Back in January, 2004, Nicholas Kristof wrote that the condition of Cambodian sex slaves had improved compared to the 1990s (it’s here, behind the wall):
“These days the girls are 17 rather than 13, fewer are beaten or physically imprisoned, and Cambodia’s success in fighting AIDS with condoms means that sexual slavery is not necessarily a death sentence.
“The progress in Cambodia is mirrored by strides elsewhere, from South Korea to Romania and the Dominican Republic. And most of the credit goes to the courageous members of grass-roots organizations – mostly women – who often put themselves on the line to defend the weak and powerless against overwhelming economic and political interests.”
Just kidding, of course! Actually, he wrote: “most of the credit goes to the Bush administration.”
Despite their, um, reluctance to promote the use of condoms, Kristof zeroed in on the most effective tool that the Bush administration used in its battle: “The new director of the trafficking office, John Miller, has bludgeoned foreign governments, telling them to curb trafficking or face sanctions.”
Now, according to the Washington Post:
President Bush decided Wednesday to waive any financial sanctions on Saudi Arabia, Washington’s closest Arab ally in the war on terrorism, for failing to do enough to stop the modern-day slave trade in prostitutes, child sex workers and forced laborers.
In fact, back in June, the State Department listed 14 countries that failed to adequately address trafficking problems, but President Bush ruled that only Myanmar, Cuba, and North Korea were “barred completely from receiving certain kinds of foreign aid.” (Trade assistance and humanitarian aid, apparently, are excluded.) “The White House statement offered no explanation of why countries were regarded differently. [The State Dept. spokeswoman] also could not provide one.”
A year ago, when confronted with documentary evidence that the United Arab Emirates had lied about cracking down on the kidnapping and enslavement of young boys as young as 3 to be camel jockeys, John Miller reacted angrily: “I will tell you this. From what I know of the president and the secretary of state’s feelings about the slavery issue, the fact that a government is a friend or an ally is not gonna keep this government from speaking out.”
Naturally, President Bush struck the UAE from the State Department’s list. We’ll see whether Mr. Miller attempts to regain some of his credibility – by returning to his position as board chairman of the Discovery Institute.
{ 22 comments }
Thomas 09.25.05 at 12:11 am
One should remember that Mr. Miller’s quoted reaction was in response to a suggestion that the Bush administration–which had previously praised UAE for its supposed efforts in the area–had pulled its punches in the report, not in the sanctions permitted under the law. Mr. Miller insisted, accurately I think, that the administration hadn’t and wouldn’t pull its punches in the reports required under US law.
Mr. Miller needn’t fear a loss of credibility, unless one confuses the report–which is where the US government “speaks out” on this issue–for the sanctions permitted under the law providing for the report. The difference between “speaking out” and other responses seems clear enough on its face.
Finally, the Washington Post article is the product of crappy reporting. The WH press release, publicly available, says of Saudi Arabia, for example:
http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/prsrl/2005/53777.htm
Saudi Arabia
The Government of Saudi Arabia does not fully comply with the Act’s minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking, and is not making adequate efforts to bring itself into compliance. The President has determined to waive all sanctions against Saudi Arabia, consistent with the provisions of the Act, in the national interest of the United States. Saudi Arabia’s anti-trafficking efforts, however, will be reassessed within six months of this date.
Justification: The Government of Saudi Arabia has not taken sufficient steps to address the significant problem of involuntary servitude in which many foreign domestic workers and laborers are found in Saudi Arabia, but has committed to work with the U.S. government on this through a constructive dialogue. The government offers few services for these victims of trafficking — who are among millions of South and Southeast Asian workers brought to the Kingdom — and prosecutes few of those guilty of trafficking crimes. The government has ample resources to address Saudi Arabia’s trafficking problems, but has only recently begun to show political will to tackle this serious human rights crime. The granting of a full waiver of sanctions against Saudi Arabia is in the national interest because it will allow us to continue democracy programs in Saudi Arabia in support of the President’s Freedom Agenda through the Middle East Partnership Initiative, and will permit continued security cooperation to effectively prosecute the War on Terror. In addition, the President recognizes the new King is committed to reform, and hopes that the King will act to remedy this in the spirit of understanding.
Impact of Sanctions: Over five billion dollars in foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia would have been restricted by sanctions under the Act. A full waiver has been granted in the national interest of providing these military sales in order to advance goals of the Global War on Terror. Sanctioning MEPI programs would remove a key U.S. government tool in promoting democratic reform and human rights in Saudi Arabia.
___________
That compares to the treatment of North Korea, which is also described in the release:
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)
The Government of the DPRK does not fully comply with the Act’s minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking, and is not making significant efforts to bring itself into compliance. The President has determined to sanction the DPRK.
Justification: The Government of the DPRK is making no effort to address trafficking in persons. The government does not recognize trafficking as a problem and imposes slave-like labor conditions on its prisoners, including North Koreans forcibly returned from China. Further, conditions in the DPRK drive large numbers of North Koreans to seek a way out of the country, putting them at risk of becoming trafficking victims. Women who enter Northern China from the DPRK may be sold as brides and trafficked for purposes of sexual exploitation. Although other U.S. measures against North Korea are in place, the President’s determination indicates the strong U.S. disapproval of the DPRK Government’s failure to address trafficking in persons.
Impact of Sanctions: The Act’s sanctions will not impact U.S. assistance to the DPRK. No North Korean government officials or employees participate in current or planned United States Government-funded educational or cultural exchange programs.
The only assistance provided to the DPRK by the United States is food aid given through the United Nations World Food Program and disaster assistance. Food insecurity is an ongoing problem in the DPRK and the population remains vulnerable to malnourishment, disease and starvation. The food, health, and disaster aid provided by the U.S. helps to alleviate the desperate situation in the DPRK. This assistance to the DPRK is purely humanitarian, and its placement on Tier 3 should not adversely impact food, health, or disaster aid. The U.S. government does not provide other types of assistance to the government of the DPRK.
USAID provides a significant amount of this food aid under authority of P.L. 480, the “Food for Peace” program. Assistance under P.L. 480 is not affected by the TVPA sanctions.
________________
abb1 09.25.05 at 3:26 am
Thomas, how does one become an apologist for these scoundrels? I just can’t imagine.
jet 09.25.05 at 8:21 am
Given that the homegrown insurgents in Iraq aren’t the ones slaughtering 500 civilians per month, the US is right to place stopping terrorism above other more long term human rights goals. If Saudi Arabia or the UAE retaliated by stopping their efforts to contain potential Iraqi insurgents, the 500 civilians blown up per month would surely rise. This is a valid weighing of priorities, and to not recognize them is extremely short sighted. Having more Syrias near Iraq would mean lots of more dead civilians in Iraq.
rea 09.25.05 at 9:10 am
“the homegrown insurgents in Iraq aren’t the ones slaughtering 500 civilians per month”
Goodness, Jet–from what part of your anatomy did you get THAT conclusion? No reputable source agrees with you that the insurgency is primarily foriegn–hell, not even the adminstration goes so far as to claim THAT.
jet 09.25.05 at 9:26 am
Rea,
And if you read a little more carefully, your statement has nothing to do with mine. I said it was primarily the foreign insurgents who are killing hundreds of civilians, not that foreign insurgents are the majority of insurgents. Just as you won’t find anyone to dispute your claim, you won’t find anyone (of repute) to dispute mine. It isn’t 40 year old Saddam loyalist running into Shi’ite mosques blowing up 100 innocents, it is crazy 18 year old Egyptians, Syrians, etc.
Matt 09.25.05 at 9:39 am
I think this is an interesting and complex problem. We want, of course, to stop trafficing. It’s obvious to everyone involved that we are not going to put any sort of serious sanctions on countries that we depend on for oil or for other resources or help. So, it therefore seems quite transparent to everyone involved that this is a sham and they don’t take it seriously. It’s a way to punish states we don’t like or need while doing nothing to states who have very similar problems but who’s oil (or whatever) we do need. It would be amazing if this didn’t hurt the credability of the US in many ways. As unpleasent as it might be in some ways it might be better over-all if the US didn’t make threats that it quite obviously doesn’t intend to keep.
Troutsky 09.25.05 at 12:14 pm
If all a country has to do is commit to helping the US fight the Eternal War on Terror ,and provide few credible results, they in effect have carte blanche to ignore any and all other policies, treaties, agreements. A not so subtle form of blackmail, or what the Mafia called a “protection scheme”
rea 09.25.05 at 1:44 pm
“I said it was primarily the foreign insurgents who are killing hundreds of civilians, not that foreign insurgents are the majority of insurgents.”
Well, but that statement suffers from the same defect as your previous statement: it’s utterly unsupported by evidence. Kindly link to a reputable source, other than yourself, who supports that claim.
jet 09.25.05 at 2:23 pm
Rea,
It also appears my statement suffers from the same defect as yours. You first.
jet 09.25.05 at 2:30 pm
Rea,
Okay, me first.
dave heasman 09.25.05 at 6:01 pm
“Okay, me first.
…but coalition sources believe most suicide bombers are either Saudis or Yemenis, with small numbers from a dozen other Arab and African states…”
Brilliant trollwork, jet. Everyone’s now forgotten that the regime you love doesn’t give a shit about slavery. Hurrah for jet, he wants us to ignore his friends’ condoning slavery.
Thomas 09.25.05 at 7:43 pm
Matt, as far as this being a “sham”, note this from the same release I linked to above: “It is important that six of the fourteen Tier 3 countries took actions that averted the need for the President to make a determination regarding sanctions and waivers.”
troutsky, that’s just bizarre. Have you read anything about this matter at all? I mean, other than the intentionally misleading post above?
What sort of Mafia protection racket involves the Mafia making the payments to the protected?
dave, what on earth are you talking about? If your suggestion is that no administration should ever decline to impose sanctions on a regime that it has found to be deficient in this area, even if there may be other interests of the nation at issue, then that’s fair enough, but I suppose your quarrel begins with those who drafted and approved a law allowing for such an exception. Should we see who those people are? Let’s start naming names on that principle, and we’ll see where the game comes out!
Matt 09.25.05 at 8:01 pm
Thomas,
I’ve read a few newspaper articles on it, and some other discussions. My impression is that this, like many other such measures, does do some good (I didn’t say that it doesn’t) but that it also does a lot of harm in that it’s clear that we’re not serious about what we say. We’re happy to be hard on countries that we don’t need anything from, and we let the others walk. That’s hard to fit with the idea that we’re acting from principle. It is certain to make the countries that felt really threatend feel like they are dealing with bullies rather than people acting from principle. What’s a sham about the system is the way we use it, when we know very well that we’ll not put sanctions on Saudi Arabia. They know it and everyone else does too (even you). So, saying “if you don’t do x, we’ll do y” when we have no intention of doing y is a sham. Don’t you think?
Jon H 09.26.05 at 12:32 am
It’s just a variation of the flypaper theory.
Let Michael Jackson molest the kids over there, so he won’t do it over here.
mythago 09.26.05 at 12:53 am
thomas, given that the point of the original post was that the White House has provided no credible explanation for the difference, citing the White House’s press release justifying its less-than-credible behavior is not exactly convincing.
dave heasman 09.26.05 at 3:13 am
“dave, what on earth are you talking about? ”
I’m talking about dear old jet, trolling away, trying to move the issue from his and your pals’ condoning slavery to some bee in his bonnet about the Iraq “insurgency”. Instead of your & his pals condoning slavery.
Thomas 09.26.05 at 7:29 am
mythago, the press release goes into great detail about the differences between the countries. It doesn’t leave anything to the imagination, does it? We’re not left to wonder, is the war on terror the difference between, say, Cuba and Saudi Arabia? The WaPost article said that no explanation was offered. A straightforward and obvious explanation was offered, and the WaPost just didn’t bother to read it. I’ve actually shown it to you, so I’m not sure what your excuse is. A reference to the original post, which supposes wrongly that a refusal to impose sanctions is tantamount to striking a nation from the State Department list of countries with unacceptable policies in this matter, isn’t helpful.
Dave, you’re a nitwit.
jet 09.26.05 at 7:30 am
dave heasman,
Are you on crack? My post was in response to Rea’s and was on topic. Yours on the other hand is less so.
And claiming that anyone is “condoning slavery” or using the scary quotes for insurgency do kind of tip your hand.
Jim Miller 09.26.05 at 5:09 pm
Jon Mandle – Your argument interests me, but it seems incomplete. I hope you will fill it in by answering two questions:
1. What nation has done more than the United States to end slavery while Bush has been president?
2. Did Bill Clinton (or any other recent president) do more to end slavery while he was president than Bush has done while he has been president?
As always, references, especially linked references, would be helpful.
mpowell 09.26.05 at 6:09 pm
Okay- I’m pretty sympathetic to the argument that the Bush administration does a poor job of deciding who gets sanctions and who doesn’t. BUT, I am also pretty tired of the argument that goes like this: look at this hypocritical gov’t, why do they sanction this country for but not this other one? There are always competing concerns. Many of them are legitimate. Being a strategic ally is definitely a big one. Whether someone ought to be a strategic ally is another question. But you have to make the argument.
mpowell 09.26.05 at 6:11 pm
Sorry for this 2nd post. I needed to repost b/c part of my post was ommitted due to formatting issues.
Okay- I’m pretty sympathetic to the argument that the Bush administration does a poor job of deciding who gets sanctions and who doesn’t. BUT, I am also pretty tired of the argument that goes like this: look at this hypocritical gov’t, why do they sanction this country for (insert immoral activity) but not this other one? There are always competing concerns. Many of them are legitimate. Being a strategic ally is definitely a big one. Whether someone ought to be a strategic ally is another question. But you have to make the argument.
mythago 09.27.05 at 11:04 am
mythago, the press release goes into great detail about the differences between the countries. It doesn’t leave anything to the imagination, does it?
It goes into the detail that the Administration thinks is relevant to justify its decisions. It also explains, revealingly, that we excuse trafficking in one because of the War on Terror and sanction it in another because conditions are so terrible for the people there. I’m not following.
Comments on this entry are closed.