Cotton Harvest 2008
In about 10 days, Tashkent, capital of Uzbekistan, will play host once again to the 4th International Uzbek Cotton Fair. Featuring round table discussions and a series of presentations on the world cotton market, the Cotton Fair is Uzbekistan’s attempt to put the brightest face possible on its Cotton Exports. According to the official literature, the Fair is seen as the “basis for the mutually beneficial cooperation between the participants of the world cotton and textile industry.” In other words, a chance for the buyers of cotton to descend on Tashkent and be feted by a government enriched by “white gold.” I’m curious as to whether certain news items in the cotton industry will come up.
And hopefully for Uzbekistan’s dwindling tourist trade, they’ll go see the sights. I recommend Samarkand - I can imagine the old city’s poplar trees yellowing in Autumn very beautifully. There are certain areas that rise enough for you to be able to see the domes rising above the dusty streets, and I think the yellow leaves of the poplars would really set off the blues of the Timurid domes. Sorry to wax poetic - but I really do miss Uzbekistan!
Wal-Mart’s decision to ban Uzbekistan’s cotton until the child-labor issue is dealt with might just start to make us dumb Americans look good again. As recent as January of this year, the US-based International Cotton Advisory Committee
called the allegations by Uzbek activists “exaggerated” and “absurd.” The ICAC’s statement came after the Uzbek activists issued an initial appeal on November 16 to boycott Uzbek cotton. ICAC Executive Director Terry Townsend has ruled out what he called “factual errors” on the use of defoliants and pesticides in cotton fields that activists claim Uzbek children are inhaling, as well as information on the level of pay for child workers and other issues. Writing on November 30, he concluded that a boycott of Uzbek cotton in international markets would be “highly impractical.”
Impractical or not, Wal-Mart is making it a reality for US markets. While I doubt Wal-Mart makes up a significant percentage of Uzbekistan’s cotton customers, every Western business that distances itself from Uzbekistan is another brick in the wall. The goal here is not astronomical - pay adult cotton workers a living wage, and leave the children, teachers, and college students in schools. I don’t think this is outside the realm of possibility for Uzbekistan.
The child labor issue is one that Uzbekistan’s authoritarian regime can resolve. While diversifying the cotton monoculture, developing sustainable water management, and allowing open political opposition and a free press might be nothing more than wishful thinking, stopping the shameless exploitation of rural children is well within the means of Islom Karimov and his cadre in Tashkent.
Stumble it! |
Tags: Uzbekistan, Human Rights, Cotton.
Posted by Michael Hancock on October 5th, 2008
Permalink | Trackback | Comments: 24
Comments
Time: 10/5/2008, 8:10 pm
You seem pretty ignorant of the world cotton industry.
This is simply a victory for U.S. cotton farmers– some of the most heavily subsidized farmers in the world. Uzbekistan can’t afford to increase the costs of its cotton production because the U.S. depresses the world price of cotton. Through price supports and subsidies, U.S. farmers are guaranteed a price per pound of cotton more than double the world price. Farmers in Uzbekistan, or West Africa, or wherever, cannot compete well with this. U.S. cotton interests have also succeeded in keeping tariffs on foreign cotton, and foreign products made with foreign cotton, to further depress demand for cotton from Uzbekistan.
This is why you see the lack of development, mechanization, and competition in Uzbekistan that would drive wages up and reduce child labor practices.
Wal Mart’s decision is purely political and, in the long run, will not help Uzbek children.
I recommend reading the book Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy for a look at the cotton trade. (Or simply take Economics 101 at your local community college to understand how supply, demand, and government interventions work).
Time: 10/5/2008, 8:28 pm
Thanks for the heads up. I’ll try not to let the rudeness of your remarks detract from the excellence of your comment.
Time: 10/5/2008, 10:16 pm
Ok, I have to add one thing. I will definitely look up that book you mentioned. And another thing:
You’re not suggesting that it’s somehow the fault of the US government that Uzbekistan is cutting costs by forcing children to harvest cotton, right? Because that’s what it sounds like.
Cotton seems like the only game in town in Uzbekistan, but it’s not even what the average Uzbek wants to be growing. And this is not a new development. Even back in the 30s, when cotton cultivation was a shadow of what it is today, the head of the Bukharan People’s Soviet Republic Faizullah Xojaev was executed in part because of his exclamation, “You can’t eat cotton,” as a reason to curtail the Soviet Union’s increased cultivation.
It would be better if they didn’t grow quite as much as they do, considering the horrible effect it has had on their economy and environment. I may not be a master of economics, but it seems that cotton may not be the best thing to grow in a poorly irrigated desert, and also not the most useful crop in the more fertile valley regions east of Tashkent. Melons, grapes, potatoes, corn - there are plenty to choose from, with the added bonus of being able to be processed (ie EATEN) in country, something that’s not currently possible to do with all the raw cotton in Uzbekistan.
Uzbekistan exports cotton grown on land that could be growing the food they import. Blaming Soviet agrobusiness decisions on US subsidies is ridiculous - it isn’t US Gov’t subsidies that put them in this position.
Time: 10/5/2008, 11:33 pm
JTapp: ‘Uzbekistan can’t afford to increase the costs of its cotton production because the U.S. depresses the world price of cotton. Through price supports and subsidies, U.S. farmers are guaranteed a price per pound of cotton more than double the world price. Farmers in Uzbekistan, or West Africa, or wherever, cannot compete well with this.’
There are, as Michael notes, local political considerations. You’re right that Uzbek farmers get stiffed - unfortunately, it’s not the US but their own government that’s stiffing them. Uzbek farmers HAVE to sell to state-controlled cotton merchants. There is NO free-market of cotton in Uzbekistan. US cotton farmers may be subsidized - but Uzbek cotton farmers (and their workers) are, at best, bonded - at worst, enslaved.
‘This is why you see the lack of development, mechanization, and competition in Uzbekistan that would drive wages up and reduce child labor practices.’
There is a lack of development, mechanization and competition in Uzbekistan because the government won’t allow it. In a previous life, Karimov was an economist for Gosplan, the Soviet economic planning body. He seems not to believe in free-market competition and to regard cotton as a national asset to be controlled by the government.
Time: 10/5/2008, 11:56 pm
Just to clarify about the U.S.-based International Cotton Advisory Committee — though it is indeed headquartered in D.C., it’s not actually under American control.
Instead, ICAC is an international consultative group that was formed in 1939 by 10 cotton-exporting nations; ICAC now has 43 cotton-exporting and -importing nations as its members. It is a forum for governments to talk to each other about cotton issues.
So, Terry Townsend’s views on child labor in Uzbekistan aren’t American views. They’re the views of the director of an international organisation of which Uzbekistan is a member nation. And as long as Uzbekistan is a member, I wouldn’t expect ICAC to take a leading role in the anti-Uzbek-cotton movement.
All that said, I surely would be glad to see the end of rampant child labor in central asian cotton fields. Even if Wal-Mart’s participation in this boycott is simply part of its Buy American campaign.
Time: 10/5/2008, 11:59 pm
Thanks for the info Amanda - I suspected something along those lines!
Time: 10/6/2008, 7:43 am
JTapp, your point about US protectionism is right on, but why on earth does Wal-Mart care about supporting US cotton farmers? Their decision to stop using Uzbek cotton may be a victory for coddled US cotton farmers, but that is a group whose interests are in fact diametrically opposed to those of Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart in fact took this step for the same reason that so many other retailers have. Finally the fact that Uzbekistan’s cotton fields are one big gulag for children is getting some international attention. And retailers don’t want to be associated with that, particularly if their target customers are those who don’t want to buy the products of slave labour: urban leftie hipsters (like many of the UK retailers who have stopped buying Uzbek cotton) or else the good and God-fearing people of America, i.e. Wal-Mart’s customer base.
With regard to Terry Townsend, I can assure you that it is not part of his job description to tell lies in a lame effort (which was always going to fail) to discredit those people who are risking their personal well-being to report the now undisputed facts about forced child labour in Uzbekistan. It is called the ICAC not the Uzbekistan CAC, and I must wonder about what motivations or interests drove him to such an extreme and false position. He should be ashamed of himself.
I fully support what’s in the posting, and also the comment from Nick. It is completely irrelevant to me what Walmart’s motives are, it has the effect of
Time: 10/6/2008, 10:41 am
I know many people (including my wife) who have been forced to work in the cotton fields in Uzbekistan during the school year (all the way through college in many cases), so let me say this with care:
Michael writes that stopping this exploitation is “well within the means of Islom Karimov and his cadre in Tashkent.” Well, yes, but one must consider what that would look like.
Under the current way of thinking in Tashkent, it certainly wouldn’t involve anything that might cut into their bottom line! Rather, it would likely take the form of forcing the underpaid/over-exploited farmers to pay more money to conscripted adults forced into the cotton fields and away from other pursuits. The suffering for Uzbekistan’s rural people would likely get worse, not better.
Concerning the Wal-Mart thing: As one who is familiar with the machinations of this corporation, I would agree with those who contend that this decision was not made with any particular concern in mind for either the American cotton grower or the Uzbek child laborer. This is a decision about image and publicity.
Time: 10/6/2008, 11:50 am
I’ve no doubt that the Uzbek gov’t probably regulates cotton badly and that reform would help the situation considerably– it’s like that with every other quasi-state-owned industry. What I took issue with was the statement: “Pay adult cotton workers a living wage, and leave the children, teachers, and college students in schools. I don’t think this is outside the realm of possibility for Uzbekistan.” The “living wage” (and you could debate what that might be) would drive up the costs of production and put many producers out of business. This would exacerbate the poverty problem.
It would also likely lead to more child labor as producers would be more discriminate about who they would hire. If children/women are more productive in this kind of work, they’ll be the ones hired more often if the employers have to pay everyone a higher wage.
Wal-Mart might not be siding with U.S. cotton’s vested interests here. But I think their decision is most likely to avoid a PR problem. Or it could be that when you consider the tariff regime in place the cost savings from importing Uzbek cotton isn’t much anyway. My guess is they still use Uzbek cotton in their factories abroad when it’s cost-advantageous. Wal Mart’s other statements and actions are very free-market, so it raises a red flag when they suddenly make Uzbek child labor an issue (as opposed to Bangladeshi or Vietnamese child labor, which they don’t make an issue of).
Either way, reduced demand for Uzbek cotton further depresses the price and decreases quantity produced.
In any case, the T-shirt book is a great read on this subject as a whole.
Time: 10/7/2008, 12:36 am
Indeed, what else is economically comparable to cotton for a double-landlocked country and with soaring prices for gas? Water melons and apricots? I don’t think so. I bet you won’t do either.
The child labor is a shame for us Uzbeks too. But we are still exploring best solutions. You, gentlemen, make judgements as if we would be living in a G7 country. We are not. Uzbekistan emerged from the ruined and bancrupted empire and had to invest considerable effort to at least survive as a nation.
Time: 10/7/2008, 6:10 am
Response to JTapp: You began by chiding Michael Hancock for his lack of knowledge of the global cotton industry; now it is our turn to point out that you are completely ignorant about how the cotton industry works in Uzbekistan.
You comment above that paying a “living wage” (i.e. pay adults to pick cotton instead of enslaving students) “would drive up the costs of production and put many producers out of business.”
This statement might make sense in other countries and contexts, but in Uzbekistan it is wrong. The state buys all cotton from all these small producers that use child labour, and it pays the smallest price possible (thus essentially forcing the use of slave labour, while also using the power of the state, via schools and local administrations, to make sure that this labour is available).
Then the state exports the cotton at world prices, for a huge markup. This being Uzbekistan, most of this margin does not actually go to the state; it goes to middleman private companies that are stuck into the chain of purchase and sale; these private companies are beneficially owned by senior government officials and serve no purpose other than to privatize state revenue.
To pay adults a fair wage to pick cotton would simply reduce the level of the rent that is being stolen by the political leadership. It would not affect the international competitiveness of Uzbek cotton one jot.
Dilshod, the point I am making also speaks to your comment. Forced child labour is not helping Uzbekistan “survive as a nation.” It is simply enriching certain people who control the country, by force when necessary. And impoverishing the people.
Time: 10/7/2008, 9:22 am
I for one will commend Wal-Mart for using its world-famous brand name is bringing attention to the plight of exploited child laborers. Everyone loves to pick on Wal-Mart, but as a corporation I find this organization to be far more moral than most world governments.
Time: 10/7/2008, 10:18 am
@Dilshod. I don’t understand why you don’t see viable alternatives to cotton. For starters, wouldn’t a “best solution”, or any solution, primarily have some benefit for the average, rural Uzbek? The cotton industry does not benefit ordinary people in any way. Even the stable jobs it provides in processing mills and farms do not provide wages on a semi-regular basis, let alone living wages.
As hinted my Micheal, wheat is still astronomically priced, that could be grown and harvested at hugely less expense (and water usage) than cotton as it is actually rather suited for the climate.
The fruit your demeaning, fresh or processed, would sure look good to a whole lot of Russians who are only a train shipment away.
My feeling is to simply let farmers grow what they want and let the considerable market talents of those who live in Uzbekistan sort it out. But that would mean de-centralization, which is the real no-no.
@ Bakinets. While I generally agree with your postings I do think we should put some boundaries on the hyperbole. There are gulags in Uzbekistan, I’m for giving those residing in them their due. In my experience picking cotton with Uzbek kids, the industry is undoubtedly shamelessly exploitative, but no gulag.
Thanks for the post Micheal, and Jonathan thanks for your insight as always.
Time: 10/8/2008, 12:20 pm
I do not understand what all this fuss is about. I am guessing very few of the debaters are really familiar with the conditions of child labor or were involved in it (although you might still remember your work in MacDonalds or a city mall as a waiter).
I, as any other kid who grew up in the Former Soviet Union, was involved in child labor. I never picked cotton though. Around Almaty we were de-weeding currant fields or picking srawberies in middle school and in university we were harvesting tomatos, green peppers, apples, potatoes or tobaco. It was called a labor camp. The work would usualy take about a month or less in a year. As kids, unlike adult workers of research or engineering organizations who were also sent to work in agriculture, we actually enjoyed that time, beside physical work it was fun and really bonding with classmates. The physical work was hardenning for body and character (sissies did not go there anyway) plus it was time well spent. Summer holidays were long, and since our parents worked most of it, they did not mind to send their children away under adult supervision for a month or so. It was even more fun if these labor camp works were in expense of classes:). There was nothing like, as you probably imagined from movies about slavery times in America, somebody standing with a whip to oversee the kids. Personally I would rather prefer agricultural work or work in construction that I did one summer when I was 15 to that work as waiters that teenagers in the U.S. or Canada do.
So, as Erik mentioned, it is not GULAG, and even if they decided to switch from cotton to, let’s say, vegetable production, they would still use child labor. The demand in increased labor is only for very short time, no one would keep that many adult workers employed just to use them for one or two months a year. As for unemployed workers who could be used seasonally, as far as I have heard, they prefer to go to work in construction in Russia or Kazakhstan or do something else, since in cotton or any other agricultural business they will be underpaid in comparison to anything else.
Time: 10/8/2008, 4:19 pm
Good discussion so far - I’m glad to such a wide variety of opinions.
@Oldschool Boy: I find your words very disturbing. First off, starting your statement with an attack against us “lazy Americans” isn’t going to win any debate. Your chief argument seems to be that child labor isn’t the Gulag and serves as a kind of mini-vacation for the students while providing a valuable service to the country.
The idea that the “sissies did not go there anyway” gives the illusion that there’s a choice for students. Classes shut down. If you’re not well enough to work, you don’t have to work, but if your teacher and classmates are in the fields, it’s not really a choice. School’s out either way.
I have no doubt that the work was “good for you.” Work makes people strong, and ‘whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.’ That’s all well and good, but the concept of child labor is that it’s labor not by choice. Children are not full citizens, they can’t vote, their lives are not in their own hands. They should be in school. If you want them to have time outdoors, send them to the normal variety of ‘camp,’ the one without the adjectives in front of it.
I don’t think anyone is equating child labor with antebellum slavery except for you, Oldschool Boy. Because you don’t need whips and chains to bind children - they are children. They do what they are told. Which is why it’s such a crime to harness their energy in this way.
Of course the students are happy to miss school. By that reasoning, do you think Turkmenbashi was right to shorten the school career in Turkmenistan to 9 years, university careers to only 2 years? I mean, they hate their classes, right? What possible use could they have when there’s plenty of work to be done in the fields?
As for comparing teenage jobs in the states with those in Uzbekistan & Co. I don’t know where to begin. Working in the service industry is going to be hard to grasp for children from a country without a service industry. Earning your own paycheck, getting taxes taken out, learning how pay periods work and opening your first bank account and managing your checking account… yeah, it won’t put hair on chest or help with your tan, but I can see what it might give you over being forced to pick cotton with your classmates for less than a dollar a day.
Time: 10/8/2008, 6:04 pm
Michael,
I did not want to turn the topic into “hard man against sissies” kind of discussion (neither did I mean that you were a sissy). Everybody chooses for him/herself what to like, rugby or american footbol, but I do not know why you got so upset with me describing my own life experience. Is it only because it does not really agree with your opinion? Experience vs. opinion - intersting, eh? Almost like McCain vs Obama.
Jokes aside, you can not deny that whether it is cotton or fruits and vegetables, they will still use child labor for that.
By the way, do not look down on children in Uzbekistan as if they can not work in service industry, which according to you is totally absent, which is nonsense. Do not worry, these kids learn what it is to earn for living very soon, and it is not just to save for SuperNintendo, but to feed a number of brothers and sisters and sometimes may be their own parents.
Time: 10/8/2008, 6:42 pm
@Oldschool Boy - we’re getting off topic. What does this have to do with cotton or Wal-Mart? You’re purposefully misunderstanding my comments [”do not look down on children in Uzbekistan”] in order to draw out off topic arguments. I don’t think anyone thinks that I “look down on” the children in Uzbekistan. I’m the one that says they shouldn’t be used for child labor, remember?
Time: 10/9/2008, 1:12 pm
Michael,
I am just saying that the ban of Uzbek cotton by Wall-Mart or anybody else will not do any good to Uzbek children.
Time: 10/9/2008, 1:56 pm
Well, I’m hopeful, but there’s definitely no guarantee that increased Western pressure will cause any real changes for the lives of Uzbek children. I think the problem is that we WANT to do something to help, whether or not we’re capable of helping, and whether or not we’re responsible for helping.
Time: 10/14/2008, 3:44 am
You are right Nick farmers and “seasonal slaves” have a no choice but to work for free. I’ve done it and pretty much everyone in Uzbekistan had to do it. They used to say that “Партия и правительство” needed our help in the past. I don’t know what kind of BS Karimov feed people now to justify his actions.
My best regards.
Azjon
Time: 10/14/2008, 9:15 am
What is the deal with Oyun copying and pasting others comments as his own? Now he’s quoting Oldschool Boy. Weird.
Time: 10/14/2008, 9:16 am
@Admin
I’d suggest blocking oyun, if that is possible, because it’s clearly spam. If you click on his link, it’s just some trashy website.
Time: 10/14/2008, 3:39 pm
JTapp seems pretty ignorant of the cotton industry in Uzbekistan. If you had at least a basic understanding of the situation there, you would know that the world price affects farmers there not one iota, as they are forced to sell their entire crop to the state for far less. The state then in turns forces children out to the harvest to maximize the delta between the cost of the production and what they (meaning the shadowy semi-private trading corporations controlled by figures close to or in government) can earn on the global market.
Wal Mart’s refusal to buy slave-produced cotton might not help Uzbek children immediately, but as fewer and fewer responsible merchants and manufacturers want to deal with the Uzbeks, it will allow those who do (the Russians and Chinese) to force the Uzbeks to take a lower price, and so will hit the pocketbooks of those who control the trade (some say is hitting already).
Time: 10/14/2008, 5:33 pm
Cassandra,
In an ideal world it would be as you say. However, in the real world the poorest always get hit the hardest.
By the way, how punishment of those bad guys controlling the cotton trade is going to help poor Uzbek children?
Write a comment