[lbo-talk] Sex trafficking in Japan

[Wendy Lyon]

On 8/31/06, Yoshie Furuhashi <critical.montages at gmail.com> wrote:

> IMHO, most women who work as prostitutes in any country, whether
> foreigners or native-born, knew full well what they would be doing,
> rather than getting conned into it by traffickers.  They do so because
> it pays better than other kinds of work they can get.

True.  There are exceptions, though, and it's an ugly business.  Not
everyone involved in anti-trafficking work is simply out to get the
sex industry.  The Global Alliance Against Trafficking in Women, for
example, makes their position absolutely clear on their website FAQ:

"The Global Fund opposes all forms of human trafficking as they deny
the most fundamental human rights of women and girls. However, it is
essential not to confound trafficking with sex work. While sexually
exploiting a woman against her will is a terrible violation of her
human rights, many women choose to engage in sex work as a profession,
and their right to do so safely must also be protected. Therefore, the
Global Fund opposes the criminalization and stigmatization of sex work
as these measures make sex workers more vulnerable to disease,
exploitation, violence and fear."

> You're right that the USG uses aid to promote the kind of NGOs that
> share its ideology, but Japanese unions, NGOs, etc. don't need any
> international funding if they want to do any outreach to sex workers
> or immigrants or anyone else, so it's not the USG's fault if few of
> them are doing it.
>
> The same goes for family planning.  Almost any government, even
> relatively poor ones like the governments of Thailand and the
> Philippines, can afford family planning without foreign funding.  Lack
> of US aid is no excuse.

I'm not talking about the ones that could be doing it but aren't
bothered.  I'm talking about the ones that are doing it, and will
continue (as long as they can) to do it with or without funding - but
with funding they could do a lot more of it.

> I'd rather ban the USG from funding any foreign NGO for any purpose.
> The negatives of US funding outweigh any positive that its funding
> produces.

That seems to me to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
There are negatives because the US insists on making funding
conditional upon adhering to its ideology - I'd rather the funding
could go ahead without these strings attached.