Who’s supposed to benefit from Safe Haven regs?

Will someone please tell me who—besides Pam Brown—is supposed to benefit from the latest scam about to be perpetrated on the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas?

Bringing countless “forced prostitution victims” to the CNMI, in accordance with proposed regulations being promulgated by the Attorney General’s Office, won’t benefit the CNMI—unless one considers it a poorly-thought-out attempt to jump-start an “education industry” here. While it’s been suggested that this is one way the CNMI could do its share in supporting the world’s less fortunate, neither the problem (victimized children) nor the proposed solution (safe haven) seem at all appropriate to what the CNMI can realistically offer at this point in time.

It’s highly questionable, moreover, whether the 90-day stay authorized in the proposed regulations (though the regs do provide that that can be extended) will benefit the victims. Meaningful rehabilitation—emotionally, physically, psychologically—will surely take much longer than that—years, in fact.

So, other than Pam Brown, to whom it provides a job when she leaves the position of AG, who benefits?

While the proposed regulations state that no more than 30 victims will be admitted At One Time, they say nothing about how many, altogether, may be admitted and housed here (the number 400 has been mentioned). Where will they stay? Who will care for them? Who will teach them? At whose expense? Certainly, the CNMI cannot afford to do so.

The proposed regulations mention schools to be established for the victims, but do not indicate that the primary means of education practiced by the U.S. International Mission (the non-profit organization allegedly supporting this venture) is through video-teleconferencing—at least according to a press release to be found on the USIM web page. Is such video-conferencing available in Vietnamese? Does it address the cultural adjustments the children will have to make? How can it substitute for the personal attention that will be needed here?

Nor is any mention made of the extensive support services these children will require if they are to be truly rehabilitated, enabled to become productive members of society. The CNMI does not have the facilities, the resources, to take care of the emotional, psychological, psychiatric needs of its own population. Who will provide those? Who will pay for them?

The proposed regulations only say the victims should have “any available health information pertaining to the child” when they arrive; despite assurances to the contrary, the regs do not make it clear that those health certificates must indicate that the victims are free of any disease. In any case, children do get sick. Who will treat them? Who will provide and pay for necessary medication? The Commonwealth Health Center does not have enough physicians to take care of the people already here. Will they be covered by Medicare? Medicaid?

And while the proposed regulations cover victims between the ages of 8 and 16, the regs also states that once they reach 16, the victims are no longer eligible for the program, yet it gives no indication of what is supposed to happen to those victims once they reach age 16.

Nor do the regulations mention anything about housing provisions for the victims. Who will see to it that they aren’t placed in primitive barracks-like accommodations that are neither safe nor sanitary, much less suitable to young girls?

Related to this project is an intention to film and document the plight of the victims. But has that film company applied, been given, a permit to film here? Has the USIM applied for a business license? Aren’t the victims being re-victimized if the sole intent of their presence in the CNMI is to be made the subject of a film?

Despite the fact that none of these questions have yet been answered, and that the proposed regulations are open for comment until December 25, incredibly enough, the first group of these victims is apparently scheduled to arrive on Saipan on Dec. 19. Since when is the AG a law unto itself?

It is appalling that such a hare-brained scheme should be foisted on the CNMI, particularly by the government’s Attorney General.

There is no question that victims of forced prostitution deserve help. But that help has to benefit the victims first and foremost.

This proposal does not do that. The proposed regulations should be withdrawn; the project itself totally rejected.

Ruth L. Tighe
Tanapag village