The search for clean cotton and pure childhood

[imomus]

Halfway through Behind the scenes at Newsnight, a comic video intended to inspire young aspirant journalists, is a scene of staggering (and, hopefully, staged) complacency. The Newsnight team is having its post-programme editorial meeting. The editor congratulates them on the fact that three big stories running throughout the week on Newsnight have been self-generated.



One of these Newsnight exclusives, the editor tells us proudly, had the effect of "changing the way people do their business". Newsnight's journalists discovered that children in Uzbekistan aged nine and up are working to produce cotton which is then sold in the UK. "So we all are wearing clothes containing cotton which children have been forced by their government to pick." Here's the report (part 1, part 2, part 3).

[Error: unknown template video]

When broadcast by the BBC in October 2007, this report prompted Tesco, Marks and Spencer and The Gap to ban from their stores all clothes containing cotton made in Uzbekistan. Finland’s Marimekko, Estonia’s Krenholm and Sweden's H&M announced a boycott in November. Various campaigns -- like this video, White Gold -- have been urging consumers to boycott any clothes containing Uzbek cotton. They present it as a simple ethical imperative: don't help contribute to "one of Central Asia's most brutal regimes" by buying cotton from a state-controlled cotton industry which uses enforced child labour.

Things are, however, somewhat more complicated, and the ethics are more nuanced. People in Britain might think they're avoiding the exploitation of children by boycotting anything "Made in Uzbekistan", but they aren't. They may, instead, be kicking away the economic ladder to the ethical luxuries they now enjoy. Clean cotton -- cotton which doesn't involve enforced labour or poor working conditions -- is as difficult to come by in developing countries as it was in our own history (we, of course, used African slaves to pick our cotton during our own "developing" age).



Boycotters aren't necessarily helping Uzbek farmers. "It is not obvious," says the Fair Trade Association of Australia and New Zealand, "how boycotts might tangibly contribute to the improvement of the lives of farmers and workers. If the intention of a boycott is to make the Uzbek government reform, but it does not, then conditions on the ground for farmers might worsen as economic hardship bites. Or, as some predict, the government may simply just sell its cotton elsewhere, to the growing markets of Russia and China. Another twist is that some central Asian industry sources are claiming that Uzbek cotton boycotts are being pushed by Russian influences, keen to hurt Uzbeki industry for political purposes."

The CIA factbook adds another possible motivation: "Uzbek authorities have accused US and other foreign companies operating in Uzbekistan of violating Uzbek tax laws and have frozen their assets." And the Uzbek government themselves have another theory: "It is known that nowadays the Uzbek cotton drives out other producing countries' cotton on the world market and the [agitation] around it has appeared immediately after lifting of the state subsidies for cotton producers in some... well-known countries, that makes them less competitive in the global market". Western companies are forced, in other words, to deal with Uzbekistan, and they don't like it.

[Error: unknown template video]

But, as Petra Kjell of the Environmental Justice Foundation points out in the video above (filmed at Berlin Fashion Week last year), wherever in the developing world cotton is made (and 99% of cotton farmers live in the developing world, producing 75% of the world's cotton), children are used to pick it. In Egypt one million children work picking cotton, in India hundreds of thousands of child workers do it. All three cotton-producing Central Asian republics -- Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan -- use students and forced labour during the two months of the year when cotton is picked, according to Andrew Stroehlein, director of media and information at the International Crisis Group.



Meanwhile, Fair Trade cotton represents, at present, less than 1% of global cotton flows (source: Fair Trade Foundation), and the global organic retail cotton market accounts for just 6% of all cotton traded (source: Organic Exchange).

Not only is it very difficult to trace the sourcing of cotton back through an incredibly complex supply chain, there's also a complicated labour ecosystem arranged around cotton. Bangladesh -- where twenty million people depend on the garment industry for employment -- buys 65% of its cotton annually from Uzbekistan. Garment exports account for a stunning 75% of Bangladesh's annual export income. Ban-and-boycott people need to consider that, in addition to not-necessarily-helping Uzbekistan, their bans and boycotts actively harm Bangladesh.

Uzbek children aren't taken out of school to harvest cotton -- the schools are closed for the two month cotton season and the children are set to work alongside their teachers (and even doctors and nurses) getting the harvest picked. It's a collective national effort supervised by the police, an obligation. But it isn't enough for us just to ask ourselves if we'd send our own privileged and protected children unpaid into the fields: we have to look at the specifics of life in Uzbekistan to understand why it happens.



Over 60% of the population lives in rural areas, where cotton-growing is the main industry. Almost 50% of the Uzbeki population is 16 or under. Cotton production is by far the biggest industry in the country; the whole economy is based on it, and wealth flowing in from cotton revenues has raised Uzbek life expectancy three to six years higher than that of surrounding Central Asian states, despite widespread environmental damage (toxic chemical sprays, the Aral Sea dried up, dust storms). These kinds of conditions haven't been prevalent in the UK since the 19th century -- a time when we, too, sent children up chimneys and down mines, thereby eventually achieving the kind of society which has the luxury of banning these activities by law.

"I think boycotting Uzbek cotton is an overreaction," says someone called Alanna on a bulletin board. "Considering all the ghastly forms of child exploitation you find in the world, condemning the Uzbeks because children harvest (along with their familes) seems excessive. I lived in Uzbekistan for 4 years, and many of my friends had childhood memories of picking cotton. They hated it, but it was only a few weeks every year, and they were not mistreated."

This April, Uzbekistan signed into law the ILO Minimum Age convention, which allows light work to be done by people as young as 13, but tries to raise the minimum working age in all signatory countries. It's unlikely that child labour will cease overnight, but it's likely to take less than the century or so it took in Britain, which didn't sign up to the ILO minimum age convention until 2000.

Meanwhile, those who still want to ban Uzbek cotton might want to extend their ban to all cotton. That's the only sure way to avoid cotton "dirtied" by the picking hands of children. They might also want to invest whatever spare money they have in Uzbek industries they do approve of, because history tends to show that better conditions generally come with better economies.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Vote Momus for child labour.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

That's as glib a reaction as "end the problem of child labour by banning Uzbek cotton".

[electricwitch.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about your edgy child labour policies. I'm sure you know all about it, from spending your childhood summers harvesting, right bb?

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I come from a culture wise enough to have restricted its child labour practices to past centuries -- the centuries that got us where we are today.

The question is, did we emerge from that period because it made us poor, or because it made us rich? Are we where we are today despite it or because of it? And are we right to think we can impose rich ethics on poor countries by refusing the redistribution of our wealth to their economies? It's a bit ironic, isn't it?

[(Anonymous)]

Great entry, thanks.

-r

[electricwitch.livejournal.com]

lol sucker upper.

[trickseybird.livejournal.com]

[electricwitch.livejournal.com]

I enjoy the Cosmic Kid part of this picture. Also, the butt.

O RLY?

[trickseybird.livejournal.com]

look how disappointed he is in you, bb :*(

[electricwitch.livejournal.com]

Bowies say YES to musicians who say NO to child labour, Momus.

[microworlds.livejournal.com]

Where are the Rapingsteen pictures of him kissing men?? I thought you would have posted them by now, bb. I'm slightly disappointed, though not as disappointed as this entry.

[microworlds.livejournal.com]

(http://s233.photobucket.com/albums/ee38/microworlds/?action=view&current=sekuhara.jpg)

[mcgazz.livejournal.com]

Uzbekistan, the Republic of Gazprom, with its falling literacy rates and decaying infrastructure, where children are forced to work instead of being educated, and torture by the government is "widespread and systemic" (for example, Islamic fundamentalists are dealt with by being boiled alive).

But they do have a lot of natural gas, so we shouldn't rock the boat by bringing this up (at least, that's the British Government's position).

[(Anonymous)]

I hope the Uzbeckys will eventually pull themselves out of poverty and into the modern world so that they can get on to more important things such as: talking on the cellphone, bumping rap music in the car, voting for their favorite reality Idol, and wearing hats with ironic airbrushed designs.

As a person of the West, I can tell you that it was all worth it in the end.

[contentlove.livejournal.com]

Uzbek children aren't taken out of school to harvest cotton -- the schools are closed for the two month cotton season and the children are set to work alongside their teachers

Unlike other readers, I'm not necessarily horrified by that. I live in the USA, where our public (and most private) schools still take a summer break of 2 - 3 months, even though we aren't all participating in the harvest at the family farm anymore, which is why summer breaks were originally instituted.

But I am troubled by the police oversight you mention, and wonder how that plays out in fact. The family farms I referred to certainly didn't require oversight by officials. But the Uzbekistan one does.

I'd unpack that a little more, were I you.

Because it whiffs to me similarly to the time I had an very nice overfed American couple explain to me how proud everyone in Bhutan was of their traditional clothing...and how by law they had to wear it.

So that raises some flags.

Because if everyone is proud and happy to do something, then why legislate it? Why not simply go with social enforcement if that's even needed, because if everyone wants to do something, there's no need to make a law that says everyone has to do it.

There's a difference between children working in their parent's fields in the summer, and institutionalized child labor. When the state gets involved and uses police to oversee field work, it's a different and more troubling matter.

[kementari2.livejournal.com]

Good points.

[thomascott.livejournal.com]

Kudos, Momus.
One of your most commendable posts of this year, the imposition of First World ethics on Third World countries - be it by means of child labour regulation or by the attempted enforcing of environmentalist orthodoxy are both repugnant and anti-humanist.

[kevisannasdad.livejournal.com]

You present a nice case for the complexities of economy, moral judgment and reform. I was curious about what power you think a consumer should flex. If I only buy the best value for my money, should I really just hope that the powers in the market will make sure everything is done to my liking? Because, really, I don't think that will help me sleep at night or find potable water in an industrial/agricultural zone.

[microworlds.livejournal.com]

Yes, but how does that make you feel?

Free Trade Momus

[(Anonymous)]

Finally Momus crosses over the social to the economic side of libertarianism.

[(Anonymous)]

Is there any behaviour which you would condemn in the West for which you would also condemn a non-Western nation?

some thoughts

[hulegu.livejournal.com]

A stimulating post and some good comments. I think it’s worth adding a bit of extra color.

1) President Karimov is a former communist apparatchik who has reinvented himself as a nationalist figurehead. He was installed by Gorbachev as party boss of the Uzbek SSR in the 1980s because he was regarded as being untainted by association with the late Sharaf Rashidov, who ruled the Uzbek SSR as a petty fiefdom between 1959 and 1983 and who was a massive crook, overseeing the so-called ‘cotton scam’ in which the Uzbeks fiddled the figures to produce ‘record’ cotton harvests – which only existed on paper – and then pocketed Soviet roubles. Andropov was fairly ruthless in dealing with the corruption when he found out about it and Rashidov was forced to retire, eventually dying of a heart attack. Others were either executed or imprisoned. Rashidov has subsequently been rehabilitated and is regarded as a proto-nationalist or anti-colonial leader.

2) Momus writes:

‘The interesting thing is that Western media reports are quick to use the phrase "Soviet-style" to condemn the present, highly-centralized Uzbeki state. But in fact during the Soviet period there was much greater mechanization of agriculture, and therefore much less dependence on child labour. What you're describing as a possible future for Uzbekistan is actually their "Soviet-style" past.’

The ‘Soviet-style’ past – with regard to cotton harvesting – is preferable to the present, I would have thought. The collapse of the USSR starved the regions of investment in infrastructure, hence the return to manual – i.e. child – labour. It’s not a trend many Uzbeks (if any) welcome (as the Uzbek girl Alanna ove notes) – I’ve spoken to several who are appalled by it and even more appalled that it is clothed in the apparel of ‘tradition’ or ‘culture’. Yes, there is a tradition in which mahallas pitch in with communal duties, but it’s primarily for their own benefit – not the state’s. As Content Love Knowles (above) remarks: ’There's a difference between children working in their parent's fields in the summer, and institutionalized child labor. When the state gets involved and uses police to oversee field work, it's a different and more troubling matter. ‘ There are many aspects of Uzbek culture worth celebrating – the sufi orders, the music, the food, the clothing – but forced child labour (in fact a new ‘tradition’) is not one of them.

3) Uzbekistan is indeed highly-centralized and ‘Soviet-style’: the last presidential election was a sham – as indeed have all the presidential elections – freedom of political organization is not tolerated and independent media is non-existent. 99% of defendants are found guilty, and anyone demonstrating above-average levels of Islamic devotion is likely to be branded ‘Wahhabi’ or ‘terrorist’. But that’s not really anything to do with cotton production …

(tbc)

Re: some thoughts

[hulegu.livejournal.com]

(cont'd)

4) Momus:

’ Uzbek children aren't taken out of school to harvest cotton -- the schools are closed for the two month cotton season and the children are set to work alongside their teachers (and even doctors and nurses) getting the harvest picked. It's a collective national effort supervised by the police, an obligation.’

The children and teachers are set quotas and unless they meet them they are not allowed back into the classroom – so harvest season may last a bit longer than two months. Students who otherwise refuse can be kicked out of school or not receive their degree; likewise teachers who obstruct the process are fired. It’s also not a collective national effort – rich students can buy exemptions and lots of universities and schools, especially in the capital Tashkent, aren’t affected. The government also shuts down local markets in order to ‘encourage’ people to take part in the harvest. Such government interference was one of the manifold causes of the Andijon massacre in May 2005.

5) Momus:

’Those "corrupt bureaucrats" are presumably spending their money at some point. No matter how much they hoarde, some will be going into the improvement of Uzbeki infrastructure. Something is improving Uzbek health, and it sure as hell isn't the air.’

You don’t need to put corrupt bureaucrats in inverted commas. Uzbeks will tell you many bureaucrats are brazen in their efforts to grab a little something for themselves. As to the ins and outs of Uzbek government spending plans, it’s a little oblique as the state budget is a state secret. The figures are rarely presented as a sector-by-sector breakdown (social security, defence, health, education etc).

Figures for life expectancy can be misleading – rates of cancer are rocketing and life expectancy plummeting in the Karakalpak Autonomous Republic in the west of the country due to the dessication of the Aral Sea and the releasing into the air of all the fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides etc that accumulated there during decades of intensive cotton farming. That the Amu-Darya now barely reaches the Aral Sea can be blamed on the complex network of irrigation canals that enabled cotton to be grown in what in many places is essentially a desert. One upside though – the use of chemical fertilizers and such has decreased dramatically because farmers can’t afford them.

6) McGazz:

’But they do have a lot of natural gas, so we shouldn't rock the boat by bringing this up (at least, that's the British Government's position).’<.i>

They do indeed have lots of natural gas – and almost none of it goes to the West. The pipeline map clearly indicate this – as do the deals (early this year Gazprom agreed to pay Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan the European market rate for gas – effectively pricing-out Ukraine, with whom Russia has a troubled relationship). Russia has more influence and real economic power in Central Asia (for obvious historic reasons) than any Western government – and that was true even when the US had an airbase there. The West did once have a very dodgy relationship with the Uzbek regime – as detailed by Craig Murray’s colorful memoir – but times have changed. However, I am aware that in Leftist anti-war circles it is unfashionable to critique Russia simply because it is perceived as being opposed to Western ‘imperialism’ and cultural hegemony.

However, the fundamental point is sound – are sanctions and boycotts really that effective in dealing with regimes that employ distasteful methods and have disagreeable policies – which is almost certainly the case with Uzbekistan? The point is, the elite controls every aspect of cotton production and its sale; market economics barely factor. Farmers – and this is as true of some parts of the free-market world as it is of statist, centralized economies such as Uzbekistan’s – get a very poor price for their product at the farm-gate. Additionally, they are obliged to sell to the government.

(tbc)

[cap-scaleman.livejournal.com]

Lets not forget the pesticides. They are dangerous even to humans.

[kementari2.livejournal.com]

As I was reading this article, I became increasingly surprised to hear such a perspective from you, and even suspected for a while that it was a joke post. Nevertheless, I pretty much agree with it all, especially when tempered by some commentary. Keepin' us on our toes, Momus.

[lana-sv.livejournal.com]

hahaha
my childhood