I am currently engaged in an exchange of correspondence with a U.S. based Foundation as I try desperately to raise the funds needed to fund our growing operation against cross border trafficking. Yesterday I was advised by that Foundation's Director that it was likely our dangerous rescue activities would not be eligible for their funding support as their Board would not be prepared to accept the associated liability.
This is an interesting point to reflect upon. There are charitable activities that carry no risk to life or limb at all - for example education or healthcare projects or work with orphaned or street children. That's fair enough and many organisations do wonderful worthy work in these fields. However, the difference with child trafficking projects as compared with the rest is that if you are to undertake work that is of any significance you will automatically be getting in the way of the livelihoods of criminal elements. That inevitably carries risk which in this part of the world where life is so cheap can have fatal consequences. The alternative (and one that some organisations follow) is to just pick up the pieces, say for example helping HIV infected girls who have been sent home as they have outlived their usefulness in the international sex trade or providing counselling to trafficking survivors. Useful as that is, it takes one into the realms of a kind of peaceful coexistence with the trade in human lives. If you are to genuinely "battle" (the word by the way used on this particular U.S. Foundation's website) human trafficking - and by implication win a victory - then you've got to be prepared to take the risks that go with battle.
My mind goes back to an Esther Benjamins Trust Board (Trustee) meeting in early 2003 that immediately followed the research that we had conducted on the abuse of trafficked Nepalese children inside Indian circuses. The question was "what now?". The Board was split down the middle, with one half thinking intervention was too risky and preferring us to confine ourselves to continuing to assist the dependent children of prisoners, disabled children and street children. The other half felt that we had to do something and take risks to rescue these desperate and abused children. The argument was won largely by the outspoken views of one Trustee (of Indian ethnicity) who pointed out that positive changes in the world had been effected by risk takers who stuck their necks out and risked their lives - like Gandhi and Mandela. She supported my view that we should get on with it and the decision was taken to proceed with raiding circuses in association with the Indian authorities. Afterwards I gave that Trustee a big hug for her support. I hadn't wanted the charity that bore my defiant late wife's name, she who had always been a fighter, to confine itself to addressing the symptoms of a problem.
That decision has led to over 300 children and teenagers being rescued from circuses; many had experienced rape and sexual abuse. We are pressing on to the next stage of the battle, firming up our relationship with ChildLine India, towards a final victory. All I need now is the money which doesn't seem too much to ask from those who are remote from the danger, money that will support those of our staff members who believe passionately in what they are doing and are prepared to risk their all.
