> 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.