Rohingya crisis: migrant status does not alter human rights

The sad story of the Southeast Asian migration crisis has saturated media publications across the world this week. Yet the issue continues to be unresolved, meaning the people crammed on boats with no food supplies and in often abusive conditions continue to drift between the Indian Ocean and the Andaman Sea, and between countries who continue to turn them away.

Along with migrants from Bangladesh, the current crisis in a large part involves the Rohingya Muslims of Myanmar, fleeing a harsh and violent life in a country which refuses to acknowledge their ethnic minority status.

Reportedly, the government of Malaysia has told the Rohingya to ‘go back to your country’. There have been similar reactions in the rest of the region. But how can this be the response, when Rohingyas effectively have no country to call their own?

Unrecognising the Rohingya

According to recent field research by Queen Mary University, London, conditions in the Rakhine State - home to the minority Muslim population of Myanmar – are tantamount to genocidal, and have been escalating since the 1970s.

The Rohingya face restrictions on education, movement, land rights – conditions which lead to extreme poverty, starvation and death. Outright persecution has reached a head in recent years such as the riots at Sittwe in 2012, 200 deaths there the result of clashes between Rohingya, the Myanmar army and police.

Despite the dangers of migration, for many Muslims who leave the predominantly Buddhist shores of Myanmar, it’s an escape, not a choice.

Refugees face ‘maritime ping-pong’

This past week has seen eight boatloads of migrants found in the waters off Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Myanmar and thousands of people displaced with nowhere left to turn. Almost half of those migrants are children aged 12 and under.

Described as ‘a game of maritime ping-pong with human life’ by the International Organisation for Migration in Bangkok, nation after nation has declined responsibility for people discovered in their territorial waters. UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon has called for Southeast Asian leaders to uphold international human rights and refugee laws to avoid these ‘pushbacks’ which are likely to lead to more deaths out at sea.

Human traffickers take advantage

Ban-Ki Moon

Brokers and people-smugglers who ferry migrants to places like Thailand and Malaysia have been taking full advantage of the stalemate out on open water. Crack-downs on immigrants at the Thai border have prompted some traffickers to simply abandon their human cargo. Others are holding refugees on board or in Thai camps until their families can pay for their onward journey or even pay to have them returned home again, so rendering their efforts futile.

This is likely to continue, as long as authorities consider migrants and trafficked people as criminals to be dealt with using blanket actions, rather than individuals, each with fundamental human rights.

So where does the answer to the crisis lie? In challenging Myanmar’s oppressive system, one that continues to break down Rohingya rights and communities to keep them disenfranchised and powerless? In deciding who is ‘to blame’ for the boatloads of people dying as they become trapped in oceanic limbo?

There remains no clear-cut solution, not at least until nations take responsibility for the fellow human beings involved and begin to co-operate with each other, instead of passing the burden. It was Martin Luther King that said ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere’ and countries like Ecuador and the wider Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) reflected this as they offered support last week.

But in light of factors like Australia’s unapologetic ‘stop the boats’ policy influencing global attitudes towards displaced people, not to mention the similar crisis in Mediterranean Europe, it seems a small hope that someone will make the braver gesture, and welcome the boats in.

Images from the public domain and The Official CTBTO photostream, via Creative Commons.

Why collaboration works

We’ve been asking some of the members who have joined our coalition over the last decade to share their thoughts on collaborating with Chab Dai. This week, Dale Edmonds of Riverkids Foundation describes her journey and how Chab Dai has helped this once-small NGO to grow…

“When we started our small charity, Riverkids Foundation, in Cambodia nearly a decade ago,

we had a handful of staff, big ideas and dreams and a tiny budget for about fifty children. Now we reach over six hundred children directly each month, and we've worked with more than a thousand families at risk of abusing and trafficking their children, including families where children were sold to factories, forced marriages, paedophile rings by foreigners, gang rapes, incest, infant deaths and worse.

The families we work with are among the most difficult and heartbreaking, with complex multi-generational dysfunction and complications of addiction, deep poverty and discrimination. And yet we've managed to bring the rate of trafficking in our families to less than 1%. Next month we will formally graduate over twenty of our families as 'Jasmine Elephant' families with a community celebration - this means that they have become so stable and supportive of their children that they can now leave our programme and flourish on their own.

Chab Dai helped us do that. While Chab Dai doesn't work directly with families, they took a tiny new organisation and made us far stronger by introducing us to other partner organisations with a shared vision to protect children, providing free or very heavily subsidised training for our social workers and staff, giving our managers and team leaders support and encouragement that could only come from a trusted local partner, and even funding very technical and specific programme gaps that were too difficult for most donors to understand the need for.

Chab Dai has created a community that cares for children in Cambodia and supported us so

well - I think we would have closed at several points if it hadn't been for the advice and help

you gave us. Without Chab Dai, there is no way we would be capable of reaching so many

children.

On a personal note, in my own journey to build a Cambodian child protection charity that truly helps the children and families first, some of the key lessons I've learned have been from Chab Dai. From the importance of building a team of staff who respect and value children's rights, to understanding how child safety and privacy matters when fundraising - it's easy to exploit the vulnerable children's stories for funding but we would lose their trust in us. I've also found the value of gauging the real needs of the community through first-hand research and using Chab Dai's wonderful in-house library of resources before rolling out a programme.

And even more personally: when we first met, I hadn't been to church since I was a child. Part

of my disillusionment was from the message that Christian organisations cared more about converting than helping, and children going hungry on the streets outside big brand-new church buildings in Cambodia didn't help. But Helen and two other missionaries I met in Cambodia - women who worked in the field building up communities and showing love and true charity to everyone, not just the people who went to their church - spoke to me more loudly than any sermon could.” 

Dale Edmonds

www.RiverkidsProject.org

*Photographs used with the permission of Riverkids.

10 years of Chab Dai - Spotlight on Chan Saron

As we approach our 10 year anniversary as an organisation working towards ending human trafficking, we want to recognise the teams and individuals who have made us who we are today. This week, we focus on Chan Saron, Justice and Client Care Program Manager.

Saron has worked for Chab Dai since 2008, having previously worked as a pastor in Sihanoukville and Phnom Penh. Initially a trainer in Chab Dai's Urban Prevention Project, Saron saw the birth of the Case Support Project, which began in 2011 as a first response to anyone who needs to report a case of trafficking or abuse. From finding a shelter to briefing families on court procedures and following-up with community leaders, Case Support coordinates referrals and provides practical support for clients.

“Before when we had the case team, we would refer to another organisation. However, as we received [approx] 100 cases a year, we found the organisations already had many cases to handle. So when we started Case Support in 2011, we divided into two teams –  social work and the prosecution follow-up teams. I am responsible for both teams; for managing all the cases.”

Cross-border trafficking cases

Case Support works a lot with local communities here in Cambodia, but 2014 saw the team continue to strengthen cross-border relations with many countries, including travelling to China in response to increasing numbers of forced marriage cases involving Cambodian women. Saron spoke of the unique challenges here:

“When we're dealing with overseas cases, there are often too few dedicated staff. What we need is someone working directly with the survivors. There is a gap for a coordinating organization between the survivors, the local Chinese authority, Cambodian embassy in China and government institutions and NGOs in Cambodia.”

Though these challenges are ongoing, there have been some more positive outcomes from these cases:

“This year, we had a complaint from a woman who said that her daughter was sold by a broker to China. The broker promised that her daughter would go to Singapore to work, but when the mother allowed her daughter to go with [him], he sold her to China for forced marriage.

"Meanwhile, the mother travelled from their home town to Phnom Penh, and sat near to another two young girls, asking them: 'Where are you going?'  So [the girl said] 'to work in Singapore' and when she asked the girl how, the two girls said 'I am going with this man who will get me a job'.

“The story was similar to her daughter’s, so she reported this to Chab Dai and when I reported this to the police, we assisted in the rescue of two girls and the arrest of the broker in Phnom Penh. After, the woman went back and related the story to the community.”

To stop it happening again? I ask Saron. “Yes, to stop it happening again.”

Therein lies the key to what Chab Dai is all about – asking the question how can human trafficking be prevented, as much as thinking about aftercare.

How has Chab Dai made a difference?

So how does Saron think Chab Dai has made an impact on the way human trafficking is handled in Cambodia in the last decade?

“We have already worked with the [Ministry of Interior] Department of Human Trafficking for three years - at first, [it was] hard. I think that through collaboration, this has now changed.

“Before, Cambodian police didn't have much training about this issue, only police at the top level. But the people who work directly with the case are the local police. So when we work with them, we always try to educate them. We also explain to them that you cannot handle a criminal case without filing a complaint to the court.

“[Chab Dai] also attends meetings at national level so our work with UNIAP [United Nations Inter-agency Project on Human Trafficking] is very important. Cambodia is a member of a committee of countries along the Mekong River, like China, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, (COMMIT), so we're working together to combat human trafficking. We work to advocate for policy change, so if we have something that is not good, we will [raise] our concerns. They have the power to change the policy, and if we don't have the right policy, how can we protect the child?”

Finally, I ask, what makes Saron carry on working in this challenging field?

“I saw many Cambodian people, especially the poor, who had been abused by another person or had suffered injustice in Cambodian society. So I thought I should do something for the people, if I have the ability to.

"When I worked in the community as a pastor, the people around me were always coming to me, but
I did not know how to help them - I asked them to file a complaint to police, but when they went to the police, they didn't get any help.

"So it's this kind of problem that pushes me to work in Chab Dai; because Chab Dai can complete my vision. Finally, Cambodian society can have justice. Not all, but some parts can see justice.”

The Ends Justify the Means

Most people are familiar with the concept of consequentialism, where the consequences of one's conduct are more important than the rightness or wrongness of the conduct. We often phrase it as "the ends justify the means," or, "As long as it turns out well, it doesn't matter what measures I had to take to get there." These justifications are generally employed in an attempt to excuse poor or immoral behavior. I would venture to say that the majority of people would agree living according to this concept is unpredictable, unreliable and generally harmful.

However, there are those who make reckless decisions and engage in irresponsible activity as an attempt to reach their desired outcome faster and more easily. Sometimes these decisions are the best ones even with the risks involved; I'm not here to say it's a black-and-white issue or even to suggest that we always have the option of “safe” measures attached to tried-and-true results. We don't. But I do want to talk about the instances where we should know better, and do better.

Remember back in May when Newsweek ran that article about Somaly Mam fabricating parts of her story? Shortly thereafter she resigned from her leadership role with the Somaly Mam Foundation (SMF), but the board members were adamant that their work would continue on, serving the girls they had rescued from trafficking, and those they would rescue in the future. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. SMF ceased their current projects and shut their doors on September 30, as announced in an official statement two weeks ago.

My biggest question brought up by this news is, what will happen to the girls and women SMF served? These are vulnerable individuals who need specific care, attention and services, and now a major provider for these needs has permanently closed.

When Somaly encouraged narratives that lacked truth, I do not think she was trying to be cruel. I think she wanted the spotlight and the accolades that come with a story of overcoming life's brutality. I also believe she knew donors respond more hastily and with bigger checks when they're met with such inspiration. And I don't doubt she truly wanted to make a positive difference in the world. However, her false tale only carried her so far. She was granted the spotlight and the accolades. She was handed large checks to fund her work. She was featured in a high-profile documentary. She did get to make a difference. But her end in no way justifies her means.

With the revelation of Somaly's falsehoods and her subsequent resignation, the reputation of the entire counter-trafficking sector has been called into question. Donors are more wary of supporting programs. SMF has had to cease operations. One person's irresponsible means could very well cause widespread "ends" prematurely. How do organizations convince supporters they are legitimate? The girls SMF was tending to – where do they go now? Initially, Somaly was able to make beneficial waves. She brought some awareness to an important cause. She attracted funding to help provide necessary services. But where is all of that now? It's been diminished to a moment's worth of positive change, shrouded in the shadow of a lie. Was her time of glory worth the cost?

We can't only focus on the short term effects of our actions. We have to realize that there are long term outcomes to be considered, too, and weigh those as part of our decision-making process. We have to be aware of the implications of our choices, not just for ourselves but also for others who they may touch. I can make up a compelling story to sell an idea and cultivate compassion for my cause, but I'm going to be found out. Maybe not immediately, but eventually, and the fallout may well outweigh any good I'd initially accomplished. (Especially with the accessibility of information via the internet. The truth can't hide, and there is always somebody looking to uncover it.)

We can do better. Let's be more conscientious in our pursuits. Let's be careful with our methods. Let's be mindful of both the probable and possible effects of our actions. Let's be honest.

Awareness Equips Us for Appropriate Action

Human Trafficking. These two words arranged together evoke such a gut wrenching jolt. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines “trafficking” as a verb, “a deal or trade in something illegal.” The trading of human beings? It just sounds awful. It is awful. But what is it exactly? We all think we know what human trafficking is. I myself once watched a documentary of creepy men wandering through dark alleyways of a slum looking for young girls. I thought that was trafficking. Oh, if it was only that simple…

The United Nations definition is: 

Trafficking in persons "shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;

(b) The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used;

(c) The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall be considered "trafficking in persons" even if this does not involve any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article;

(d) "Child" shall mean any person under eighteen years of age.

Protocol to prevent, suppress, and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime

Well, sadly, according to this definition, we all have probably seen a form of human trafficking. It is not confined to a certain part of the world nor does it discriminate between races. It may be occurring in your neighborhood or it may be happening on the other side of the world. 

It bothers me to think that I may have seen someone trafficked and had done nothing because I did not fully understand the situation. We often see trafficking as this mythical beast in a far away land. Our media has shaped our minds on what trafficking is. If only everyone understood the actual definition.

A while back while I was traveling, due to unfortunate events, I was stranded at a bus station. While trying to figure out what my next move was I noticed an odd pairing of what I thought was a date. The female was significantly younger than the male. They were different races and the male had given the female some money to buy food in the empty bus station’s food court. She didn’t appear to look distressed. 

Yeah it looked weird. But who was I to judge? I got embarrassed for questioning why they were in each others' company. Maybe they were just really good friends. I told myself to forget it. I was by myself; what could I do? I had my own problems to worry about (being lost in another country and all). But thinking back, there was clearly something off about that situation. I forgot all about it, but after I started learning more about what human trafficking actually is this memory jumped back to my attention.

The definition of human trafficking needs to be well-established in all of our minds. Understanding the difference between force and coercion should be common knowledge. This would allow a case of trafficking to be detected sooner than later. 

We get so involved in our own lives that we do not think twice. Sometimes subconsciously we realize that something may be wrong, but we are too afraid to think a situation is something other that it appears because we don't want to look stupid. But in the meantime that little voice in your head is screaming otherwise. A deep understanding of what human trafficking is can be the tipping point of someone reporting a case versus just walking away. We as human beings have that gut instinct. We all need to trust it. But too often we fear disturbing the norm and do not listen. I myself am guilty of that because I always give anyone and everyone the benefit of the doubt.

So how does one counter the human trafficking issue? First, by getting educated on what human trafficking is. Then, by learning of all of the resources available. If ever you run across an odd circumstance, you will know how to properly address the situation and who to report it to. The worst case scenario is that you are wrong and look sheepishly dumb. But it is better to over analyze than to overlook. 

The Power of “Soft Power”

          The concept of “power” is frequently used but rarely is understood in all of its intricacies. How often in academic literature, political debates and even personal conversations do we ascribe power to a person or group without really discussing what this entails? In what ways is power expressed and how do we know when a person or group has power? Within the anti-human trafficking movement it is easy to fall prey to feelings of powerlessness. In our efforts to confront this global atrocity, the power of states, the power of the global economic system and the power of traffickers themselves may all seem superior to any power we possess. I would strongly argue, however, that the power of the anti-trafficking movement is quite formidable, especially if we know where to look.

Joseph S. Nye, a Harvard professor, famously introduced the concept of soft power and hard power into the academic and political worlds during the late 1980s, and suggested that power is not simply the capacity to coerce others into behaving in a certain manner such as through military force and economic strength. Rather, power also entails the capacity to attract and persuade others into behaving a particular way. While Nye focused his astute analysis primarily on states, we can extend this way of looking at power into the anti-trafficking movement. No one would ever argue that the movement possesses sufficient hard power to bring about positive changes. Chab Dai is certainly not going to threaten a state with military strikes, nor is any other nongovernmental organization. Instead, the anti-trafficking movement excels in the use of soft power and, in this sense, our power is continuously growing. 

In a multitude of contexts, through various public and private campaigns, the movement has produced positive changes in the fight against human trafficking. Take, for example, the U.S. TIP Report; while it is certainly produced and enforced by a state, it arguably would not exist at all if not for the soft power of the anti-trafficking movement. In order to create this revolutionary tool (putting aside arguments about its effectiveness or shortcomings), it was necessary to first persuade American politicians to enact appropriate legislation. This was not a victory due to the hard power of the anti-trafficking movement; the TIP reports are the direct result of the development and effective use of soft power. Not convinced? Numerous companies are now attempting to certify that their supply chains are “slave free.” This is remarkable, considering the fact that the exploitation of workers can often be concealed by major corporations fairly easily.   

Moreover, the use of exploited labour can potentially offer significant savings in labour costs for the company. Nevertheless, the soft power of the anti-trafficking movement is producing positive changes (check out FreeTheSlaves for more details). Still dubious? Thanks to the magic of “Google trends” we can see that “human trafficking,” as a search term, has steadily increased since 2004. Why does this matter? It shows that people are becoming more interested in the issue. While this clearly does not constitute an academic study, it is quite reasonable to suggest that the soft power of the anti-trafficking movement is attracting or persuading greater numbers of people of the worthiness of our cause. After all, more and more people are choosing to educate themselves on the issue, and global support is needed to effectively fight this global problem.

So the next time you find yourself wondering if we really stand a chance against the power of those who promote or benefit from human trafficking, take a closer look around at the victories being won due to the soft power of the movement. While Joseph S. Nye may argue that soft power brought down the Berlin Wall, I would argue it can also end human trafficking.

By Tyler Girard, Strategic Planning Officer for Chab Dai

"Warm Heart of Africa--Malawi"

The realization that human trafficking is a serious local security issue is prompting “Members of Parliament (MPs)” in Malawi to meet and discuss the Trafficking in Persons Bill on the table. Although it has taken seven years, from start to finish, the bill is now ready to move beyond development and into play. For a country that is one of the only sub-Saharan countries to be without a human trafficking law and at the same time, is considered a source and transit country as well, this is a significant move.

For me, the value of a human life is priceless. Not only is human trafficking unjust, it is also a health and safety issue. The loss of life, the spread of diseases, and the instability of people in relation to human trafficking are unnecessary and preventable. I am thankful for the advocates of the Malawi people who are pushing forth this bill to increase penalties to offenders of human trafficking.

However, it is not only a matter of creating laws and raising awareness, but also of enforcing these laws. With the appropriate penalties in place, prosecutors would have the necessary backing to enforce the laws. The Executive Director of the organization, The Eye of the Child, Malawi Maxwell Matewere, states that Malawi needs to “invest in young people and come up with means to reduce poverty, corruption and unemployment which has led to increasing acts of human trafficking”. Gender Justice Coordinator, Habiba Osman, said “the law will also give a chance to victims to seek help from the fund allocated for human trafficking programmes as a way of combating human trafficking”. 

All of these are positive strides that Malawi is taking to ensure that another generation of the Malawi people do not fall victim to the perpetuating cycle of harm that human trafficking brings to society.

Whose Problem Is It Anyways?

The United States has recently seen an influx of unaccompanied minors from Central America. As the number of children crossing has been increasing this year, the American media has caught wind of how serious the situation actually is. According to the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies and Kids in Need of Defense, approximately 60,000 to 90,000 children are to be expected to cross by the end of this year. Most of the children are arriving from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Human traffickers are charging thousands to “assist” in the transportation of these children. But often these traffickers dump them at the border and force the children to figure out the rest. Some reports have stated that children are willingly walking up to Border Patrol because that is what they have been instructed to do by the traffickers. By using children as a commodity and manipulating families, traffickers are the only ones benefiting from the increase of violence in those countries. 

Since the increase in coverage I have been hearing questions like "How could a mother leave her child?" and "Where are their parents in all of this?" The answer is neither simple nor pretty. Families desperate for safety see this as their little sliver of hope. Despite the risk, families hope that their children will be reunited with relatives already living in the United States (though those family members themselves are often living illegally). So when the opportunity arises for their child to get a chance at a better life, away from the violence and drugs, parents wholeheartedly believe the traffickers. Once traffickers convince parents with empty promises, parents make that huge sacrifice. With the hope of their children having a better future, families are putting their trust in these "coyotes." With these broken promises made, of either being reassured of safety or how "legal" it is, families part with their children. The most shocking thing I have read from all of this is that a large percentage of these children are toddlers. 

This a complex issue. It's a transnational dilemma that many are not ready to face. I believe that this is not an issue solely restricted to one government, but it's an issue for all. It is a human issue. We all want the best for our loved ones. The fact that there are individuals manipulating that relationship is sickening. Dreams of "the other side" are interrupted with bewildered Border Patrol not knowing how to handle this influx. The children are instead welcomed to overflowing living corridors and an uncertain future. These children and families are vulnerable to manipulation and coercion. The easy way out of this is to merely say that this is a specific state’s issue. But in the end what is the bigger picture?

Has Somaly Mam's Story Exposed Some Deeper Issues of Fame & Fortune in the Anti-Trafficking Movement?

Somaly Mam has resigned from her self-named foundation following the recent Newsweek expose article concerning her fabrications and dishonesty - I certainly agree that she has made the right decision to step down, which demonstrates that there are consequences to her actions.

However, I see this as only half of a much bigger story.

Since the early 2000's, when the issues of human trafficking hit the media spotlight, journalists, governments, celebrities and donors have been looking for ‘heroes’ to endorse the cause and increase their credibility, status and in general, to justify their own actions and agendas.

What ensued for the next decade was the manifestation of these new 'rules' to the anti-trafficking movement. Competition for funding and fame was characterised by anti-trafficking organisations and individuals compromising the dignity of clients and consistently pursuing a sensationalised approach to the issue. By and large, it was those organisations who were able to secure the most funding for their programs and gain the most accolade both personally and organisationally. In contrast, those who did not exploit the faces and identities of clients to elevate their own image as ‘saviours’ are ironically the ones, to this day, who struggle to keep their professional programs operational.


How easy is it to 'celebritise' someone when there are various agendas in the mix - not just Somaly's. And how easy to bring her down and see this as an isolated incident of lies and deception rather than a sign of a more systemic issue within the anti-human trafficking movement.


What a skewed playing field it has become.
As a coalition of 58 organisations working on this issue in Cambodia for more than 9 years, we have had numerous conversations about the tension this has caused.  Many NGO workers on the ground did not want to compromise the dignity and fuel the sensationalised approach to the issue.

However, all of them felt pressured to do so and many, compelled by their overseas offices, did so in order to raise funds. At that time, I predicted that if we were to take a more dignified and educated approach that sought to engage donors and others, we would find it much harder to secure funds and fame.

Unfortunately, I was correct, and that has been exactly what has happened.

So who else should be responsible?

In a similar parallel, I have witnessed incidents of small local development NGO entrepreneurs here in Cambodia who quickly rocket to fame when it suits their 'promoters' - whether they be donors, government or others. Within a short timeframe, huge amounts of funds and attention are poured out on them, often with no thought to the impact of doing so. These local development entrepreneurs are flattered by the attention and jump through the hoops of those promoting them. However, it is quite a different story when that same heroic entrepreneur begins to syphon off funds, treat their staff badly, stop listening to voices of reason around them and eventually become dictatorial and unaccountable. Of course, responsibility sits at the feet of such people, but it is easy to forget who helped to elevate them to that position and predicament.

So before we simplify the case of Somaly, let us acknowledge that no-one exists in isolation - just as her actions impacted those closest to her, the influencers in her life, whose own agenda was endorsed by her rise and fall, should now take responsibility for their part.

Let's see who does.

The Tragedy of Our Personal Gains

Humans are interesting species. We live in a world where we praise individuality. We rally for the underdog, cheer when they win. In many cultures, we sacrifice for the “greater good.” As a society we are enamored by these two ideas, almost every film or news story proves this. However, in the process of securing stability, we often lose empathy because we see the world as our own playground and only our own personal gain matters. Our own gains are how we monitor success and many consider this progress.

While attending a recent local human trafficking conference, speaker Melissa Farley mentioned the correlation between environmental degradation and woman exploitation. She spoke on how disposability of the environment and women parallel each other. As I sat there and listened, I started to reflect on what I had learned through my studies in environmental policy. The more I thought it over, the more I understood.

Through my numerous environmental classes, the common story is that the slightest disturbance, whether it is to the air, water, soil, etc... causes a chain reaction which can lead to long lasting negative effects. This can be analyzed by the theory, tragedy of the commons. It is the concept where a group of individuals will act rationally with only their own self interest in mind. But each person acting rationally for their own gains causes the depletion of the common good, therefore, it's the "tragedy of the common”. The often quoted example of this was presented by Garrett Hardin in 1968, he explains the scenario of a group of herdsmen all grazing their animals on a common open pasture. Initially, they all see the benefits of this pasture. But each person wants to maximize their own gain so they slowly add one additional animal. Slowly but surely, the collective group has each added more to their herd which in turn lead to the exhaustion of the pasture.

This same phenomenon can be translated into the human trafficking world. Traffickers believe that in order to survive in life, they have to make certain choices. They bypass their initial subconscious thought of the horrors of what they are doing and proceed. They do not deter from their actions because of their selfish own interests. In the process, the tragedy becomes those victims and survivors. Bill Gates once brought concern to this issue when he stated " if you're not fully utilizing half the talent in the country, you're not going to get too close to the top." By traffickers acting with only themselves in mind, they enable the depletion of women's potential. These very women that they are exploiting can be the answer to many world problems, such as poverty, the economy, and unemployment.

This self interest can actually also be seen ( in somewhat of the same light) in the case study of the Gray Wolves in the Yellowstone National Park. Western settlers would kill wolves to protect their cattle (again, with only their own interest in mind). Unknowingly, by killing the wolves, they were causing a downward spiral effect of the ecosystem. The elimination of the wolves caused an increase of the local elk, which caused overgrazing of local plants, which in turn affected the surrounding stream beds, soil, birds, and bugs. The Gray Wolves were a keystone species, a species that plays a significant role in keeping stability in that environment.

What if unknowingly to traffickers, those that they are exploiting are the keystone to society? We do not know that those being trafficked might be that integral part of the future.

Through the competitiveness of our society, we have become addicted to our own personal gains. Sometimes that means that this gain is accomplished through the violation of others. I am, however, not saying that we should not cherish ourselves and our own self worth. But we should be self conscious when our individuality becomes our only infatuation. Though all this sounds like a bleak future, we can do something. After the federal government realized what was occurring in Yellowstone, a plan was composed to protect the wolves. The results were miraculous. The restoration caused a return to a stable environment. We too can achieve a form of restoration in trafficking. We can do this through collaboration. Projects like Freedom Collaborative can be a step in the right direction. Will it solve the issue? No. But it sure is a good start.