It’s a rare day when labor unions, corporations, NGOs and governments agree on something. When they do, it means the general public agrees with them. Simply because they are representative of the general public. AFL-CIO, WalMart, HRW and the State Dept have all come out against the forced child labor in Uzbekistan.

Enver, your assertion that kids “conceive it as vacation” is amusing. How do you know what Uzbek children think? Nobody knows what the adults or children in Uzbekistan think. There is no free press and polls are not allowed there. As a counterargument, I can point to the BBC Newsnight report where an Uzbek girl says she’d rather be in school than picking cotton. It’s 2:35 minutes into this video: youtube dot come/watch?v=rczHwW9ie

@Josh and others who draw analogies with the life of kids elsewhere. As Alisher emphasized above the operative word is FORCED. Every Autumn the government forces schools, colleges and, in fact, all other establishments, even stores and markets, closed and adults and children are sent to pick cotton, withe the pay barely covering the cost of meals. Does that happen in the US or Bangladesh? No. The only other place where the government forces the population en masse is North Korea. This similarity between the PDRK and Uzbekistan shouldn’t be surprising. The Uzbek government is made up of members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Uzbek SSR. They have had the same training and education as members of the Workers’ Party of Korea. Hence the same managerial style. And both promise great future and tirelessly admonish people to work towards the great future. Both call for vigilance for the outside world is hostile and the Motherland is teeming with enemies from within.

You may find yourself less confused about the impact of cotton on health, environment and economy if you read some of the reports that the above mentioned organizations offer. While at it, check out a recent Ferghana report that cites Uzbek health experts on the nature and effect of the pesticides used.

@Paul and Enver: Just to finish up our increasingly off-topic discussion of US cotton subsidies’ effect on Karimov’s wallet. How would the removal of the subsidies affect Karimov’s wallet given the basic facts? The US is word’s third largest cotton exporter. The cost structure of US cotton farming is thusly. In 1991-2003, the average revenue was $.078/lb, the average total costs were $0.78/lb and the average subsidy was $0.21/lb. The world without those subsidies will mean higher world cotton prices. Which is good because African farmers would see more dough. And bad because Karimov, too, will have more dough. But no doubt you guys will come up with some nonsensical arguments because your sole purpose is to divert the discussion from what Alisher termed FCL and the damage it has caused.

I’m sure you guys are alerting the news media to the planned protest? Both VOA and RFERL would likely cover the event. Of the big TV networks, Al Jazeera English might be interested. Robert Kaplan of the Atlantic says AJE covers stories that CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS would consider too obscure or insignificant. All three have their regional HQ literally a few blocks away from the scene of the planned protest.

And in this era of citizen journalism, we hope to see the protest on Youtube very soon.

I also think a display at the protest of bilboard-size photos of forced child labor in Uzbekistan would be very effective. Images can be very powerful. Photographers like Thomas Grabka would certainly be happy to let you use their work. And your neighborhood Kinko’s might do the printing pro bono.

Sorry, I don’t mean to sound like a smart alecky armchair protester. Just thinking out loud how to maximize the public effect.
Good luck!

Some points to think about – child labor is condemned mostly for the reasons of 1) exploitation of children, 2) children miss education; and 3) negative health effects.
In case of Uzbek children all these 3 arguments are questionable. Most children do not mind picking cotton, as they conceive it as vacation and opportunity to earn income (they are paid and provided with food, which is really important for poor).
Children study at schools and receive not that bad education (literacy rate in Uzbekistan is comparable to that in US). Negative health effects need to be proved by more scientific evidence. Pesticides mostly affect human health when consumed products (water) containing them or through inhalation (the risk present for those spreading pesticides – children do not do that).
Last point, I would agree that child labor will exist irrespectively from government policies in Uzbekistan as long as poverty is widespread and families find it more profitable to send their children to work than to school.
So, I would agree with the idea of the article that there is a big misrepresentation about child labor in Uzbekistan in US and western media.

In terms of child agricultural labor, it was not uncommon for junior high and high school students in my state to be bussed to neighboring corn states to de-tassle seed corn fields for large multi-national seed companies…

And you did say that the kids might be relishing the chance to have some “freedom,” after all.

Maybe making friends is too great an ambition, but defining common ground might be a place to start. It sounds like you might accept that the boycott could be a way to get the GOUz to move away from forced child labor (whatever normative coloration you’d like to give it), and maybe even decrease mandatory cotton planting and give farmers a little latitude…and that this would be a good thing. I agree. But it’s hard to take that away from your piece when you conclude that it may be a big Western plot against Uzbekistan.

How can you suggest I wouldn’t come back to Registan? Khudoga shukur, I’ll be here often!

I worked in the fields in the hot sun, and anyway, these aren’t child prostitutes/organ suppliers/coal miners, so it’s not that bad” argument.

Who are you quoting here? Did you actually read the post, or are you just blinded by your own goals and responding to some of the more strident comments to the post?

Would you like to see this continue so that Karimov and friends can continue skimming the massive profits they realize each year on Uzbekistan’s 1 bln in cotton sales? I wouldn’t.

No shit, Sherlock. No one wants this to continue.

I signed your petition, as I think many of Registan’s readers would do if they were aware of it. I don’t know if you’ll come back to see this response, or if you’re one of the comment bombing trolls that soars across the net. You have good intentions and a strong cause, but you’re not making any friends in my house.

Your suggestion that this labor is semi-voluntary is most disturbing. There certainly are a few kids whose parents have them out of school anyway to supplement family wages. But there is plenty of documentation that children (and their teachers, by the way) are only out in the fields because their schools (mahalla committees, local police and prosecutors) threaten them with some pretty bad consequences if they don’t. See the reports on http://www.laborrights.org/ if you doubt it.

It’s hard to know what to say to the “I worked in the fields in the hot sun, and anyway, these aren’t child prostitutes/organ suppliers/coal miners, so it’s not that bad” argument. We know at least 7 kids died in accidents last year, and more from hepatitis and other illnesses they got in the fields. The rest “just” got gastritis/hungry/exhausted and missed a few months of school (to add to the time they miss in the spring weeding, etc.) Would you like to see this continue so that Karimov and friends can continue skimming the massive profits they realize each year on Uzbekistan’s 1 bln in cotton sales? I wouldn’t.

Your analysis isn’t intuitive at all, not that being ‘intuitive’ is any indicator of accuracy. You write:
If you remove the cotton subsidies, there will more child labor in the world, not less because it’ll be more profitable to grow cotton in places like Uzbekistan. Subsidies suppress the price making the business less profitable for the non-subsidized. Kind of intuitive, isn’t it? You pay the farmer to grow more of the stuff. More of the stuff on the market means lower prices. As far as the cotton goes, Oxfam estimates that if all subsidies are removed, the world price for cotton would go up 10-12 percent.

You’re making a lot of leaps there. I’ll only point out some. Subsidies might make it harder for the non-subsidized to make a profit, but they also, by definition, make it easier for the subsidized to make a profit. To make your point you’d have to provide evidence that if the subsidies were ended not only would all the subsidized growers keep producing but also that the non-subsidized would enter the market. Oxfam’s estimates aren’t anymore warranted than your assertions, for they assume that if the subsidies were removed that the non-subsidized current non-growers wouldn’t then enter the market. If they did, and there’s no reason to think they wouldn’t since their competitors would no longer have the advantage of subsidies, then the price would fall again to the market level. Of course I’m not predicting what the market price would be – but I don’t give much credence to Oxfam’s estimate either.