THE CLAIM:
“Trafficking in persons is now the third most profitable business for organized crime.” UN Office on Drugs and Crime (2000)
“…it is now the third largest source of profits for international organized crime, behind only drugs and guns.” U.S. Department of State (2000)
“…migrants’ smuggling becomes a very attractive market for criminal organisations. In 1999, the worldwide profits made by individual smugglers and smuggling networks, have been placed between US$ 3 billion and US$ 10 billion. By the end of this year, some sources say that the worldwide trade in human trafficking is worth around US$ 30 billion a year. According to that estimation, trafficking in human beings is now the third largest source of profits for organized crime, behind drugs and arms trafficking.” Interpol (2002)
THE FACTS:
Evidence for this claim either does not exist or is impossible to locate. Despite the efforts of the authors and two professional reference librarians to locate the original reliable source, the research only turned up similar statements and not one article was uncovered that contained any evidence to support the claim. Perhaps the spectacular claim arose from a slip of the tongue, as in the above statement by Interpol. As many people confuse smuggling and trafficking, it is not unusual to hear statements that claim to be about trafficking but are really talking about smuggling. Perhaps this is how the claim of “third largest” became imbedded in the trafficking language – in error. It would certainly make more sense to say that smuggling is the third largest source of organized crime profits.
Whether the claim comes from a slip of the tongue or not, errors of this type, like many other assertions to be discussed in Fact Checker, enter the world of ‘myth’ but are perceived to be ‘fact.’
The “third largest” claim has spread and changed over time. The following examples demonstrate how the claim has given birth to even more unsupported claims Recently, U.S. Congressman Chris Smith made the unsubstantiated claim that “[t]rafficking is…the second fastest growing criminal activity in the world, equal with illegal arms sales.” In another variation, the U.S. government claims that “[a]fter drug dealing, trafficking of humans is tied with arms dealing as the second largest criminal industry in the world, and is the fastest growing.” As so much of the discussion about trafficking focuses on the sex sector, it is no surprise to read a new claim that “[p]rostitution and the trafficking of women have become the third highest ‘black market’ income earner after drugs and the arms trade.” There are probably more variations on the theme yet to be uncovered.
THE PROBLEM:
Assuming that there is no reliable evidence of the truth of any of these claims, the question is – what is the harm? Some people may consider that, because human trafficking is a serious problem, hype and exaggeration can help to raise awareness and push people and governments to action. Nonetheless, we believe that such claims are harmful on at least two counts.
First, myths obscure reality. Human trafficking is reportedly only about 20% (2.45 million) of the 12.3 million people whom the ILO estimates are held in forced labor, debt bondage or slavery. The claim that profits from human trafficking are right behind arms and drugs would mean that the profits from 2.45 million victims are greater than the profits from the other 10 million victims – all of whom are also held in forced labor, debt bondage, and slavery. Could this be possible?
It is difficult to see how it could be true. The term ‘organized crime’ conjures up images of fairly large, complex, often global, networks. If the statements are referring only to these large networks, then the profits they mention can only come from some of the 2.45 million trafficked persons because many people are trafficked by families and other small groups. It is difficult to understand how so much profit could come from so few victims.
The United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime defines an ‘organized criminal group’ as only three or more persons. If the term ‘organized crime’ includes all of these small groups, then the claim would mean that organized crime is earning those profits from all 2.45 million victims. However, this raises the question of whether the profits are greater from trafficking 2.45 million people or the other 10 million people held in forced labor, debt bondage and slavery. The families and small businesses holding those people would also constitute ‘organized crime.’ Again, it is difficult to believe that more money is made from the labor of 2.45 million victims than from almost 10 million victims.
So we are left with at least three scenarios: (1) the claim is really about smuggling and not trafficking; (2) the claim refers only large organized crime and the profits made from fewer than 2.45 million victims or (3) the claim refers to small organized crime and the profits made from all 2.45 million victims. It would be useful to know which of these scenarios is the subject of the claim and whether there is any reliable evidence in support.
Nonetheless, all of these options obscure the reality that another 10 million human beings are suffering under conditions of forced labor, debt bondage and slavery and that criminals are reaping enormous profits off of their labor. It is extremely important that we move beyond ‘human trafficking’ as the iconic image of suffering and focus on the harm done to and the profits made off of the labor of all 12.3 million victims.
Second, myths lead to bad policies. When highly publicized but unsubstantiated claims become accepted as ‘fact,’ then bad or ineffective laws, policies and programs are sure to follow at the international, regional, state and local levels. Money, time, personnel and energy is invested in addressing the ‘organized crime’ involved in human trafficking – with a focus on transnational trafficking –with very little new or creative energy being expended to address the oppression of the 10 million people in forced labor, slavery and debt bondage. Furthermore, and perhaps more problematic is the fact that this focus on human trafficking as a problem of organized crime cannot and will not address the root causes that render people vulnerable or produce targeted, creative, long-term solutions for victims.
THE SOLUTION:
Policy makers, NGOs, academics, the media and advocates should be careful not to assert opinions as facts. It is not enough for authors and advocates to refer to a source, such as the UN, to support a claim. In many cases, a little research will reveal that those sources are unreliable. We should all take care not to become part of the hype producing machinery that continually presents opinions or ideology as ‘facts.’
Readers must also become demanding and skeptical consumers of information. They should insist upon better research and not believe what they read until they are able to evaluate the evidence. If no evidence is available, they should consider such statements as opinions and nothing more.
Human trafficking, forced labor, slavery and debt bondage are horrendous human rights abuses that are complicated by history, place, social customs, patterns of discrimination, migration patterns and economic development and dislocation. It is imperative, therefore, that we all seek a deeper and broader understanding that does not rely on catchy phrases and opinions.
FINAL NOTE: If readers are aware of any reliable research supporting any of these claims, please send them to info@rightswork.org and we will post them.
Ann Jordan is Director of the Program on Human Trafficking and Forced labor, Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, American University Washington College of Law.
Lynn Burke is a J.D. / M.A. Candidate at the Washington College of Law.
The UNESCO Trafficking Statistics Project, which I direct, examined this claim and could find no substantiation for it. We could find no attempt to document how the number was derived, or why it was changed from earlier claims.
It is another example of the phenomenon that I analyzed in “Trafficking in Numbers: The Social Construction of Human Trafficking Data” (in Andreas, P. & K. M. Greenhill (eds.), Sex, Drugs, and Body Counts: The Politics of Numbers in Global Crime and Conflict. Ithaca: Cornell University Press (2010): trafficking statistics are poorly derived, widely circulated, and rarely analyzed. It seems that there is no number so fanciful that it will not be promulgated. When these numbers are questioned, their use is frequently justified as “raising awareness of the problem.” In fact, such justification undermines scientific attempts to understand the scale and extent of quite serious violations of human rights.
You note in the above article that “Human trafficking is reportedly only about 20% (2.45 million) of the 12.3 million people whom the ILO estimates are held in forced labor, debt bondage or slavery.” I am somewhat confused. Human trafficking is a form of slavery. Typically, forced labor and debt bondage is also considered as a form of human trafficking. To say that human trafficking is 20% of the 12.3 million people held in forced labor, slavery, etc is thus redundant. One can be a victim of human trafficking and not have to cross borders. I guess I am taking issue more with the ILO than your essay as such, but I think a false distinction is being made here.
Todd, I understand the confusion since so many people and organizations use different terms for the same phenomenon. What in fact the ILO says is that 20% of the 12.3 million people found in forced labor, debt bondage and slavery were trafficked into that situation. The victims did not have to cross borders but they had to have been moved into the site. Thus, many more people are in those situations through other means – they were not trafficked.
To address the confusing language around these interconnected issues, I wrote an issue paper, which you can find on the site at http://rightswork.org/2011/04/issue-paper-2-slavery-forced-labor-debt-bondage-and-human-trafficking-from-conceptual-confusion-to-targeted-solutions-2/. I hope you find this helpful.
Thanks for your comments.
Ann Jordan
Ms. Jordan,
I still remain confused, since the U.S. Federal definition of trafficking (found in the TVPA), is as such:
(A) sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; or
(B) the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.
On account of B, listed above, the numbers reported by the ILO would all fall under the definition of trafficking. Could you please explain how you differentiate “trafficking” from “debt bondage, forced labor and slavery,” since those are all three considered to be forms of trafficking, as defined not only by US law, but by the UN Protocol?
Trafficking does not require movement anywhere, including crossing a border. Smuggling is certainly different than trafficking (since control ends at the border in smuggling cases and is considered a crime against a country’s borders, and trafficking is continual control over another, or others). I’m just not sure how those stats you list from the ILO aren’t counted as trafficking, in your opinion?
One more thing, just to verify where I’m basing my definitions of smuggling/trafficking off of…my statements above are those found under the Office of Refugee Resettlement website:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/programs/anti_trafficking.htm
The “Human Trafficking v. Migrant Smuggling” table.
Thanks!
Susan, This is an excellent question and it points out the problems caused by inventing something called ‘trafficking’. The crime of trafficking requires the existence of forced labor, servitude, debt bondage, slavery , the involuntary participation in prostitution of an adult, or the inducement of a minor into prostitution. Without one of these crimes, ‘trafficking’ does not exist. All that is left is smuggling, assault or other related crimes. That being said, we have a crime of trafficking and it has to be distinguished from these underlying offenses.
When the UN Protocol and the US law were being created, the intention was to cover the movement of people into a situation where they were then held in forced labor, etc. This was and remains different from the situation in which someone ends up in forced labor or debt bondage on their own. Probably the majority of the non-trafficked people held in forced labor or debt bondage are in south Asia where children follow their parents into debt bondage. They are not ‘trafficked’.
The drafters of the Protocol and the US law did not consider or intend to include these types of situations in the crime of ‘trafficking’. They recognized that they exist but their concerns were about the people – mainly foreign migrants – who were being enticed to another country and then held in forced labor. More recently, there has been some focus on internal migrants who are also enticed to another part of the country and then are held in forced labor. They are trafficked.
Although you are correct that trafficking technically does not require movement, this was not the intent for (B). It is the result of poor legislative drafting. If you look at the definitions, you will see that they envision someone moving from one person to another or from one situation to another in which the end result is forced labor, involuntary servitude, peonage/debt bondage, or slavery. The exception, of course, is the definition related to prostitution. All minors who are induced by others into prostitution are ‘trafficked’ and all adults who are induced into prostitution by force, fraud or coercion are ‘trafficked’.
With regard to adults, the ILO has stated: “implicit in the first core element [recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons] is the notion of movement, which is important – even if minimal – in order to distinguish trafficking from other forms of slavery and slave-like practices…and to ensure that trafficking victims get the necessary assistance specific to their situation.” Combating trafficking in children for labour exploitation: A resource kit for policy-makers and practitioners, ILO 2008, p. 12 http://www.ilo.org/ipecinfo/product/viewProduct.do?productId=9130
For these reasons, the ILO separates the victims who have been trafficked into their situations from victims who are in forced labor or debt bondage but who were not trafficked. The international community is also focused on the 2.45 million victims who were ‘trafficked’ and much less on the 9 million or so other victims who were not trafficked. Is this just? No. Do we need to do more for the other 9 million victims? I answer is yes. However, there does not seem to be much international interest of governments in going beyond helping the victims who are trafficked. Perhaps if we never had created a subcategory of victims, international attention would be more receptive to the plight of all victims of forced labor, debt bondage and slavery. At present, we need to insist that all victims be counted, recognized and helped to exit from their situations.