Asia is a major source and destination for victims of human trafficking. The region's booming sex tourism industry, China's appetite for Burmese child-brides, and widespread poverty foster a black market that goes unchecked. Governments often have little incentive to combat the internal and cross-border sale of people, sometimes profiting from revenue generated by sex tourism and a cheap, unregulated shadow labor market.

Helen Stacy, director of the CDDRL Program on Human Rights and a FSI senior fellow, says now is the time to address human trafficking and the mechanisms to fight it in Asia. As U.S. foreign policy pivots toward Asia, human rights issues are becoming integrated into regional discussions on trade and economic development. According to Stacy, regional trade blocs - such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) - are using their collective strength to get serious about human rights and curb trafficking.

Stacy, a lawyer by training, has dedicated a great deal of research to examining the shifting landscape of the international human rights movement. Her 2009 book, Human Rights for the 21st Century: Sovereignty, Civil Society, Culture, highlighted the success of sub-regional organizations in using their economic, political, and security cooperation as a platform to pursue human rights issues.

Stacy points to one of Africa's sub-regional organizations - the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) - as a surprising benchmark in pursuing a collective plan of action against human trafficking. The 15 ECOWAS nations signed harmonized legislation outlining how to enforce laws and punish offenders.

Building off this research and her recent travels to Asia, Stacy is writing a new book that will examine how regional and sub-regional institutions in Africa and Asia are able to successfully enact and enforce human rights agreements. 

Why the emphasis on regional and sub-regional institutions when examining human rights enforcement?

Africa, Europe, Latin America, and Southeast Asia have created regional bodies for country-to-country dialogue in their region. Given the vastness of their population and territory, sub-regional groups are now forming to advance economic and security cooperation. Intriguingly, the African and Southeast Asian sub-regional bodies principle purpose is economic cooperation, which makes their human rights activity very different from either national government or the international level human rights activity. Countries of varying political interests and economic capacity that had no interest in human rights are now negotiating cross-border human rights agreements with their regional neighbors. They are now being swept into a “regional group-think” approach to human rights.

Why focus on Africa and Asia?

Africa and Asia are huge markets for the U.S. and Asia holds China, the other world economic superpower. In Africa, China is consuming resources at a staggering rate but with scant attention to human rights. The U.S. must manage a complicated dance about trade and human rights in its negotiations with China. China is also a huge economic presence in Southeast Asia, and with the U.S. diplomatic “pivot” to Asia, it’s the right time for the U.S. to be focusing on Asian Pacific human rights.

What is ASEAN's role as a sub-regional organization in Southeast Asia?

ASEAN is a free trade organization that has really started to gather its forces since the Asian financial crisis. At the same time, Asian national governments have realized that their relationship with China makes them vulnerable. On the one hand they want China’s investment money; on the other hand they want to assert their own national goals and standards and not be consumed by China’s huge demand for resources. ASEAN understands that it must have institutions of good regional governance if they are to be taken seriously by the ASEAN Plus Three countries (China, Korea and Japan), or beyond to the U.S., Europe, Australia, and New Zealand.

Why does ASEAN care about human trafficking?

There aren't any accurate statistics of the number of victims whose bodies are being sold – that’s just an unfortunate reality of any black market. Global estimates are that 27 million people are enslaved, half of them children. That’s more today than the entire 300-year long Atlantic slave trade. Governments are realizing that if they want to claim national governance credibility they have to at least acknowledge the problem, sign human rights agreements, and start cooperating with their neighbors.

What are the steps ASEAN is taking to combat human trafficking?

ASEAN has committed itself to a trafficking agreement in 2014. They signed their first human rights convention in November 2012. I have been meeting with the country representatives here at Stanford and overseas and this is a serious diplomatic cadre. The U.S. has its own ambassador, which again is all part of its pivot toward Asia. President Obama made a landmark speech about human trafficking in September 2012 and the U.S. Agency for International Development is now incorporating anti-trafficking programming into their agenda. There has never been this level of international understanding of human slavery as a global phenomenon. My interest lies in seeing how the regional and sub-regional organizations respond to this moment.

What are your plans for your next book?

The book is about new actors, markets, and technologies that yield both good and bad human rights outcomes. The number of “deep-pocket” non-governmental groups is growing exponentially: both helpful ones like philanthropic organizations, and worrying ones like black market and underground political organizations. One way or another they have profound influences upon the actions of national governments and regional and sub-regional institutions.

How does human trafficking factor into your research?

Human trafficking is my lens because it provides a unique window into a country and region. It provides information about the status of minorities; levels of health, education, and poverty; and a national government’s commitment to human rights and the rule of law. A trafficking analysis shines light on when regional co-operation, economic aid, and philanthropic assistance improves human rights. It also reveals when corrupt governments profit from predatory black market trade in humans, guns, and drugs. If we understand this better we can guide intelligence professionals, civil society, communications people, and policy-makers in human rights reform.

Stacy will be discussing her evolving research agenda on human trafficking, with a focus on Burma's current human rights challenges, at the weekly CDDRL seminar on Feb. 7. For more information, please click here. 

President Obama and Mitt Romney meet for their third debate to discuss foreign policy on Monday, when moderator Bob Schieffer is sure to ask them about last month's terrorist attack in Libya and the nuclear capabilities of Iran.

In anticipation of the final match between the presidential candidates, researchers from five centers at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies ask the additional questions they want answered and explain what voters should keep in mind.

What can we learn from the Arab Spring about how to balance our values and our interests when people in authoritarian regimes rise up to demand freedom?  

What to listen for: First, the candidates should address whether they believe the U.S. has a moral obligation to support other peoples’ aspirations for freedom and democracy. Second, they need to say how we should respond when longtime allies like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak confront movements for democratic change.

And that leads to more specific questions pertaining to Arab states that the candidates need to answer: What price have we paid in terms of our moral standing in the region by tacitly accepting the savage repression by the monarchy in Bahrain of that country's movement for democracy and human rights?  How much would they risk in terms of our strategic relationship with Bahrain and Saudi Arabia by denouncing and seeking to restrain this repression? What human rights and humanitarian obligations do we have in the Syrian crisis?  And do we have a national interest in taking more concrete steps to assist the Syrian resistance?  On the other hand, how can we assist the resistance in a way that does not empower Islamist extremists or draw us into another regional war?  

Look for how the candidates will wrestle with difficult trade-offs, and whether either will rise above the partisan debate to recognize the enduring bipartisan commitment in the Congress to supporting democratic development abroad.  And watch for some sign of where they stand on the spectrum between “idealism” and “realism” in American foreign policy.  Will they see that pressing Arab states to move in the direction of democracy, and supporting other efforts around the world to build and sustain democracy, is positioning the United States on “the right side of history”?

~Larry Diamond, director of the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law

What do you consider to be the greatest threats our country faces, and how would you address them in an environment of profound partisan divisions and tightly constrained budgets? 

What to listen for: History teaches that some of the most effective presidential administrations understand America's external challenges but also recognize the interdependence between America's place in the world and its domestic situation.

Accordingly, Americans should expect their president to be deeply knowledgeable about the United States and its larger global context, but also possessed of the vision and determination to build the country's domestic strength.

The president should understand the threats posed by nuclear proliferation and terrorist organizations. The president should be ready to lead in managing the complex risks Americans face from potential pandemics, global warming, possible cyber attacks on a vulnerable infrastructure, and failing states.

Just as important, the president needs to be capable of leading an often-polarized legislative process and effectively addressing fiscal challenges such as the looming sequestration of budgets for the Department of Defense and other key agencies. The president needs to recognize that America's place in the world is at risk when the vast bulk of middle class students are performing at levels comparable to students in Estonia, Latvia and Bulgaria, and needs to be capable of engaging American citizens fully in addressing these shared domestic and international challenges.

~Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, co-director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation

Should our government help American farmers cope with climate impacts on food production, and should this assistance be extended to other countries – particularly poor countries – whose food production is also threatened by climate variability and climate change?

What to listen for: Most representatives in Congress would like to eliminate government handouts, and many would also like to turn away from any discussion of climate change. Yet this year, U.S. taxpayers are set to pay up to $20 billion to farmers for crop insurance after extreme drought and heat conditions damaged yields in the Midwest.

With the 2012 farm bill stalled in Congress, the candidates need to be clear about whether they support government subsidized crop insurance for American farmers. They should also articulate their views on climate threats to food production in the U.S. and abroad.

Without a substantial crop insurance program, American farmers will face serious risks of income losses and loan defaults. And without foreign assistance for climate adaptation, the number of people going hungry could well exceed 15 percent of the world's population. 

~Rosamond L. Naylor, director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment

What is your vision for the United States’ future relationship with Europe? 

What to listen for: Between the end of World War II and the end of the Cold War, it was the United States and Europe that ensured world peace. But in recent years, it seems that “Europe” and “European” have become pejoratives in American political discourse. There’s been an uneasiness over whether we’re still friends and whether we still need each other. But of course we do.

Europe and the European Union share with the United States of America the most fundamental values, such as individual freedom, freedom of speech, freedom to live and work where you choose. There’s a shared respect of basic human rights. There are big differences with the Chinese, and big differences with the Russians. When you look around, it’s really the U.S. and Europe together with robust democracies such as Canada and Australia that have the strongest sense of shared values.

So the candidates should talk about what they would do as president to make sure those values are preserved and protected and how they would make the cooperation between the U.S. and Europe more effective and substantive as the world is confronting so many challenges like international terrorism, cyber security threats, human rights abuses, underdevelopment and bad governance.

~Amir Eshel, director of The Europe Center

Historical and territorial issues are bedeviling relations in East Asia, particularly among Japan, China, South Korea, and Southeast Asian countries. What should the United States do to try to reduce tensions and resolve these issues?

What to listen for: Far from easing as time passes, unresolved historical, territorial, and maritime issues in East Asia have worsened over the past few years. There have been naval clashes, major demonstrations, assaults on individuals, economic boycotts, and harsh diplomatic exchanges. If the present trend continues, military clashes – possibly involving American allies – are possible.

All of the issues are rooted in history. Many stem from Imperial Japan’s aggression a century ago, and some derive from China’s more assertive behavior toward its neighbors as it continues its dramatic economic and military growth. But almost all of problems are related in some way or another to decisions that the United States took—or did not take—in its leadership of the postwar settlement with Japan.

The United States’ response to the worsening situation so far has been to declare a strategic “rebalancing” toward East Asia, aimed largely at maintaining its military presence in the region during a time of increasing fiscal constraint at home. Meanwhile, the historic roots of the controversies go unaddressed.

The United States should no longer assume that the regional tensions will ease by themselves and rely on its military presence to manage the situation. It should conduct a major policy review, aimed at using its influence creatively and to the maximum to resolve the historical issues that threaten peace in the present day.

~David Straub, associate director of the Korea Studies Program at the Walter H. Shorentein Asia-Pacific Research Center

Compiled by Adam Gorlick.

The Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law at Stanford University invites emerging political, civil society, and business leaders from transitional countries to apply to participate in its ninth annual Draper Hills Summer Fellowship held from July 21- August 9, 2013 at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California.

The Draper Hills Summer Fellows Program is a three-week executive education program that is run annually on the Stanford campus by an interdisciplinary team of leading Stanford faculty. The program brings together a group of 25 to 30 mid-career practitioners in law, politics, government, private enterprise, civil society, and international development from transitioning countries where democracy is not well established. This training program provides a unique forum for emerging leaders to connect, exchange experiences, and receive academic training to enrich their knowledge and advance their work.

Previous Stanford Summer Fellows have served as presidential advisers, senators, attorneys general, lawyers, journalists, civic activists, entrepreneurs, academic researchers, think tank managers, members of the international development community and even a former prime minister. The program is highly selective, receiving several hundred applications each year.

Successful applicants must be at least 27 years of age and possess a minimum of six years of experience - ideally ten - actively working in the fields of democracy, development, or the rule of law. Candidates should reside from and be currently working in a country where democracy is not entrenched and will not be accepted from countries, including: the U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan and member states of the European Union. A working knowledge of English is an essential prerequisite for participation in the program. This is not an academic fellowship program but meant for practitioners who play important and influential roles in their country's political, economic and social development.

All applicants must submit a short intake questionnaire to ensure they meet the selection criteria. The questionnaire is due by November 23, 2012. If applicants meet the necessary criteria in the pre-screening process they will be invited to complete the longer application, which will be due along with two letters of recommendation by December 14, 2012. Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis so we encourage applicants to apply as early as possible.

To learn more about the program and to apply, please visit:

http://draperhills.stanford.edu/docs/apply_dhsfp