On Human Trafficking and Pandemics

            When dealing with issues such as pandemics and human trafficking, two things become immediately clear. Firstly, neither of these security threats respect international borders, and secondly, they are still problems regardless of regulations or plans that are in place. One of the biggest reasons for this later factor comes down the socioeconomic and political situations in regions affected by and responsible for these issues. As an international community and as humans, we simply lack the ability to create universally fool-proof solutions to these problems, although we should, of course, keep trying to solve them despite this.

            When it comes to global pandemics/ epidemics, each nation's plan of action depends on its wealth, previous experience with pandemic situations, societal beliefs and political system. In China for example, when facing SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), an airborne disease, they took extreme measures to minimize and contain the pandemic as quickly as possible. Once they began to take action, they no longer waited for everyone's symptoms to show, then spread more, they determinedly attacked it, even stopping people in their cars and testing their temperatures to see if someone, who was unaware they were infected, needed to be isolated and treated. While China's drastic plan worked, it is highly likely that “a nationwide find-the-fever campaign [...] could not possibly be executed in a country that places civil liberties above the rights of the state. ”(Garrett) It also could not have worked if the mode of transmission had been different, or if their financial resources, and societal beliefs to follow the government, were not as they were.

             A clear example of what could have happened had China's circumstances not been the case is West Africa's – Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia- handling of the Ebola epidemic. Highly infectious and spreading like wildfire from human contact (a key example of the outbreak being the burial of a highly respected local woman, which followed mourning traditions of washing and generally touching the corpse), the World Health Organization set up a branch in Guinea to deal with the problem. Unfortunately, many of their workers in the office and dealing with the infected were not properly experienced with the disease or similar ones, or even death in some cases, and were relatively ineffective, spending more time in meetings planning how to help than actively helping. Locals began to mistrust the foreign aid workers and their local governments and spread wild rumors from the disease being “a conspiracy to kill poor Africans”(2), to the deaths being caused by “cannibalism”(2), and militarily enforced isolation occurred.

             Out of these case studies, a clear fact becomes certain. We, as international or national communities can plan but not plan in the way need because new epidemics are unpredictable, the ways they spread uncertain and plans that work for some pandemics for others don’t. Regardless, we need to assure that nations are always provided with adequate financial resources, medicines, doctors, and individuals with experience in handling the virus or similar viruses, are on hand to actively act instead of just sitting around having meetings and planning while people die. Regardless of pre-existing international/ national frameworks for pandemic management, it needs to be ensured that not only are branches of organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) opened in affected areas, but that the appropriate experts and funding are pushed into the solution as early as possible to more effectively utilize their time and end pandemics quicker, to prevent more emotional trauma and death.

             It is also clear in situations of human trafficking -for hard labor, domestic servitude, and/or sexual labor- that those affected come from regions with weaker regulations and poorer connections with their governments (not to be mistaken with weak governments, as Saudia Arabia(3) is among the nations with the highest numbers of human trafficking). There are numerous regulations that the United Nations has attempted to enforce, that are only complied with to the extent each nation wishes to comply. The nations least like to comply tend to be either more financially desperate or generally greedy and tend to have low concern for most human rights beyond those of their powerful individuals. This doesn't mean the entire nations are corrupt and callous, however, it is a prevailing theme among nations responsible.

             Overall, regardless of the security threat several common causes and effects prevail. Human trafficking and pandemics ignore borders and regulations, and their causes and/or solutions stem from their socioeconomic and political circumstances. There are always going to be diseases that we won't immediately know how to handle and there will likely, unfortunately, always be people willing to exploit others, however that does not mean as an international community we should stop trying to find new solutions to both the overarching security concerns and their causes, as well as ways to lessen the damage these issues can inflict upon humanity.

Works Cited

1. Laurie Garrett, “The Big One?: Is China Covering up Another Flu Pandemic – Or Getting it Right This Time?” Foreign Policy (April 24, 2013) http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/04/24/the-big-one/

2. Outbreak, Frontline, PBS, 2014 (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/outbreak/)

3. The U.S. State Department. The Protection Project. Image, 2009, Powerpoint

Outbreak Preparedness in America

Of course, we are not ready for an epidemic of any sorts, especially not like the 2014 Ebola outbreak.  The United States, in particular, is extremely talented at pretending to know how to do things, but not at actually doing them.  I personally believe this is a direct result of an increase in the size and strength of the federal government.

Frankly, the government is not very good at doing most things.  We have certainly come to learn that not always are the best people nominated for, elected to, or appointed to some of the most important positions in the nation.  Not only are they sometimes quite bad people, but many happen to be very incompetent.  When a government is full of individuals who are power-hungry and also incompetent, it’s a very scary combination.  And that is what we have here, today.  Further, Americans have been largely conditioned to think that the government, not the private sector, is far more capable of solving problems effectively.  Therefore, our reliance on the government is exaggerated and our tendencies to vote for people who promise to strengthen the government often prosper.

However, to digress, this emphasizes our unpreparedness for another endemic.  When, in 2014, Ebola even reared its head in the United States, there was a nationwide freak out, of sorts.  Government officials had no idea what to do, therefore allowing for poor procedure to take place.  In consequent, when trusted officials and other people of authority seem to be without an answer, a panic ensues and people search elsewhere for answers, making them vulnerable to false claims.  This is exactly what we saw in the African nations that Ebola affected, on a much larger scale than in the United States.

In regards to the private sector’s inherent ability to solve problems with enhanced effectiveness, we saw this in action during the Ebola outbreak.  Doctors Without Borders, a private company, did much of the dirty work in the face of Ebola.  This would very likely be the case, as well, in the event of an American outbreak.  Our government has proved time and time again that it is incapable of alleviating natural disasters with effectiveness, and private companies and citizens take up much of the relief effort.  There is no reason to believe that a health risk like this would be any different.

I believe, as well, that we have a population that believes that since they’re immune to polio, nothing bad can ever happen again.  This is a dangerous and, frankly, extremely privileged take on the very real possibility of an endemic in America.  Moreover, this will plague a community far more than the disease could, since the laid-back, “it-could-never-happen-to-me” mindset allows for the people to not understand the severity of what is happening.  

Along with people failing to understand the severity, we have a notoriously dishonest media in America that would very poorly relay information regarding the outbreak.  We saw with the earthquake in Haiti that CNN and other mainstream outlets are simply incapable of gaining the trust of the American people due to their poor reporting.  All of these factors play into the fact that our government and our people are nowhere near ready for any sort of endemic in America.

NGOs in Haiti

NGOs in Haiti

On January 12, 2010, a 7.0 Earthquake hit at the heart of Haiti, Port Au Prince. The Haitian government put the death toll at 250,000. In total, enough money was raised to give each displaced family $37,000, or $13 billion total. However, much of the money never reached Haiti. Many were quick to blame the Haitian government and René Preval, the Haitian president at the time. Due to the history of political corruption in the country, the government became an easy scapegoat for the people. However, it was not the Haitian government who spent or took the money but rather the various NGO’s that flooded into the country after the earthquake. Much of the money was spent on unnecessary commodities for the aid workers.

When all was said and done, only $210 million of the pledged money went to the Haitian government, all with restrictive strings attached. With a population of 10 million in 2010, it would mean each person would only get $21.00. This amount is nowhere close to the amount of money each family or person should have gotten. Therefore, even if the Haitian government decided to pocket the money instead of helping the country, it would not have even mattered. The question then remains, where did the money go?

The United States alone spent at least $368,000 on hotel rooms and food for their workers. Now obviously money needed to be allocated to take care of the workers, but they did not need to stay in four-star hotels not even located in Haiti. Also, there is no need for $50,000 in elevator maintenance in a country that only has a dozen elevators. The most shocking number the $151 million that could not be accounted for at all. Hillary Clinton stated at the United Nations donor conference, “If the effort to rebuild is slow or inefficient,” she said, “if it is marked by conflict, lack of coordination, or lack of transparency, then the challenges that have plagued Haiti for years could erupt with regional and global consequences.” This statement became a reality when much of the money raised never reached Haiti but instead was used by the NGOs for trivial things.

Therefore, the Haitian government and Preval cannot be blamed for the lack of change in the country after the earthquake. Due to the history of corruption in the country, they became an easy scapegoat for everyone. However, them being accused took attention away to the actual problem; the NGOs were not handling and spending money in ways that would help the Haitian people. Organizations such as the American Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders found that they simply could not spend the money raised for earthquake relief. However, instead of trying to find a way in which the money could be helpful, they did nothing. A question then arises on whether these organizations are structured in ways that will actually be beneficial to relief efforts.

The money raised for earthquake relief was not used in a manner that was effective for the Haitian people. The Haitian government was wrongly accused of stealing the aid money when in reality, most of the money never even made it out of the NGOs. In the future, NGOs need to focus more on helping the country or people in need and not using the money on unimportant things. In doing so, more progress will be achieved in countries in serious need of help.

Sex Trafficking

Sex trafficking is undoubtedly a security threat to victims across the globe. Women and children specifically are being forced into labor; feminists analyses of trafficking focus on the threats to the victims as they “are threatened by both traffickers and the state itself”(Lobasz 319). While there are immigration issues that most certainly arise from results of human trafficking, it is a more direct threat to the human security of the victims. The human rights of those who have experienced trafficking should be the foremost concern of people. Typical forms of national security are not efficient in their battles to human trafficking. Specifically, the relationship between immigration and human trafficking has proved difficult to establish. Some define smuggling immigrants across the border and human trafficking as two mutually exclusive things, while others describe them as being “two ends of a continuum”(Lobasz 328). Ultimately, the larger threat is to the people experiencing the abuse of human trafficking and the human security aspect.

Typically, trafficked individuals are subject to horrors that are just now being recognized by the global community. In Kristoff and WuDunn’s Half the Sky, they illustrate the tale of sex trafficking victims. Children and women alike are subjected to beatings and severe abuse, by traffickers. Aspe from the physical torture, there is a large element of psychological torture that afflicts the victims. Half the Sky discusses the account of Meena Hasina and her daughter as they are the victims of sex trafficking. Meena’s daughter, Naina, was taken from her after her birth. She was raised by the traffickers and grew up unsure of her true parentage. She and her brother “were beaten, starved, and abused”(Kristoff and WuDunn 12) inside the brothel they lived in. While there have been efforts to address the problem of sex slavery, many have been ineffective and sex trafficking has worsened over the years. One reason the Half the Sky offers as an issue that prevents progress is the disagreement between political leaders on how to address prostitution.

Some believe that prostitution should be legal if it is between two consenting adults. Others argue that prostitution should not be legalized, as it is inherently demeaning and supportive of patriarchal values. However, the object of both is still to keep women and children safe from forced prostitution. There are many debates and protests that currently discuss whether or not prostitution should be legalized in the United States. There is an image from the Women’s March in Boston of a woman with a protest sign stating “Respect Sex Workers”. Kristoff and WuDunn point out that the left often regard prostitution “nonjudgementally”(Kristoff and WuDunn 25), as they are more tolerant of legalization. In contrast, the right and some feminists recognize an innate indignity in doing so. 

By legalizing prostitution, the goal would be to create safe and secure spaces for sex workers. Therefore, there would be better conditions for those workers and would likely help in preventing abuses that could occur in the workplace. By making prostitution legal, it can be easily monitored to ensure that it meets health and security standards. The problems that arise from sex trafficking cannot be denied to any extent. Thus, many see legalizing prostitution as a step to finding a solution to the sex trafficking issue. While it will not completely eliminate the problem, it could alter the power structure for women who do not feel that they are secure and give them a voice. Others, in contrast, view the legalization of prostitution as perpetuating the problem. Some would argue that women should not feel so insecure that prostitution is their only option to financial or human security. Instead, the illegal activity of sex trafficking should be better addressed, rather than working to legalize prostitution in itself. While each side has different methods and approaches, each understands the scope of the issue that is sex trafficking and that a solution must be created.

The national security aspect of the problem comes into play as there is an emphasis on migrants crossing borders during the sex trafficking process. When victims are deported from one nation, “they risk being re-trafficked”(Lobasz 333). Similarly, in treating victims of sex trafficking as criminals, no solution is developed. Victims then are more vulnerable to a similar situation that caused them harm and abuse before. The current outlines that separate sex trafficking from smuggling are difficult to ascertain, as the difference is dependent on whether or not there was a sense of coercion or deception present in the situation. Therefore, there are challenges posed to nations as they attempt to define the difference between the two, because many trafficking victims consent to crossing borders but certainly do not consent to the exploitation and abuse they face. Thus, it becomes difficult to come up with a plan of action to address such issues. For now, it is of the utmost importance that the human security of the victims is considered. Perhaps legalizing prostitution is a short term solution to ending some of the sex trafficking that occurs, however, it most certainly will not wholly eliminate the problem. Organizations must work to make it clear that women have other options and provide them security in their environments. Similarly, there must be a large commitment to ending the abuse and rape that occur through sex trafficking. 

Works Cited

Lobasz, Jennifer K. “Beyond Border Security: Feminist Approaches to Human Trafficking.” Security Studies, vol. 2, Routledge, 2010, pp. 319–344.

Kristof, Nicholas D., and Sheryl WuDunn. Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. Alfred A. Knopf, 2014.

https://68.media.tumblr.com/4b3598626c39c3e520dd219f8cbe3303/tumblr_ok5fd9o2NH1sqerzio1_500.jpg

Resource Curse vs. Government Curse

Resource Curse vs. Government Curse

The "resource curse" has often been blamed for conflicts around the world, as a result of international powers who carve up a country to grab its natural goods. However, the idea that a country is automatically doomed to failure because they have a wealth of resources is disingenuous. In reality, the definition of what constitutes a resource curse is blurry, and the difference between success and failure for a resource rich country primarily comes down to the management of that country.

In order to first understand the resource curse, one must first attempt to define it. As it turns out, this is a difficult task to do, which no one does in a satisfying manner. Generally when one thinks of a resource rich countries that are cursed, they are reminded of countries that are abundant in only a single natural resource. Sierra Leone is "resource cursed" because it has diamonds. The Middle East is "resource cursed" because it is full of oil. The implication is that these countries' economies are heavily dependent on the one resource they produce, and that international attention towards those resources is causing conflict in order for whatever interest groups can get a hold of it to make a large profit.

However, is having only one single resource really considered being "resource rich?" If a country has only one major natural resource that they are heavily dependent on, it means that they are less self-sufficient and more at the mercy of foreign powers. While they may be rich in the one export which gives the country international attention, they have as much of an issue due to lack of resources as they have due to an overflow of them.

If a country is defined by their reliance on a sole natural resource in order to be "resource cursed," then there are several examples of countries breaking that curse. Ideally, a country heavily dependent on an important natural resource should expect to have many foreign clients, and as a result should roll in a good amount of export money that they can use to build other sectors of the economy. Indeed, this is the case with the United Arab Emirates. While they are ostensibly "resource cursed" with oil, it understands the West's dependency on the resource, and has utilized that Western investment in order to build their service economy. Diversifying will also have the effect of securing the economy long term, if oil were ever to crash in price, lose its demand, or be depleted as a supply. Saudi Arabia is undergoing something similar, and has been relatively peaceful. Even Sierra Leone engaged with this mindset. Since diamonds have a seemingly insatiable appeal in the West, they have brought in large sums of export money, which the country has reinvested into infrastructure or other resources that they need. As a result, conflict in the region has seemingly died down, and civil war has not yet reignited in Sierra Leone since the early 2000s. That is not to suggest that these countries do not have their own share of problems, however, they are not currently marked by major conflicts or short term instability.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, are countries in the Americas, a region with multiple natural resources, and could potentially be defined as "resource cursed." Brazil, for example, can extract plenty of timber due to the Amazon, but it is also a major exporter in items like coffee beans or sugarcane. Chile first became rich off of its copper, but it has since become known for other things such as being a fertile wine country, and it exports a large amount of organic foods such as poultry, apples, or pears. These countries can be considered "resource rich," but are that way because they have myriad types of resources in their own country, limiting their dependency on imports. Despite being resource rich, and presumably resource cursed, the Brazilian and Chilean societies are not considered to be failing. Brazil has been touted as an emerging power, especially due to its association with BRICS, and has become one of the largest economies in the world today. Chile, meanwhile, has the highest human development in all of Latin America, as well as one of the region's strongest economies and highest literacy rates. While there was an expectation of these countries to be resource cursed for being rich with desirable natural resources, these countries are relatively stable and prosperous.

By contrast, Venezuela is similarly rich in natural resources, but is highly unstable. Its murder rate is one of the highest in the world. People there are starving, eating zoo animals or making soup out of grass, and inflation is so high in the country that some video game currencies are worth more than the Venezuelan bolivar.

The common thread between the cases of a resource curse are that the government is doing a poor job at managing the resources due to corruption or poor policy making. This is the underlying problem in each case, whether a country has one natural resource or many.

In reality, countries under the resource curse are in their situation for two reasons. The lack of any resources beyond the one they are rich in has created a dependency on foreign economies in the country, and even if they were able to be autonomous from the global economy, they would require a government that can properly utilize those resources. Therefore, it is more appropriate to consider the problem to be one of poor governance, or at least label the problem a "singular resource curse."

Global Warming and Security

In the United States, we have Al Gore and his successors to thank for the national focus on global warming and climate change, at home and across the world.  Throughout the years, we have seen all ends of the debate.  We've seen Donald Trump claiming in 2012 that global warming was Chinese hoax in order to stunt American manufacturing.  And we've seen Senator Bernie Sanders, in 2016, claim that climate change is directly correlated to the rise of terrorism.  Now, while the latter probably got a few nods from his base and the former got a lot of people to scratch their heads, we've been devout of a lot of necessary honesty and substance in this extremely complicated, essential, and nuanced discussion.

Recently, the discussion has shifted towards whether or not climate change or global warming is to be referred to and treated as a security issue, especially a national security issue.  While military, Defense Department, or other national security protective measures would be greatly ineffective in affecting climate change, there is very little else that this nation could do to combat it.  Now, there are certainly claims that those who favor climate change legislation have offered bountiful suggestions as to how to effectively alleviate our climate problem.  However, it's not that easy.  Like in most issues, it's never that easy.

The points that most often drive the pro-legislation advocates are the "No Plan(et)-B" slogans and emphasizing that there needs to be a viable earth in order to sustain life.  While these are both true, it does not mean that since they have predicted an endgame for hundreds, or thousands, of years in the future that they are suddenly inerrant in their policy suggestions.  This false idea leads to much of the contempt and disdain that comes from the other side of the debate.  Further, many anti-legislation advocates oppose such policies because of the dooming repercussions that would follow.

A large portion of these advocates either understand or would be directly affected by the economic or personal implications of this legislation.  These people are miners, and other people throughout manufacturing states like West Virginia and Michigan.  These people, if we were to follow through with these damning policies, would lose their job, and their livelihood.  That, right now, is far greater a security issue to the men and women of the United States than anything else regarding the issue.  It is most viable that we work towards finding more substantial sources of energy that are efficient and safe while also protecting these people and their way of life.  It is common to spin the climate issue as a very urgent threat, but the reality shows that its effects will come far down the road, with enough time for us to solve the problem with utmost efficiency.  However, until then, the most pressing security threat will be that to the ontology of the individuals that these policies would impact.

Labels vs Actions: How to Actually Help Deal with Sierra Leone, Climate Change, and Tuvalu

           Of our most recent case studies, one theme was quite prevalent: when faced with some sort of human and/or environmental crisis, many of those in positions to help spend considerably more time debating what labels or pre-existing programs should be assigned to a situation in a foreign nation that requires some degree of international assistance. All too frequently, efforts to aid foreign countries rely too heavily on the idea that those offering the aid have the best solution to a problem, a solution that can be implemented across the board, regardless of varying circumstances. Often those attempting to help a situation fail to ask those who it affects the most what they need, what they want, or what they think the solution should be. This failure to properly acknowledge and validate the experiences and knowledge of the people in need of assistance, often results in programs and labels that don't necessarily help as much as they should, if at all.
            There is such an extreme emphasis from world powers and organizations like the U.N., for the world to agree on a set of labels and procedures, and to apply them universally even if they won't necessarily make any difference. Even when it comes to something like whether or not climate change should be considered a national security threat, those (often very powerful nations) who conclude that it should, attempt to push those who believe otherwise to follow in their footsteps. They often emphasize how many of the nations who view it as a regular environmental issue instead, should be viewing it as a national security issue more so than anyone because they are more directly impacted by climate change than most other nations. The end result of this is more energy directed towards trying to make all nations view climate change as a national security threat than at cooperatively dealing with the actual issue.
            A more obvious, blatant and specific example of this problem can be seen through an examination of the international political responses to Sierra Leone in the 1990s/ early 2000s. In Sierra Leone, following the resolution of the conflict between groups such as the Revolutionary United Front, mining companies, and the local government over diamonds, several international forces attempted to aid the nation. Post-conflict programs such as 'Disarmament, demobilization and reintegration' (DDR) programs were implemented. However, their impact disproportionally affected former male soldiers (who had been securitized by outside forces) and former female soldiers (who had not been securitized). Despite the fact that a significant amount of women had been soldiers, few girls or women went to these programs, due to a myriad of social reasons that outside forces failed to consider (e.g. that many women voluntary were the perpetrator of horrific wartime acts rather than their victims, that the programs division of children and adults based on age didn't  necessarily align with the personal and societal perception of female soldiers based on their experiences, etc.). This insistence on applying specific perceptions, solutions, and labels from aiding nations and groups hindered their ability to help Sierra Leone recover as much as they could have.
        In more recent times, a similar problem is occurring in response to climate change-related threats to the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu. Rising sea levels are threatening to completely submerge the island, leading many to assert that there will soon be a flood of Tuvaluan "climate change refugees" to neighboring countries like Australia, Fiji and New Zealand. There, of course, have already been Tuvaluans who have immigrated to these countries, so this perception of migration is not imagined, however, the perception of its correlation to climate change might be. It could easily be several more decades before Tuvaluans have to emigrate, and it appears that many wish to stay there, regardless of whether or not that is plausible or rational. Outside forces thus begin debating whether or not they can help save Tuvalu, whether or not they can or should help facilitate Tuvaluan migration, and whether or not Tuvaluans should be labeled as "climate change refugees" due to negative connotations of the term 'refugee'.The first two questions are of course significantly more important than the last, however, in most discussions, many neglect to properly acknowledge or validate the thoughts of Tuvaluans; something which will likely lead to yet another situation which could have ended better if only those directly affected by the crisis had been properly consulted and valued.

        Overall, there needs to be a stronger push to consult with those directly affected by human and/or environmental crises, to acknowledge their experiences and opinions and to incorporate them into any proposed solutions. That is not to say that the entire solution should be shaped solely around, say, the wants of those affected, but that at the very least those directly affected should be able to have a say in any plans concerning their future wellbeing. In order for nations and organizations who wish to help those affected by human and/or environmental crises to successfully offer useful aid, they need to remember that no label or program is 'one size fits all' and adjust any solutions they offer to accordingly incorporate the solutions of those directly affected.