THE United States published its 2011 Annual Report on Trafficking in Persons (TIP), which saw a slight improvement for Guyana’s ranking with regard to the government’s progress in countering trafficking in persons. According to the report, Guyana is no longer on their Tier-2 Watch List , but was given a Tier-2 status. The Tier-2 status is given to countries that are not making sufficient efforts to counter trafficking in persons. This is an indication that the government is partially compliant with the international rules and guidelines for addressing the issue. It also indicates that there was some progress in the struggle to bring awareness of and the end of Human Trafficking in Guyana. The Tier-2 ranking was apparently given on the grounds of “official complicity”, as government officials are non-complicit with international anti-trafficking in persons’ guidelines. While the United States once again, ranked itself in the Tier-1 category, the ranking it gave itself in their 2010 report. Tier-1 countries are those that are amply making progress in the fight against Human Trafficking.
I find the arrogance of the United States appalling. The issue of persons being trafficked is very real. It happens all over the world, and must be condemned by all governments, but Guyana is a sovereign nation. While it has obligations to the safety and security of its people, it should not have to bend to the whims and fancies of the United States government, adopting their methods of addressing the human trafficking issue. Trafficking in persons is a dire concern, but the U.S. is not the final authority on how this country, or any other, should approach human trafficking within its borders. In this regard, I would not acknowledge that report. Also, their own inability to judge themselves impartially makes it clear that the report cannot be objective. In terms of the U.S. reputation, human trafficking in the U.S. is largely untouched. How then, could the U.S. award itself a Tier-1 status?
The data for this research was collected by the U.S., and their methods of collecting data must be scrutinized. The report does not give a sense of transparency and reliability; instead it seems a more heavy-handed approach was taken. The U.S. methodology for each country cannot be clearly spelt out. This is not the case here. Yet, there are sweeping, unverified castigations of Guyana’s handling of human trafficking. Any research on a government’s progress in counteracting trafficking in persons that does not involve the said government even in the least of ways is heavy-handed and biased.