Jean Enriquez, executive director of the coalition Against Trafficking of Women Asia-Pacific, presented at the sixth installment of the Sanela Diana Jenkins International Speaker Series at Stanford’s Bechtel Center on February 21. Enriquez focused on the problem of sex trafficking in the Asia-Pacific countries, arguing that prostitution is incompatible with dignity and respect for human rights. Enriquez emphasized the importance of considering both the supply and demand side when individuals, organizations and governments address human trafficking.

“There are well-known push factors on the supply side,” noted Enriquez as she listed causes of vulnerabilities such as unemployment, poverty, lack of education and information, socialization of women and children as sexual objects, history of abuse, displacement due to natural calamities or conflict, liberalization of tourism, opening up of mining areas, conversion of agricultural lands and labor exports.

On the demand side, she suggested that militarism, pornography, cybersex and a corrupted idea of masculinity are drivers for commercial sex and sex trafficking. Enrique added that the supply and demand equation results in considerable profits. According to Enriquez, the sex industry accounts for 4.4% of Korea’s GDP, approximately the same portion as the agriculture and fishery industry.  

Enriquez also highlighted the link between militarism and sex trafficking citing data collected from victims of the Burmese junta and of soldiers stationed or in passage in the bases of Okinawa and Korea.

Addressing the difficulties of enforcing accountability, she highlighted the need for a cross-border and multi-sectoral cooperation that shifts punishment from victims to “buyers” and businesses. She added that her organization, in addition to working to strengthen and support victims, also devotes special attention to sensitizing men towards the plight of women and children forced into prostitution.

The Program on Human Rights at the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law, together with Stanford Summer Session are proud to offer a special session on human rights June 25 - July 25, 2012.  The new course entitled, New Global Human Rights presents the question of human rights from an interdisciplinary perspective, taking into account the 21st century context, which requires that both state and non-state actors are included in the movement for rights for all. The course will examine emerging trends in international human rights with an analysis of new categories of human rights victims, actors, and technologies. Other related courses will be offered to allow students to build a summer schedule that allows them to engage in the academic study of human rights in a truly transformative way.

Helen Stacy, director of the Program on Human Rights will teach the course which draws on the expertise of leading figures in the field of human rights. Keynote speakers include Fatou Bensouda, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the former solicitor-general, attorney-general, and Minister of Justice of The Gambia. Last December, Bensouda was elected as the new ICC chief prosecutor and is the first African to hold a top position at the ICC. According to Stacy, “Her (Bensouda's) visit to Stanford is a unique opportunity for the Stanford community to learn about the continuity of the work of the ICC from someone who is genuinely concerned about human rights issues,” said Stacy.

Philip Gourevitch, an American author and journalist will also speak at the summer course. Gourevitch has written feature stories and books documenting global human rights abuses, including; the aftermath of genocide in Rwanda and Cambodia, the dictatorships of Mobutu Sese Seko in Congo and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe; the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka; and the abuses committed at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. “Gourevitch has reported on some of the major and current human rights issues across the globe, " said Stacy, "To hear him speak is the closest we can get the primary account on these situations.”

This course is cross-listed in POLISCI, IPS, and INTNLREL, and open to registered Summer Session students (including Stanford students who register for units in the summer) who wish to explore courses outside their major, or simply accelerate their degree program. They will be joined by students from around the world who are invited to experience campus life at Stanford. To find out more information or to apply, please visit summer.stanford.edu.

In a piece for Global Brief magazine, Helen Stacy makes predictions about the state of international human rights norms and criminal prosecutions by the year 2022. Director of the CDDRL Program on Human Rights, Stacy anticipates that the U.S. will join the International Criminal Court after it has acquired a firm record of indictment on a global level, emboldening new actors on the human rights scene. According to Stacy in twenty years time, human rights will be the only legitimate game in town and the litmus test for international and domestic credibility.

As the Internet evolves, people around the world have faster, easier ways to connect. Innovative plans and economic opportunities are being hatched online, but so are ideas that challenge governments. Voices of dissent are amplified by social media tools like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, leaving some countries confused about how to balance free expression rights against perceived threats to national security and government stability.

Working with the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Eileen Donahoe is trying to make government officials feel more comfortable with online technology. Donahoe, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council, recently brought about 35 diplomats from around the world to Stanford. The group met with academics, Internet developers and technology business leaders to address the questions posed by a free and open Internet.

“I know the technology feels mysterious and challenging,” says Donahoe, who was an affiliated scholar at CISAC before becoming an ambassador. “So part of what we tried to do was demystify it. But we also conveyed the message that you’re not going to control technological change. And you’d better get used to it. It’s part of our world.”

In the following interview, Donahoe and CISAC co-director Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar discuss the challenges and potential promised in the online frontier.

Why did you arrange this meeting of diplomats in Silicon Valley?

Donahoe: Some ambassadors who are otherwise very committed to human rights have started to feel that the protections for freedom of expression and freedom of assembly could be weakened or lessened when you bring technology into the mix. There was a sense that governments could legitimately squelch free speech and free assembly when it happened in the online world. That’s a problem because so much of what happens today happens online. The Internet is now so central to the ability to speak freely. It was our responsibility to call them out and make them understand that technology should not change the equation in the protection of human rights.

How has the Internet changed the way we need to think about human rights and free expression?

Donahoe: In some ways, it hasn’t changed anything – free speech is free speech. But new technology has created new media, and that’s all changing at an exponential pace. People are being required to adjust in timeframes that were unimaginable before, and governments can’t keep up. Individuals can hardly keep up. It’s the pace and innovation that’s challenging. But there’s no change in our responsibility to protect the longstanding values of free expression.

What does a free and open Internet have to do with global security?

Cuéllar:  Some governments lack a commitment to basic rights and the rule of law. Technology can help people respond by raising their voices. They can organize and respond when their own government threatens citizens’ security.  Cyber technologies can also empower law enforcement officials, intelligence agencies and armed forces, raising fundamental questions about the role of government and the nature of conflict in the years to come. The Internet is an evolving technology that reflects vulnerability and enormous potential. Societies depend on government and private sector systems that face a variety of threats.  For all these reasons, the future of cyberspace is an important security issue at the very center of our agenda at CISAC.

Why do some governments feel threatened by the Internet?

Donahoe: It comes from the volume of voices you can have online. It comes from the pace of change. And there’s another aspect to online technology that’s intriguing: It is inherently democratizing. Citizens are becoming journalists. Anyone with a cell phone can broadcast live to the planet anything they’re observing. That can be threatening, but I believe it’s ultimately going to be a very positive force for transparency and government accountability.

How do you convince governments worried about those threats that open Internet access is ultimately in their best interest? 

Cuéllar: If the leaders of a state see it merely as a vehicle for control and stability, then much of the technology we have been discussing will appear profoundly threatening.  States seeking to build or maintain lasting institutions capable of meeting the needs of their citizens will tend to take a different approach, focused on the value of the public’s feedback and participation in governance.

Donahoe: A compelling point – especially for developing countries that may not otherwise place emphasis on the benefits to freedom from technology – is the recognition that there’s an economic upside to a free and open Internet. It can be framed as a development issue. Many government leaders can see that the future of all our economies is so intricately connected to this technology that if they try to squelch or shut down Internet development for political reasons, there will be dramatically negative effects for their economies. And that will lead to political problems. The economic value isn’t my primary human rights emphasis, but it helps to remind governments they run the risk of shutting themselves out of economic development if they don’t get comfortable with the technology.

What role, if any, should governments play in regulating the Internet?

Donahoe: Governments do need to play a role in regulation, just as they do in the offline world. But just because technology is brought into the equation doesn’t mean governments and regulators should be free to regulate too broadly or without concern for the costs to freedom. Just like in the offline world, regulation must be narrowly tailored and serve important government interests. Part of the challenge comes from the sense that governments can’t keep up with the technological advances. So they’re inclined to regulate more – and more bluntly – rather than in a more tailored way. This is where governments need to get more sophisticated about how to adjust to technological change.

What do policymakers need to know and understand before passing regulations?

Cuéllar: The future of cyberspace implicates security, economic development and the protection of civil and political rights – and all of these challenges are deeply interrelated.  A country's decision to restrict certain forms of Internet traffic can discourage economic innovation. Internet access in poor communities can lead to new economic opportunities, changing the larger context in which governance and security problems arise.  It is crucial to recognize these connections as societies think through the future of cyberspace.

On January 24, Madeline Rees, former U.N. high commissioner for human rights in Bosnia and secretary general for the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, spoke at the second installment of the Sanela Diana Jenkins International Speaker Series. Rees, has been working with the CDDRL Program on Human Rights to promote research on human trafficking, posed an interesting question: can extraterritorial jurisdiction — the legal ability of a government to exercise authority beyond its borders — be a tool for improving accountability for human rights abuse during peacekeeping operations?

Rees was referring to a situation that she experienced in Bosnia where peacekeepers reportedly abused, tortured and actively trafficked women and girls. She noted, however, that there have been similar situations and accusations of sexual exploitation and abuse, including sex trafficking, in U.N. missions ranging from Cambodia to Haiti to Congo since the 1990s. Rees argued that these abuses and the involvement of peacekeepers in human trafficking in particular, result from a combination of factors, which include:

• The perception of immunity (based on UN peacekeepers status)
• Impunity that results from the lack of specific legislation and enforcement mechanisms
• Lack of formal training
• Peer pressure
• Patriarchic militarized model of peacekeeping

There has been some slow progress. Rees recalled that when she first brought up the issue of human trafficking to the U.N., laughter was a common response. Her struggle, portrayed in part in the recent film The Whistleblower, has enabled an open discussion within the U.N. In 2007, the U.N. created the Department of Field Support and made some structural changes, but these reforms have not yet addressed the heart of the problem. In part, Rees believes, this is because the U.N. has lacked the political will to hold peacekeepers accountable for their actions.

On January 31, Roni Hong, a human trafficking survivor and founder of the Tronie Foundation presented her testimony at the third installment of the Sanela Diana Jenkins International Speaker Series. Hong dramatically recounted her personal story of being trafficked into forced labor at the young age of seven in India. She spoke of the beatings and torture she suffered and ultimately her illegal, international adoption. Her story raises the controversial issue of legal and illegal international adoption.

Hong highlighted the fact that most of the framework for advocacy for victims of human trafficking centers on sex trafficking. Citing data from the Trafficking in Persons Report, Hong explained that globally there are more victims of trafficking for labor than sexual exploitation. In the United States, hundreds of thousands of children work on farms exempt from the minimum age and maximum hour requirements that apply to all other working children. This exposes them to work at younger ages, for longer hours — often ten or more hours per day — and under hazardous conditions. They are vulnerable to the risk of pesticide poisoning, heat illness, injuries, life-long disabilities, and even death.

Through the Tronie Foundation, Hong organized a network of survivors of human trafficking. She has been interviewed by Oprah and has been a key advocate for legislation that mandates training of health providers in identifying signs of human trafficking in Washington state. Hong hopes that her work and the survivors’ network will empower victims like herself to find their voice and speak out. Hong told the audience that by bringing their voices together, victims can advocate for policies that address the causes of trafficking and advance human rights.

On January 17, the Program on Human Rights welcomed Bradley Myles and Helga Konrad to the Stanford campus to open the 2012 Sanela Diana Jenkins International Speaker Series. Bradley Myles is the executive director and CEO of Polaris, a leading organization in the United States combating all forms of human trafficking. Helga Konrad is the special representative on combating trafficking in human beings at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

Drawing from a combined thirty years of experience working in the field of human trafficking, Myles and Konrad discussed the challenges of making accurate assessments of the magnitude of the problem. Myles explained that the US does not have reliable estimates on the number of victims of human trafficking. The lack of data has undermined efforts to implement public policy, raise awareness and funding. There are many reasons why assessment of human trafficking is very difficult. Myles argued, for example, that within the United States there are many different definitions of human trafficking that facilitate misconceptions of human trafficking and create a vacuum in the law.

Konrad pointed out that in Europe most countries have adopted new anti-trafficking laws or amended their criminal codes to provide for the specific crime of human trafficking. However, the need for national and regional coordination mechanisms and frameworks persists. She highlighted that although data is important, one person submitted to human trafficking is one too many. In her opinion, Europe still needs a regional referral mechanism that would interact with services and other counter-measures (shelters, hotlines, voluntary repatriation, and short-term assistance) to protect victims and not criminalize them.

In the United States, the Polaris Project has been providing services to survivors and striving for long-term solutions since 2002. Polaris operates the National Human Trafficking Resource Center hotline 1.888.3737.888 and works to train different audiences including police officers, health providers and child protection social workers. Myles mentioned that awareness and information enables people to take responsibility. He believes that it is possible to create a movement to empower communities to change laws, policies, costumes, and effectively combat human trafficking.