Throughout much of the 19th century Congress played a central role in the development and leadership of American Foreign Policy. While the Constitution designates the President as Commander in Chief, Congress is empowered to constrain the Executive on foreign policy in areas of trade and the use of force.
Clear in the Framer’s intentions for the United States was a struggle between the branches for the power to make America’s foreign policy. However, since the mid-1990’s Congress’ voice in US foreign policy has gradually quietened.
This ushered in the modern political era of the ‘imperial presidency’ where the substantive power to determine America’s foreign policy agenda now lies in the hands of the Executive. While this concentration of foreign policy power is appropriate at times of crisis, Congress must reclaim its rightful constitutional role in the establishment and review of US foreign policy during peacetime.
Regrettably, Americans have become too comfortable with a legislature, now complacent with its diminished influence in this area. Today, congressional representatives are lacking in the institutional experience and knowledge required to skilfully administer their role in the making of American foreign policy.
To tackle these issues, I suggest that congressional committees develop a greater capacity to research and analyse U.S. Foreign policy and that all members of Congress participate on foreign policy task forces. If successfully implemented, these proposals will welcome a return to more collaborative, nuanced foreign policy that is shared between Congress and the Executive.
It is remarkable that the two Senate committees tasked with oversight of foreign policy and national security – the Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee – have held fewer hearings on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, than was the case during the era of Cold War military interventions. This reflects the depleted will and capabilities of Congress to review, challenge and drive American foreign policy. At least part of this problem is related to insufficient staffing of the congressional committees.
While the number of staff working for the executive branch has grown over the past 40 years, the number of staff supporting congressional committees has significantly declined in this same period. Inadequate staffing of committees has hindered the ability of congressional representatives to draft foreign policy legislation and review executive strategy. Today members are forced to rely upon lobbyists to garner legislative analysis. The solution here is straightforward: committees should be allocated the funds necessary to hire more policy-focused committee staff. This would help to facilitate a more transparent and robust foreign policy process in the United States.
There is currently a great knowledge asymmetry between Congress and the Executive on Foreign policy. Members of Congress serve for only part of the year and increasingly begin as legislative amateurs, lacking specialisation in foreign policy. These factors alone place congressional representatives far behind the full-time Executive branch when it comes to the mastery of foreign relations issues.
The knowledge, experience and interest in foreign policy within Congress must be improved to enable members to work constructively with the Executive on U.S. foreign policy. The establishment of congressional foreign policy task forces would be an encouraging first step. The task forces could focus on specific issues which concern America’s national interests abroad, the main purpose being – to provide a forum for exploration and discussion of international issues for members of Congress.
This would enable representatives of the legislature to be better informed, more confident and capable of assessing foreign policy issues logically as they arise. The perspectives generated through the task forces could then also be used to inform executive branch deliberations on foreign policy decisions. This would enable Congress to reclaim some of the ground previously relinquished to the Executive, paving the way for a more authoritative voice of Congress in American foreign policy.
By reinvigorating the institutional foreign policy knowledge, experience and interest of members, this will enable Congress to feed into the deliberative process of foreign policy making in the United States. As the Founders intended, more thoughtful, cohesive and durable foreign policy outcomes will likely ensue.
The decision for the United States and its allies to invade Iraq in 2003 is one of the most controversial foreign policy acts in modern US history. The reasons for going to war in Iraq remain at the centre of contemporary debate. Those critical of the war argue that Bush acted irrationally, with some suggesting that the Administration’s judgment was clouded by the tragedy of 9/11. Others suspect that the war effort was an attempt to control Iraq’s oil. I make the case against these theories and argue that Washington’s officially stated reason for invasion- the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein, remains the most plausible explanation for the war. Though America’s invasion did not find conclusive evidence of Hussein’s alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) or links to Al Qaeda, these threats were reasonably believed at the time and justifiably acted upon by the Bush Administration. The promotion of democracy in Iraq is a further purported reason for the war. I argue that rather than underpinning the decision to go to war, the prospect of a democratic Iraq was merely a supporting factor.
The devastating effects of 9/11 reflected a turning point in American foreign policy. Some suggest that the decision to invade Iraq was impulsively made by officials who were jaded by the tragedy. However, this accusation does not stand up to scrutiny. The terror attacks demonstrated the capacity of lightly armed terrorists to wreak havoc and destruction on the United States. The Bush Administration’s fears were only heightened by allegations of Saddam Hussein’s WMD capability.The 9/11 attack on America’s homeland induced a visceral response that made Washington more acutely aware of their vulnerability to international terrorism. This awareness fundamentally transformed American foreign policy. The Bush Doctrine assumed that Cold War standards of deterrence and containment were no longer effective in regulating the actions of rogue states in a new age of international terrorism. Aware of the risks that Saddam Hussein could pose to the US, Bush called for assertive US leadership and the strategy of pre-emptive attack ‘against emerging threats before they are fully formed and can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.’
The necessity of pre-emptively attacking rogue states to protect national security was reinforced by the international community. Following the 2002 Bali Bombings which killed 88 Australians, Prime Minister John Howard stated the need to consider pre-emptive action as a last resort.Likewise, the European Union agreed that ‘threats such as terrorism may require action even before crises arise.’ This further strengthens the claim that the US declaration of war in 2003 was a prudent and reasonable response to the threat assessments of the time. In the US, 9/11 provided the wake-up call that thrust national security to the top of the Bush agenda. This change was echoed by policy makers throughout the world who also became more aware of the need to combat international terrorism. Therefore, the decision to invade Iraq was not impulsive or irrational, it was practical and made in accordance with the most accurate threat perceptions of international terrorism at the time.
Great powers of the past have often been driven by resource control. The interpretation of the Iraq war as a ploy to gain control of Iraq’s oil reserves continues to enjoy widespread currency today. To make this case, critics point to the oil industry links of Bush Administration officials ranging from President Bush himself, to the Secretary of Treasury Paul O’Neill and National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice. Gaining control of oil in the Middle East would have enabled the US to control the resources of China and India, the fastest growing economies in the world. However suspicious these factors may seem, both indicate a coincidence rather than a conspiracy. Closer examination of the facts leads to the conclusion that the Iraq war was not fought for oil.
In the wake of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, America did not significantly benefit from Iraqi oil contracts. Despite the deployment of 200,000 US troops to Iraq and the estimated $2 trillion expended during the war effort, American companies were not given preferential treatment in virtue of their country’s involvement. Indeed, companies from nations that were neutral or hostile to the Iraq war were given equal footing to the US during oil negotiations. Only one US company (Exxon-Mobil) was successful in gaining a contract. This deal was no more impressive than the deals achieved by Russia’s Lukoil, Norway’s Statoil, Malaysia’s Petronas or Japan’s Japex. Furthermore, the most significant beneficiary of post-war oil contracts was China, emerging as the largest buyer of Iraqi oil in 2013. Considering that the Iraq war came at such a high cost to the American tax payer, while doing little to fuel the profits of American oil companies, it is extraordinary that the oil conspiracy continues to hold such popularity today. Defenders and detractors of the 2003 decision alike should acknowledge that the ‘oil narrative’ is a selective and speculative account at best.
The officially stated and most plausible reason for the 2003 Iraq war was the national security threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the United States. At the time of the war, Saddam Hussein had been a brutal dictator of 25 years and a central threat to peace in the Middle East. Prior to 2003, the US had made ‘honourable efforts’ to contain and deter the threat of Iraq. Notably, the US engaged in diplomacy at the UN, imposing sanctions on Iraq and participating in the passage of 16 UN Security Council resolutions between 1990-1999 which demanded Iraq destroy all WMD and cease support for international terrorism. Hussein repeatedly defied these resolutions and responded to US funded peace keeping initiatives such as the Oil-for-Food Programme with corruption. Hussein also shot down US aircrafts which were in place to protect the Iraqi people from genocide. It was in this context that the Bush administration decided that the containment of Iraq through sanctions and deterrence was ineffective and could no longer ensure the national security of American citizens. The use of American military force was intended to defeat Saddam while also sending a cautionary message to any other nation currently harbouring or enabling terrorists.
From the American perspective, the two most concerning accusations of Saddam Hussein’s regime were his alleged WMD programme and ties to Al Qaeda. Though these allegations have since been discredited, the decision to go to war was based on leading threat perceptions of the Iraqi regime available at the time. While the intel regarding Saddam’s links to terrorism and WMD later proved to be incorrect, Saddam Hussein was a known aggressor of peace within the Middle East who had proven a distain for cooperation with the United States. Even putting the WMD and terrorism threats to one side, this regime was one that posed considerable dangers to the national security of the US.
Saddam’s purported possession of WMD was of great concern to the United States. The reasonable chance that Saddam possessed WMD was a risk that President Bush was unwilling to gamble on. As he stated in the 2002 State of the Union address ‘We must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.’ In the case of Iraq, Saddam Hussein had a history of using WMD to murder thousands of his own citizens, ‘leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children.’ Thus, America only needed to refer to recent history to establish Hussein’s tolerance for utilising WMD.The Bush Administration then had to determine whether Saddam continued to possess WMD. This suspicion was difficult to prove, but equally difficult to rule out as the full account of chemical warfare munitions was never verified and international inspectors were routinely met with obstruction from the Iraqi government.
While the purported WMD were never found in Iraq, this does not mean that their potential existence did not warrant the invasion in the first place. Akin to all major foreign policy decision making, Bush’s declaration of war was a decision made under time-pressure constraints and with intel that was still in the development stages. Only after the war would it become known that Saddam’s deception about his WMD capacity stemmed from his desire to deter adversaries, such as Iran, and intimidate domestic foes, such as the Kurds.
Prior to the declaration of war, US intelligence strongly supported the theory that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD. Critics argue that analysts were bullied into finding evidence to support the Bush Administration’s agenda. However, American bipartisan inquiries such as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Robb-Silberman Commission, established to investigate the post-war intelligence, overwhelmingly found that analysts were not forced to manipulate their findings regarding Saddam’s alleged WMD. A further critique is that some intelligence agencies discovered evidence which contradicted the widespread belief of Saddam’s WMD capabilities and that Bush policy makers ‘cherry picked’ intelligence which bolstered the case for war while ignoring contrary evidence. Such claims are significantly weakened by the weight of the international consensus at the time. Suspicions of Hussein’s WMD program were not only supported by American intelligence analysts but also the clear majority of analysts working within the international intelligence community. This included analysts from countries strongly opposed to the war such as France, Germany and Russia. Though intelligence on Saddam’s WMD possession was inaccurate at the time of invasion and Saddam was arguably not as dangerous as the international community had initially believed, the Bush Administration made a time-pressured decision based on the genuine and most commonly held threat perceptions of the day.
In light of Washington’s heightened sense of vulnerability to international terrorism, Saddam Hussein’s alleged and substantiated links to international terrorist groups further cemented the case for war in 2003. The Iraqi regime had a history of aiding, training and harbouring terrorists. Captured Iraqi documents published by the Institute for Defence Analyses reveal that although Saddam had no operational links to Al Qaeda, he did have ties to multiple terrorist groups, including the Palestine Liberation Front, Hamas, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and Afghanistan’s Hezb-e-Islami. Bush feared that Saddam’s links to terrorism could result in the deployment of further terrorist attacks against the United States. The risk of another devastating terrorist attack on American home soil was tangible as terrorism continued to destabilise the international community after 9/11. In 2002, journalist Daniel Pearl was beheaded, there was also an assault on a synagogue in Tunisia and American diplomat Laurence Foley was killed in Jordan. In October of the same year, the Bali Bombings killed more than 200 people. As Saddam Hussein was a clear enemy, President Bush could not rule out the potential for him to deploy terrorism against the United States or support another organisation to do so. Though Saddam Hussein was not found to have links to Al Qaeda or the 9/11 terrorist attack, his ties to other Islamic terrorist groups still characterised him as a threat. The US strategy to pre-emptively destabilise the Saddam regime was therefore warranted.
Fostering democracy in the Middle East, was a supporting reason for President Bush’s campaign to oust Saddam Hussein in 2003. The Bush doctrine at its core advanced the theory ‘that people who are free and prosperous do not fly airplanes into skyscrapers.’ Toppling the Saddam regime gave the US the opportunity to help the Iraqi people build a new democracy. In the same way that post-war reconstruction had been successfully achieved in Germany and Japan, the Bush administration hoped that the instatement of democracy in Iraq would ‘fundamentally reshape the Middle East.’ Though there were considerable failures and setbacks in the reconstruction effort following the war in Iraq, today Iraq is a strategic partner of the United States and a voice of democracy in the Middle East. The war in Iraq enabled the fall of the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein — something that the Iraqi population had not been able to achieve. If Saddam had managed to transfer power to his sons, the regime may have survived for years or even decades. Though the democracy in Iraq remains fragile and imperfect today, the US role in overthrowing the Hussein regime subsequently enabled Iraqis to participate in their first relatively free and fair elections at both the national and local levels in 2005. This was a victory and promising path to freedom for a country that had a history of authoritarian political culture, tribalism and ethnic and sectarian violence.
There are numerous reasons that are purported to have been behind Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Those critical of the decision argue that the war was motivated by America’s lust for oil or was merely a knee-jerk reaction to the tragedy of 9/11. I have argued against these theories and have instead asserted that the Bush administration went to war first and foremost for the stated national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Following the honourable attempts to diplomatically disarm the Iraqi regime, the US and their allies invaded Iraq due to fears of Saddam’s WMD possession and links to terrorism. Both allegations held widespread bipartisan support in the US and were also reinforced by the international intelligence community. Though the accusations against Hussein were not established, 9/11 made the US aware of their vulnerability to international terrorism and the need to quash threats early on. An additional benefit of invading Iraq and winning the war, was the promotion of democracy. Though this was not Bush’s sole objective, it was a strong consideration which supported the final decision to go to war.
The Iraq war remains a contentious aspect of US foreign policy today. However, most arguments made against the war have been made with the benefit of hindsight. It is important to remember that the war in Iraq was waged on the relevant information and risk assessments available to the Bush Administration in 2003. The US acted under time constraint and developed foreign policy that intended to protect the security of the international community.
In many ways, Senator Joe Biden’s selection of Kamala Harris as his Vice President is historic: She is the first woman of colour on a major party ticket, as well as the first female Vice-Presidential Democratic pick in more than three decades.
However, many on the left were not overly pleased with the decision, critical of Harris’s regressive record when she was District Attorney of San Francisco and Attorney General of California. Among these critics were sex workers’ rights advocates, who have been vocal about Harris’s historically aggressive approach to policing the community and her perceived backflips on the decriminalisation of prostitution.
The legal status of sex work is a domestic factor which can impact upon the incidence of sex trafficking. Under the Trump administration prostitution has remained illegal in all states (with the exception of Nevada). Alternatively, much of Europe as well as Australia and New Zealand have opted to decriminalise or legalise sex work. Eight countries have also adopted the ‘Nordic Model’ where the buying of sex is criminalised, not the seller.
Senator Harris recently commented that a Biden Administration would be in favour of a national decriminalisation agenda. Would this legislative change work in favour of America’s fight against human trafficking or against it?
Regardless of the 2020 outcome, the current debate on how to best regulate prostitution has divided America. The core legal approaches are as follows:
Prohibition aims to eradicate the market for paid sex, undercutting the sex trafficking business model, by targeting both supply and demand. In practice, this approach is problematic. In the United States, law enforcement overwhelmingly targets the sellers rather than buyers of sex. Annually 70,000-80,000 people are arrested for prostitution and estimates suggest that 70% of those arrested are female prostitutes and madams, 20% are male prostitutes and pimps, while only 10% are buyers. This approach carries an unfair gender bias against females and discourages victims of sex trafficking from coming forward to authorities due to fears that they may be punished. Thus, the sex industry is driven underground making it difficult for the legal system to deliver justice to victims.
Through legalisation, states opt not deter people from selling or buying sex. Proponents of this approach argue that the criminalisation of prostitution makes trafficking more attractive. They argue that permitting prostitution reduces the prevalence of sex trafficking by allowing sex businesses to recruit local women who freely choose prostitution as their occupation There is insufficient evidence to support such claims. Research suggests that rates of sex trafficking remain high in places where prostitution is legal. European adopters of the legalisation approach, such as the Netherlands and Germany, have ‘the highest numbers of trafficked women in Europe.’
Critics argue that legalisation increases the size of the sex market, encouraging traffickers to exploit women and girls in greater numbers to meet increased demand. Evaluations have also found that legalised prostitution allows traffickers to hide victims in plain sight as consenting sex workers. The Chief of the German organised crime fighting unit in Stuttgart claimed that, since legalisation, his unit was fighting organised crime with ‘one hand tied behind their back’ as legal brothels provide ‘the perfect place to launder the proceeds of other organised crime.’
Strongly supporting the experiences of the Netherlands and Germany, a 2010 quantitative analysis reported that ‘sex trafficking is most prevalent in countries where prostitution is legalised.’ A 2012 study also overwhelmingly supported these findings. Researchers investigated the effect of legalised prostitution on human trafficking inflows from 150 countries and found that on average ‘those with legalised prostitution reported a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited.’ The study also reviewed the longitudinal effects of legalising and criminalising prostitution and found that the criminalisation of prostitution in Sweden resulted in the shrinking of the prostitution market and the decline of human trafficking inflows while the inverse was true in Germany.
The Nordic model, also known as the Demand model, criminalises the buyers of sex, but not sellers. This approach has grown in popularity as it focuses on shrinking the market for prostitution in order to reduce demand for trafficked women. This approach assumes that sex trafficking is lucrative due to the economic principles of supply and demand. ‘Traffickers choose to trade in humans due to the low start-up costs, minimal risks, high profits, and large demand.’
The Swedish law aims to combat human trafficking by acknowledging the connection between prostitution and trafficking. Approximately 400- 600 people are trafficked into Sweden each year. Since Sweden’s adoption of the Nordic model, this number has remained constant, with no significant increase in the number of recorded victims. Two years following the passage of the law, a Swedish taskforce reported a 50% decrease in the number of women prostituting and a 75% decrease in the number of men who bought sex. Thus, while the number of people trafficked into Sweden is believed to have remained level, there have been reported decreases in the number of people selling and buying sex which has reduced the attractiveness of the Swedish sex market for human traffickers. Critics claim that since the Swedish law passed, prostitution has not decreased, but rather been forced underground. While it is difficult to assess these arguments empirically, Sweden is no longer an attractive market within Europe for human traffickers. Swedish police have confirmed this view that the Nordic model has resulted in deterring traffickers from Sweden and pushed them into other countries.
The normative objectives and results of the Nordic model also cannot be underestimated. When Sweden introduced the legislation, it had merely 30% community support. Today the figure is close to 80%. The legislation has had the effect of changing Swedish culture. It is no longer socially acceptable to pay a woman for sex. This, alongside harsher penalties for buyers, has led to Sweden having a much smaller human-trafficking problem compared to other European nations.
The fight against global sex trafficking is counterproductive if countries have conflicting approaches to regulating domestic prostitution. Having reviewed the various legislative approaches, it is evident that targeting demand is an integral part of any legal solution. Though imperfect, the Nordic model has a proven track record of reducing the demand for prostitution which minimises the incentives for human traffickers to conduct their businesses.
According to the most recent polling, the Biden Harris ticket will be victorious in November. As the decriminalisation model has proven unsuccessful in reducing human trafficking, Biden and Harris should re-calibrate their official stance on regulation to reflect the Nordic Model. This will shrink the demand for prostitution in the US, thus making the American sex market less attractive to human traffickers.
Australia has traditionally held the conventional wisdom that as China grew economically, it would establish a middle class that would pressure the government to recognise human rights. Under the presidency of Xi Jinping, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has instead shown that economic growth can reinforce a dictatorship.
The religious and ethnic persecution of Uyghur Muslims in China’s Xinjiang province is of growing concern to the Australian government.The United Nations estimates that at least one million Turkic Muslims are being detained in internment camps and forced to undergo ideological re-education. Uyghurs are currently working within factories of well-known multinational companies such as Apple, BMW, Volkswagen and Nike in conditions which strongly suggest forced labour.
Amnesty International alongside members of the international community have criticised the CCP over its treatment of the Uyghur people. President Xi, has been unmoved by this mounting pressure, recently remarking that the Chinese approach to its internal affairs was “completely correct” and remained a “major task for the entire party and nation.”
Amnesty recognises that Australia is deeply committed to human rights. Australia recently passed its Modern Slavery Act (2019) to combat violations of human freedom in global supply chains.Australia has also utilised its status as a constructive middle power to promote human rights through forums such as the UN Human Rights Council (2018-2020)and the ‘Liechtenstein initiative.’
Australia’s current approach towards China’s abuses prioritises soft diplomacy and is premised in the belief that China will eventually progress to respect the human rights of its citizens. Amnesty stresses that this approach of quiet diplomacy has proven to be ineffective. Therefore, Australia must immediately reform its foreign policy approach towards the CCP. If left unchecked, the threat posed by China’s human rights violations undermines Australia’s objectives to promote human rights and makes a mockery of the international human rights framework.
1. Australia should implement a preferential refugee program to provide Uighur Muslims with priority protection and resettlement in Australia;
2. Australia should follow the United States in screening and banning certain exports believed to have been produced by forced Uyghur labour;
3. Australian state visits to China should be conditioned on human rights progress and the granting of access for UN investigators to independently assess conditions in Xinjiang.
Human Rights Council
Action on China’s persecution of Uyghur Muslims presents a unique opportunity for Australia to demonstrate international leadership through human rights advocacy. China has continued to manipulate the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) by proposing resolutions which undermine the international system. In 2018, China proposed a UNHRC resolution calling on states to ‘promote mutually beneficial cooperation in the field of human rights.’ The resolution implied that human rights could be negotiated and that economic development should take precedence over individual human rights.This stance weakens the international human rights framework by normalising the idea that human rights are voluntary.
While Australia and other countries have leveraged international forums to criticise the CCP’s human rights abuses, such motions have been completely ignored by China. In 2019, Australia partnered with 21 other UNHCR countries in writing a letter to the CCP calling for an end to the mass detention of Uyghur Muslims. China retaliated by suspending its human rights partnership with Australia.
2020 marks Australia’s final year on the UNHRC. Though Australia’s lobbying has not resulted in a marked improvement to human rights in China, Australia must take advantage of its final months on the Council. Australia could draw attention to its human rights initiatives on the Council by establishing a preferential refugee program to provide Uyghurs with priority protection in Australia. This would enable Uyghurs willing and able to escape from persecution to rebuild their lives. It is currently estimated that there 12 million Uyghurs living in Xinjiang.While Australia is unable to facilitate what will likely be a mass influx of people, Australia could commit to a refugee quota and encourage its partners to help shoulder the burden. Though this policy will not address the root causes of the human rights abuses in China, it will send a clear message to the CCP that its behaviour is unacceptable, while providing safety and security to survivors.
Australia has an opportunity to enhance its status as a regional and world leader in human rights by renouncing China’s abuses. While Foreign Affairs Minister Payne has previously criticised China for its repressive policies against the Uyghurs, Australia can and must do more.
State visits are a foundation of international diplomacy, and the CCP utilises photos opportunities from foreign visits to fuel propaganda. In November 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron visited China and made no public mention of human rights concerns. Quiet diplomacy is ineffective in pressuring the Chinese government to modify its behaviour. Most importantly, such visits are disheartening to Chinese citizens, the ultimate agents of change. Australia can set a better diplomatic example by refusing to coordinate state visits to China so long as conditions remain unchanged. The Australian government can also utilise its normative influence to encourage allies to do the same. By publicly calling out Beijing for its human rights violations, this will send a clear message to the CCP while emboldening victims to enact change.
Australia is also reticent of China’s growing influence in the Indo Pacific region. In response, DFAT is interested in identifying new ways to promote Australia as a partner of choice for development and trade in the region. Promoting a compelling, human-rights respecting alternative to China will enable Australia to differentiate itself from the CCP and gain greater support from its regional partners.
China and Australia have a strong bilateral trade relationship which should be a key consideration when taking any political action against China. China is Australia’s largest trading partner for both imports and exports, currently accounting for 27.4% of Australia’s total world trade. Noting that China is such a significant trading partner, Australia finds it challenging to implement trade sanctions as this may disrupt the country’s economic prosperity.
Trade has been used by the United States government as an important lever to sanction Chinese imports from Xinjiang. The U.S. now screens products that have originated from Xinjiang to detect goods which are potentially linked to state-sponsored forced labour. In September 2020, the U.S. implemented an executive order blocking Chinese imports such as cotton, garments, hair products and electronics from the region. Amnesty International recommends Australia explore a similar policy of screening imports in order to deter modern slavery.
So far, Australia has been unwilling to take action against China’s repression. This was evident in 2019, when Foreign Minister Payne described China’s treatment of Uyghurs as ‘disturbing,’ but simultaneously refused to implement sanctions against China. Australia’s inability to turn rhetoric into action against China demonstrates a complacency that goes against Australia’s interests and values.
Adopting a tough stance on the CCP poses significant risks to Australian trade. However, if Australia can cooperate with other countries to address China’s blatant disregard for human rights, the international balance of power will shift. Though China can endure unilateral sanctions from Australia, its economy cannot take on the entire world.
Adopting these recommendations will enable Australia to promote its international leadership on human rights and build credibility within the Indo-Pacific region. Though unilateral actions by Australia will not enact instant change in China’s behavior, its example will encourage others to follow suit. This will heighten the financial and political costs of China’s oppression. Amnesty International hopes that this pressure will eventually result in an end to China’s systemic religious and ethnic abuse of Uyghur Muslims.
We often associate human trafficking with a visceral image of young girls being exploited and sold for sex at the hands of ruthless pimps. Google an image of human trafficking and results of this description will be found. While this depiction reflects much of the human trafficking which is reported to authorities, it is an incomplete image of a much broader issue. Less attention is typically devoted to the trafficking of people into exploitative agricultural work, construction work, domestic work, or other non- sexual labor.
Acknowledging one form of human trafficking while remaining ignorant to all others, only addresses a fraction of what is a highly prevalent transnational crime. Society’s lack of understanding of the complexity of human trafficking is largely to blame for our crippling inability to protect victims and prosecute perpetrators.
The United States of America v Farrell illustrates the vulnerability of migrant workers and lack of public awareness of human trafficking warning signs.
United States of America v Farrell
In 2005, Robert and Angelita Farrell, owners of a Comfort Inn hotel in South Dakota arranged for nine Filipino workers to obtain visas to work in their hotel.
The Farrells took care of all visa fees and drafted employment contracts for each worker. They told workers that they would not be reimbursed for travel to the US and that their visas would be denied if they revealed this to the consular authorities. Despite beginning the employment relationship financially indebted to the Farrells, the workers anticipated that their wages would enable them to promptly repay their debts.
When the workers arrived, the couple confiscated their passports and other immigration documents. The Farrells took advantage of the workers making them work 12-16 hour days and paying them half the wages initially promised. The defendants also charged the victims for previously undisclosed fees such as unwanted food and transportation to and from work. Recognising that the workers would never be able to repay their increasing debts, the Farrells demanded that the workers obtain outside employment.
Each worker initially expected to have two trips sponsored by the Farrells to work at the hotel. However, the Farrells’ informed their workers that no one was going to be brought back to the US for a second trip unless he or she submitted a letter requesting re-employment. The workers complied and returned to South Dakota, facing the same enslaved conditions as last time.
One evening, the Farrell’s contacted the chief of police to intimidate the workers after two had expressed a desire to leave. Sensing something was amiss after visiting the hotel, the officer removed the victims from the couple’s possession and the Farrells were subsequently arrested on the charge of conspiracy to commit peonage.
On November 2007, a federal jury found Robert and Angelita Farrell guilty of peonage, document servitude, visa fraud and making false statements. Robert Farrell was sentenced to a term of 4 years and 2 months in federal prison and his wife, Angelita, a 3-year sentence. The defendants were individually fined US$15,000 and subject to three years of supervised release following their respective prison terms.
The Farrell case stresses the underreporting of human trafficking in the US. This couple managed to forge immigration documents twice and illegally administer second jobs for their workers, while enslaving them in horrendous living conditions for some time, without triggering immigration officials, police or members of the public.
Partially to blame for this is the inaccurate, widely held public perception of human trafficking and the culture of law enforcement.
Failing Public Perceptions of Human Trafficking
A key issue in this case was whether the victims worked voluntarily for the Farrells. While it would have been a simpler case if police had found victims chained in the Farrell’s basement, the reality is that many human trafficking cases occur within the context of a voluntary working relationship. Thus, the degree to which the victims’ work was involuntary was difficult to prove.
Akin to many human trafficking cases, the victims initially worked voluntarily for the Farrells, testifying that they wanted to better their livelihoods in the US. The Farrells possessed strong evidence in favour of a finding that the employees were in a voluntary working relationship. For instance, the Farrells’ presented the signed contracts and the fact that the workers agreed to begin their working relationship indebted to the Farrells. Additionally , the Farrells had letters written by the workers, each requesting a second trip to the US to work at the hotel.
In this trial, the testimony of human trafficking expert Joy Zarembka enabled jurors to better understand the behaviour of victims and assess the truthfulness of their allegations. Zarembka provided a testimony of the various warning signs in employer-employee relationships that may indicate the employee is not labouring voluntarily but rather in a climate of fear. In her opinion, there was a climate of fear in the Farrells’ relationships with their workers.
In this way, the role of expert witnesses in human trafficking cases can be paramount to ensuring victims receive a fair trial. Experts should also play a more substantial role in public education to alleviate widely held misconceptions of human trafficking. This will equip people with knowledge of warning signs to look out for that may be indicative of human trafficking.
The culture and framework of Law enforcement
Police rely on community members to report crimes by calling 911. Their work is reactionary rather than investigatory. This is problematic for victims of human trafficking as the crime usually occurs behind closed doors or without community awareness. If the public fail to report on instances of human trafficking, the framework of law enforcement is such that police cannot protect victims or charge perpetrators.
For these reasons, Police in the US focus on the prevention of sex trafficking of U.S. female minor victims, whom they perceive to be the most vulnerable, publicly supported victims. We know from the Farrell case that human trafficking can seamlessly occur outside of the sex-slavery paradigm, however more often than not it seems that cases like these are falling through the cracks of our justice system. Human trafficking does not discriminate against gender, age or culture, it impacts girls, boys, men and women alike. The double standard of US law enforcement efforts to address the sexual slavery of US female minors, while remaining legally blind to other forms of modern slavery that exist is a true failing of the justice system.
Though the institutional weaknesses of law enforcement and lack of public awareness for human trafficking are grim, greater understanding of the problem among ordinary people like you and I will lead to increased reporting of the crime. If we acknowledge that human trafficking is happening in our communities and educate ourselves on its many variations, this will inevitably lead to a world where more perpetrators are held legally accountable for their actions.
The European Union have provided development and trading partnerships with nations from every corner of the globe. In doing so, the EU promotes democracy and human rights by attaching social provisions and human rights conditions to their agreements. For example, EU development partnerships in the Indo-Pacific or Central Africa will be subject to clauses regarding the internal affairs of a country.
Comparatively, China’s programs and partnerships do not bind political clauses to agreements. China promotes norms of ‘unconditionally’ and ‘win-win’ economic outcomes and will turn a blind eye to the internal affairs of the countries it partners with. This approach allows China to be increasingly viewed as the development partner of choice as they are willing to meet the immediate economic needs of states.
The Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008 further elevated the status of China’s economic model. Responding to the crisis, China unleashed substantial stimulus packages through the state-controlled financial sector and aided regional neighbours. China’s trade surpluses and currency manipulation have also led it to accumulate the world’s largest foreign currency reserves, thus becoming a central part of the international political economy. China’s performance, when juxtaposed with Europe’s response which was largely confined to bailing out poorly regulated banks, positions China strongly to extend its normative power throughout the developing world.
The European Union’s strict criterion for its membership and programs rests on principles of democracy and the rule of law. While developing countries have traditionally been willing to make concessions in their internal affairs in return for economic benefit, China is providing ‘no strings attached’ partnerships and an economic model that outperforms that of the EU. Therefore, the EU’s normative influence to promote democracy throughout the world is waning significantly.
To maintain a normative presence which continues to push developing nations closer towards democracy and the recognition of human rights, the EU must do more to acknowledge the role of China by allowing reform in areas of traditional EU development initiatives. Greater flexibility and inclusion in EU programs will enable a balance to be struck between economic and social development. This will also reduce the appeal of China’s development program which often leaves countries devastated by national debt and forced to maintain deferential stances towards the grand strategy of the CCP.
The “East Asian Miracle” was the title of a 1993 World Bank report which attributed the rapid economic growth and development of Asian countries post-World War II to the success of neoliberalism. While the neo-liberal theory of development is widely held in the West, the developmental state theory poses a challenge to the Anglo-American analysis, providing an alternate explanation for the rise of economies within East Asian following World War II.
Critics of the neo-liberal consensus argued that Asian economies rapidly developed due to the strong, centralised roles assumed by governments in economic planning. Regional leaders such as Former Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Yuan Yew also reacted to the atmosphere of neoliberal triumphalism that was conveyed in the World Bank report and advocated for others to “look East” toward countries like Japan for models of economic development rather than West.
Developmental state theory argues that late industrialising nations need to take measures to catch up with advanced capitalist economies. Protection and oversight from central governments can help to created a dynamic environment for countries to develop evenly and strengthen their industrial capabilities prior to integrating into the neo-liberal global market.
While developmental state theory provides a plausible alternate explanation for the rise of East Asian economies, the model is not superior to a democratic capitalist system. The strong role of the government in developmental states gives rise to authoritarianism. In the interests of pursuing drastic economic development, states subordinate political objectives. This means that citizens are not free to criticise their government or actively have a voice in policy development.
The process of industrialisation enables developing states to drastically improve living standards and reduce abject poverty. Such needs are arguably more pressing than the actualisation of civil liberties in countries where access to food, water, shelter and sanitation are not ubiquitous.
Given these considerations, it is reasonable to offer developing states a grace period in which they can prioritise national economic development above the civil rights of citizens. However, when has a state sufficiently developed to a stage where the international community can pressure them to uphold the human rights of their citizens?
In practice, the international community has had difficulty in grappling with such questions. Most notably, China lays claim to the second most powerful economy in the world while also holding developing-state status which allows it to maintain the need for international concessions and time to adequately develop.
The right to develop is an internationally recognised right at the United Nations and has also been ratified in a number of international instruments and national declarations.
1991 China published a White Paper on its right to prioritise economic stability over Western priorities of civil and political freedoms (essentially China published the view that individual freedoms, while important should not come before the interests of the collective)
Right to Develop is recognised at the UN (since 1986) and this resolution and way of thinking continues to be a prominent issue cited by developing countries when discussing international issues (UN- Res. 41/128)
This right is also recognised in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Arab Charter on Human Rights
Reaffirmed in in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the 1993 Vienna Programme of Action and 2007 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Though the international community has found consensus on the existence of an international right to develop, a lack of clarity remains on when this right expires.
So long as China continues to argue its status as a developing state and the leader of the developing world, the right to develop will increasingly be used as a tool for countries to argue that authoritarian governance and centralised economies are not merely temporary but rather provide a strong alternate model to democratic/capitalist governance. This reality will result in a world that is less free, and more divided between East and West.
1) A Freedom of Movement Agreement (FOMA) for British and Australian citizens which could be modelled after the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement (TTTA) between Australia and New Zealand
2) Prior to the signing of the FTA, Australia should insist that the UK adopt the following amendments to its Modern Slavery Act 2015 to bring it in line with Australia’s Modern Slavery Act 2018:
2.1) to establish a publicly accessible register of all modern slavery statements submitted by businesses to promote greater accountability for non-compliance;
2.2) to mandate reporting requirements for the British public sector to ensure that supply chains utilised for tendered government activities do not facilitate modern slavery;
3) Australia should propose that existing visas granted by the Australian and UK governments with tied conditions be stripped of employer reporting obligations to strengthen the protection of migrant workers against labour exploitation;
Australia and the UK have began the initial stages of negotiating an FTA. This agreement presents an opportunity to remove unnecessary barriers that have restricted trade and travel between our countries. Sharing a rich historical and cultural affinity with one another, the FTA provides the UK and Australia with the chance to deliver an ambitious FTA that not only boosts economic growth and prosperity but also seeks to address the risks of modern slavery that arise through global trade.
In 2011, The Cameron government introduced immigration reforms aimed at reducing non-EU migration which significantly restricted Australians’ ability to work in the UK. These measures have led to a 49% decline in the number of working visas granted to Australians annually: down from 37,375 in 2005 to 19,134 in 2017.
A freedom of movement agreement (FOMA) between our countries would ease current visa barriers and grant Australians and Britons reciprocal rights to live and work abroad. The economic benefits of immigration are clear—free trade leads to a more efficient labour market and allocation of resources. This results in higher average incomes and lower prices for consumer goods. People are also freer to choose between lifestyles, jobs, political jurisdictions and environments.
This arrangement could be modelled after the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement (TTTA) between Australia and New Zealand which forms part of our Closer Economic Relations (CER) partnership. The TTTA allows citizens of both countries who meet minimum health and character requirements to travel between, live and work in both countries.
Any reluctance to accept a FOMA based on migration issues arising from the UK’s experience in the EU can be easily addressed as the proposed relationship is not analogous to EU membership. Australia and the UK are sovereign states, committed to the rule of law and able to apply strict border controls. Similarly to the TTTA, the UK and Australia would retain sovereign control over immigration and could exercise the power to reject entrants based on public safety, national security or public health considerations.
Australia and the UK also have similar GDP per capita, meaning that pull factors that motivated citizens of poorer EU member countries such as Bulgaria (where GDP per capita is 9,272.63 USD) to migrate to the UK in search of higher paying employment will not be a concern in an Australia-UK FOMA. Australia and New Zealand’s TTTA provides a proven framework for promoting sustainable migration between comparable developed countries that share a head of state, the rule of law and equivalent standards of living.
Despite the economic and social advantages of an Australia-UK FOMA, such an ambitious proposal is unlikely to be adopted in the short-term. A preferential visa system akin to the American E-3 visa could be established in the interim. This system would grant Britons and Australians reciprocal working rights upon receiving relevant job offers. The E-3 visa, an integral part of the Australia-US FTA, permits an annual quota of Australians to enter the US, requires minimal paperwork, and is one tenth of the cost of a comparable visa.
Alternatively, were the UK and Australian visa systems to remain unchanged under the proposed FTA, at the very least, the vulnerability of migrant workers could be addressed by abolishing tied visas such as the 417 Working Holiday Visa in Australia and the Domestic Overseas Worker Visa in the UK. Many Australians and Britons travel between our countries on working holidays, often utilising tied visas.These visas require employers to sign off on the visa conditions of migrant workers, exposing our citizens to risks of exploitation and modern slavery. For these reasons, at minimum this FTA should address the vulnerabilities of migrant workers under the tied visa system.
Increases in the movement of goods, services and people due to the Australia-UK FTA will heighten modern slavery risks. As our countries have both enacted Modern Slavery Actsand share a commitment to combatting human trafficking, the FTA presents a natural opportunity to encourage a ‘race to the top’ on modern slavery social policy.
Under the Australian act, the Australian Public Service is required to report modern slavery statements and a central repository containing modern slavery statements is publically available. Unlike Australia, the UK public sector is not required to report modern slavery statements and modern slavery statements from the private sector are not publically accessible. Given these inconsistent standards, Australia could request that prior to signing the FTA, the UK align its laws with Australian legislation to increase accountability and awareness of links to modern slavery in British supply chains.
If the Australia-UK FTA manages to liberalise unnecessary visa barriers while improving migrant-worker protections and supply chain oversight, it will become a blueprint for socially conscious trade.
China’s approach to diplomacy has adopted a brand new modus operandi. It is diametrically opposed to almost all diplomatic niceties once pursued and fostered by Chinese diplomats in their dealings with the world. Today, Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Xining’s insists that Chinese diplomats show a “fighting spirit” and become a vicious pack of wolf warriors. Despite such blatant behaviour on the international stage, the CCP continues to defend their actions arguing that they are diplomatic and noble. Is this hypocrisy really fooling anyone?
In recent months Australia has been the recipient of insults and threats from China, we are not alone in such attacks. From North America to Europe, to Asia and Africa, the Chinese wolf warriors have set fire to the goodwill that had been built up over two decades of so-called smile diplomacy.
On Wednesday, Foreign Minister of China, Wang Xining gave a speech at the Australian National Press Club in Canberra. His remarks underscored the importance that China attaches to mutual respect, goodwill, fairness and a grand vision for the China-Australia bilateral. All seemingly diplomatic aspirations. However, a glance at the CCP’s recent international behaviour reveals the utter insincerity of these remarks.
Consider the virtue of mutual respect, which Wang described as following basic norms of sovereignty and non-interference in international affairs. When the Turnbull government passed legislation to restrict the activities of China from interfering in and covertly influencing Australian democratic institutions, Beijing responded with rage.
Wang’s claim of Chinese goodwill which he characterised as the need to resolve differences in an amicable manner also fails to accurately capture China’s recent behaviour. China ruthlessly imposed economic restrictions on Australian barley exports in response to the Morrison government’s call for an investigation into the origins of COVID-19, a virus which has killed hundreds of thousands worldwide and has reeked economic and social destruction.
Regarding the principle of fairness, Wang placed that virtue in the context of a non-discriminatory investment and trade environment. Yet, China has made it blatantly clear that is seeks more than merely win-win trading relationships with other countries. China has the most restrictive trading rules of all major world economies and has a history of intellectual property theft and forced transfers.
Last, the aspiration that our two countries evolve from economic partners towards agreeing on a ‘grand vision’ to enhance stability and prosperity in the Pacific region. While this sounds promising in a speech, the values of China and Australia are in conflict. China’s grand strategy seeks to shape the Pacific in a hierarchical and Sino-centric manner where the rights and privileges afforded to China are different to privileges of smaller countries.
Initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative, Made in China 2025 and concessional loaning to Pacific developing states enable China to weaken America’s alliances in the region and in its place create regional dependence on China. In the long term, this will enable China to dictate prices, policy and discourse when interacting with its economic partners. China’s “shared vision” is one in which Australia and others play a deferential role to China.
Australia and the world are less concerned with what Beijing says and more with what it is doing. For this reason, the Morrison government has moved to use external affairs powers available under the Constitution to outlaw independent state initiatives with China (and other countries) deemed to violate Australia’s national interest.
Most notably, Victoria’s previous commitment to the Belt and Road Initiative will not be permitted to go ahead. This is a critical step that will significantly diminish China’s political influence in Australia and will also ensure that Australia can speak with one voice in managing what will continue to be a problematic relationship with the CCP.
Judging from China’s previous form, the CCP’s response to Australia’s new legislation will blatantly violate China’s stated virtues of mutual respect, goodwill and fairness.
When two Australian Ministers travel to the US at such an uncertain and volatile time in history, it says something about the strength and significance of the relationship between the United States and Australia.
This week, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne and Defence Minister Linda Reynolds traveled to Washington D.C for the Australia-US Ministerial Consultations. AUSMIN provides a principal bilateral forum to discuss approaches on major global and regional political issues and cooperate on foreign security and defence. Notably, Marise and Linda are the first members of the Australian executive to travel overseas since Australia borders closed in March.
While other American allies have declined the Trump administration’s request to resume in-person meetings, suggesting instead to delay appointments or hold conferences virtually, the effort made by Payne and Reynolds to attend AUSMIN in Washington D.C demonstrates the level of priority that the Australian government places on the bilateral relationship.
A hallmark of the Trump Administration has been the trade war against Beijing. Trump has clashed with Beijing over numerous issues including Huawei, unfair trading practices and China’s cyber warfare. COVID-19, has only agitated tensions further with the US strongly criticising China for its mismanagement of the pandemic which has taken the lives of 150,000 Americans to date, destroyed the US economy and severely harmed Trump’s re-election prospects. Throughout this time, members of the Trump Administration such as Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo have rallied for their partners to take a unified stand with them against China.
Australia, a small population in the Indo-Pacific region of the world has managed to live up to this call by confronting the challenge of an increasingly belligerent China. Australia was the first among the international community to call for an inquiry into the mismanagement of the COVID-19 crisis, a move that deeply angered and offended China. Despite relentless economic threats and bullying from Beijing, the Australian government also declared that China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea were illegal. Further, in response to China’s new security laws in Hong Kong which seek to undermine the human rights protections of Hong Kong citizens, Australia suspended its extradition treaty with Hong Kong and offered citizenship to dissidents.
Australia has shown that when it counts, it is not afraid to stand up for its values and choose a side. For decades, politicians, diplomats and scholars have stressed the difficult decision Australia will be forced to make due to its strong trade with China and military alliance with the United States as tensions between the countries reach an inevitable boiling point. While it is early days, it appears the choice has not been as difficult as some presumed. Australia has chosen to uphold its values and stand by its closest ally, despite the obvious risk of economic reprisal.
The AUSMIN meeting between the respective foreign and defence ministers – Mike Pompeo, Mark Esper, Marise Payne and Linda Reynolds went beyond the usual formalities as both countries are deeply engaged and committed to the challenge presented by China. The US acknowledged Australia’s bravery in standing up to China’s threats and utilised the opportunity to model the AUS-US alliance, juxtaposing Australia’s support with the tepid support it has received from some of its other allies.
A commitment to stick closest when times are tough is the true test of any relationship. This year, Australia and America have continuously proven that the relationship is far more than mateship or an obligatory tradition, it is a world-class model of an alliance which is above personalities and greater than the challenges of the day.