English for International Relations Review Department of International

Relations Study
Name : Tangguh Faculty of Social and Political Science
Student Number : 0706291426 University of Indonesia
Reading Source : Rizal Sukma, “The Securitization of Human Trafficking in Indonesia”
in IDSS Working Paper Series No. 162, S. Rajaratnam School of
International Studies (Singapore, 3 July 2008), p. 1-24
Trafficking as a Human Security Problem: Misplaced Concreteness for a Solution

In this essay, I seek to critically review Rizal Sukma’s paper on the problem of human trafficking in
Indonesia and the response by state and non-state actors to the problem. Sukma’s paper tells that human
trafficking has been the least securitized among other non-traditional security issues in Southeast Asia. The
growing recognition of trafficking in person as a security problem within ASEAN since 2004 is argued as a
response to the process of securitization on the issue at the global level. In terms of actual policy response, there
has been very little progress made by ASEAN member states in addressing the problem. This makes non-state
actors have been forcing the states to take extraordinary measures to combat the problem of human trafficking,
also within the domestic domain of some of the states, e.g. Indonesia. But, despite Indonesia’s effort to combat
human trafficking, it remains a serious problem. Indeed, there is still a significant gap between the growing
recognition of the urgency of problem on the one hand and the adequacy of policy responses on the other.
Human trafficking in Indonesia is a major problem because the number of people being trafficked is very
high. Also, the cases of trafficking are found in almost all provinces in the country, either within the country
(domestic trafficking) or abroad (international trafficking). While the efforts to restrain human trafficking have
begun to intensify, the challenge remains big because of the growing number of Indonesian migrant workers
abroad, both legal and undocumented. Human trafficking in Indonesia takes many forms like labor, sexual
0100090000032a0200000200a20100000000a201000026060f003a03574d464301000000000001009bf5000000000
1000000180300000000000018030000010000006c00000000000000000000001a0000000f00000000000000000000
006a4a00008400000020454d4600000100180300001200000002000000000000000000000000000000f6090000e4
0c0000d8000000170100000000000000000000000000005c4b030068430400160000000c000000180000000a00000
01000000000000000000000000900000010000000c90800000f000000250000000c0000000e000080250000000c00
00000e000080120000000c00000001000000520000007001000001000000d2ffffff000000000000000000000000900
100000000000004400022430061006c0069006200720069000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000011006872110010000000cc7511004c73
110052516032cc751100c47211001000000034741100b075110024516032cc751100c47211002000000049642f31c4
721100cc75110020000000ffffffffac30d200d0642f31ffffffffffff0180ffff0180bfff0180ffffffff000000000008000000080
0000000000001000000000000002c01000025000000632e90010008020f0502020204030204ef0200a07b20004000
000000000000009f00000000000000430061006c006900620072000000000041007200690061006c00200052006f0
075006e00f87211009c38273104000000010000003473110034731100e8782531040000005c731100ac30d20064760
00800000000250000000c00000001000000250000000c00000001000000250000000c00000001000000180000000c
00000000000002540000005400000000000000000000001a0000000f0000000100000088870741d1450741000000
002c000000010000004c000000040000000000000000000000ca0800001000000050000000200000001b000000460
00000280000001c0000004744494302000000ffffffffffffffffca08000010000000000000004600000014000000080000
004744494303000000250000000c0000000e000080250000000c0000000e0000800e0000001400000000000000100
00000140000000400000003010800050000000b0200000000050000000c020500fa02040000002e0118001c000000
fb020500020000000000bc02000000000102022253797374656d00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000040000002d010000040000002d01000004000000020101001c000000fb02f0ff0000000000009001000
000000440002243616c6962726900000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000040000002d01010
0040000002d010100040000002d010100050000000902000000020d000000320a0f0000000100040000000000fa02
050020c80900040000002d010000040000002d010000030000000000
1
services and slavery. The most influential factors leading to trafficking in Indonesia is believed to be poverty.
The securitization of human trafficking in Indonesia results in intensification on the attention to efforts in
combating the problem. Like Southeast Asia in general, it is a result of the growing concern on the problem at
the international level. The driving force is the donor funding and the development aid from the United States,
the European Union and the United Nations. The impact in turn helps to increase the attention and efforts by
both national governments and NGOs to tackle the problems in the country. Most work on anti-trafficking are
carried out by local NGOs such as Migrant Care, Kopbumi, LBH-Apik, Fahmina and Koalisi Perlindungan
Anak (Coalition for Child Protection). In the international context and national one (Indonesia), there are at
least five characteristics of the securitization strategy employed. First is by highlighting the number of people
being trafficked; second is by framing the issue in terms of human rights; third is by framing it as a criminal
problem that poses a national and trans-national security threat; fourth is by linking it to the problem of
migration; and fifth is by employing the “security language” or speech act.
Despite the securitization strategies, human trafficking remains a serious problem because of the gap
between state’s responses and outcomes. Indonesia’s effort progress can be explained in some points: (1)
providing of legal basis for counter-trafficking efforts; (2) institutional changes to support its counter-trafficking
measures, regarding the proliferation of local government regulations at the provincial and district levels on the
elimination of trafficking; and (3) improvements in the areas of law enforcement and justice. But, the actual
response by Indonesia’s government remains subject to criticism in some points: (1) a lack of seriousness and
attention from local governments; and (2) inadequacy of the allocation of the resources to combat the problem.
The gap exists because of the continuing dominance of state-centric perspective or approach in looking at the
problem. This perspective notes the problem as bringing about negative implications for the interests of the state
or the nation. It results in the response to the problem that is not motivated by the need to protect the victims but
subject to the international pressure. It suggests that the increased attention has not been translated into a policy
response beyond normal politics. The reasons for this are four domestic factors. First are the structural factors
such as poverty, as “trafficking victims mostly come from poverty-stricken areas or places where jobs and
financial opportunities are limited”. Second are the cultural constraints, as the victims—especially subjects to
sexual exploitation—are often regarded as a shame to the community. Third is the involvement of a corrupt
state apparatus, as corruption creates an environment that facilitates human trafficking due to the absence of fear
among the traffickers. Fourth is the marginal position of human-security perspective within the Indonesian
state, as the low level of awareness of the importance of protecting the rights of women and children adds the
difficulty in combating human trafficking. By identifying the dominance of state-centric perspective as a major
obstacle to counter-trafficking measures in Indonesia, Sukma offers a human-security approach to trafficking as
an alternative road to securitization.
I agree with what Sukma looks and analyzes, but I also see that the solution Sukma offers is a rather
abstract one. A perspective is something inter-subjective and contested that a suggestion to change it needs a
translation of the applied ways, yet Sukma hangs the imperative in his last paragraph and only tells that a
human-security approach will achieve this and that. My second notion is that Sukma’s solution is one that
doesn’t response to the whole problem he himself suggests (poverty, cultural constraints, corruption). Response
to the problem has to be connected to the problem itself. Thus, I suggest the likes of “poverty-reducing
programs” and “corruption-obliterating programs” as well as “good governance” for the solution.