Comments on: Cotton Boycotts 2009

By: Ahad Abdurahmon

Ahad Abdurahmon — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:47:29 +0000

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?

By: Cassandra

Cassandra — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:32:49 +0000

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.

By: Ahad Abdurahmon

Ahad Abdurahmon — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 02:19:53 +0000

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!!!

By: Michael Hancock

Michael Hancock — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:51:42 +0000

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.

By: Ihor

Ihor — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 20:41:52 +0000

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?

By: Michael Hancock

Michael Hancock — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 02:17:00 +0000

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.

By: David

David — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 01:09:46 +0000

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?

By: Ihor

Ihor — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 00:18:52 +0000

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.

By: oldschool boy

oldschool boy — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 07:55:31 +0000

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.

By: Frank Docherty

Frank Docherty — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 07:01:36 +0000

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????