Human trafficking is one of the most compelling issues of the new millennium and has inspired activism by a diverse range of individuals and government agencies. Efforts by the United States and the United Nations have resulted in the passage of antitrafficking laws in many countries, but have failed to ensure that these laws are effective and enforced. Although this macro-level engagement is important, it deals with the effects of trafficking and not with its prevention. Grassroots activities that focus on empowering women economically, socially, and politically are the best ways to minimize women's vulnerability to traffickers. Women's organizations are the lynchpin in successful antitrafficking efforts, as in South Korea. That model is a product of the Korean women's movement and emphasizes the essential role of women-based nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in antitrafficking work and the importance of government institutions working in conjunction with such organizations to achieve effective results. In this article, I argue that the Korean model is a necessary one for the Russian Far East (RFE) to implement. Areas in the RFE included in this study are Amurski Oblast and Khabarovskii and Primorskii Krais. Funding and supporting women's NGOs must be at the core of any antitrafficking policy in this region.Popular Measures Used to Fight TraffickingA comprehensive study of the official material available on human trafficking reveals that recommended solutions are often insufficient, contradictory, narrow in scope, and culturally irrelevant. Although many of these proposed solutions are well intentioned, it is rare to find one that is comprehensive, multifaceted, and culturally sensitive.The U.S. Department of State's annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report is a major source of information on the state of trafficking worldwide. The report categorizes countries into three tiers, with tier three being the lowest. placement is supposed to be contingent on a country's efforts to actively address the trafficking issue. After the issuance of the third report in 2003, a country's placement at the tier three level was supposed to carry ramifications for their eligibility to receive nonhumanitarian U.S. aid. The 2004 report established a fourth category, labeled the Tier 2 Watch List.Activists, such as those working for human rights, international, and humanitarian organizations, are critical of the politicized nature of the State Department report, arguing that countries deserving of a tier three rating are often granted a tier two status, or now a spot on the tier two watch list, as a diplomatic gesture. The addition of the watch list significantly discredits the report as a serious enforcement mechanism and reinforces the perception that the rankings are politically and diplomatically motivated. The tier two and watch list categories appear to be catch-all ranks for countries such as Japan, Russia, Nigeria, and others that are clearly lagging in their antitrafficking efforts, but are too politically important to risk funding cuts or too powerful to join the ranks of tier three countries like Bangladesh and Sudan.Border Control and Visa RegulationIncreased border security and stricter visa regulations are common ways to deal with the trafficking problem. There is evidence to support claims that porous borders and ambiguous visa categories make a trafficker's job easier.The steady rise in trafficking over the past several decades, despite an equally steady tightening of visa regulations, indicates that this method alone is not effective. Restrictive visa and immigration policies often exacerbate trafficking problems, as they raise the risk posed to women due to the more extreme measures that traffickers then take to transport them across borders. Stricter visa regulations also mean that people who want to immigrate legally, but cannot do so under these stricter laws, may be forced to resort to illegal means of entering a country, increasing the value of a skilled trafficker. …