At the Clinton Global Initiative this September both Mitt Romney and President Obama gave speeches, which addressed global health matters from an American aid perspective. Both presidential candidates thought that one of the best ways to increase global health (whether it be through decreasing human trafficking or addressing other humanitarian needs) is to promote free market enterprise and advocate for increased economic opportunities for struggling countries and peoples (i.e. job creation). Otherwise, the candidates addressed rather different issues. Mitt Romney seemed more concerned about the leverage of trade and US strategic interest (especially in the Middle East), while President Obama focused on human trafficking. Both candidates emphasized the large role that America can and must play in foreign aid and in addressing issues of global health. Obama addressed specifically the role that individual Americans can play in decreasing human trafficking, while Romney targeted policies. I think that both candidates showed strength in their commitment to the progress of global health, and the role that America should play in it. I thought that what Romney said about embracing the power of partnership, access to free enterprise, and the leverage of abundant resources from the private sector was wise (and also seemed quite libertarian to me). I thought that his targets for foreign aid were also comprehensive and beneficial to both foreign and domestic interests: addressing humanitarian needs, looking out for U.S. strategic interest, and bringing about aid that brings about lasting change in a community in the long-term. Obama's speech on what he calls "modern slavery" was particularly inspiring, and addressed ways that governments, businesses and even individuals can contribute to the fight against human trafficking. I think that it was important that he emphasized that we must treat victims of human trafficking as victims, and not as criminals. This reminded me of recent campus sexual and racial violence at Cornell, and also recent events at Amherst College, where a young woman was silenced as a victim of rape. Campus administrations have been suppressing the voices of victims, and letting perpetrators go unscathed. It seems to me that this kind of violence and silencing is very similar to what goes on at a global scale with sex trafficking. Victims are socially punished, and criminals walk free. So, even as we address these issues abroad we must look inward at our policies and support systems for these kinds of victims in the U.S. I appreciate that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has changed the Annual Trafficking Report to now encompass the U.S., because as President pointed out, these issues of global health must be examined both domestically and abroad; the U.S. cannot act like it is an exception when it is not one.

Human trafficking has always existed. Why are the President and many others addressing these issues just now? Has the media and the increased availability of information allowed these issues only now to come to the attention of the public?

Can we look out for both our interests in the U.S. and those of others at the same time, or is this contradictory to do so? Are the needs of the U.S., particularly trading needs (as Romney mentioned) compatible with the needs of other developing countries? Can trade ever really be mutually and equally beneficial with a country as powerful as the U.S.? Will increasing trade automatically raise global health standards in countries the U.S. trades with?