The Philippines: poverty caused by the Government fosters human trafficking

If you have been following the recent news on human trafficking in the Philippines, you probably have noticed the Government's intensified efforts to curve human trafficking. Since the U.S. State Department published the Trafficking in Person report in 2010 and placed the Philippines on Tire 2 Watch List, the Filipino government has diligently shown its attempts to fight against human trafficking in prosecution and victim rescue. At least, the news reports suggest that it has. But, another report suggests that the Government has intensified its anti-human trafficking effort solely not to lose its eligibility for the U.S. aid in the near future. If it works to advance victims' rights, the Filipino government's primary motive behind its anti-huamn trafficking effort would not be such a big of deal. But, because of its wrong focus on the anti-human trafficking efforts, the Filipino government has persistently failed to address the real cause behind the human trafficking in the country for decades.

WHAT THE REPORT SAYS ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S EFFORT

The following is the summary of the news articles on anti-human trafficking effort by the Filipino government:

January 20, 2011:

The authority wants to clear up its record showing that some of public servants are involved in human trafficking. The newly appointed representative of the Philippines Overseas Employment Administration stated that his department will fully support investigation as soon as investigations show up.

February 9, 2011:

The court has made the first conviction of labor trafficking case. A woman is convicted of recruiting victims for housemaids in Malaysia without compensation. The victims testified that they worked for 9 months for their Malaysian employers but were not paid at all. According to the report, there have been total 38 conviction of human trafficking case, out of which 37 cases involved sex trafficking.

February 25, 2011:

Trafficking conviction doubled in eight months under the current administration, according to the report. So far, the Filipino court made convictions in 39 cases.

March 19, 2011:

The government launches a hotline for human trafficking victims. The hotlines will be available for 24 hours to the victims in Manila City and providences in emergency situations.

March 24, 2011:

The local government in Talcoban City announced that it would strengthen its effort to fight against human trafficking. According to the Philippines government report, the campaign is launched to protect Filipino migrants from human traffickers warning the traffickers of dire consequences of their crimes. In 2010 alone, the authority says that 11 out of 19 victims were served in the region.

According to the reports above, the government seems to be doing pretty well on surging through its fight against human trafficking by prosecuting traffickers and rescuing victims.

THE REAL PROBLEM LIES ELSEWHERE

Sadly, according to a local nonprofit group, the reality of human trafficking and sexual exploitation of children are still very much rampant in the country. In Angeles City, for instance, a nonprofit group reports that some police and government officials are predators themselves that foster commercial sexual exploitation of children. Also, parents blatantly sell their children for prostitution to foreign tourists for financial gain because they have a very limited means to meet their daily needs. What's more, one advocate argues that many police and government officials are in denial of ongoing exploitation of victims regardless of the prevalence throughout the city. Another report moreover points out that local Filipino men accounts for greater demand for child prostitution than foreign tourists. But, no report so far has shown the evidence that the police has neither investigate nor crackdown on local Filipino men exploiting children with commercial sex.

THE GOVERNMENT AND POVERTY

Whether they are talking about international, domestic, labor, or sex trafficking of Filipinos, many people agree that poverty is one of the primary causes behind human trafficking in the country. As mentioned above, poverty is the reason why many parents prostitute their children as well as it is the reason why many victims leave the country and fall into the hands of traffickers abroad. But, poverty in the Philippines has never been proliferated itself on its own. Rather, in the case of the Philippines, the Government's economic mismanagement and corruption have consistently and precisely been the reasons why many Filipino have become poor and remained in poverty. Yet, the administration's anti-human trafficking efforts only superficially focused on the prosecution of traffickers and foreign sex tourists and neglected to address the root cause of human trafficking and child commercial sexual exploitation.

POLICY FAILURES BY THE FILIPINO GOVERNMENT

Asian Development Bank, an international entity for development in South Asia region explains government policy failures that have fostered poverty in the Philippines as follows:

Because of the [Filipino] Government’s fundamental limitations in human, financial, and physical resources, aggravated by excessive red tape (an excessive regulation or rigid conformity to formal rules that is considered redundant or bureaucratic and hinders or prevents action or decision-making), graft (Unscrupulous use of one's position to derive profit or advantages; extortion.) , and corruption, ( the Government has generally been unable to properly run the country). It has failed to ensure the efficient delivery of necessary public services, and has not brought about the economic development and widespread prosperity the country deserves [emphasis added].

THE U.S. AIDS FOR NONPROFITS, NOT THE GOVERNMENT

In a country like the Phlippines, where corruption is proven to be rampant by an international organization, foreign aids will highly unlikely be put into good use to fighting against human trafficking particularly when it is directly handed to the Government itself. Besides, had the Filipino Government had been willing to fight trafficking for victims' sake, it would have already done so long before the TIP 2010 report was generated. Also, the victims would not have had reasons to leave the country nor would they have been sold to the traffickers by their family members to begin with. What's more, the local police and government officials turning a blind eye to the victims shows that the government is really not interested in the justice for the victims therefore, their effort will unlikely address the real issues. Hence, donors are rather encouraged to hand the aids to the local nonprofits working directly with the victims in the Philippines than the Filipino government.

UK needs its public's voice, not EU directive, to curve human trafficking

A few weeks ago, UK public and advocacy groups were upset when they found out that the UK administration decided to opt out on EU anti-human trafficking directive. According to these group, the directive would have bound UK to improve prosecution of UK traffickers abroad and bound the UK government to better assist victims, including child trafficking victims. Because currently legislation, according to these group, fail to meet the needs of victims, they argue that the UK government needs an accountability from a higher authority like European Court to carry out better anti-human trafficking measures. However, analysis of research studies on UK human trafficking shows that the urgency of change in system rather lies on elsewhere than opting in for EU directive.

PROBLEM OF UK ANTI-HUMAN TRAFFICKING MEASURE

One research by antislavery.org, among many other things, points out lack of services and assistance available for child trafficking victims. While the central government, whose staff has a minimal training on victim identification and human trafficking, has a sole discretionary power to identify victims, it often fails to recognize many people's victim status. For instance, the government does not identify one as a victim, if he or she arrived in UK voluntarily and later forced into slavery. Also, according to the U.S. Department of State TIP report, under the strict government work permit system obtained by the employers on behalf of employees, migrant workers are frequently subject to labor exploitation, including passport confiscation in the UK territory Bermuda. What's more, one research highlights that re-victimization of child trafficking victims from foster care or shelters because they have no access to adequate legal guardians, suitable foster parents, and adequate accommodation to protect these victims from re-victimization.

One report also points out a general attitude of the UK system towards the trafficking victims as another problem. Though TIP report in 2011 states that the UK government continues to take steps to establish victim centered approach, many cases show that trafficking is viewed rather as an immigration issue. One victim said that she was trafficked to UK for forced marriage. When she finally escaped four years later and reported the crime, the immigration officer didn't believe her and said that she could have escaped sooner. Another victim who was forced into domestic slavery "was told that as this had happened in 2008, she should now have 'overcome any trauma'."

SOLUTION IS NOT EU DIRECTIVE

Though many anti-human trafficking groups argue that the UK government needs a higher authority like European Court to improve its own system, this is unlikely a solution to the current problem. The issue of UK's human trafficking is not lack of legislation that UK directive can fill the loopholes in. In fact, UK has more legislation regarding human trafficking than it knows what to do with. They include:

The Immigration Asylum, and Nationality Act 2006 – makes employers who employ illegal migrants subject to a civil penalty. Furthermore if they knowingly employ illegal migrants they will be subject to two years imprisonment and an unlimited fine

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 allows authorities to confiscate criminal assets of traffickers

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits torture – this can be evoked under the Human Rights Act 1998

Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits slavery – this can be evoked under the Human Rights Act 1998

UK is not some developing country, where legislation is implemented through outside pressure and assistance. Its hundreds of years of its history proves that it is fully capable of governing, implementing and legislating its own laws.

THE SOLUTION IS IN PEOPLE

The advocacy group in UK should rather focus on raising the awareness among UK public and assist government authorities to train their staff on human trafficking. Closing the legislative loopholes, such as lack of provision of legal guardians in child trafficking cases, will come once people and government officials are educated enough to realize that human trafficking is a problem of economic, political, and civil rights issue, rather than immigration issue. And so does change of their perspective on human trafficking victims. In particular, once the UK public learns the lesson that inadequate victim assistance program only proliferates human trafficking and organized crime through re-victimization, they will be more than willing to push for more victim centered approach legislation through their own local representatives. Some advocacy group says that opting in for EU directive will help UK government more accountable to improve its own system. But, UK government is already accountable to its own citizens. Why should the citizens turn over their sovereignty to European Court when the UK citizens, not the judges in European Court, are the ones who are directly affected by human trafficking policies on UK's own soil?