A rant

A few days ago, I attended the 2017 International Workshop on Stratgies for Combating Human Trafficking in Taipei, Taiwan. It was a track 1.5 conference, and I was invited as a panel commentator.

Chatham House Rules apply, and I am taking that one step further by not even talking about the different panels and what was discussed.

What I do want to talk about (and record for my reference) is my observation of approaches and strategies towards combatting human trafficking, as taken by many. 

On the 4Ps framework

In 2000, United States passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). They used the 3Ps framework - prevention, protection, and prosecution - to categorise and prioritise funding for intervention measures. In November that year, the Palermo Convention was signed, and the Palermo Protocol was added. Nine years later, the U.S. State Department added a 4th P - partnerships - to the model. Each of these Ps co-relate to a section or clause within the Palermo Convention/Protocol, so I see the TVPA as a domestification of international law of sorts.

My gripe two cents

Fast forward to 2017. It's been 17 years since the 3 Ps and since the Palermo Convention was signed, 14 years since the Palermo Convention entered into force, and eight years since the addition of the fourth P.

Is this framework still relevant? Undoubtedly, yes

Can the framework still be used? Undoubtedly, yes.

Should we only stick to this framework? Of course, NOT!

Can we take a step back and look at the bigger picture please? The world is changing. Borders are dissolving. We cannot continue to look at human trafficking and transnational crimes as a topic with clear geographical boundaries anymore. How do we handle transnational crimes when their M.O changes? One quick example: online child pornography. What happens when the victim, pimp middleman and perpetrator are from different countries? Whose law to deal with who? Would the law be fair? How do we track if the payment is through Bitcoin, which does not have a central issuing bank, and which anyone with the right resources can 'print' at home via mining? How do we enhance the relevancy and effectiveness of our policies to deal with the changing landscape?

I'm not saying that countries/the US State Department ought to add more Ps or develop a new framework. What I am saying is simply let us not confine ourselves to the mental box created by the 4 Ps. I know the value of best practices, but it is also pertinent to be cognisant that structured frameworks can sometimes hold us back.

Like what I always say, you must think like a thief to catch a thief. If you want to combat human trafficking, one ought to think horizontally and try to think from the perspective of a human trafficker or syndicate, instead of thinking vertically from the Herman Millers in an ivory tower. Policies and frameworks will seldom catch up with the speed of crime, investigation, and prosecution.

Perhaps the industry needs new blood to reduce the delta.