Connect with us

International Law

Abused, trafficked, unwanted: A view on the U.S. migration policy development

Ingrid Stephanie Noriega

Published

on

The US Department of State’s Trafficking In Persons (TIP) Report was started in 2001 as a diplomatic means for the United States to communicate with other foreign governments on goals towards eliminating human trafficking. TIP is meant to facilitate dialogue with nations for anti-trafficking initiatives, as well as find resources on prevention, prosecution, and protection programs of human trafficking, highlighting the United States as a global leader in human rights and law enforcement. The TIP Report ranks countries based on a Tiers model (“2017 Trafficking in Persons Report”). The policy outputs and policy outcomes of TIP have been continuously debated within government, advocacy groups, and law enforcement (Kraft 6).

There are various critiques on the given Tiers system the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report (TIP) has used in the previous years. In the “Accountability Over Politics: Scrutinizing the Trafficking in Persons Report” hearing before the Subcommittee on Africa Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations of the Committee of Foreign Affairs through the House of Representatives during the 114th Congress, David Abramowitz, the Managing Director of Policy and Government Relations of Humanity United Action, has expressed concern on the Tiers model. Abramowitz believes Malaysia is exemplary of a nation praised for the betterment of the human trafficking when undoubtedly there is no accountability for the mass graves incident of 2015, where 130 dead bodies were found (United States 32). Ineffective measures of the tiers in the TIP Report reduce the diplomatic effectiveness of the mechanism, as embodied in both Thailand and Malaysia. Increased effort towards reform of Malaysia and Thailand’s legal framework is needed. This could be achieved through the State Department, more specifically the embassies in Bangkok and Kuala Lampur and the Department’s East Asia and Pacific Bureau. Congressional action could assist in the reform as well (United States 33).

In the Committee on Foreign Affairs’ “Nomination of Rex Tillerson To Be Secretary of State,” one of the commentaries to the Secretary of State included the notion that the current administration allowed political consideration to manipulate expert recommendations of the State Department’s human rights and trafficking professionals, which contributed to the ‘politically-driven’ upgrade of countries like that of Cuba and Malaysia from the Tier 3 category to the Tier 2 Watch List (United States). According to the Honorable Susan Coppedge, Ambassador-at-Large for the Office to Monitor Trafficking in Persons of the US Department of State, as stated during the Committee on Foreign Relation’s hearing for Review of the 2017 Trafficking in Persons Report, law enforcement services should be provided to human trafficking victims. Government involvement tends to instill fear in victims. In defense of Malaysia status change from Tier 2 watch to Tier 2, as prompted by Mr. Cardin, Coppedge states Malaysia has had quadrupled trafficking investigations increases from 158 to 581, as well as improvements in law enforcement measures on trafficking. Additionally, Senator Robert Menendez had been successful in uncovering the waiver report for Malaysia as well as other countries that are not allowed for disclosure by the Department of State. The Honorable John J. Sullivan, Deputy Secretary of State for the US Department of State, noted Ukraine’s improvement to Tier 2 status as well as China’s ineffectiveness to end slavery and trafficking downgraded it to Tier 3 (United States). Previous concerns and criticism regarding TIP from the “Demanding Accountability: Evaluating the 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report”, House of Representatives hearing include concern on grade inflation and favoritism for certain countries through the Department of State tier ranking of the TIP.

To further elaborate upon the TIP Tier model, Tier 1 would include nations that meet the minimum standards to combat human trafficking, Tier 2 would include those making noticeable efforts towards the minimum standards, and Tier 3 would include those not making minimum standards and in danger of receiving sanctions, respectively (United States 2). Cuba had been noted as Tier 2 status for 2015, even with the legal permission for prostitution of 16 year old girls, being a top destination in the Western Hemisphere for child sex tourism, and not criminalizing labor trafficking (United States 3). Uzbekistan’s government incites forced labor in the cotton industry on a daily basis, making it rather undeserving of Tier 2 status (United States 4). India as a Tier 2 is undeserving of its ranking as well, since it had been preventing trafficking victims and families whom had obtained T-visas to leave India (United States 27-28).

As professor Anis H. Bajrektarevic rightfully observed in his revealing work on the Justice-Home Affairs diplomacy, a very corruption (public sector of) is an elementary part of any THB business. “It is a (hidden and) seemingly victimless tradeoff between influence and gain” – as professor brilliantly defines corruption, that ‘runs the engine’.

Hence, as founded by the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), from the representation of the Trafficking Victims in Persons Act of 2000, federal agencies have inspected allegations of trafficking crimes, provided training and executed state and local initiatives to support investigations and prosecutions, and established organizational structures, agency-level goals, plans, or strategies. For instance, agencies have trained both new and current staff on investigating and prosecuting trafficking in persons crimes through their agency training academies and centers, provided Web-based training, and developed and disseminated guidance on case pursuance. Agencies have also made training initiatives at the state and local law enforcement levels, nongovernmental organizations, and the general public through a toll-free complaint line, newsletters, national conferences, and model legislation. Some agencies have established special units for continuing their antitrafficking duties. Federal agencies coordinate across agencies’ investigations and prosecutions of trafficking crimes on a case-by-case basis, premised on individual needs per case, and established relationships among law enforcement officials across agencies.

The Department of Justice and Department of Health Services officials recognize the need to increase United States efforts to combat trafficking through more practical and cooperative strategies to identify trafficking victims. Previous GAO efforts on interagency relationship prove a strategic framework with shared goals, mutually reinforcing approaches, and compatible policies and actions to function across agency boundaries helps improve and sustain relationships among federal agencies dealing with national and cross agency jurisdiction issues (“Human Trafficking: A Strategic Framework Could Help Enhance the Interagency Collaboration Needed to Effectively Combat Trafficking Crimes.”). Based on 2016 data collection from the GAO, it is questionable as to whether provisions are being fully effective.

“For 91 provisions, all responsible federal entities reported taking action to implement this provision. For 11 provisions, all responsible federal entities reported that they had not taken action to implement the provision. For 2 provisions, at least one of the responsible federal entities reported that they had not taken action to implement the provision or they did not provide a response. For 1 provision, none of the responsible federal entities provided a response (“Human Trafficking: Implementation of Related Statutory Provisions, Law Enforcement Efforts, and Grant Funding”).”

The above provisions covered topics address human trafficking and related affairs, inclusive of victim services, management and information sharing, and procedural training. Agency officials gave various explanations for why there were no arrangements to implement provisions for which they were chosen as the lead or co-lead. To be rather frank, in three cases, officials cited funding was not appropriated for the activity. Federal, state, and local law enforcement officials and prosecutors interviewed by the GAO reported properly investigating and prosecuting human trafficking cases is challenging for many reasons, including lack of victim collaboration, limited available services for victims, and the problematic nature of identifying human trafficking victims. According to these representatives, victim service programs, such as those that offer mental health and substance abuse services, have helped improve victim cooperation.

The availability of services is limited. Federal, state, and local agencies have taken or are taking actions to address these challenges, such as increasing the obtain ability of victim services through grants and executing both training and public awareness initiatives. GAO identified 42 grant programs with awards made in 2014 and 2015 that may be used to combat human trafficking or to assist victims of human trafficking, 15 of which are planned for these purposes only. Although there are similarities among human trafficking grant programs, federal agencies have recognized processes to help avert unnecessary duplication. For instance, in response to endorsements in a previous GAO report, the Department of Justice requires grant candidates to expose any federal grants they are currently operating under as well as federal grants for which they have applied. Additionally, agencies participating in the grant making committee of the Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG), an entity through which federal agencies unify their efforts to combat human trafficking, share grant solicitations as well as information on proposed grant awards. The SPOG effort allows other agencies to remark on proposed grant awards and determine whether they plan to award funding to the same organization (“Human Trafficking: Implementation of Related Statutory Provisions, Law Enforcement Efforts, and Grant Funding”).

On the issue of child soldiers, The House Committee on Foreign Affairs 2017 hearing, “Winning the Fight Against Human Trafficking: The Frederick Douglas Reauthorization Act,” affirms that child soldiers are largely affected by the human trafficking industry. The United States has been involved in helping curtail the use of child soldiers. The United States had ratified the United Nations treaty of 2002 which banned the use of children in conflicts. By mandate of ratification, all armed services branched implemented rules to not have underage soldiers in combat. United States’ action on this matter was exemplary for other militaries to follow suite. In 2008, Congress had adopted the Child Soldiers Prevention Act as part of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. Nevertheless, within the United States there is still a prevalence of sex trafficking of girls. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had reported 60 percent nationwide range of trafficked girls were either from foster care or group homes. More transparency will be required for the allocation of funds towards improving efforts on the issue of child soldiers. The Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act authorizes $130 million over four years to prevent human trafficking, protect victims, and better prosecution in the United States and overseas. The act limits the time a nation could be on the Tier 2 watchlist (United States).

In the “Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2017, H.R. 1191”, sponsored by Representative Christopher Smith in the 115th Congress, it was mentioned that Congress’ Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protections Act of 2000 would probably be the pivotal achievement on the issue of child soldiers. With the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000, Congress made the Child Soldiers Prevention Act (CSPA) of 2008 part of the TVPA. Regulations included the TIP Report to have a listing of foreign governments which recruit and utilize child soldiers in their militias or government funded armed groups. The 2017 TIP Report identifies the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen as nations on the CSPA list (“Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2017” 7). TVPA restrictions on grants to nations began with TIP Report 2003 (“Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2017” 14).

Nations whom have used child soldiers as listed in the most recent TIP report are prohibited from receiving various forms of security assistance, including defense articles, global military education and training, peacekeeping operations programs, military financing, and the issuing of licenses for direct commercial sales of military equipment for child soldier recruitment purposes (“Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2017” 18-19). Relevant legislation oversight on the TIP Report includes closed hearings on the topic of human trafficking, commonly held by the Committee on Foreign Relations, in anticipation of the TIP’s yearly release as well as commentaries post-publication in public hearings.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee, specifically its Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, has also hosted hearings on the TIP Report (“Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2017” 31). A bill from the 115th Congress to further modify requirements associated with the TIP Report, include H.R. 2200, the Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2017, which passed the House on July 12, 2017, and contains several changes to the TIP Report’s country ranking process. Other bills introduced in the 115th Congress that, if passed, would modify requirements associated with the TIP Report include H.R. 436, the Human Trafficking Prioritization Act, S. 377, the Trafficking in Persons Report Integrity Act, H.R. 1191, the Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2017 and H.R. 2219 and S. 952, the End Banking for Human Traffickers Act of 2017 (“Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2017” 31).

In a statement at the 114th Congress, at a House of Representatives hearing entitled “Get It Right This Time: A Victims-Centered Trafficking in Persons Report,” the following is established:

“ While democracy does not guarantee the absence of slavery, and some struggling democracies and even democratic regimes have effectively fought trafficking, autocracy and weak or ‘emerging’ democracies are less equipped to tackle this horrific human rights challenge. Respecting the human rights, fundamental freedoms, and dignity in full of women, people in prostitution, and migrants, holding traffickers fully to account, and expunging corruption as the catalyst of human trafficking, are matters of governing justly. In particular, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, and a dynamic civil society are the markings of governments that are governing justly, and central to the success of modern day abolition efforts (United States 2).”

Witness protection under the Ministry of Justice had been found to be favorable, however there were still unaccounted for occurrences in Thailand. In 2015, Thailand did not allow traffickers’ ships on land, allowing criminals to escape via ocean routes. There were also unaccounted for Rohingya passengers refused entry. A ‘push-back’ policy does not assist with combating human trafficking (United States 21). As the Myanmar elections were not free nor fair, political circumstances only escalate the higher risks of the Rohingya for human trafficking (United States 28-29).

Referencing the 114th Congress House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing “Accountability Over Politics: Scrutinizing the Trafficking In Persons Report”, a statement released by Secretary of State John Kerry focused on the three P’s of the TIP report: prosecuting traffickers, protecting and empowering victims, and preventing future trafficking crimes. The honorable Susan Coppedge, Ambassador-at-Large to the Department of State, voiced concern for the protection of domestic workers as well as ‘corrupt or complicit officials’ whom benefit from trafficking (United States 5). TIP staff members work in conjunction with individuals at embassies, posts abroad, and the US Department of State regional offices (United States 7). Coppedge asserts housing for girls rescued from trafficking should be provided by the United States (United States 20). There is only a small amount of prosecutions and convictions on foreign labor trafficking in the United States, which needs to be reformed. More to protect unaccompanied undocumented children, as well as further address roots of the problem, need to be made feasible (United States 30).

Bills relevant to TIP include the Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2017, H.R. 2200 (“Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2017”), The Trafficking in Persons Report Integrity Act, S. 377 (“Trafficking in Persons Report Integrity Act”), The Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2017, H.R. 1191 (“Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2017”), the End Banking for Human Traffickers Act of 2017, H.R. 2219 (“End Banking for Human Traffickers Act of 2017”), and the End Banking for Human Traffickers Act of 2017, S. 952 (“End Banking for Human Traffickers Act of 2017”).

The Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2017, H.R. 2200, sponsored by Christopher Smith April 2017, had twenty-nine cosponsors from House of Representatives, which ensured approval through the House of Representatives. The twenty-nine cosponsors were Representatives Karen Bass, Edward R. Royce, Sheila Jackson Lee, Susan W. Brooks, Lois Frankel, Ann Wagner, Tony Cardenas, Ted Poe, Ryan A. Costello, David N. Cicilline, Brad Sherman, Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., Patrick Meehan, Lynn Jenkins, Susan A. Davis, Salud O. Carbajal, Gwen Moore, Dwight Evans, Denny Heck, James P. McGovern, Tulsi Gabbard, Alcee L. Hastings, Raul M. Grijalva, Kristi L. Noem, Barbara Comstock, Luke Messer, David Young, Erik Paulsen, and Carolyn B. Maloney. This bill states that instead of only the President, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to award grants to local education agencies, in partnership with nonprofit agencies for awareness services. H.R. 2200 further ensures priority funding for lodging and accommodation purposes that lack policies on child sexual exploitation, and calls for making certain the United States does not fund human trafficking. H.R. 2200 calls upon credible evidence on nations’ human trafficking reform progress. Additionally, airport personnel should identify and report human trafficking victims (“Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2017”).

The Trafficking in Persons Report Integrity Act, S.377, was introduced in 2017 by Senator Robert Menendez, and cosponsored by five Senators, including Marco Rubio, Tim Kaine, Cory Gardner, Rob Portman, and Christopher Coons. The bill aims to amend the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 to clarify standards upon which countries are held accountable for the TIP Report tier ranking model, as well as other purposes related to concrete measures taken towards ending human trafficking. The S.377 amendment includes identifying ‘concrete actions’ and ‘credible evidence’ towards improving the epidemic of human trafficking. Additionally, reports on the amounts of loans towards Tier 2 and Tier 3 countries are to be submitted to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee of Foreign Relations sections in the Senate as well as the House of Representatives, to be distributed by the Secretary of the Treasury (“Trafficking in Persons Report Integrity Act”).

The Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2017, H.R. 1191, was sponsored by Representative Christopher Smith, and cosponsored by Representatives Frederica Wilson, Randy Hultgren, James P. McGovern, and Randy K. Weber, Sr. The purpose of this bill would be to ensure operative enactment of the Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2008 and hold régimes responsible for having children part of armed conflict, whether that may be as soldiers, servants, or sex slaves. H.R. 1191 also prohibits the selling of armament to nations that look favorably upon the utilization of child soldiers (“Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2017”).

The End Banking for Human Traffickers Act of 2017, H.R. 2219, was sponsored by Representative Edward Royce, and cosponsored by Representatives William Keating, Carolyn Maloney, Mia Love, Patrick Meehan, Brian Fitzpatrick, and Kyrsten Sinema. H.R. 2219 aims for including the financial industry to assist with combating human trafficking. The purpose would be to resolve and ensure financial accountability of funding towards human trafficking through means such as the Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Human Trafficking (“End Banking for Human Traffickers Act of 2017”). H.R. 2219 is not to be confused with S.952, which is of the same bill title. The End Banking for Human Traffickers Act of 2017, S. 952, was sponsored by Senator Elizabeth Warren, and cosponsored by Senators James Lankford and Marco Rubio. S. 952 is an amendment to the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 to include the Secretary of the Treasury within the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking. This task force is responsible to submitting recommendations to Congress for revising anti-money laundering programs to target money washing found in the human trafficking industry. The Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council examines processes to improve anti-money laundering programs to combat human trafficking actions and referrals for potential human trafficking cases to the appropriate law enforcement agencies. S. 952 also establishes that the Department of Justice must report both efforts to eliminate money laundering on to human trafficking, and the quantity of formal examinations, custodies, allegations, and criminal offenses in money washing cases related to human trafficking (“End Banking for Human Traffickers Act of 2017”).

Overall, the TIP Report of 2017 of the Department of State has shown improvement from previous report versions, but is still in need of amendments to address misdemeanors found within the Tier ranking system of nations as well as preferential agreements on the issue of allocation of funding. In defense of efforts made by the Department of State, on September 14, 2017, the Department awarded $25 million to the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery, through the Office to Combat and Monitor Trafficking of Persons. The Global Fund to End Modern Slavery is a non-profit organization focused on developing public-private partnerships to decrease modern slavery (Tillerson). However, a true dedication to the cause of human trafficking, although wanted by many advocacy member groups as well as Congressional members, is a decision today mainly influenced by the executive branch’s priorities. As Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated in his nomination hearing, “Nomination of Rex Tillerson To Be Secretary of State”, his commitment to end human trafficking is only to the extent that is compliant with the policies and law preferences of President-elect Donald Trump. This response was given various times throughout the report, inclusive of a specific interlude question on the seafood industry, raising numbers of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, the need for transparency measures in the fishing industry, and human trafficking (United States). More information on United States’ legislation on the TIP Report could be found if there were public accessibility to Closed Hearings’ materials as well as other confidential material Congressional staffers have access to, such as that of the “CLOSED: Preparing for the Trafficking in Persons Report” of June 2017 (United States).

Ingrid Stephanie Noriega is junior specialist in International Relations, Latina of an immense passion for human rights, democratic accountability, and conflict resolution studies as it relates to international development for the Latin America and Middle East – regions of her proefessional focus

Continue Reading
Comments

International Law

US Migrant Crisis and the Global Human Rights Protection Standards

Dr. Nafees Ahmad

Published

on

Migrants and asylum seekers from Central America have been marching towards the US for protection and shelter. But US government has deployed around 6000 soldiers to prevent them from entering into the US. These migrant and asylum seekers convoys have been dubbed as “a foreign invasion” by the incumbent US President that needs to be confronted by the US army. President Trump hard-headedly argued that “immigration is a very, very big and very dangerous, a really dangerous topic” that prompted the US army officials of firing tear gas shells at migrants’ convoys. It is nothing but the portrayal of an invasion by the Central American migrants and asylum seekers into the US. Such a US posturing on international migration is a manifestation of the US tradition of hypocrisy and its deep-seated aversion towards the migrants that violates global human Rights protection standards (GHRPS). Thus, the across-the-board new migration strategy of the US is based on the idea of ultra-restrictionism that deprives the immigrants from public benefits, and recently President Trump has entirely abolished the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) programme along with the abrogation of the temporary status protection programmes. These measures have adversely impacted the GHRPS required for the 2 million regular migrants in the US which spawned the emergence of a well-founded fear of persecution, far-right nationalism, and socio-cultural schism.

New Migration Strategy

The US restrictive measures have attracted international media attention and the US is hell-bent to send a message to the international community that it would not be privy to the non-binding standard for a safe, orderly and regular migration known as the UN Global Compact on Migration (GCM) arrangement scheduled to be agreed in December 2018 and US is alone capable to take its decisions on immigration issues under America First Policy (AFP).Therefore, the GHRPS for migrants and asylum seekers are apparently immaterial in the US immigration policy objectives. Trump administration under AFP discourse envisions restrictionism, deterrence, and pre-emption against GHRPS while denying public benefits to immigrants at par US citizens. Unfortunately, strong and inclusive migration control strategy has been devised and is being implemented to restrict the rights of those migrants and immigrants who are already there in the US. For example; Trump administration has been attempting to temper the 2020 US census that is bound to influence the political scene for the advantage of Republicans in the years ahead.

However, ex-President Barack Obama also resorted to the deployment of US armed forces on the US-Mexico international border to curb migration that resulted in some cases of family-separations but at a low rate if it is measured against the present Trump administration. The point of distinction between the Obama and Trump administrations is that the former recognized the contribution of migrants to the US’s growth; however, this understanding has steadily acquired a negative narrative under the later administration. President Trump has been demanding $5 billion to construct a wall along the US-Mexico international border otherwise intimidating shutting down the US government. However, Trump administration apparently does not leave any stone unturned in case of violently pushing back migrants and asylum seekers. Trump administration has inaugurated its immigration policy with a Travel Ban from seven Muslim countries and now it has been stretched to Latin American countries against all norms of GHRPS and international law.

Global Human Rights Protection Standards

The incumbent US administration is more interested in denying migrants and asylum seekers the access to benefits under the US national laws and global human rights protection standards. The latest Trump’s proclamation is to contain the new arrivals from Mexico and its Southern nation-states which restrict the right to seek asylum in the US beyond the port of entry. Further, impugned presidential proclamation defers well-established US asylum legislation that contravenes due process of law, the rule of law and international treaty law recognized and sanctified under the Constitution of United States of America. However, this presidential proclamation or asylum ban has, for the time being, been stopped by the San Francisco Federal Court under a restraining order.

In spite of this, the Immigration and Nationality Act, 1965 states that any “alien or foreigner who is physically or personally present in the US or who comes in the US (whether or not at an officially designated port of entry, irrespective of such alien or foreigner’s status, may apply for asylum.” However, under Section 212 (f) the US President is empowered to enforce immigration restrictions by issuing a proclamation. Further, the US President may if feels that “the entry of any alien or foreigner or any class of foreigners or aliens into the US would be detrimental to the American interests suspend the entry of all foreigners or aliens or any class of aliens or foreigners as non immigrants or immigrants, or impose on the entry of foreigners or aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” Precisely, President Trump invoked this provision of law to clamp these insensitive and punitive restrictions. This presidential decree has aggravated the Trump’s AFP to new levels of castigation. Groups and individuals seeking asylum and entering the US while avoiding official ports of entry were slapped with criminal cases that got them separated from their families. Such irregular entries were criminalized by the US border authorities in violation of “the right not to be penalized for irregularly entering into the territory of High Contracting State” under Article 31 of the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (UNCSR) with its 1967 Additional Protocol that has been acceded to by the US.

Having hit with such transgressions, the criminal charges leveled against asylum seekers did not affect their asylum claims, and they were duly entitled to have their asylum claims heard. However, this scenario is no more there as new reports indicate that a single-digit number of asylum applications are disposed of daily at the designated entry ports. Therefore, such a situation has led to inordinate delays in processing the applications of asylum seekers at the border that is a violation of Section 1 of Amendment XIV of the Constitution of United States of America that codifies the core values of the people of the USA. But many persons have been denied access and abducted, raped and thrashed to the hilt. However, Article 33 (1) of the UNCSR contains the principle of non-refoulement stemming from the customary international law that works as “a safety valve” which obligates the nation-states to protect a refugee, migrants, stateless and asylum seekers who is fleeing from persecution, risk or danger to life in his or her country of origin or homeland. Few scholars contest the applicability of the principle of non-refoulement extra-territorially; however, the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) has already recognized the extra-territorial application of the non-refoulement principle, and the denial of entry into the US is a violation of the UNCSR.

Moreover, there is another principle of international law where under collective or mass expulsion of the refugees, migrants or asylum seekers is prohibited and obligates the nation-states to examine objectively and cumulatively every expulsion action of each individual and group of persons. The “hot return” policy of the US clearly violates this obligation under GHRPS. Thus, this practice primarily rescinds the right of the huge majority of migrants and asylum seekers to seek for asylum. Therefore, it also circumvents the objects and purposes of the UNCSR.

The Hot Return Policy

The hot return policy stems from the US Department of Justice regulation of 1953 that entails the “100 Air Mile Zone” rule; however, that negates the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution under which the right and protection against arbitrary and random searches have been provided within this zone. But Border Patrol officials have been empowered to operate the immigration checkpoints in this vast zone with extra-constitutional powers. Under the “zero tolerance policy” Department of Homeland Security wields enormous powers and conducts speedy ejections of undocumented migrants within this area. The fundamental rights and freedoms such as the right to counsel or the right to a hearing before a judicial immigration authority and the right against expulsions are not available in the situation of “hot returns.” The new regulation has precisely been founded upon this mechanism and whosoever arrives at the designated checkpoints will be pushed back devoid of any due process of law. Anti-migration-driven steps like the family separation, ankle-monitors for asylum seekers and detention of asylum seekers during the process of determination of their asylum claims. Therefore, it has become a double-edged weapon as when asylum seekers try to apply at authoritative ports of entry they are prevented from doing so and when some migrants and asylum seekers do not follow the law and try to manage surreptitiously asylum benefits they are also prevented from claiming asylum within the US. In fact, the impugned policy violates the UNCSR, customary international law and the provisions of general international law. Therefore, civil society institutions like the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Southern Poverty Law Center and American Civil Liberties Union filed cases in the US courts against such illegal actions of the Trump administration.

The Rights of Migrants and Asylum Seekers

There is a plan to have secret measures to restrict the rights of migrants and asylum seekers in the US against all protection standards of the so-called civilized world. The rights of refugees, migrants, and asylum seekers are in active violation in the US who espouses the cause of human rights, the rule of law, democracy and diversity worldwide. For example; in the Matter of A-R-C-G- et al. decided on August 26, 2014 at the US Department of Justice by the Executive Office for Immigration Review where the Board of Immigration observed that “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave or run away from their relationship” which can constitute a cognizable “membership of particular social group” that establishes the basis of the right to seek asylum or withholding of removal under Sections 208(a) and 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 1965 and which is also a prerequisite for meeting the criterion of refugee definition under Article 1 of the UNCSR. However, law officers under the Trump administration adamant to subvert the well-established legal standards that provide respite and reprieve in the cases of domestic violence.

There is a perennial cycle of legal measures that are bound to belittle existing human rights protection standards like latest Trump administration’s endeavour to reverse the Flores v. Reno popularly known as Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA) in September 2018. The reversal of FSA will be the most inhuman act of the present US administration as separating and snatching children from their parents cannot be justified under any circumstance whatsoever.  FSA determines the limits on the duration and conditions under which children could be incarcerated in immigration detention, and it also regulatesthe detention, treatment, and release of detained minors by the immigration authorities. However, Trump Administration seeks to terminate the FSA’s legal defences for children, including the provision that children must be shifted to a non-secure, licensed facility within three to five days of detention, which has been construed to allow for an extension of up to 20 days in times of “emergency” or “influx.” The proposed regulations include some policies which, if implemented, would allow the government to incarcerate more families for even longer periods. Primarily, FSA’s goal was to release families and minor children from immigration custody quickly. Therefore, if FSA is reversed now, it would violate GHRPS and due process of law.

Way Forward

The US is the first country in the world that has been recognized as a country of migrants, enriched by the migrants and celebrates multiculturalism as an inalienable part of its existence since time immemorial. However, US policies based on the doctrine of American interests worldwide has done a massive disservice to the lives of the people worldwide.  The US supports and protects many national governments who serve its interests, US exploits and expropriates the natural resources of many countries and its prescriptive approach in formulating economic policies, forced regime change, subjugation of international organizations and selective discharge of international obligations have also contributed in displacing people from their roots. Therefore, it has to share the responsibility of hosting migrants and asylum seekers, particularly from its vicinity. In fact, many anti-migrants measures violate US municipal law, the US’s international treaty obligations as well as general international law. The US has to abdicate its restrictionism based on hate, threats, and xenophobia in consonance with its historical traditions of liberal democracy, diversity, and multiculturalism.

In this context, all anti-migrants restrictions and sanctions must be withdrawn while respecting GHRPS and international law obligations.As pictures circulate worldwide of US firing of tear gas enveloping migrants, asylum seekers and their children on US-Mexican border and terrified faces of children who are being snatched from their parents by the US Border Patrol agents, a UN Global Compact on Orderly and Safe Migration is likely to win near-universal approval at the inter-governmental conference scheduled to be held in Marrakesh, Moroccoon December 10-11, 2018 expected to be the final step before the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration is formally adopted by the UN General Assembly. It has been a long-drawn journey to achieve such an ambitious plan for regulating and governing international migration by the international community. However, it would not be a legally binding treaty even then, unfortunately, US has already shunned this global initiative against the mandate of its own constitution.

The Constitution of the United States of America is a sacred covenant achieved by an immeasurable amount of human investment that has established an equal society in America. But, unfortunately, these restrictions on the rights of migrants and asylum seekers have weakened the US constitutional guarantees and liberties under the current administration. The emergence of the far-right political discourse that is being well-sponsored and patronized under the Trump administration must be countered by strengthening the liberal democratic political discourse, and same must also be reflected in the institutional governance frameworks of the United States of America.

Continue Reading

International Law

Science Policy Holds Promise in the South China Sea

James Borton

Published

on

Scientific cooperation may succeed in de-escalating the current tensions in the tumultuous area of the South China Sea. This in spite of White House efforts to deny well-established climate change reports, and the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Climate Accord, which has some observers questioning the wisdom of laying down a science-led peace-building plan in the contested South China Sea disputes.

Chinese oceanographers and their marine scientists are now raising a science flag to neighboring claimant nations in the region. At an increasing number of multilateral science conferences, Chinese scientists quietly admit that there are shared regional environmental security issues including acidification, biodiversity loss, coral reef destruction and fishery collapse. While in Washington, the Department of Defense and the U.S. Navy expresses skepticism about China’s rapid expansion of their oceanographic research expansions, it raises more opportunities rather than hegemonic problems.

Science may prove to be the crucible for bringing about a new level of cooperation rather than competition, not only among the claimant nations in the region, but also between Washington and Beijing.

Last year President Trump’s offer to Vietnam’s President Tran Dai Quang to mediate the complex and challenging disputes over access to fish stocks, conservation of biodiversity and sovereignty claims caught many observers by surprise, it should not have.

The stakes are getting higher in the turbulent South China Sea, not only because of Beijing’s militarization of reclaimed islands but also the prospects of a fisheries collapse. This should weigh heavily on all claimant nations and especially the United States. Challenges around food security and renewable fish resources are fast becoming a hardscrabble reality for more than fishermen. In 2014, the Center for Biological Diversity warned that it could be a scary future, indeed, with as many as 30-50 percent of all species possibly headed toward extinction by mid-century.

What’s clear is that the ocean’s resources are continued to be exploited at a record pace and a few of China’s fleet of almost 50 research vessels have now set their sights on American waters by navigating through the Federated States of Micronesia, near the U.S. territory of Guam.

In a recently published National Interest article, “Chinese Scientists Want to Conduct Research in U.S. Waters- Should Washington Let Them,” authors Peter Dutton and Ryan Martinson, argue that China is a strategic competitor in its ocean agenda. They claim, that “Beijing primarily invests in out-of-area oceanographic research in order to position China to better compete with other countries for security, resources, markets and political influence.”

While it’s true that these research vessels are a part of China’s National Fleet, the scientific oversight is to insure State Oceanic Administration’s management of oceanographic activities. Of course, the U.S. Department of Defense and the Seventh Fleet recognize that any Chinese research vessels must be monitored but there’s no issue with the PRC conducting freedom of navigation around Guam as long as it’s outside the limits of Guam, recognized by the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

It’s not too late for the U.S. to take the scientific high ground and renew the legacy of science diplomacy. After all, science initiatives are more widely accepted as efforts to solve global issues requiring contributions from all parties even if they have been dealt a bad hand elsewhere. On November 3, the White House signed off on a report attributing climate change and global warming to humanity. The report is in direct contradiction to the president’s action pulling the U.S. out of the Paris accord on climate change earlier this year.

Enter science diplomacy, defined as the role of science being used to inform foreign policy decisions, promoting international scientific collaborations, and establishing scientific cooperation to ease tensions between nations. It’s true that many policymakers and scientists do not speak the same language; however, there’s increasing evidence that points the compass towards the link between international science cooperation and international relations.

During the Cold War, scientific cooperation was used to build bridges of cooperation and trust, and it’s now time that the South China Sea becomes a sea that binds rather than divides. The defense skeptics in Washington certainly are correct in their observations that China’s distant fleets directly serves state interests. However, maritime research can be cooperatively shared and perhaps, the first step in China inviting fellow marine scientists and maybe even an embedded journalist or two aboard one of their marine research vessels.

There are strong ties among scientists across Southeast Asia and China, due in part to a series of international scientific projects, conferences and training workshops associated with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coordination program.

Marine scientists in the Philippines and Vietnam are reviving conversations about the Joint Oceanographic Marine Scientific Research Expeditions (JOMSRE) last conducted in 2005 and organized between the Philippine Maritime and Ocean Affairs Center and the Vietnamese Institute of Oceanography.

These measures are essential in the face of rampant overfishing and a looming coral reef apocalypse occurring across the South China Sea, in part because of the conflicting territorial claims have made ecological analyses and management actions difficult.

Michael Crosby, president and CEO of Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida, believes the U.S. could dramatically improve international relations through marine science partnerships, and he understands the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) contains specific articles that apply to marine science and technology.

“A renewal of JOMSRE would be quite positive, although the changing political dynamics related to the Spratlys and other islands and reefs in the region over the last several years will likely create a bit more challenging environment for an international research survey,” Mr. Crosby said in an email.

Modern history offers excellent examples of how science supported diplomacy. In 1961 President John F. Kennedy invited Japan’s Prime Minister Hayato Ikeda to support the US-Japan Committee on Science Cooperation. In Science Diplomacy New Day or False Dawn, the editors Lloyd S. Davis and Robert Patman, offer compelling arguments for the adoption of science in diplomacy. This includes their study of the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) with a lens on the success achieved among 60 countries, who were engaged in Antarctic cooperative research on the area’s ice sheets, atmospheric conditions and oceanographic properties.

Dr. Paul Arthur Berkman, a professor of practice in Science Diplomacy at Tufts University, reaffirms the lessons the Antarctica and extols science as a tool of diplomacy that builds bridges among nations and fosters stability in regions. Antarctica is the one place that arguably is the archetype for what can be accomplished by science diplomacy.

Under the Antarctic Treaty, no country actually owns all or part of Antarctica, and no country can exploit the resources of the continent while the Treaty is in effect. It is a classic example of international cooperation.

Also, it’s worth noting the success of the Red Sea Marine Peace Cooperative Research, Monitoring and Resource Management Program (RSMPP) where Israel and Jordan signed off on an ecosystem monitoring agreement and shared science data collection in the Gulf of Aqaba in 2003. RSMPP offers another model for improving international relations and building capacity through marine science cooperation in the South China Sea. These two opposing countries chose to promote the long-term sustainable use and conservation of their shared marine resources.

Professor John McManus, a marine biologist at the University of Miami, has researched the contested Spratly Islands for more than a quarter of a century. He has called repeatedly for the development of an international peace park and remains hopeful that other regional marine scientists and ecologists will support a collaborative science-driven initiative.

He says, “Territorial disputes have led to the establishment of environmentally destructive, socially and economically costly military outposts on so many islands. Given the rapid proliferation of international peace parks, it is time to take the difficult steps towards the establishment of a Spratlys Peace Park.”

Although the U.S. is not a signatory to UNCLOS, Washington can recommend that sovereignty claims be set aside in treaties implementing freezes on claims and claim-supportive activities, as has been done in the Antarctic. These and other natural resource management tools could be used far more effectively to secure fisheries and biodiversity, and also promote sustainable tourism.

Now that the mid-term election results are in, the White House may find this collaborative brand of science diplomacy works well in Asia.

Continue Reading

International Law

Ebbing Liberal World Order

Muhammad Usman Ghani

Published

on

The twentieth century witnessed unusual happenings across the globe. Its first half had to encounter with the two most deadly conflicts (2 World-Wars) which claimed millions of lives. The technological sophistication of weapons and the beginning of the Nuclear Age were responsible elements that made the both World-Wars bloody conflicts.

Fearing such happenings, the Allied powers in the aftermath of the World-War-II bent on establishing such order that could avert misfortunes, which the world had plagued. Thus, the liberal world order came into existence that endorsed mutual collaboration among the countries, the formation of multilateral institutes, and the upkeep of democracy. The liberal world order cherished; globalization, human rights protection, freedom of speech, and trade expanse among the countries. The organizations were formed to strengthen the liberal world order in the form of cooperation among the countries. In earnest to foster peace, the formation of the United Nations (UN) took place. For the purpose of economic advancement, the World Bank came into existence. To get the countries out of economic turmoil, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) formed. For the international trade objectives, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) formed, which years succeeding converted into the World Trade Organization. The democratic countries began to adopt the liberal world order aiming to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the countries. The liberal order further entrenched its roots after the fall of the Soviet Union, as it intended to deter the aggression and prevented the invasion of countries on the other. The ideology of globalization by the exchange of products, ideas and communication among the countries, is the testimony to the services of the liberal world order.

One must realize that the foundation of liberal world order rests upon two pillars: one is the freedom of individual and the second is the growth of social and economic norms. The liberals applied the blend of freedom and growth in the years following the World-War-II. Since then the allied powers endeavored to restore the war-ravaged world, and consequently, the liberal order garnered much progress.

However, in the existing era, its existence is jeopardized since most of the countries have set their journey on the ways, which are deviating from the liberal world order. The world in the past few years has experienced the rise in populism (an antidote to the liberal world order), which has begun to eclipse the liberal world order.

The recent victory of the far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro in the Brazilian presidential elections, in October 2018, has heralded the perversion of liberal world order. His victory has followed the onslaughts on LGBT people, women and any individual who opposed right-wing candidates. Bolsonaro enjoys the backing of conservatives and most reactionary sect of Brazil like pro-weapon lobby, industrialists, army and police force. Recently, Cuba has withdrawn thousands of doctors from Brazil after his criticism on the communist-run island’s More program, which sends Cuban doctors in destitute areas of Brazil. He said his government would bring changes in this program. His belief in men’s superiority over women hate towards indigenous, black, and LGBT community is a definite threat to the liberal order.

The world since Trump’s assuming the power of the US has seen the surge in the populism. He pushed the US into the trade-war against the other countries. He also repudiated the ideology of globalization while taking the podium of the UNGA in September 2018. Donald Trump prefers; transaction over the alliance, unpredictability over consistency, and bilateralism over multilateralism, which endangers the liberal world order. Trump adopted the idea of protectionism by uttering that “it will lead to greater prosperity and strength”.

The liberal world order’s countenance is defaced in other countries as well. The rise of AfD (far-right group) in Germany is yet another threat to the liberal world order. The AfD criticizes the immigration of trapped refugees to Germany. The group aspires changes in the constitution of Germany to get rid of the right of an individual hearing in asylum cases and opposes ruling “grand coalition” of Angela Merkel with social democrats. In September elections, the AfD became the first far-right group to conquer seats in the Bundestag in a half-century.

In the Netherlands, France, and Hungary, the far-right parties have tried to capitalize on the influx of Muslim refugees to woo Jews. The populist movements have won the plebiscites in Britain, Hungry and Poland. Britain’s decision to abandon the European Union in the form of Brexit is yet another instance of crippling liberal world order. The recent electoral triumph of left-wing populist parties such as Podemos in Spain and Syriza in Greece has given an impetus to the debate on the rise of populism in Europe. At times the populist possesses notion that rampant commercialization and globalization have rendered masses unemployed.

Now, the question emerges that why the liberal order has to face such ruin, and what are the driving factors behind it?

Patrick J. Deenen in his book ”Why liberalism failed” pointed out that humans are independent entities and distinct from nature and this principle keeps our hearts at war with nature. Modern science, as posited by René Descartes and Francis Bacon, was the locomotive that would make us masters and possessors of nature. But, this attitude almost certainly made for unprecedented success and prosperity to a liberal society, it is also responsible for today’s global ecological crisis which has no parallel in human history.

Another driving factor that fades the liberal order is the nationalism, which is a kind of loyalty of one towards its country; irrespective of what is right or wrong. Thus, the leaders in a bid to bolster their domain of influence and authority harness the tool of nationalism amidst the worst economic conditions. The same is the case with Donald Trump when he found a little debacle in the U.S’ economy, he bent on scrutinizing liberalism and adopted protectionism.

The man has always craved for the power, as his innate nature urges him to do so. Machiavelli in his famous work ”The Prince” has portrayed man’s nature as rogue, pirate and greedy. The arms race, aspiration of countries for assuming the world’s hegemonic saddle, confiscating feeble country’s resources and dominating political influence are the foremost goals that major powers are aspiring for. The pursuance of these goals has led the human far away from the policies and rules of the liberal world order. The Yemen crisis, the Palestine issue, turmoil in Syria, Kashmir issue, and Rohingya crisis are the epitomes of the interests of the global powers, which are exploiting these lands and their people for just the sake of interest in these regions; thus undermining the course of the liberal order. The global institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank seem tether to address the turmoil and issues among the countries.

In a nutshell, illiberal norms in the world are posing threats to its stability. These norms are going to cripple communication and trade among the countries. Along with it, these trends are likely to replete the world with skirmishes, and conflicts among the nations. Consequently, leaving the world into turmoil, adversity, poverty, and wars.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy