The U.S. Approach to Combating Trafficking in Women: Prosecuting Military Customers. Could it Be Exported?

Abstract

On 15 September 2004, the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice of the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense announced that it was considering changes to the Manual for Courts Martial. The proposed changes involved crimes that could be charged under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Two of the offenses—“Patronizing a Prostitute” and “Pandering by Compelling, Inducing, Enticing, or Procuring [an] Act of Prostitution”—were described by a senior Department of Defense official as intended to address misconduct associated with human trafficking. Pandering, an offense calling for up to five years’ imprisonment and a dishonorable discharge from the military, and prostitution, which can be punished by a dishonorable discharge and confinement for one year, were already listed as offenses; the proposed changes to the manual were technical. However, criminalizing the patronage of a prostitute is a novel and politically attractive approach to the problem. It is novel because those countries that forbid prostitution typically focus their enforcement efforts on suppliers rather than customers. Nor does any other country, to my knowledge, extend the reach of its military justice system so that, for example, a soldier who seeks sex from a prostitute in a country where prostitution is permitted would still be subject to criminal prosecution. It is politically attractive for several reasons. First, it evidences governmental willingness to undertake new initiatives to cope with this enormous international threat to the rule of law. Second, imposing sanctions on military customers, rather than all customers, can be justified in disciplinary terms and as an aspect of enlightened foreign policy. Finally, it is attractive because soldiers, sailors, and airmen have less domestic political influence than affluent tourists who