Without acknowledging this, we run
the risk of ignoring our complicity in her story — a pernicious web of
obfuscations and self-aggrandizements that tangle all the way back to
the New York Times, and keep women’s economic opportunities around the
world hovering somewhere near deplorable.
Here’s why it matters when a human rights
crusader builds her advocacy on lies
Newsweek's cover story on Somaly Mam shows
us how harmful sex-trafficking journalism can be for women
Salon | 29 May 2014
This week’s Newsweek poses this question of the sex-trafficking-victim-turned-modern-day-hero Somaly Mam, who announced
today that she would be resigning from her foundation: “Does it matter
that key parts of her story aren’t true?” This wasn’t a shocker to those
of us who’ve followed journalist Simon Marks’ reporting on Somaly Mam
over the years — or have had our own run-ins with her foundation, its
employees or the ripple effect of her camera-ready fibs. (Hence the
mag’s nickname among journos, No Shit Weekly.) But Marks’ article didn’t
answer the question, and the answer matters.
Newsweek instead offered a solid compendium
of Marks’ work, debunking the figurehead of the so-called “modern
slavery movement.” A self-proclaimed former victim of forced sexual
exploitation, Mam and husband Pierre Legros cofounded AFESIP in 1996, a
Cambodian NGO devoted to saving women and children from sexual
exploitation throughout Southeast Asia. Global fundraising arm the
Somaly Mam Foundation came later, in 2007. The influx of attention
brought an increase in confusion: Today Mam claims to have rescued more
than 4,000 girls from sex slavery, but questions about her stories still
arise from former staff members, her former husband and those supposed
former sex slaves.
Marks’ single-mindedness in wanting to
destabilize Mam’s perch is understandable. She has worked diligently to
protect her reputations as victim and as savior for nearly two decades,
but a lot has happened in that time. Without acknowledging this, we run
the risk of ignoring our complicity in her story — a pernicious web of
obfuscations and self-aggrandizements that tangle all the way back to
the New York Times, and keep women’s economic opportunities around the
world hovering somewhere near deplorable.
The biggest change in
those two decades? Depends on whom you ask. An acquaintance at the U.S.
State Department noted a shift in priorities from counterterrorism to
anti-human trafficking: Similar interests and many of the same staff
police borders with the same old tools under a supposedly new agenda.
Pals covering the sex industry might forward a rise in policy
initiatives both domestically and abroad that criminalize certain forms
of women’s labor. Friends in Cambodia would say the biggest change
during that time is in economic opportunity — for some. There are money
and resources out there, in other words, for those willing to do or say
the right thing. Like the young women who lied for cameras at Mam’s
urging.
So
does the Somaly Problem — when a supposed victim is also a charlatan,
but for a cause with worthy aspects, like gender-based oppression in
Cambodia — matter, Newsweek? Well, many of these policy changes, each of
which further limit the economic advancement of low-income women, can
be traced back to Mam. She was named a “Hero of Anti-Trafficking” by the
U.S. State Department in 2007, Glamour’s “Woman of the Year” in 2006,
and one of Time’s “Most Influential People” in 2009.
Many of her
accolades, in turn, can be traced back to her friendship with New York
Times columnist Nick Kristof. As of press time he still lists the Somaly
Mam Foundation as a “partner” in Half the Sky Movement, his blatant
attempt (along with wife Sheryl WuDunn) to brand and therefore profit
from economic and physical violence against women and girls in the
Global South. He also has yet to account for his inclusion of discredited statements by a Mam foundation “rescuee”
in either the 2009 book or 2012 “documentary” “Half the Sky.” And
Kristof’s live-tweeting of their brothel raid appears to violate the U.N. Conventions on the Rights of the Child, and his purchase of two “sex slaves” for media purposes is not condoned by Cambodian Human Trafficking Law.
Kristof
may, eventually, claim to have been duped. I believe he’ll be lying
(again), although other folks who are not Pulitzer Prize-winning
reporters may be more sincere. The alleged falsehoods in Mam’s
biography, debunked by eyewitnesses but upheld by her organization —
which Marks deserves kudos for tracking, and which the mainstream press
should be shamed for failing to pick up on earlier — are troubling: Her
own childhood exploitation, accounts of her daughter’s kidnapping by
pro-trafficking thugs, and young women’s stories of rape and abuse often
go unverified or unchallenged in Cambodia, yet are so oft repeated
abroad as to give the semblance of truth. Unfortunately, these are lies
many have profited from, including right-wing Christian fundamentalist
NGOs, which have used the mantle of human trafficking to promote agendas
that are clearly unrelated, like abstinence education in U.S. schools and religious instruction in Buddhist or Muslim areas abroad.
Mam
can’t be held accountable for the impact of her tales as much as she
can for establishing the culture of permanent victimhood we grant
anti-trafficking NGO clients, including, but not limited to, those at
her AFESIP shelters. (Several Cambodian friends have worked at her
organizations; most left within a year and none will discuss their
experiences, either socially or for the press.)
I visited
one such NGO in Phnom Penh in January — not run by Mam, but built on
the attention she’s brought to the issue since 2007. What I saw was not
shocking: totally normal Cambodian women in a large room, sewing
apparel. But it wasn’t social services, either: It was a garment factory.
More distressing was that I was not allowed to ask the women any
questions about “their previous lives,” a distinction that covered any
question I might ask, since I certainly wasn’t going to ask if they were
excited about the jobs they’d be placed in, in the low-paying,
high-risk garment sector when they left the NGO. As a reporter, being
unable to ask questions — aka verify facts — means I can’t do my job.
Usually,
an enforced culture of silence shrouds abuse and coercion. Yet somehow
we’ve been given to believe — by Mam, Kristof and hand-selected victims
who sometimes turn out, later, to have been fed scripted hard-luck tales
— that here, silence is nothing but healing.
It doesn’t add up.
But from my desk, even this doesn’t account for the damage Mam’s
Enterprise of Cards has wrought. Her
downtrodden-girl-overcomes-it-all-to-jail-abusers narrative is extremely
compelling, both to Cambodians, who need more women heroes, and to
young women in the U.S. On top of the credibility problem she has
created for real victims of rape and abuse, Mam has made freeing women
from oppression look easy, in her boldest and most damaging lie. It’s
not.
Ending deeply embedded misogynistic practices, including both sex trafficking, which is likely rarer than Mam admits, and the policies supposedly waging war against it,
is not an effortless gig. I’ve nonetheless heard several students
expressing the desire to get into the brothel-busting game themselves.
Listen: I spent seven years researching and doing work in Cambodia, made
concerted efforts to learn the language, developed a strong stomach and
reliable sources, and honed my skills in investigative reporting before
I could even understand what, really, anti-human trafficking NGOs do.
What they do is normalize existent labor opportunities for women,
however low the pay, dangerous the conditions, or abusive an environment
they may be. And they shame women who reject such jobs.
Around
350,000 people, 90 percent women, work in the garment industry in
Cambodia, earning, as of a few months ago, under two-thirds a living
wage. Seventy percent of the wares they produce are sold in the US.
Massive strikes in recent years have seen demand grow for an increase in
pay, although other jobs for women remain few and unregulated. Among
them, work in the sex industry is both reliable and flexible enough for,
say, working moms. (We may hold Mam partially responsible for Kristof’s confusion
between sex workers and trafficking victims. Certainly, policies she’s
supported make few distinctions between the two, and countless of the
young women she’s “saved” — including one of the two Kristof “purchased”
— simply returned to jobs at brothels upon being “freed.”)
Most
women in Cambodia live under conditions of poverty and desperation, and
the garment industry’s insistent refusal to meet living-wage standards
ensures this will continue for some time. Still, garment workers know an
entire international trade system relies on their willing
participation, which was how they built such a strong showing in the last elections.
The big brands know it too, which is why the Nike Foundation funds Half
the Sky — as do other multinationals that both enforce, and rely on,
women’s desperate poverty around the world.
What anti-trafficking
NGOs are saving women from, in other words, is a life outside the
international garment trade, which, according to folks who sell us our
clothes, is no kind of life at all — even though folks in those jobs
tell me they can barely survive. About one-seventh of the world’s
population of women works in the garment industry, which very rarely
pays more than half a living wage (including to folks who work fast
fashion retail in U.S. urban centers). This helps keep women in poverty
around the globe.
So it does matter, Newsweek, that key parts of
Somaly’s story aren’t true. She’s “saving girls” by installing them
firmly within a system of entrenched, gender-based poverty. This matters
to all of us who would like to see that system’s demise.
Anne Elizabeth Moore is the author of "Unmarketable"
from the New Press and a series of memoirs from Cantankerous Titles
including "New Girl Law" and "Cambodian Grrrl." Her cultural criticism
has appeared in the Baffler, The New Inquiry, Jacobin, Tin House, and Al
Jazeera, and she does a monthly comics journalism strip on gender,
labor, and culture for Truthout called "Ladydrawers."
No comments:
Post a Comment