Sanja Milivojevic, University of Western Sydney 1 Abstract

Sanja Milivojevic, University of Western Sydney 1 Abstract

Trafficking in people and in particular sex trafficking are extreme forms of exploitation and as such have been the focus of feminist and criminological inquiry for over two decades (Barry 1988; Altink 1995; Bertone 2000). The approach to trafficking and the intervention by nation-states in order to “combat” this crime has, both historically and contemporary, created more harm for those it ought to protect (Doezema 2000; Kempadoo 2005). It can be argued that such detrimental approaches to trafficking were especially prominent during George W. Bush’s administration (see for example Milivojevic & Pickering 2008). The existing anti-trafficking framework, however, could be altered with recent political and economic developments, particularly with the election of the new Obama administration. This paper discusses how current global and local political, economic and migration developments might instigate and underpin our re-thinking of trafficking and anti- trafficking initiatives. It also suggests which important actors, silenced for some time, will have the potential to emerge and contest the current anti-trafficking frameworks, and who is likely to disappear from the national and international trafficking debate. Finally, this paper proposes the role that criminologists, researchers, academics and feminists alike should take in this process.

Introduction Trafficking in people and in particular sex trafficking has been positioned remarkably high on the agenda of both nation-states and the international community since the 1990s. It is by now well documented that the approach to trafficking so far has been largely situated within the law and order framework, while trafficking has been addressed as a predominantly criminal justice, moral and migration issue (Doezema 2000; Ditmore 2005; Desyllas 2007; Weitzer 2007). The torchbearers of such a strategy

gathered in what has been coined the ‘21 st century abolitionist movement’ (Ambassador John Miller, US House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations

2006:27), an unlikely coalition that congregates political and religious Right, feminist abolitionists and international human rights organisations in a mission to “rescue” victims of trafficking and bring those responsible for such ‘horrific human rights abuses’ to justice (VitalVoices 2003). This coalition has

undoubtedly had, at least up to now, what Becker (cited in Hogg & Brown 1996) calls the “hierarchy of credibility” in discussions around trafficking. This hierarchy - as the right to define the reality in a social

setting - is not an outcome of ‘any grand conspiracy’; rather, it derives from power and status of those who emerge as “primary definers” (Hogg & Brown 1996:175). Such status in the trafficking debate was in

1 Lecturer in Criminology, School of Social Sciences, UWS. Email: S.Milivojevic@uws.edu.au 1 Lecturer in Criminology, School of Social Sciences, UWS. Email: S.Milivojevic@uws.edu.au

During the eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency (20 January 1991- 20 January 2009) trafficking in people has been identified as another ‘war on’ (DeStefano 2007). Yet contrary to the ‘war on terror’, the ‘war on trafficking’ brought together the key actors on the American political scene in a surprisingly

harmonious coalition of the ‘21 st century abolitionists’. Even the harshest critics of the administration, such as the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, acknowledged that ‘on trafficking, this

administration has led the way’ (cited in Block 2004:32). The coalition’s standpoint on the issue was based on two central tenets: 1) a simplified notion of the ‘ideal victim’ (Christie 1986) of trafficking as young, naïve, poor Third World women lured and kidnapped and exploited in sex industry who ultimately need to be rescued, and 2) “guesstimates” - slippery numbers widely used to define the scope of the problem although often not supported with research and/or sound methodology (Kelly 2002).

The abolitionists’ engagement with the issue frequently produced moral panics and led to various anti- trafficking interventions that severely impacted on - mostly women’s - labour rights and migration patterns (Block 2004; Milivojevic & Pickering 2008; Fahy et al 2009). As Marijan Wijers accurately noted, the movement that started as a campaign against abuse and exploitation in sex industry ‘has been taken over as an anti-prostitution and anti-migration movement’ (cited in Block 2004:33) which racialised, colonial and gendered dimensions were often omitted in the feminist debate (Desyllas 2007). More importantly, their success in addressing trafficking was limited at best.

It can be argued, however, that the picture is changing, driven by recent political makeovers, particularly in the United States. As the impact of these changes on the trafficking policy is hard to predict and too early to establish, this paper contains some, perhaps bold and premature crystal ball gazing. In spite of its ambiguity, this paper argues that these recent developments are indeed a critical opening for a substantial change in our approach to (and re-thinking of) trafficking in people. The following section highlights why the change of administration in the United States requires careful analysis. It identifies the two steps already carried out in this process, and their impact on the trafficking policy.

The Changing “Leader of the Free World” and trafficking 2008 and 2009 have been marked with contrasting political trends across the Global North. In Australia and particularly in the United States, a significant shift from centre-right to centre-left was hailed with an unprecedented enthusiasm and vigour (Nagourney 2008). At the same time, in June 2009, the EU voted in its new Parliament with an opposite swing to centre-right, strongly underpinned by conservatives’ promises to tighten immigration policies (Charlemagne 2009) in what is known as the “Fortress Europe” (Albrecht 2002). Given limited space, the Australian and European context will be omitted in this paper. However, as a self-identified global leader in addressing trafficking (Clinton 2009), the change of administration in the United States needs to be assessed as such change is anticipated to result in the change of policy in relation to trafficking both in the US and internationally.