ALDE Hearing on Human Trafficking

This video is a collection of statements from members of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, composed of elected Members of Parliament from different political parties of the Member States of the European Union. These national delegations cooperate together in the European Parliament as the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE). One of their campaigns is Stop Human Trafficking, and it focuses on the progress of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and the Palermo Protocol. Currently, the Convention has been signed by 22 countries and ratified by 18.

Drawing lines in a dark place

From the Economist:

Coercing hapless human beings into sex or servitude is obviously evil, but defining the problem (let alone solving it) is very hard

LIVING from the forced labour, or unwillingly provided sexual services, of vulnerable people is a horrific business, and more should be done to punish the perpetrators and succour the victims. That is a sentiment to which almost all governments readily assent, even in the (quite large) slice of the world where links exist between officialdom, the police and the shady types who trade in flesh.

And at least in principle, cross-border trafficking is acknowledged to be so manifestly dreadful that every civilised state must be seen to help correct this wrong. As one sign of this feeling, a Council of Europe convention on trafficking went into force this year; 17 countries have ratified it.

The American government has for the past eight years been mandated by law to wage a many-fronted struggle against human trafficking, at home and around the world. And some hard arguments are now raging in Washington, involving politicians, lobby groups and rival government agencies, about whether the struggle should be escalated.

Why, one might ask, should there be arguments about an issue that, in moral terms, seems so clear-cut? Mainly because the precise definition of trafficking, and hence of trafficking victims, is in reality quite difficult—whether you are a policeman or a moral philosopher.

Among pundits, people-trafficking is distinguished from the lesser evil of people-smuggling—an uncomfortable but almost unavoidable part of social reality in areas that adjoin rich countries with a demand for labour. In Kosovo, it is an open secret that you can be whisked illegally to Vienna by paying €4,000 ($6,000) to a professional smuggler. The Bosnian town of Bijeljina, once a black spot for ethnic cleansing, is now a way-station for south Asians who pay around $16,000 per head to be smuggled into the EU heartland: half on departure and half on arrival.

People-smuggling is done with the consent of those involved; they have no further debt to the gangsters who abet them once they arrive. Trafficking means moving people under duress or false pretences—or in order to use them for forced labour (ranging from domestic work to commercial sex). So the theory goes; but in practice, as the latest State Department report concedes, there is an overlap between the two activities. It often happens, for example, that a poor Indian is hired for menial work in a Gulf state—only to find that his wage is much less than promised, and his passport is seized. This leads to a form of servitude, and that person’s treatment could be called trafficking.

Despite the grey area, public perception of the two problems often diverges. In Australia, for example, public opinion favours a tough line over people-smuggling—but there has been a surge of sympathy for the victims of trafficking (often brought to Australia from Thailand or Indochina) since the release last year of “The Jammed”, a film set in a Melbourne brothel.

And in recent years both the sharper definition of, and the fight against, human-trafficking have become a high priority for the State Department; its grading of other countries’ anti-trafficking efforts is an elaborate and closely-watched business. Countries in “tier 1” (including most of the EU but not Ireland, Greece, Estonia or Latvia) are deemed to comply fully with the minimum standards of American law. Those in “tier 2” don’t yet comply but are trying hard. A lower tier, labelled “Watch List”, consists of countries that are trying, but not hard enough or with good enough results. In the bottom “tier 3” (including American allies like Saudi Arabia) are those that are neither complying nor trying hard enough. Even rickety post-Soviet states (see chart) can improve their scores if they follow what is deemed to be the right advice.

As the State Department has found, it is hard to discuss cross-border trafficking without looking at what occurs inside countries. Its reports have thus broadened into a more general look at the ways in which people are forced to work or have sex against their will. Servitude, it finds, can take many forms: for example, children are mutilated and forced to beg—or else fight in ghastly wars. Slavery, the State Department suggests, happens in many successful emerging economies; it cites bonded labour in Brazil’s plantations, or children working long hours making bricks in China. Indeed, bits of the department’s 2008 report read as though they were penned by a left-of-centre NGO, decrying the dark side of globalisation.

And some of the other ideological issues now coming to a head in Washington are even more contentious. Behind them all is an emotive question: whether there can be such a thing as willing prostitution.

How far can you go?

Since 2002, the policy of the United States has been to oppose prostitution, and to urge all governments to “reduce the demand” for prostitutes through education and by punishing those who patronise them. But how far can this principle be pressed? As passed by the House of Representatives last year, a new bill on protecting the victims of trafficking could have made it illegal for Americans to consort with prostitutes anywhere in the world (even when the prostitutes are adults, and in countries where buying sex is legal). The House version of the bill would also broaden the obligations of America’s federal (as opposed to state) authorities to curb the trafficking of sex workers inside the country. The Justice Department (amid many other objections) said all this would place a huge burden on federal agencies that are already overstretched.

Supporters of stepping up the fight (who range from feminist groups to the religious right) compare their campaign to that of William Wilberforce, whose efforts to free the British empire’s slaves bore fruit 200 years ago. John Miller, an ex-head of the State Department’s anti-trafficking programme, has deplored the Justice Department’s campaign to modify the proposed legislation; its complaints, he says, imply leniency towards an absolute evil, slavery. But the American Civil Liberties Union, a lobby group, has praised the Senate for deleting language which, in its view, would make prostitution and trafficking virtually identical. Lots more arguments can be expected before the bill reaches the White House.

In fact, says Jorgen Carling, a Norwegian who has studied the trafficking of Nigerian women to Europe, it is rarely possible to draw the absolutely clear line that policymakers want between “innocent victimhood” and “willing participation” in sex work. For example, people may know that they are being taken abroad as sex workers, but have no idea of the harsh conditions, and the absolute loss of control over their lives, that they will face. This may be an area of life where most people can recognise evil when they see the details of one horrifying case—but where it will always be hard to make hard-and-fast rules that suit every country

Trade Unions Welcome Entry into Force of CoE Convention

This release came from ITUC website:

The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) have welcomed the entry into force of the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings. The Convention becomes legally binding on the first ten countries to have ratified it (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Georgia, Moldova, Romania and Slovakia), on 1 February, with Bosnia-Herzegovina, France and Norway following on 1 May. Most European countries have taken the first steps to ratify the Convention, with the UK having already announced its intention to complete the ratification by the end of 2008.

“Human trafficking is an appalling reality which exists in much of Europe. Putting this Convention into place, alongside the relevant International Labour Organisation Conventions, will help ensure that Europe plays its part in tackling this worldwide scourge. It is the first legally binding European instrument on this issue”, said John Monks, General Secretary of the ETUC and of the ITUC’s Pan-European Regional Council (PERC).

Trade union organisations throughout Europe are active in the fight against human trafficking, and will form part of a Global Trade Union Alliance to combat forced labour and human trafficking. The alliance is being established by the ITUC with support from the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The ILO estimates that some 2.45 million people, most of them women and children, are victims of trafficking around the world. Around 43% of the total are trapped in commercial sexual exploitation, while around one-third are exploited in agriculture, sweatshops and private households.

“We are encouraging our member organisations in Europe to push their governments to ratify this Convention and to make sure it is fully enforced. The criminal gangs and the recruiters who organise this trade in human beings must be stopped and punished, and the factors which make people vulnerable to this exploitation must be dealt with”, said ITUC General Secretary Guy Ryder...

“Our global alliance against forced labour and trafficking will mobilise increased trade union action around the world against this form of modern-day slavery”, said Ryder.

Yes, the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Human Trafficking has come into force now. Ukraine has still not ratified it. And as far as my research has shown me, it may still be a while before they are able to reach the point of ratification. A big hurdle Ukraine will have to overcome in order to ratify and meet the requirements of the Convention has to do with the protection of victims during and after the court process. A recent meeting with a representative of the Supreme Court of Ukraine revealed that things like witness and victim intimidation as well as the risks the victim is exposed to during the investigation are huge factors as to why victims often will not follow through with testifying and ultimately the traffickers end up not being prosecuted under anti-trafficking law. The CoE Convention will require all of that to change, which will require effort and funds from the government and law enforcement. The IOM has been working on joint projects to improve this situation for victims.

As far as trade unions are concerned,up until recently, they were not taking part in anti-trafficking activity (See page 43-44). This situation has improved a bit, but only a select few in Ukraine cooperate with intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations in the country to contribute to the fight against human trafficking: the Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine, the Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine, among a couple others. IPEC has stated that this situation has improved over the last couple of years, and the involvement of trade unions is important for building a union-employer-government network to address the issue.

By the way, I am very excited to report that I will be attending the UN GIFT Vienna Forum in two weeks. I will be sure to update the site with information from the conference so please make sure to keep re-visiting the site!

Council of Europe Convention to enter into force February 2008

The Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings of the Council of Europe, a pan-European organization with 47 member states (and 1 applicant country, Belarus), is set to come into force on February 1, 2008. The Convention was actually opened for signature in 2005 by the Committee of Ministers and has been signed by 37 member countries. Only ten countries, however, have ratified the document. Ukraine is not one of them. Yet.

According to Darina Malko of the Ministry of Justice during a conference last week in Kyiv entitled "New challenges in providing social assistance to trafficked persons in the countries of origin, transit, and destination," there is a hold-up within the Ministry of Transportation regarding the articles and subsections related to the obligation of commercial carriers to check travel documents:

Article 7, subsection 3: Where appropriate, and without prejudice to
applicable international conventions, such measures shall include establishing
the obligation of commercial carriers, including any transportation company or
the owner or operator of any means of transport, to ascertain that all
passengers are in possession of the travel documents required for entry into the
receiving State.

Of course, a representative of a relevant Rada committee also complained the text is quite complicated, and they want to ensure correct translation of the document as well as understand the potential consequences of ratifying it. This individual claimed that some parts of the Convention actually overlap or contradict the Palermo Protocol (which Ukraine has ratified), making The CoE Convention difficult to ratify. Actually, the Palermo Protocol has the exact same clause related to carrier obligations. In fact, one of the final chapters of the CoE Convention is about its "Relationship with other international instruments" and the first article deals with Palermo. It states that the Convention shall not affect the rights and obligations of member states to the Palermo Protocol, but is in fact "intended to enhance the protection afforded by it and develop the standards contained therein."

The CoE basically states that the difference between this convention and other existing international protocol and framework is that it is more specific in regards to the protection of victims.

The Council of Europe considered that it was necessary to draft a legally binding instrument which goes beyond recommendations or specific actions.
While other international instruments already exist in this field , the Council of Europe Convention (Warsaw, 16 May 2005) is a comprehensive treaty mainly focussed on protection of victims of trafficking and the safeguard of their rights. It also aims at preventing trafficking as well prosecuting traffickers. In addition, the Convention provides for the setting up of an effective and independent monitoring mechanism capable of controlling the implementation of the obligations contained in the Convention.

The enhanced protection of victims' rights is one of the more important contributions of the CoE Convention as it provides for victims' rights during the identification process (so that one will not be removed before the identification process is complete). It also requires (destination) States to provide for a "Recovery and Reflection Period" at a minimum of 30 days so the victim may contemplate whether to stay and testify, and requires provisions to be taken during the repatriation process so that the programmes avoid re-victimisation.

The Convention is especially protective of children's rights and calls for measures to be taken to provide child victims with appropriate housing, education, counseling, and legal representation, and also requires that child victims shall not be returned to their state of origin if it is determined by a risk and security assessment that the return would put the child in a dangerous situation.

Other unique features of the Convention provide for measures to discourage the demand for TIP, as well as the punishment and sanctioning of traffickers, witness protection, and a monitoring mechanism that has specific protocol to observe the implementation of the Convention (known as GRETA). The articles provide for everything from the creation of the group to the steps that will be taken in order for GRETA to complete it's monitoring program efficiently and transparently.

You can view the State-by-State signature and ratification process and involvement here. Even if a state, such as Ukraine, signed it now, the Convention requires three months in between the submission of the ratification instrument and its entry into force within the state so the earliest it would start would be March. Nonetheless, a country bound to this document is committing to a major leap forward in the protection of the human rights of TIP victims. It has been said that Ukraine will jump on board by early next year so we will have to wait and see.