NATO to punish troops for sex with trafficked women

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L08192532.htm

BRUSSELS, July 8 (Reuters) - Troops who have sex with women who may be victims of human trafficking will be punished, NATO told its tens of thousands of forces on Thursday.

A NATO statement said the alliance has a "zero-tolerance policy" regarding trafficking in human beings and that extends to troops who procure the services of women sold into sex slavery.

"Most of the young men in question probably have no idea," U.S. ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns told a briefing of the widespread trafficking that occurs in lawlessness war zones.

In places where NATO has a presence -- Kosovo, the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia and Afghanistan -- law and order have all but broken down, and there is rampant crime and corruption, providing fertile ground for human traffickers, Norway's ambassador to NATO Kai Eide said.

more

[DarkPhenyx]

1. Good!

As long as it requires that the troop involved knew, or should have known, that the woman in question was "trafficked".

[zemman]

3. Bad!

Another example of anti-woman and anti-poor-nation bigotry.

Women find an occupation that pays better than toiling 16 hours a day in an barren garden?

Poor nations find a way to obtain the cash they need to pay off big corporate lenders, pay for medical drugs for their people, save lives?

Ban it!

After all, women can't make decisions for themselves, and poor nations should not be allowed to obtain currency from rich nations.

Sheesh.

[Zynx]

4. Uhhh, you do know what trafficking of people is?

The women involved in it are basically kidnapped and held as slaves. Not much choice involved.

[DarkPhenyx]

5. This isn't a question of women who want to prostitute themselves.

It's the ones being sold into it that is that issue.

[philosophie_en_rose]

8. Human Trafficking is not "prowoman" or "propoor"

NATO isn't talking about consensual sex. It's specifically addressing the crime of enslaving and raping human beings for money.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

10. You evidently don't understand what's being said here.

[0007]

11. I can't believe you said that!

[Tina H]

2. I don't think the law should be limited to trafficked women . . .

even tho' the majority of trafficked people are probably female.

However, recent events at the prisons have poignantly suggested that men can oppressed by invading armies, too.

(Hope you don't take this as a harsh criticism -- I find it helpful -- thanks for raising my awareness on this development)

[iverglas]

6. well gosh

"I don't think the law should be limited to trafficked women . . .
even tho' the majority of trafficked people are probably female."

A couple o' questions.

Do we really think that NATO will not take action against troops participating in the abuse of trafficked children if it comes to NATO's attention that this is occurring -- and do we have any reason to believe that NATO does not already take such action? There are, after all, many laws that already cover that kind of behaviour.

If troops are participating in the abuse of trafficked children, are any of the children in question not girls? Would the NATO policy regarding trafficked women not reasonably be understood to extend to trafficked girls, even if there were not already policies to deal with troops who engage in the abuse and exploitation of trafficked female minors?

Are you aware of any documentation of trafficking in men (i.e. adult male persons) for the purposes of sexual abuse and exploitation? Of any instance of NATO troops participating in that abuse and exploitation? (I, unlike you, by your own statement, have rather extensive knowledge of these matters, and I have never heard of this occurring at all, and I have no reason to believe that it occurs on any scale that makes it a problem of international proportions, or that the NATO troops in question participate in it.) Do you imagine that NATO plans to take no action if it becomes aware of troops' participation in such abuse and exploitation?


"However, recent events at the prisons have poignantly suggested that men can oppressed by invading armies, too."

Yes, and I'm sure you are aware that you have just thrown a very large scarlet fish into the pot.

The activities that the NATO policy is meant to address are completely unrelated to actions by members of "invading armies" qua members of "invading armies" -- they are activities engaged in by those members on their own time and in private, not in the course of their military service or of military operations. They are the activities of individuals, not of armies.

The events to which you refer are covered by national legislation against crimes of violence, and by international law governing the conduct of state actors and of individuals engaged in activities on behalf of state actors (e.g. the Geneva Conventions).

The activities targeted by the NATO policy are private behaviours of individuals that are apparently (and I would probably say properly) regarded as (a) falling outside the international law governing the conduct of state actors and individuals engaged in activities on behalf of state actors and (b) not being the subject of any existing ordinary criminal law.

The entire problem is that there appears to be no law at present that prohibits the activities in question, and that could be applied to individuals who engage in them. Accordingly, they are in no way comparable to the recent events in Iraq, and your comment appears to be an irrelevant diversion.


So it looks like, if what you were doing was attempting to portray this NATO policy as somehow favouring women to the detriment of someone else, the attempt has fallen flat.


So I guess my questions can be boiled down to:

What were you doing?

[Tina H]

7. suggesting that international law be written and applied . . .

in a gender unbiased manner. Maybe it already is. The initial post did present the language of this law, so it is hard to tell. Pretty sinister of me.

[iverglas]

9. try again

suggesting that international law be written and applied . . .
in a gender unbiased manner.

Gee, I guess that if any one had suggested that international law be written and applied in a gender-*biased* manner (let alone done it), you might have had a point.

The initial post did present the language of this law, so it is hard to tell.

I assume you meant to say "didn't present ...". And the reason for that would be that there is no law in issue here.

NATO policyp regarding the conduct of troops under NATO authority is not "international law". Not by a long shot.


I'll bet you think that rules that women may not be discriminated against on the ground of pregnancy are "gender biased". Men shouldn't be discriminated against on the ground of pregnancy either!!!!


In any event, it seems that what you might need to do is read what was actually in the portion of the article quoted in the initial post. Allow me to refresh your memory:

A NATO statement said the alliance has a "zero-tolerance policy" regarding trafficking in human beings and that extends to troops who procure the services of women sold into sex slavery.

Oh look!

NATO has a zero-tolerance policy regarding TRAFFICKING IN HUMAN BEINGS, and that EXTENDS TO troops who procure the services of women sold into sex slavery.

So I guess it's just anybody's guess why you chose to say "I don't think the law should be limited to trafficked women" in the first place, eh?