
For many in the anti-trafficking advocacy community, President Barack Obama's election was a basis to hope for much-needed change in U.S. policy to combat cross-border trafficking in human beings. But statements by
Hillary Clinton (left) during her hearings for confirmation as Secretary of State signal that change may not be as forthcoming as one might have expected, as a recent post by Columbia Law Professor
Katherine M. Franke (below right)
notes. Augmenting these concerns is the fact that key actors who influenced the Bush Administration anti-trafficking policy are now positioned to affect anti-trafficking policy in the United Nations. Those actors left a legacy, moreover:
► Over the last eight years, the complex issue of human trafficking has been grossly oversimplified into a campaign to rescue women from brothels (as IntLawGrrls blogger
Dina Francesca Haynes has analyzed
here). Notwithstanding a
legal definition (developed during the Clinton Administration) that encompasses the trafficking of men, women, and children for both sexual and non-sexual purposes, Bush Administration policies largely focused on sex trafficking (a phenomenon often inaccurately equated with "sexual slavery," as IntLawGrrls blogger
Karen E. Bravo has noted
here) and prostitution. This was in no small part due to the highly effective, coordinated advocacy efforts of self-described "abolitionist" feminists and faith-based organizations to turn trafficking into a crusade against prostitution-writ-large.
► These efforts culminated in State Department
model legislation (for adoption by other countries) that targets prostitution and
grants restrictions that require non-governmental (and certain international) organizations applying for U.S. funds to sign an anti-prostitution pledge -- measures that are problematic as a
matter of international law and
constitutional law.
► The abolitionists most recently sought -- unsuccessfully -- to
amend the Mann Act to expand federal criminal jurisdiction to cover all local and in-state prostitution cases, raising strong
objections from women's and immigrants' rights groups,
the DOJ,
national associations of district attorneys,
attorneys general, and
fraternal order of police, and even the
Heritage Foundation.
So, given Secretary Clinton's
conflation of trafficking and prostitution in describing her plans to address sex trafficking during her confirmation hearing, one has to wonder whether she

will be willing or able to stand up to the same abolitionist pressures she once withstood during the negotiations over the
U.N. Trafficking Protocol. After all, the Clinton Administration's refusal to adopt an abolitionist platform during the Protocol negotiations led then-First Lady Clinton -- as head of the President's Inter-Agency Council on Women -- to be
viciously attacked by abolitionist feminists and conservatives for being "pro-prostitution."
On the international front, the appointment of the former President of
Equality Now to head the New York office of the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) raises the question of how much influence
Equality Now's strong abolitionist stance will bring to bear on
U.N. High Commissioner Navi Pillay (below left), who actually co-founded Equality Now. Until now, the OHCHR has stayed above the fray, hewing to the
UN Trafficking Protocol's explicit guidance (in the official interpretive notes) that the legal treatment of prostitution be left to individual states to decide. Hopefully, High Commissioner Pillay will stay the course, if for no other reason than to avoid dividing the women's human rights community by taking sides in this fight.
Marching orders in place, the task now is for the State Department to see these provisions through and -- hopefully -- not get enmeshed in the interminable prostitution debates.