intern for SISGI Group focused on the issues of Human Rights, Youth Development and Corporate Social Responsibility. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Social and Criminal Justice from Ashford University and is currently a Graduate student at Norwich University with a major in Diplomacy with a specialization in International Conflict Management.

 
Share

Jan 16

Tackling Intergenerational Issues: Bolsa Familia

Have you ever seen the MTV show Skins?  Wait, it’s okay, I won’t subject you to the embarrassment of admitting to it; I’ll fill you in.  The show (a replica of a British hit) fictionally illustrates the lives of a group of American teenagers.  These teenagers participate in pretty much every morally questionable activity imaginable before the age of eighteen.  Naturally there has been significant outcry for the way the show threatens the Reagan-esque image of the American family, especially with the seemingly glorified depiction of substance abuse and sexual activities at deplorably young ages.  And while in America there exists significant consequences to teens’ poor decisions, could these consequences be even greater in another context, when even more is on-the line than white-picket fences?

Considering these consequences now forty-five hundred miles away in Brazil, we might see how teenage behavior has the capacity to undermine arguably the largest and most successful social program in the world.

In 2003, Brazil’s first working-class President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, consolidated several social programs to create Bolsa Familia.  Brazil has been a notably unequal nation.   Even relative to its developing partners, Brazil has struggled to lower its inequality measures and has consistently had a Gini Coefficient at least one tenth higher than any other BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) nation. In recent years, Brazil has begun to tackle this issue with an innovative use of conditional cash transfers through its Bolsa Familia Program. This program addresses how intergenerational lack of access to health and education can lead to a poverty trap, and offers a solution by providing family grants to female heads of households for children’s school attendance and vaccinations. The University Fundaçao Getulio Vargas (FGV) conducts studies tracking the success of Bolsa Familia.  They report that Brazil’s Gini Coefficient has fallen from .58 to .53 and that the percentage of Brazilian households living on less than 800 reais ($440) a month has fallen by 8% yearly since 2003.

Contributing one sixth to total inequality reduction, Bolsa Familia has become a crucial program in Brazil’s development strategy.  With its ability to keep budgeting manageable (Bolsa Familia only costs the Brazilian government .5% of annual GDP and only 22 reais ($12) per month to most families involved with the program), Bolsa Familia has become a model social program that not only tackles short term poverty alleviations but also invests in human capital, one of the most important steps developing countries can prioritize to expand their economy.

The success of Brazil’s program has not been overlooked.  A copy itself of the first conditional cash transfer program (Mexico’s Progresa Program), Bolsa Familia has been replicated in almost 20 other countries including South Africa, Chile, and Indonesia, placing it as a worldwide example of the power of investment in social programs and implementation of smart public policy.   This developing country’s ingenuity has even influenced social programs in the United States, the key example being New York City’s  “Opportunity NYC”.

Despite Bolsa Familia’s undoubted success at reducing poverty and increasing school attendance, the program faces new social threats that could disrupt the impressively smooth implementation of Brazil’s largest social program.  Brazil’s government plans to expand the program to include more families, but it fails to look thoroughly enough at the new social issues that might serve as an obstacle to the program’s growth.

Although coverage is spreading, questions need to be raised about those youth already benefiting from the program: what happens to the children that benefit from the program after their schooling years are finished?  What is to be done to address teenage pregnancy and the ineligibility of third generation children from obtaining benefits?  How can the spiral into drug abuse be curbed after the incentive to attend school is no longer applicable?  Currently, the program succeeds greatly in increasing investment in human capital and closing the inequality gap, but if the program is truly going to live up to its mission as an intergenerational solution, the new social issues affecting Brazilian teenagers face must be addressed.

The increase in teenage pregnancy and drug abuse and their interconnectedness has become a significant new social dilemma the Brazilian government should be considering.  The use of drugs causes youth to drop out of school or fail to obtain work after completion.  Teenage pregnancy creates a dependence on the maternal grandmother’s household, leading to financial pressures and possibly reversing the positive progress of condition cash transfers.  Additionally, as both mother and child are under the age of 18, only one is eligible to receive benefits if they remain in the grandmother’s household.  This policy discourages young mothers from finishing schooling and perpetuates the cycle of intergenerational poverty.

Before Brazil continues to expand coverage of the Bolsa Familia Program, it should begin to focus attention on other social issues that could hamper the progress of their exemplary program.  Much of the increase in undesirable teenage behavior is attributed to exposure to mass media, violence in families, and lack of self-esteem.  Although health programs addressing healthy lifestyles and safe sex practices exist, studies find they fail to reach the appropriate audience.  The option for cities to top-up the family grant under Bolsa Familia, such as with the Bolsa Carioca plan in Rio de Janeiro, could allow city-by-city conditions that target areas such as sexual education courses or extracurricular activities that offer constructive outlets for teenagers after school.   Additionally, scholarship programs to benefit poor teenagers after their primary schooling is complete could offer incentives for youth the chose safe and healthy lifestyles.

Although criticisms of Western TV shows and accolades for innovative development strategies might seem worlds apart, when the core issues merge, a serious threat rises to the forefront.  With all eyes on them, Brazil should begin to recognize the new social dimensions among youth that pose a serious risk to the long-term intergenerational success of the Bolsa Familia Program.

Tracey Shipman is a Program and Research Intern for the SISGI Group focused on Education, Economic Development, and Environmental Sustainability. She aims to illustrates through her research how education is the key to economic growth and a more equal and sustainable world.
Share

Jan 16

FagBug: Turning hate into a tool for social action

In dictionary terms, the word “faggot” refers to a bundle of sticks used for kindling. While this might be common knowledge for some, one believed origin of the term probably isn’t.

Faggots were used to stimulate fires during Europe’s Inquisition period. These fires are generally associated with the burning of heretics, but among them were countless gays. In fact, homosexual men were sought out and forced to carry the faggots that would soon be used to murder them. For this reason, homosexual males began being referred to as “faggots.”

In Albany, New York, an area that one might think of as being liberal, Erin Davies fell victim to a hate crime. The Art Education student at Sage College drove a Volkswagen Bug, adorned with a rainbow sticker on the rear window. She parked her car on a street near her apartment every night. In a hurry to get to school one morning, Erin approached her vehicle to find the words “fAg” and “U R Gay” in red spray paint on her driver’s side window and hood.

After calling the police and her insurance company, Erin was told that since her car was drivable, she would have to keep using it until the paint could be removed. They actually expected her to drive around, labeled as a fag, for everyone to see.  At first the thought was horrifying, but then a new idea dawned on Erin: why hide behind discrimination when she had the perfect opportunity to showcase the kind of hate that people were directing toward the LGBT community? Why not drive the spray painted car around for everyone to see?  And that is exactly what Erin did.

Starting in Albany, Erin drove around the country for almost two months, making stops in cities in both the North and South. She interviewed over 500 people in an attempt to understand their reactions as well as educate them. She spoke at numerous awareness events and participated in almost a dozen pride parades. People all over the country knew who Erin was when they saw her car. Some even tried to clean the paint off when she was away from it. People’s generosity was astounding, and other’s prejudice was heartbreaking. Erin received notes of kindness and support, but also a cement rock that shattered her rear windshield. She put her life in danger in order to show people that hate is a crime.

In taking a look at Erin’s attempt to spread awareness of what people are capable of and what goes on in our own neighborhoods, I had to step back and really think about whether or not what she did was effective. Does driving an obscene car around the country really make people less homophobic?

Potentially, I think it does. Erin caused an amazing ripple effect from her activism, which she showcased in her documentary of the story, called Fagbug. You can watch it here http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/fagbug. She started with educating people about hate crimes and truly changed some minds about homosexuality. She garnered support from complete strangers, and even ended up being sponsored by Volkswagen. What’s more, the car company painted Erin’s bug in rainbow colors, put her website on the side, and have actually made plans to make the rainbow Volkswagen a regular option for buyers. More importantly, Erin inspired others to take a stand for what they believe is right. Two women from another college deeply admired Erin for what she was doing, and decided to start an organization of their own, dedicated to women’s rights.

Essentially, Erin’s effort did not go to waste. She not only made the public aware of hate crimes, but she showed others that they too can take a stand. While Erin alone did not change our country’s policies on homosexuality, as I stated before, her idea could potentially make a permanent impact. If everyone stepped out from behind the curtains of hate and showed the public that labeling someone is an uneducated and wasted effort, this kind of crime might actually dissipate. Hate crimes happen because people know they cause harm, but if these criminals realized that labeling someone wasn’t going to cause them to run and hide in a closet…they might actually stop.

Do you agree? Was Erin’s strategy something that could potentially put an end to hate crimes, or is there a better way to go about it?

Kristen Youngs is a senior at the University of North Texas. She is majoring in Applied Arts and Sciences with concentrations in nonprofit management and anthropology. Her research focus areas while at the SISGI Group are international LGBT issues, education development in impoverished and rural areas, and global women’s rights.

 

Share