Author
Abstract
This paper develops a theoretical synthesis of sex work and anti-trafficking power in Southeast Asia and argues that the region reveals US extraterritorial power in its fourth and most contradictory mode. Where a companion paper on the Global North found that power exercised through platform law (FOSTA-SESTA), a paper on the Global South through the PEPFAR antiprostitution pledge, and a paper on Eastern Europe through the abrupt withdrawal of funding, Southeast Asia shows it as evaluative power: the US State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report ranks governments by tier and can trigger sanctions, rewarding the criminalisation, raids and rescue operations that Bernstein (2018) has theorised as carceral feminism and militarised humanitarianism. The paradox is that the same US power that financed harm reduction through PEPFAR simultaneously incentivises criminalisation through the TIP Report - while the strongest available evidence, a quasi-experimental study from East Java (Cameron, Seager and Shah 2021), shows that criminalisation increases sexually transmitted infections among sex workers by 58 percent. Drawing on this evidence, on Weitzer's (2023) ethnography of the Thai sex industry, and on Parmanand's (2019) study of the Philippine Sex Workers Collective, the paper makes three claims. First, the anti-trafficking architecture functions as a machine that produces the victims it claims to rescue, extending Agustin's (2007) concept of the rescue industry into its operating logic. Second, this machine structurally suffocates the self-organisation that could carry reform, because criminalisation prevents legal registration and funding. Third, Thailand's ongoing effort to repeal its 1996 Prostitution Act is the Southeast Asian counterpart to the Belgian and South African experiments, in which the sex worker organisation Empower explicitly demands decriminalisation rather than regulated legalisation. The evidence base is uneven: Thailand and the Philippines carry the analysis, while Vietnam appears only as an evidencebased contextual case.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:buch4_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.