Writes Irida, Content writer
Headline Diplomat eMagazine, LUDCI.eu
Child trafficking is a type of modern-day slavery. Children are trafficked for purposes such as domestic labor, sexual exploitation, criminal activity, armed groups, and even adoption. Nevertheless, most children are forced to be laborers, which is a violation of both child protection and child rights.
However, not all child mobility is ‘child trafficking’ and some types of child mobility might not be harmful to children’s interests and welfare. Nonetheless, there is a risk of forced labor among children that has been made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic. An estimated 10.4 million children, for example, have lost at least one parent to the pandemic, out of which 7 million have become orphans, leaving them vulnerable to abuse in contexts in which child support systems are inadequate.
Human trafficking is usually connected with negative connotations: harsh working conditions, slavery, sexual exploitation, smuggling, and criminal activities. These problems become even more bothersome and emotive when the people involved are ‘children’. This makes it challenging to have reasonable discussions about what is taking place and about the measures that could be embraced to better the situation if needed.
Our starting point in this argument is that human trafficking-adult or child-is very closely connected with labor migration. Unless we identify the overlaps between the two, any acknowledgment may aggravate the situation of people regarded as ‘trafficked’.
The 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child legally interprets childhood as the first eighteen years of life. Additionally, the 2000 UN protocol to suppress, prevent, and punish trafficking in persons more so women and children-from now on, simply ‘the protocol’-reaffirms that anybody below the age of eighteen is a child. This delineation in turn describes the mobility rights of both groups, as it is thought that only adults can consciously consent to movement.
The protocol utilizes consent to differentiate between migrating and trafficking adults, nevertheless, it considers children who cross borders for work as trafficked by default. This idea is compounded by the fact that many are forced to look for work in risky, unregulated, and exploitative fields of the economy.
This global age threshold has been universally disputed because it does not consider cultural differences in who is regarded as a child; nor does it acknowledge differences between children of various ages. Neither the UN nor the protocol acknowledges that childhood is culturally defined. As a result, they fail to comprehend those conceptions of childhood, which differ across cultures, not only affect views on child mobility but as well as impact how children themselves experience migration. Therefore, there are several issues with assuming all cross-border movements of children as ‘trafficking’.
Is child mobility really child trafficking?
To start with, trafficking is normally described as a criminal activity that features criminal gangs and high levels of violence. On the contrary, this is not always the case. A good number of children move with the help of family members or other people considered dependable, instead of organized criminal groups.
What’s more, many have outlined the difficulties in recognizing a victim of trafficking. People who try to make these distinctions wrongly end up dividing migrants into two sections: migrant workers (undocumented), who need to be punished for breaking migration rules, and ‘victims of trafficking’, who deserve our sympathy. Nonetheless, this is less of an issue for migrant children as they are all seen as ‘victims of trafficking’.
On the other hand, separating migrant workers into two categories basically diminishes the right of all people to be provided protection from exploitative labor. Similar to adults, kids who pursue work abroad do so in an attempt to survive, look after themselves, or support their families and siblings. Not acknowledging these needs shows that there is no possibility to recognize the protection of their rights in a working environment.
Furthermore, cases of ‘trafficking’ are normally ‘solved’ by repatriating people to their countries of origin, which usually returns them to the state that forced them to migrate in the first place. Without any changes to the situation, the sequence will most likely repeat itself. This is very true of children too.
Moreover, being branded a ‘victim of trafficking’ is normally linked to stigma, which, if anything, is more likely to worsen the state that the ‘victims of trafficking’ are undergoing when they are repatriated to their countries of origin. Governments of countries of origin are not doing enough to handle these issues.
On top of that, criminalizing children’s migration for workforces any nature of work featuring underage immigrants to go undercover. Hence, this makes children more vulnerable, exposes them to even adverse working conditions, and prevents access to protection systems.
Last but not least, the present approach to children’s mobility wholly disregards children’s agency, yet research verifiably indicates that children, and more so adolescents, practice agency in their migration choices.
Final thoughts
To conclude, not all forms of child mobility should be allowed, and it all comes down to age appropriateness and the consent of the legal guardian.
It is important to differentiate between child mobility and child trafficking to prevent any misconception or confusion. While child mobility can be a positive and legitimate aspect of a child’s life, child trafficking is a criminal act that poses significant risks and harms to children. Efforts should be made to protect children from trafficking and ensure their well-being during any form of mobility.
Featured photo: Thgusstavo Santana: https://www.pexels.com/el-gr/photo/16271144/
