U.S. Anti-prostitution pledge

On June 20, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the anti-prostitution pledge policy, a provision requiring U.S. organizations to denounce prostitution as a condition for receiving funds to fight HIV/AIDS globally, unconstitutional.  It was a major victory in terms of promoting the rights of sex workers, and allowing HIV prevention to be funded on a wider scale.

Organizations like SANGRAM, though, have been fighting against this policy for years, and even turned down 11 laks (roughly equivalent to $20,000) in funding from USAID because they did not want to be held to this policy, and did not want to be controlled in this way. SANGRAM believes in working to strengthen communities to fight against HIV/AIDS. One op-ed was published by Meena Seshu, the Secretary General of SANGRAM, in 2005 saying that SANGRAM was not going to listen to the U.S. government’s pledge, and would break the contract and return the money they had been given, out of principle. SANGRAM did this not because they believed so strongly in the first amendment, but because SANGRAM was a sex workers collective, and felt that this was an unnecessary burden on the people who were tirelessly fighting to prevent the spread of HIV.

Back in 2005, after the anti-prostitution pledge was passed, a letter was written by Mark Souder, a U.S. Congressman presenting a seemingly straightforward and logical argument—that the US should not fund organizations abroad that promote the trafficking of children and prostitution. The problem with this, though, is that he did not get his facts right, in that he mentioned SANGRAM as a trafficking organization because SANGRAM did not sign the anti-prostitution pledge. As a result, VAMP members were working for a year without pay, but continued to do HIV prevention work for the sake of saving lives.

With the exception of the fact that Souder mentioned SANGRAM as a trafficking organization, I found the rest of the letter fairly logical and making sense. However, I realized that I have socialized to believe that trafficking is wrong (which I still believe), that prostitution is wrong (which I now do not believe), and therefore any policy that aimed to prevent trafficking and prostitution was right and good. However, I was reminded by boss that it’s not right that policymakers in the U.S. can decide that SANGRAM is a trafficking organization without even sending a single email or making a single call to the NGO to figure out what it really does. It does not make sense that U.S. policy makers in Washington could decide what was right and wrong for a sex worker in Sangli, when they don’t know their background and don’t understand what sex workers want. It does not make sense that the US expected SANGRAM to change their policy because they did not understand the difference between prostitution and sex trafficking.

So, while Mark Sounder’s intentions were probably good, the fact that he did not do proper research about what he was advocating for is extremely problematic. But, it’s good that the Supreme Court in this instance did not listen to the Mark Souders of the world, and instead chose to open their minds and choose what was right over what sounds logical.

From the Grounds Up

As an American, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the role of the U.S. within the context of international development. How can we best help abroad? What is the best approach for us to take? Should we even be involving ourselves abroad, when there are so many domestic issues to tackle? Even though I’m still early in my career, I’ve been exposed to various organizations within the international development world, and can say wholeheartedly that the SANGRAM approach towards development, HIV prevention, and fighting for the human rights of marginalized communities is truly unique, and is one from which much can be learned and followed.

My personal experience working in the field of international development began my freshman year of college, when I was working as a research assistant for a professor tracking international aid. It continued when I went to Honduras that following summer to help build a water sanitation system for a disaster-stricken community. It furthered when I went to El Salvador, and traveled to orphanages and nutrition centers, learning that despite the good intentions, charities and handouts do no provide sustainable solutions to poverty.

The following year, I work at a USAID consulting firm where I spoke to many people about the large-budgeted projects, yet the tendency for many to fall through after the contractors left the country. Following that, I experienced the policy side of development through working at think tank in Washington, DC. This past summer, I saw the benefits of a grassroots approach in Guatemala, connecting local artisan crafts to the global market, and was so impressed with the work being done there. 

Still, I continue to be inspired by the approach that SANGRAM takes here in Sangli, India. The small-scale and focused projects working from the grounds-up, I believe, ultimately have such a powerful effect and provide long-term sustainability.

I had a conversation about this exact topic a few weeks back with my SANGRAM boss over breakfast. I was particularly struck when she admitted that at this point in time, with the exception of a few things, she herself was no longer critical to this organization. Rather, it can essentially run itself, and it is totally community-based. The sex workers of VAMP and MUSKAN are collectivized, and she said the reason for this was because they’ve had the time to properly do so. SANGRAM does not rush to meet contract deadlines and fulfill indicators—but rather slowly but thoroughly develop. This has been a critical lesson for me—this idea that the fight for human rights and social justice, for sustainable development, takes time, and needs to be truly from the grounds up in order to be effective and long-lasting.

SANGRAM takes a rights-based approach, meaning that it focuses development of human rights in addition to economic factors, and aims to empower the rights-holders. And I see the rights-based approach in every way here:

• ·      By involving all sex workers in discussions and presentations, not just one articulate spokesman, when guests come to visit SANGRAM and VAMP
• ·      By actually listening to what sex workers themselves want, which is not necessarily rehabilitation, but access to rights and prevention of abuse
• ·      By working to improve existing government hospitals and practices, instead of simply building new ones
• ·      By having sex workers themselves collaborating to write a survey in a non-invasive way
• ·      By having the sex-workers collective fight anti-trafficking instead of raiding the communities for people being trafficked (causing the communities more harm and abuse than good)
• ·      By not promoting mandatory HIV testing, but rather creating awareness for those who are willing to do the test, keeping all their records confidential, and providing a positive (as opposed to stigmatized) environment by which testing can take place

I’ve learned that these things can’t happen over a period of a few months, or even a few years. They take many years, and much patience, persistence, and dedication. They involve constant engagement with community members and policymakers. They involve going against the norm if they believe what they are doing is right, even if it makes them unpopular. They involve doing more listening than speaking, and understanding that development is not just about indicators or statistics or projections or growth—but about human lives. These have been critical lessons to learn over my seven months with this NGO, and I know I will carry them with me for the rest of my career.