1 in 3

Getting from poverty and high risk conditions for being enslaved and to a relative position of security such that you don't have to worry about possibly selling a child in order to feed the rest, and such that you don't have to worry about being forced off your land and into an urban slum where you and you children are at risk for exploitation of all kinds is somewhat more difficult than it should be. Hence the large number of people throughout the world at risk for being trafficked (about one in three if extreme poverty is the key risk factor), or in some other way exploited. Doing it in a sustainable way is even more complicated. However, complicated subjects tend to be worth talking about. Thus doing something about the 1 in three of us who is at risk is the main subject of discussion here at Sustainable Anti-Slavery.

How do we get from here there? How do we make it so that the question of who has to be sold in order to keep everyone else alive does not need to be asked? How do we put poverty where Jeffrey D. Sachs claims it should be--In a museum?

The structure of the problem seems simple enough. Get resources to the people who need them. We are rich and powerful. Why can't we do something? This is a good point and by all means we should be doing everything we can. Poverty isn't just a bad thing for the rest of the world. From a purely economic and security view, its effect in fueling political and social instability makes it a threat to US foreign interests. The weight of confronting the issue can and should be carried by the most powerful nation in the world and the one best equipped toe deal with it. However, taking full responsibility for every aspect of reconstructing a failed state, or developing a disaster zone, or conducting peace keeping operations between long time rival ethnic groups for the purpose of allowing economic development is not and has not been our strong point. Granted, the US is improving, but the first several years in Iraq went poorly for a reason. We won the war and had no plan for keeping the peace. At least some of these lessons seem to be noted in the current operations in Afghanistan. The UN isn't much better. Cambodia comes to mind as does Rwanda. For that mater, Somalia, Sudan and the Congo come to mind also. None the less. Being the ones with the most resources grants us as many redoes as it takes to get it right. Before I get accused of vicious imperialistic ambitions, may I say what else should be done.

At the same time the international community should try a little harder, the systemic issues that have prevented it from much outstanding success to this point need to be considered. Lack of cultural sensitivity, lack of understanding for local power structures and authorities. Lack of appreciation for the local opinion of what should be done to deal with poverty. Trust me. Poor people generally know they are poor and generally want to do something about it. They also tend to know, or at least have an idea of how to deal with it. The major NGO's with career non-profit workers tend to overlook this in their development projects. Maybe building boarding schools a few miles down the road for all the villages in the area is not a good idea when children are normally needed at home to help keep the place running, and especially when people asked for village schools anyway. In such situations, you guessed it, the boys go off to school and girls drop out. Didn't the UN just realize female education is critical to reducing poverty?

All of this is to say, to get change to stick--to make it sustainable--a combination of tremendous resources and the cultural expertise and sensitivity as embodied by people who can build the bridges between here and there are what we need. Recognition and consideration of people in poverty, not as victims, but at equals and partners with contributions to make to formulating solution will go a long way to getting 1 in 3 to 0. With this synergy, we can have the water purification projects, the schools in every village, the micro-finance, the long term plans with local implications that can get us from 1 in 3 to 0. When we get from here to there, don't expect to be able to find that many slaves. The progress will be too sustainable.