The title of my previous post, Our Other Perennial Theme, has several layers of meaning. In my fatalism, I consider it perennial not just because I also covered it last year, but because we are likely to continue to cover the issue. That’s what “authoritarian government” means. In other words, if Karimov was the type to be swayed by public opinion, he wouldn’t be where he is today. He may be swayed by economic opinions, but that’s a tougher row to hoe. Unlike poverty or blindness, this is not an unstoppable part of the human condition – a person should be able to imagine a future without Uzbek children picking cotton. Then again, that is something much easier for Americans to visualize than for Uzbeks, in my opinion.
In any event, there is a rally planned for October 14th, and if you’re in the area, I think it would behoove you all to go and see what happens. Here is the scoop, from the AFL-CIO blog –
Earlier this month, the U.S. Labor Department included cotton from Uzbekistan on a list of goods produced by forced and child labor. Each year during the three-month harvest, Uzbek authorities shut down hundreds of schools, hospitals and public offices. Along with the children, thousands of teachers, doctors and public administrators are forced into the fields.
The International Labor Rights Forum (ILRF) has joined with AFT and a broad range of organizations in the United States and Central Asia to call for an end to forced child labor in Uzbekistan. You can act today to stop this shameful practice by signing a petition here.
All supporters who sign the petition by Oct. 2 will have their names put on a special cotton quilt that will be unveiled at a rally in front of the Uzbek embassy in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 14. To get more involved in this action, e-mail volunteer@ilrf.org.
As a child of Flint, Michigan, I have a pretty personal relationship with labor unions, probably as close as one can be without being an active member. The same people that brought you and I the weekend are trying to muster some political muscle and stop child labor in Uzbekistan. It is a noble goal, though I again assume that it isn’t 100% altruism at work. Their own story again states that children from 6 to 15, and only children from 6 to 15, are responsible for the Uzbek cotton harvest. You might think this is splitting hairs, but that’s just not true. But I admit this is an academic point for those most incensed about this issue. It remains that anyone working in Uzbekistan under the age of 16 is now doing so illegally.
The US Department of Labor put out a list of child labor exploiters, and Kohl’s has followed the lead of other US retailers in ending its contracts with Uzbekistan, as reported on Fergana.ru.
Following in the steps of other retailers and clothes-makers throughout Europe and the United States, Kohl’s voided its Uzbek contracts earlier this month. This company owns more than 1,000 stores in 49 states. It is known as one of America’s 500 largest businesses and one of 30 top sellers of accoutrements.
Allow me to make one point in here, relevant to issue as a whole. Much has been said about Uzbekistan’s ginormous cotton crop, being either number 2, or number 3, or number 6 in the world. Let’s take a moment to do a brain exercise, and then really look at the numbers. First off, how does Uzbekistan harvest its cotton? By employing an army of young people to hand pick the cotton, put it in bags, and then process it back at the collective farm cotton gin. How does the United States harvest cotton? With all-in-one harvesters that drive over cotton fields and leave processed cotton modules in their wake. How will this effect productivity? So, Uzbekistan is definitely not competing with the United States [number later], but what about exporting, not production? Is that really something to be proud of? It implies you are producing more than you need – but don’t Uzbek people wear cotton clothing, also? Why not build more textile factories, and buy their own cotton cheaply, and then sell clothing on the world market, or at least for themselves? The economics make very little sense, and the environmental and health costs are staggering, to say the least.
So, the numbers:
According to the National Cotton Council, the top producers of Cotton are: China [25.3 million bales], India [20.5 million bales], the US [19.2 million bales], Pakistan [11.7 million bales] Brazil [7.2 million bales], Uzbekistan [5.5 million bales], and Turkey [3.2 million bales]. Thus, Uzbekistan is not really in the running for effective and monumental production of cotton, making slightly more than Turkey, and only one fifth of the top producer, one quarter of number two.
To make things more complicated, the leading cotton exporters in the world are actually the US and India, ahead of Uzbekistan, according again to the National Cotton Council. So, if the US is exporting cotton, Uzbekistan is in direct competition with them, and this is one more way for the US Government to protect US cotton farmers. Call me a fatalist or a cynic, but as someone that has spent some time with Uzbeks in Uzbekistan, dated an ex-cotton picker, has written at length about the deplorable aspects of Karimov and company, I’m not trying to defend anything in Uzbekistan. I’m merely explaining why things haven’t changed up to this point, in my opinion.
This post was written by...
Michael Hancock-Parmer – author of 159 posts on Registan.net.
Michael earned an MA in Central Eurasian Studies in 2011 and remains a student at Indiana University pursuing a dual PhD in Russian History and Central Eurasian Studies. He served 6 months in the Peace Corps in Uzbekistan in 2005. After the events in Andijan and the subsequent closure of the program, he served 2 years in southern Kazakhstan, returning to the Midwest in 2007. His general area of interest is on post-Timur Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, centered on the Syr Darya river valley.
For information on reproducing this article, see our Terms of Use
{ 14 comments }
“Uzbekistan is not really in the running for effective and monumental production of cotton”
Effetive, no. Monumental, yes.
Uzbekistan produces an enormous amount of cotton–sure it’s only 1/5 of China, but I can’t help but notice that all the countries above it on the list are enormous in terms of size (except for Pakistan) and have huge populations. Uzbekistan’s population 27 million–the next country above it, Pakistan, has a population of 172 million. I need not mention the populations of the others on the list.
Let’s also not forget the relative importance of cotton in Uzbekistan, where the economy isn’t exactly thriving.
Alex, good point, but I think the point I wanted to make is that the cotton produced in Uzbekistan is a shadow of what COULD be produced, so its a sign of the waste and mismanagement of the land. As in, without the over-use of pesticide, without constantly depleting the soils and using the same fields, by using better irrigation techniques, by using modern machinery… they would probably be number one in all of the terms. So, I meant, it isn’t as monumental as one would expect, considering the numbers of people involved in its production.
The cotton produced by child/slave labour is a proceed of crime, the third most prevalent crime world wide. Countries world wide that import and sell such proceeds of crime are collecting taxes from the sale of such, which makes said governments in possession of the “proceeds of crime.” Having said that, and understanding that the exploitation of persons basic fundamental human rights for financial gain is a heinous crime against humanity, how might what we are pleased to call the “civilised world” explain this blatent disreguard of human life for the sake of what is being disguised as “Globalisation.” ???
Indeed, the weed of crime bears bitter fruit! Crime does not pay! Who knows what evil LURKS in the hearts of men? The SHADOW knows! Mwah ha ha ha ha ha!
Seriously, though, I’m not sure what your argument is Frank. Are you suggesting that to stop the evils of Globalization, the world’s governments should control what their “free markets” import and export? How will more control create more freedom?
I think the “civilized world” explains this blatant disregard for human life for the sake of what is being disguised as “Globalization” by accepting the fact that greed and the exploitation of cheap labor is an underlying characteristic of capitalism.
Acknowledging its crimes as they are brought to light by the free press is how I expect the various practitioners of the free market to act.
Seriously, though, what is the world’s third most prevalent crime? Cotton produced by child/slave labor? Making money by exploiting the young and helpless? My apologies for over-responding to your bizarre comment.
To: Michael Hancock
It is not an argument, it is an observation. Exploiting child/slave labour is no different than human trafficking, or child pornography. Making apologies for ignorance is perhaps why the exploitation of children is justified, world wide, and, perhaps explains the obtuse nature of your response. Unless of course, you are just a child yourself, on the computer late at nite while your Mommy & Daddy our out getting drunk and high with the neighbours???
Seriously, though, are you sincerely responding to my comment, or were you sexually abused by your Daddy????
Frank, you sound like a dork. I do not know what exactly you mean when you say “child/slave labor”, but it looks like you put all the eggs in one basket. You never worked when you were, let’s say 14 or 15 years old? You never wanted to be, or at least, feel financially independent from your parents, or get away from them for one month even if it means some cotton picking? You probably never worked when you were a teenager away from your parents and you do not know, what a joy is given by physical work. What about those “red-neck” kids who work in their family farms? Are they also slaves? I pity people like you, I pity modern kids who only live on allowances from their parents and do not know where milk, bread, and meat come from. What kind of future do they have?
I have a lot of disagreements with Michael, but on this one I am with him. Moreover, I am glad that he could see by himself that those practices of using student labor, common for most of the former soviet countries, are not that degrading and cruel to kids as some couch potatoes might imagine. It doesn’t make much sense from economic point of view (that is why most of these countries do not use child or student labor for agricultural work any more) because these kids are not paid, but it can not be comparable with human trafficking or child pornography, more so with compulsory military service.
Michael, do you know what is the position of the World Bank, ADB, EBRD and others on this whole cotton thing? Do they say anything to the Uzbek government? You know, that the monoculture is bad in every sense and Uzbekistan should move away from it?
I hope those who are campaigning against FCL in Uzbekistan know that they are in it for long haul. Due to a simple reason.
I think most people will not contest the following assertions. Please bear with me and don’t take the “you”s personally.
i) Not everyone who had an unhappy childhood grows up to be a terrible person. But almost every terrible person had an unhappy childhood.
ii) One shortcut to misery is when your parents die on you and leave you an orphan. Barring the off chance that you meet some caring adults, you almost certainly grow up neadekvatny and with komplexy, as Russians put it.
iii) The next notch up on the misery index is if your living parents give you up for orphanage. That’s one nasty jolt to start your life with. The shock will inform your worldview and you probably grow up a paranoid and ruthless person.
Now, Karimov was given up by his parents twice. Read his bio at Lenta dot ru. Good luck trying to reason with the man.
The only hope is that when he succumbs to old age, a more rational leader materializes. Being more rational, he may be able to think at least medium term and heed the advice you have dispensed. I just hope that future Gorbachev of Uzbekistan reads your blog in the meantime. Now, to dampen the excitement around here, I must say succession in Turkmenistan has not been very inspiring and a similar change of leadership may happen in Uzbekistan.
P.S. Mchael, you are funny. On a less serious note, I’m afraid you are again trying to obfuscate the truth. “Dated an ex-cotton picker?” Cotton picker is not a race, ethnicity or profession. It’s part of the Uzbekistani national identity. Every Uzbekistani you’ll ever meet will be an ex-cotton picker. And will be able to tell you what the pesticides smell like. So, just say you dated an Uzbek girl.
Michael writes: ‘The economics make very little sense, and the environmental and health costs are staggering, to say the least.’ If you are benefiting from the cotton industry in Uzbekistan, the economics make perfect sense. You pay almost nothing to the pickers, and sell it for hard currency abroad. What’s uneconomic about that? Building factories to make clothes is difficult, and requires skills that these ‘businessmen’ don’t have. And nobody involved in this business cares about the environmental or health costs. Every post you do on this, you claim not to be defending the Uzbek government. So why do I finish every post you write feeling as though you have done exactly that?
David, sorry if I am reading you wrong, or if I am unclear in my position. Naturally, the current situation is VERY economical [ie good for business] for the Uzbek government. However, it’s on the road to some epic fail if they don’t change their tune, as the glaciers in the Pamirs and Tien Shan are melting, the disappearance of the Aral Sea is causing drier seasons, and the thin amount of water they have will continue to support less and less over fertilized, pesticide laced cotton. So, in the Global sense of the word economic [ie good for sustainable development] the current situation isn’t economical for anyone. In that argument, child labor is a parenthetical concern, as it won’t matter who is picking the non-existent cotton in another generation if/when the desertification of Uzbekistan ramps up.
Whether you lay that entirely at Karimov’s feet, or suggest that he merely stood on the shoulders of the environment-a$$-pounding giants of the Soviet Union, маған бәрi бiр. It’s all the same to me.
Michael, This is regarding your latest comment above. hope you welcome constructive criticism.
You said you try to spin the child labor story to make it interesting, controversial-sounding. And then you have to defend yourself against [appropriate] accusations of [vaguely] defending Karimov. In a sense you are risking your reputation.
Why not do tings differently? All this time you knew of two topics that are interesting and controversially-sounding. And they won’t bring those accusations. Why not write on those two topics?
The topics are.
i) Fighting forced child labor is not important. Stopping the growing of cotton is. Uzbekistan is turning into a Sahara.
ii) How much is Karimov to blame for Uzbekistan turning into a Sahara?
As a side note, I just saw a news report and sat photos of the Aral in 2001 and 2008. The images induce cringe. The Aral continues to shrink. Why? AFAIK, Uzbekistan didn’t increase planting cotton so why is there less water in the Aral?
I haven’t visited the Aral, but the reason it keeps shrinking is that, as far as I know, there is no inflow to the southern Aral’s eastern half, so it will continue to shrink until it disappears. The western half is fed at least partially by groundwater, and it is deeper, so less of the volume is subject to evaporation. So, since the Kazakhstani government built the dam disconnecting the Syr Darya’s flow from the southern half, the southern Aral is more or less doomed. More or less cotton at this point will mean nothing, at least until the Amu Dayra again reaches the remaining basin of the Aral, to make a generalization.
I support Michael in general. He is not for child labor, he is challenging/ debating whether or not it is correctly being applied to the case of Uzbekistan by a party who really deserves it.
American democracy is built on forced labor of African slaves and Irish exiles. European democracy is built upon the asymmetrical dividends of colonialism. So, please, leave Uzbekistan alone, you need that pair of socks anyway, after all!!!
Ahad, are the proceeds from your Bangladeshi socks made with Uzbek cotton building democracy in Uzbekistan? If so, I missed that part. You might want to sacrifice those children in order to achieve that greater good, setting aside any question of their rights or well-being, fine (not fine, really, but for the sake of argument). Where do the proceeds go, though? Can you honestly say they’re contributing to the development of the country?
As to whether Uzbekistan “deserves” the label of child exploiter, the ILO has received official complaints from international trade unions asking them to rule that Uzbekistan is in violation of its Convention 138 and 182 obligations. The US Department of Labor has judged Uzbek cotton to be a product of forced child labor, and every time the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child reviews Uzbekistan, it asks about the forced labor of children. So that question seems fairly settled.
Cassandra,
I picked cotton myself and I did not like it much. But I would be careful to equate it with child exploitation examples of the past in capitalist states and slavery democracies.
I wrote exactly how to handle the issue here: http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/09/26/uzbek-cotton-09/#comment-382793
The pressure from some Western groups with an appeal to some moral norms would not lead to desired results. I understand that moral absolutism is a very convenient position to argue from. But for it to be effective examples must be set first. You mentioned the U.S. Dept of State and the UN. First, the US and Uzbekistan are two different countries and what the US government says should not, in principle, concern the UZB government at all. Secondly, the US has not been an awfully great trend-setter in complying with international treaties and agreements either. Kyoto Protocol, NAFTA, Geneva Convention are some of the examples for how the US ignores such norm-driven treaties when it conflicts its own strategic interests.
You understanding of ‘development’ can be very different one from mine, but economic interest is pretty universal notion. From that perspective, it is hard to deny the importance of cotton for Uzbek economy. In that sense, attempting to boycott Uzbek cotton is fundamentally going against the strategic interests of Uzbekistan.
Before demonizing other states and societies, we must stop and think for a moment about whether it is the best way to handle the situation, aren’t there better approaches to solve the problem, could it be worse, etc. Having some kind of nihilistic attitude towards everything in countries like Uzbekistan can do more harm than good no matter however humane and benign ideas we try to uphold.
When did boycotts work last time? Why don’t we think about other, better ways to solve the problem: transfer of technology, giving best practices, investment in infrastructure development, facilitating agricultural modernization, strengthening property rights, diversification of economy, etc?