U.S. State Department Gets It Wrong Again Part 1

On June 14, the U.S. Department of State released the 2010 Trafficking In Persons Report. In the Report, the State Department presented a list of activities that are not trafficking in persons. The list is incorrect.

To begin with, the UN Trafficking Protocol represents standards that are required at a minimum to be included in anti-trafficking legislation in order to effectively combat human trafficking. This means that governments can include other elements in addition to those presented in the Trafficking Protocol to establish a comprehensive definition of human trafficking and to address unique aspects of human trafficking that occur within and across their borders.

In its list of what is not human trafficking, State included child pornography and the trade in human organs. State argues that child pornography is not human trafficking because it is not included in the U.S. definition of human trafficking. While this is legally true for the U.S., it does not mean, as State concludes, that child pornography can never be considered human trafficking anywhere in the world. Child pornography can and should be included within the definition of human trafficking and the law would still comport with the UN Protocol. State should use its power of diplomacy to advocate for the inclusion of child pornography in the definition of human trafficking not to advocate for its exclusion.

The paragraph on the trade in human organs is confusing at best. State begins by asserting that the trade in human organs is NOT a form of human trafficking and concludes that exploitation occurs when organs are purchased for a low price and that "such practices are prohibited under the Palermo Protocol...when traffickers use coercive means such as force or threats of force to secure the removal of the victim's organs". The list of the "means" contained within the Protocol is broader than force or threats of force. Human trafficking includes the means (threat or use of force, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or giving or receiving payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person), the purpose (exploitation) and the type of exploitation (removal of organs). Instead of broadly stating that the trade in human organs is not human trafficking, State should follow the law and correctly state that when the trade in organs meets that criteria listed above, it is human trafficking and should be prosecuted as such and that price has nothing to do with whether human trafficking has occurred.