Trafficking in Persons report: All shame, no teeth?

Today, the Global Slavery Index estimates there are 30 million people living in modern day slavery. Human trafficking is also a very lucrative industry, with the International Labor Organization recently evaluating illegal profits from forced labor in the private economy alone at $150 billion per year — about three times more than previously estimated. In the face of such abysmal figures, the international community has devised and implemented a growing number of global initiatives and commitments to combat this international scourge. On July 30, modern slavery was given a renewed sense of international urgency with the celebration of the first World Day against Trafficking in Persons. Despite increasing awareness of human trafficking, the international community and developing countries continue to confront persistent challenges. One index that tracks these challenges and is widely acknowledged as the world’s most comprehensive assessment of global anti-trafficking efforts is the U.S. State Department’s Trafficking in Persons report. Created in 2001, it is an annual compendium of countertrafficking efforts undertaken by 188 states and territories. The report also identifies major gaps in prevention and response, presents evidence of the scope of modern slavery in each country and makes recommendations for improvements. While most agree that the U.S. State Department should be commended for raising the profile of human trafficking through the TIP report, there are some valid questions over the practical outcomes each year, particularly when it comes to engaging foreign governments and implementing effective and sustainable solutions. The power of ranking and shaming Central to the TIP report is a tier ranking that categorizes listed countries according to the extent to which they comply with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act — the legislative cornerstone of current U.S. policy to combat human trafficking. Four main categories make up the tier ranking. Countries placed in tier 1 are judged as fully compliant with the TVPA’s minimum standards, such as protection, prosecution and prevention. Tier 2 nations may not fully comply with minimum standards, but are assessed to be making significant efforts to fulfill them. The tier 2 watch list is a warning zone where countries can only linger for two years before an automatic downgrade. Finally, tier 3 is a fail grade for countries that have made no efforts to combat human trafficking. By evaluating the social, political and economic conditions within individual nations that impede anti-trafficking efforts, many experts and advocates believe the TIP report’s ranking system is an instrument of global “shaming” which can serve as a driver of change. “Every year, the publication of this report means that countries all over the world have to effectively respond to a report by another government that assesses the strength of their responses to modern slavery,” Fiona David, executive director of global research at Walk Free Foundation, told Devex. “Even if they disagree with the assessment, governments do engage and that does lead to change.” The primary reaction of many countries is to publicly dismiss the U.S. State Department’s negative assessments. But the humiliation associated with being in the same group as some of the world’s worst human-rights-offending countries usually inspires states to attempt to avoid future embarrassment. Oman, for example, enacted fundamental legislation in the fight against human trafficking only a year after receiving a tier 3 ranking in the 2007 TIP report. Other close observers say that the sheer complexity of the problem does not lend itself to a simplistic four-point scale which can lead governments to make hasty, short-term decisions that fail to comprehend the broader picture of modern day slavery within their borders. “The tier ranking is a key aspect of the report, bringing attention and political focus in a way that the narrative report may not achieve alone,” explained Paul Buckley, regional technical specialist at the United Nations Inter-Agency Project on Human Trafficking. “However, the focus on the tier ranking can also be a distraction from the country analysis, which can be counterproductive,” he warned. Sanctions falling short? Aside from reputational damage, tier 3 countries are also potentially subject to U.S. sanctions in the following fiscal year. These can include the cancellation of educational and cultural exchange programs, U.S. opposition to aid support from financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, or the withholding or withdrawal of U.S. nonhumanitarian and nontrade-related assistance. Upon publication of the TIP report, the U.S. president has 45 to 90 days to determine the course of action against offending countries. All or part of the sanctions can be waived, however, if the continuation of aid is believed to be in the United States’ national interest or promote the fight against human trafficking. A waiver of sanctions is also possible to avoid adverse effects on vulnerable populations, including women and children. International scorn and the threat of foreign aid restrictions, it is argued, constitute enough leverage to encourage countries to enhance their anti-trafficking efforts. But for such a policy to be efficient, sanctions have to be systematically and consistently imposed. Devex analysis of annual presidential memorandums for fiscal years 2004 to 2014 reveals that in the last decade only seven countries — Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, Madagascar, Myanmar, North Korea and Syria — faced full-fledged restrictions, the bulk of which were spillover effects of other forms of sanctioning unrelated to human trafficking. By contrast, out of the 56 different countries that have appeared on the tier 3 list from 2003 to 2013, 39 states have never been denied U.S. assistance, while 10 others have avoided the most significant sanctions thanks to a partial waiver aimed at preserving U.S. national interests. Particularly striking is the situation of several Middle Eastern countries, which remain unscathed by U.S. sanctions despite being cited for human trafficking abuses. Since 2001 and 2005, respectively, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have been listed in tier 3 practically every year, yet both Gulf states continue to benefit from full national interest waivers. The seemingly inconsistent application of sanctions has prompted a heated debate over the extent to which the waiver option should be exercised and whether its extensive use has a negative effect on international commitments against human trafficking. This has led several critics to shrug off the report as being colored by U.S. interests. “It’s an understandable argument as the report is a unilateral assessment, and when determining the tier ranking there may be different pressures or incentives at play,” Buckley admitted. “However, when countries that have close diplomatic ties with the U.S. are put on the tier 3 ranking, it demonstrates more depth than can simply be explained by serving the United States’ political or economic interests.” Over the years, the U.S. State Department has adopted a more objective outlook on states that are on either side of U.S. foreign policy. Last year’s decision to put superpowers Russia and China on the tier 3 list was interpreted by many as a testimony of the TIP report’s increased credibility and impartiality. Unlike rankings, however, the question of sanctions continues to be politically sensitive. In fact, some experts point out that because the process of tier assignment remains relatively arbitrary or subjective, the imposition of sanctions remains fairly controversial. “I think the sanctions aspect is highly politicized,” Phil Marshall, director at Research Communications Group and human trafficking specialist, said. “The process of tier assignment is not overly rigorous and certainly not a justification for sanctions by third parties in my view. For China, for example, I gather they were in tier 3 in no small part due to the frustration of the U.S. in not being able to get information — not really a basis for sanctions,” he highlighted. Why does the TIP report still matter? Despite the overall absence of sanctions — or consequential ones, at least — the TIP report remains a crucial tool in the fight against human trafficking because of its potential economic reverberations across tier 3 countries. Trade relations can be hit particularly hard by fresh downgrades, as multinational companies are under mounting pressure to reconsider investments in industries accused of using trafficked labor. Furthermore, Western governments could decide to blacklist products that are suspected to be the result of forced labor. This year’s TIP report was marked by the demotion of Thailand and Malaysia to tier 3 — two major trade partners of the U.S. Their recent status downgrade is likely to affect many sectors of their economy, notably those that are labor-intensive. Ranking as the third-largest seafood supplier in the world, Thailand provides seafood to large U.S. supermarket chains such as Wal-Mart and Costco. But the 2014 TIP report and a recent Guardian investigation revealed that migrant workers, primarily from Myanmar and Cambodia, work in slave-like conditions on fishing boats. As for Malaysia, where the U.S. serves as the country’s largest foreign investor, authorities have been found mistreating human trafficking victims and failing to investigate cases brought to them by nongovernmental organizations. “U.S.-based businesses have to sit up and take notice,” Walk Free Foundation’s David underscored. “Thailand is a major producer of seafood, Malaysia is a producer of electronics and palm oil. These are products that are both implicated in modern slavery, and that find their ways into American businesses and homes. U.S. businesses have to take responsibility for examining what is going on in their supply chains.” Check out more insights and analysis provided to hundreds of Executive Members worldwide, and subscribe to the Development Insider to receive the latest news, trends and policies that influence your organization.