Homework: September 9

Where is your issue now in the global agenda-cycle? How “salient” is it? How do you know? Where is CIVIC now in the global agenda cycle? How might you compare the salience of your issue to that of CIVIC’s?

As discussed in class, the global agenda-cycle begins with when political entrepreneurs identify and define a problem stemming from existing social and political conditions. From problem definition the global agenda cycle moves to issue definition (expressed as a problem, the cause, and a solution) which leads, if promoters are lucky, to the issue being adopted by a host of global actors such as influential networks of NGOs, the UN, or the EU. Once the issue is adopted at the global level, campaigns are launched by governments, NGOs, international organizations, and the like to combat the problem. Combating the problem is often begun by increasing public awareness and sensibilities, offering training to officials whose work is connected to the phenomenon, judicial reforms to increase the compatibility of laws among states, enhanced cooperation among states, monitoring, and mechanisms for enforcement. If the campaign is successful (and not all are), new global norms emerge and ultimately political change occurs.

The issue of human trafficking is now in the campaign stage, having passed problem and issue definition stages (The 2000 UN declaration, which defined trafficking as distinct from illegal migration) as well as issue adoption by important international norm makers such as the UN, the Council of Europe, the European Union, and the OSCE. Based on my analysis of the OSCE Action Plan to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings of 2003, I judge the issue of human trafficking to be a very salient issue partly because: 1) the Action Plan is the culmination of previous work begin during the 2000 Vienna Ministerial Decision, the Bucharest Ministerial Decision of 2001, the Porto Ministerial Declaration of 2002, and the efforts made by the OSCE’s individual member states during this time to combat trafficking. That Action Plan mentions the “tremendous increase” in human trafficking while the prosecution of traffickers remains uneven and lackluster. Furthermore, the scope of the document is broad and ambitious indicating clearly the problem, cause and solution:

The Action Plan adopts a multidimensional approach to combating trafficking in
human beings. It addresses the problem comprehensively, covering the protection
of victims, the prevention of THB [Trafficking in Human Beings] and the
prosecution of those who facilitate or commit the crime. It provides
recommendations as to how participating States and relevant OSCE institutions,
bodies and field operations may best deal with the political, economic, legal,
law enforcement, educational and other aspects of the problem (1, Annex).

I am surprised by the comprehensive approach taken by the OSCE to human trafficking (for example, the document mentions economic development and launching gender equality campaigns in sending states – tackling not only political equality, but economic as well). The OSCE plan somewhat contradicts the “magic bullet” thesis that short causal chains are essential for issue adoption (DeMar, 145, 33).

Another measure of issue salience is the extent to which the OSCE plan will rely on existing networks of expertise and cooperation. For example, in order to achieve the Action Plan objectives, the OSCE intends to help participating states by taking advantage and building upon “existing regional experience gained through the implementation of such concrete initiatives and measures as those undertaken by the Stability Pact Task Force on Trafficking in Human Beings in South Eastern Europe” (1)

Comparing the salience of the issue of trafficking with that of CIVIC’s, trafficking has obviously reached a level that may be many years down the road for the issue of civilian victims of war and war parties taking responsibility to heal (with indemnities and perhaps other forms of victim assistance) where they have hurt. Although our readings indicate that it is not entirely necessary to link an emerging issue with an issue that has already been widely identified as a serious problem, I believe that the salience of trafficking gets a boost when promoters speak of the phenomenon as “modern slavery” which the US general public prefers to believe was eradicated with the US Civil War. Being so closely perceived as a threat to the project of modernity (raising the specter of backwardness in the heart of Western civilization) gives the issue of modern slavery a very high level of salience and urgency. Linking the issue to security, while emphasizing the rights of the victims, is also a very shrewd strategy for gaining broad support among hawks and doves alike.

CIVIC’s issue, on the other hand, has yet to gain the notoriety of human trafficking. This may be largely due to the fact that the crime and the victims are neatly separated by the abyss which exists between the modern world of emancipation and regulation and the non-modern world of violence and appropriation (Boaventura de Sousa Santos). Therefore, CIVIC may find it easier to convince states in the West who have conflicts on their borders (like member states of the EU) to support their cause, as well as those states who suffer from large influxes of war refugees. In fact, it would be interesting to see how the issue of helping civilian victims of war could be tied (or “grafted" onto) to the issue of trafficking and whether or not it would be desirable to do so (Keck and Sikkink, page).