Ms. Rees explores the business of sex trafficking in Eastern Europe particularly from the standpoint of her own personal experience. She explains, from her many years in Bosnia, the tragedies of the business, as well as the failures in attempts to stop it. In addition, Ms. Rees looks forward and argues how she feels the problem should be tackled in the future.

Synopsis

Ms. Rees sets the tone for her talk from the start by stating that while our interventions are a response to the phenomenon of sex trafficking, the phenomenon develops as a result of our interventions. Offering a simplified definition, she explains that the sex trafficking business consists of three main stages: recruitment, transfer, and exploitation. Mr. Rees continues by arguing that although there are many different perceptions of trafficking, focusing on only one of them, such as purely the prostitution aspect or solely the migration factor, will lead to eventual failure.

Placing strong emphasis on the fact that sex trafficking is a free market affair and therefore must be treated as such, Mr. Rees begins her focus on the business in Eastern Europe from the perspective of the dire economic situation in post-Soviet states. Discussing primarily her personal experience in Bosnia in the midst of the Balkans conflict, she explains the situation was one where organized criminal activity was for survival. In addition, Ms. Rees reveals that the status of the region both during and after the conflict was perfect for sex trafficking. There were almost no border checks, the 60, 000 peacekeepers provided a large and convenient market, and the police were easily corruptible. Ms. Rees explains that this messy situation lasted until 1999-2000 when the international community finally realized the seriousness of the problem at hand.

Resulting from the stabilization of the region and increased international attention, the crime of sex trafficking and its response was becoming increasingly sophisticated. However, Ms. Rees explains the role of the UN consisted of, in large part, offering clients and doing little to punish their conduct. She also expresses discontent at the UN program of bar raids which shifted the business underground, making it much harder to track. Similarly, Ms. Rees examines the efforts the International Organization for Migration and her concern with the tactics of coercive testimony. Ms. Rees also focuses on the period after 2003, once the UN peacekeepers had left, where the market had shrunk and the business was legitimizing. As women were starting to make money, the law enforcement approach was becoming increasingly messy, and Ms. Rees examines the certain merits of shelters and legal advice for the female victims.

Ms Rees concludes on a more somber note, exposing her belief that Bosnia was a failure in attempts to stop sex trafficking. She emphasizes that it was a failure with considerable economic ramifications. Finally, Mr. Rees finishes by arguing that current approaches do not listen enough to the subjects of the crime, the women. These are who we must base our efforts around.

Ms. Rees also kindly takes the time answer the audience’s various questions, raising a multitude of issues. She explains the inaccuracy and impossibility of estimating the numbers of the sex trafficking industry. Ms. Rees also explores the issues of HIV and pregnancies, as well as immunity for foreign workers such as the UN peacekeepers. Another key point raised was the potential effectiveness of prosecuting clients of the sex trafficking business.

Sponsored jointly by the Forum on Contemporary Europe, Center for Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies, Stanford Law School, and Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research.

This keynote speech kicks off the Trafficking of Women in Post-Communist Europe conference April 18.

Unarmed mass uprisings, celebrated as "people power" revolutions, have ended authoritarian regimes in various countries. But have these movements ushered in polities that fulfilled democratic expectations? The record is disappointing, and especially so in the Philippines after the ouster of President Ferdinand Marcos. Why? Much of the answer lies in the ability of elites to ride, hijack, and redirect the trajectories of "people power" movements. Such elites take advantage of the tension between the regular politics of stable institutions and the irregular politics of extraordinary moments. The large mobilizations associated with "people power" cannot be sustained for long periods. The masses will soon delegate power to, and rely on, their leaders, who will represent them as the polity settles down to the business of normal--institutional--politics. The very minute the new regime is inaugurated, it ceases to be revolutionary and starts to be conservative. It has a country to run, and state power to defend and consolidate, for its enemies are not likely to have given up. The institutional technology of popular rule has yet to be developed beyond grand first principles and banal motherhood statements. The supposedly revolutionary leaders of the new regime lapse into using the already well known methods of minority or elite rule. But recourse to such stratagems may in time trigger the formation of new "people power" movements against these self-entrenched incumbents--prolonging the cycle and preventing the conversion of contingent power into legitimate authority.

Amado Mendoza's current research is on the political economy of organized crime and anti-state violence in the Philippines. His many writings on that country include a book-in-progress on tax reform and two edited volumes, Debts of Dishonor (1992) and From Crisis to Crisis: A History of BOP [Balance of Payments] Crises in the Philippines (1987). He has been a visiting scholar at Tufts University, the Jean Monnet Institute, the University of Turku (Finland), and the Amsterdam Insti¬tute for International Relations. In addition to pursuing his academic career, he has worked as a business journalist, a merchant banker, a stockbroker, and on development issues for an NGO.

The Pinochet Case

Patricio Guzman's The Pinochet Case investigates the legal origins of the case against Augusto Pinochet, the general who overthrew President Salvador Allende of Chile in 1973. This documentary follows the legal cases that ultimately led to Pinochet being arrested and tried for his crimes against humanity committed over the 25 years that he ruled Chile.

Carlos Castresana received his law degree in 1979 from Complutense University, Madrid, Spain. He served as a District and Examine Judge, and Court Magistrate for a number of years, before becoming a member of the Public Prosecutors of Spain, where he worked in the Anti-drug and Anti-corruption Special Offices. In 2005, he was appointed Prosecutor of the Supreme Court. He was also a professor of criminal law at the University Carlos III, Madrid.

Mr. Castresana authored the formal complaint and subsequent reports in the Pinochet Case before the Audiencia Nacional in Spain. He has served as an expert in international legal cooperation and other issues in Europe and Latin America, under appointment of the United Nations, European Union, and Council of Europe. He received the Human Rights National Award in Spain in 1997, was awarded the Doctorate Honoris causa from the Guadalajara University, Mexico in 2003, and the Certificate of Honor from the City and County of San Francisco in 2004. Mr. Castresana teaches courses on human rights in Latin America and international criminal law and is coordinator of Project H32, in the United Nation's Office of Narcotics and Crime in Monterrey, Mexico.

Sponsored by the Stanford Law School, the Program on Global Justice, the Forum on Contemporary Europe, the Stanford Film Lab, VPUE, and the Introduction to the Humanities Program.

Motoo Noguchi is a professor at UNAFEI (United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders) in Tokyo, serving concurrently as senior attorney at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Legal Affairs Bureau.

He started his career as public prosecutor at the Ministry of Justice in 1985 and has accumulated considerable experience in criminal investigations and trials. He also has long experience in the provision of legal technical assistance for developing countries in Asia including Cambodia, firstly as professor at the Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice, then as counsel at the Asian Development Bank, and currently as professor at UNAFEI. Noguchi was appointed in May 2006 to be one of three international judges of the Appeals Chamber of the Khmer Rouge Trials by the government of Cambodia. The trial will bring to justice members of the Khmer Rouge government accused of massacres in the 1970s. The United Nations created the tribunal in 2003 to try former Khmer Rouge Leaders.

Motoo Noguchi is a Graduate of University of Tokyo, Faculty of Law. He was a visiting scholar at University of Washington, Law School, USA from 1992-93 and a visiting professional at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands in 2005. He was a visiting fellow at Yale last fall and will be a visiting scholar at Stanford Law School during his stay at Stanford in January.

Ambassador Eva Nowotny is the official representative of the Republic of Austria in the United States and is responsible for all aspects of the relationship between the two countries. On December 04, 2003 she presented her credentials to President George W. Bush at the White House. She is also Permanent Representative of the Observer Mission of Austria to the Organization of American States (OAS) and Ambassador to the Commonwealth of the Bahamas.

Cosponsored by the Consulate General of Austria, Los Angeles http://www.austria.org

Audio Synopsis:

In this presentation, Ambassador Nowotny offers her thoughts on Austria's recent six month presidency of the European Union, which she points out has fostered an increase in positive attitudes toward the EU on behalf of Austrian citizens. While 2005 was a difficult year for the EU in light of the French and Dutch rejections of the latest treaty and disagreement about enlargement policy especially with respect to Turkey, the Austrian presidency has "reestablished a cooperative climate" and a degree of optimism to the European Union. Several unexpected events early in Austria's presidency presented challenges, including Russia's decision to stop the flow of Gazprom gas to Ukraine, the Maoist uprising in Nepal, and Iran's declaration that it would continue developing nuclear weapons. Austria used these challenges as an opportunity to reinvigorate discussion of foreign policy and negotiate a coherent EU response to international conflicts. 

The ambassador then highlights key issues dominating Austria's presidency. These include the debate over the future of Europe, centering on the constitutional treaty and enlargement; the internal development of the European project, especially fostering economic competitiveness and addressing crime and terrorism; and the role of Europe in the world, where Austria has contributed strongly by helping to resolve conflicts like those in the Balkans, and helping to develop Europe's "neighborhood policy." 

Finally, Ambassador Nowotny emphasizes the importance of the transatlantic relationship, which she feels the US and Europe attach equal weight to. Key areas of cooperation in years to come will include resolving international conflicts and dealing with crises, fostering the transatlantic economic partnership, improving international governance structures, and combatting terrorism.

A discussion session following the presentation raised such questions as: Where are there differences between the interests of Austria and of the European Union? In a post-9/11 world, do we have the institutional structure necessary to deal with new issues such as terrorism, and can we rely on those left over from WWII (NATO, OSCE, etc.)? Does Austria approach Southern and Eastern European countries as one group or does it prefer to deal with them individually?

Co-Sponsored with the Department of History and the Taube Center for Jewish Studies

Richard Evans is a Professor of Modern History at the University of Cambridge, with a particular research interest in the social and cultural history of Germany since the mid-nineteenth century. He has worked on movements of emancipation and liberation, on social inequality in the urban environment, and on the social history of death and disease. Most recently, Professor Evans has worked on crime and punishment, especially the death penalty in German history since the seventeenth century, where he has used archival evidence to bring a social and anthropological approach to bear on major theories of punishment and society. Additionally, Professor Evans holds an interest in historiography and the history of the discipline of history. He has been Editor of the Journal of Contemporary History since 1998 and is a Fellow of the British Academy, the Royal Society of Literature and the Royal Historical Society, and an Honorary Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford, and Birkbeck College, London. His most recent publications include Telling Lies About Hitler: History, the Holocaust and the David Irving Trial (London, 2002), and The Coming of the Third Reich (London, 2003).

Brian Jenkins is a senior advisor to the president of the RAND Corporation and one of the world's leading authorities on terrorism. He founded the RAND Corporation's terrorism research program in 1972, has written frequently on terrorism, and has served as an advisor to the federal government and the private sector on the subject. A former Army captain who served with Special Forces in Vietnam, he is also a former deputy chairman of Kroll Associates. He served as a captain in the Green Berets in the Dominican Republic and later in Vietnam (1966-1970). In 1996, he was appointed by President Clinton to be a member of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. He has served as an advisor to the National Commission on Terrorism (1999-2000) and in 2000 was appointed as a member of the U.S. Comptroller General's Advisory Board. He is Is also a special advisor to the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and a member of the board of directors of the ICC's Commercial Crime Services. He is the author of International Terrorism: A New Mode of Conflict, the editor and coauthor of Terrorism and Personal Protection, coeditor and coauthor of Aviation Terrorism and Security, and coauthor of The Fall of South Vietnam.

Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand are plagued by corruption. Why? What have their governments done to curb the phenomenon? How effective or ineffective have their efforts been, and why? In the course of addressing these questions, Professor Quah will argue for anti-corruption measures that are comprehensive in nature and backed by political will. He will also conclude that Thailand appears to have had greater success in stemming corruption than either the Philippines or Indonesia. In explaining that difference, he will highlight, among other factors, the reform constitution that Thailand adopted in 1997.

Jon Quah is co-editor of the Asian Journal of Political Science and presently a visiting scholar at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center. In 1992-98 he chaired the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore. He has held visiting positions at Stanford University and Harvard University, among other institutions. Relevant publications include Curbing Corruption in Asia: A Comparative Study of Six Countries (2003); "Causes and Consequences of Corruption in Southeast Asia," Asian Journal of Public Administration (2003); and "Democratization and Political Corruption in the Philippines and South Korea," Crime, Law and Social Change(2004). His advisory positions have included being lead consultant for a UN Anti-Corruption Mission to Mongolia.