|
Editor's
Note
Child
labour is an emotional issue as far as people are concerned, in particular
the consumers in the west are more agitated. But what about blatant
violation of the child’s rights because of an increasingly consumer
culture and loss of minimal social values. One therefore wonders whether
the same people, who were marching on the streets of Seattle in December
protesting against child labour in poor countries, are at all moved by the
social disintegration taking place in their society which affects their
children and their future.
One
has often come across cases of violence where children are killing other
children in schools in the USA. According to the US President Bill
Clinton, 13 children are killed by guns every day in the US. But what
takes the cake is the recent horrendous incident where a 6-year old boy
shot down a 6-year old girl in a town in the automobile area of the
Michigan state of the USA on February 29th over a minor altercation. It is
reported that the boy’s father and grandfather are both in prison on
gun-related charges, and that he lives with his mother, her consort and an
8-year old brother. Their livelihood comes from trading cocaine for
guns.
The
county prosecutor, Arthur Busch said that the child is a drug addict and a
victim of a broken home, and that he will not be prosecuted. Look at the
naive reaction of President Clinton: “The child was six years old, how
did that child get that gun? If we have the technology today to put in
these (guns) child safety locks why don’t we do it.” As if a safety
lock is the solution to the problem of broken homes.
Mr. Clinton, if we had the
resources, we would put in safety nets for our poor children so that they
don’t have to work to survive.
Yet
US consumers react to the scene by boycotting garments made by children in
poor countries, as if that could lead to safety nets. Often it has
actually pushed some of them into crime and prostitution (see article by
Clare Short, UK Minister for International Development). But we cannot
boycott automobiles made by some of the US workers who don’t care for
their children and allow them to be brought up in a manner that they would
be killing each other or grow up as social liabilities.
In
as much as (abusive or exploitative) child labour is sought to be banned
by an ILO Convention, which is also one of the core labour standards, the
Preamble in the UN Convention on the Rights of Child calls upon all
countries: “…for the full and harmonious development of (the child’s)
personality, (the child) should grow up in a family environment, in an
atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding.” That is plainly not
available to hundreds of thousands of children all over the world, and the
ones in the rich countries are worse off.
The
issue of linking trade with labour standards, or even environmental
standards is one of the gross inequities being perpetrated on the poor
South by the powerful and bullying North. Clinton wanted labour standards
into the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and sanctions for its violation.
This was one of the major causes for the failure of the Seattle
talks.
It
is not our case that better standards are not desirable, indeed they
are. But if its enforcement is to be done through the WTO, there are
too many problems.
This
is the first e-newsletter of our project on Linkages, where we will pursue
capacity building in the North
so that there is a better perception of the problems, which do not allow
the creation of ideal situations in the poor South. Research, consensus
building and dialogue will be the main methods to do this.
Queries
and comments are invited from all. Please circulate this e-newsletter to
those who might be interested. If we are sending this e-newsletter to you
by mistake please do tell us and we will make amends.
Pradeep
S. Mehta
Secretary General
I.
Global Programme on Linkages
1.
Project
The
debate on linkages has given a new dimension to the basic contours of
international trade in recent years. This write-up is about a unique
global programme being developed by CUTS, which aims at narrowing the
North-South divide on Linkages by unearthing some of the core facts of the
situation, and by information dissemination and dialogue.
One
of the causes for the failure of the Seattle Ministerial Conference of the
WTO, was the polarisation between the North and South on the issue
of incorporating labour and environmental standards popularly known as
'linkages" into trade accords. However, so far no comprehensive
exercise has been undertaken to discuss and document the concerns of
various factions of civil society, governments and respective
constituencies on the different aspects of the ‘linkages’ issue. More
so, proper analytical work is required in order to explore the various
issues by keeping in view the Southern perspective.
This
project proposes to undertake capacity building exercise for civil society
and policy makers, especially in the North, vis-à-vis appreciating the
complex socio-economic issues that are currently not reflected in the
ongoing debate on ‘linkages’. The focus of this programme is to
facilitate effective evidence-based dialogue in order to help both the
camps of the ‘linkages’ debate to understand each other's positions
better. The goal is to reduce the heat and tension with the hope that the
problems are addressed in the right manner leading to betterment of the
situation i.e. good social standards and protection of the environment.
This
programme has the objective and potential of resolving the conflicts
arising out of the contentious discussions of incorporating labour
standards or environmental standards into the multilateral trading system
i.e. a sanction-based platform viz. the WTO. Moreover, strengthening the
existing non-sanction based institutions at both the national and
international levels is essential for effectively tackling the
multifarious dimensions associated with these development issues.
The
programme covers governments, cross section of civil society groups and
most importantly the concerned strata of society, viz. parents of working
children, unorganised labour, etc. who are going to be impacted due to the
results of these discussions, all have an interest in the outcome of this
programme. The questions of common concern include:
-
Does
the current debate on ‘linkages’ reflect the concerns expressed by
developing countries vis-à-vis sustainable development (e.g. problems
pertaining to poverty alleviation, technology absorption, etc.)?
-
Whether
having a multilaterally agreed text concerning ‘linkages’ on a
sanctions-based platform like the WTO put an end to problems like
child labour? How will it impact sectors, which are not related to
international trade?
-
How
can one give teeth (if it is necessary) to the existing multilateral
institutions like the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and other concerned
organisations to tackle various facets associated with the issue of
‘linkages’?
2. Reflections
The
project has received rich responses from civil society organisations in
the North and South. The following are a few responses received from
different organisations and individuals.
a.
WTO is not environment friendly
"The WTO is just the domestic
servant of the TNCs, though a good servant because it has authority. I do
not trust the WTO to deal with labour/environmental rights and I do not
want any new areas added to its power. This is pretty much of the
consensus of anti-WTO people in the North. Every time the WTO has decided
a case with an environmental aspect, it has decided against
environment.
As
for labour, there is always someone who can produce more cheaply than
India-it is a matter of externalising more costs and repressing workers
more than the other fellow. "We always have to pay for exploitation
of workers and the environment-the whole question is to know who is the
"we" pay." (Susan George, Transnational Institute, Paris)
b.
ILO has reasonable teeth already
I do not like the phrase
"sustainable development" since development alone would suffice.
In fact, the phrase sustainable development was coined by the North to
implicitly recognise the linkage of development with environmental
protection. ILO has reasonable teeth already. We do not want ILO to
have authority to impose sanctions, that would be creating another WTO. So
long as the WTO has the power to authorise trade sanctions, it will remain
more equal than others, developing countries would remain terrified, and
all the various interest groups including labour, environmentalists,
industries in the North would not be satisfied unless their issues are
also put on the WTO agenda. (Rashid Kaukab, South Centre, Geneva).
c.
Linkage is a super-imposed concept
Environment and labour standards
are completely different issues, but they are, rightly or wrongly being
super-imposed into a single heading "linkage" in the context of
WTO. In my opinion they deserve separate study, analysis as well as
campaign. To ensure better environment to live in for the present as well
as the future generations and better working conditions for the labours
should be the ultimate objectives of this programme. (Ratnakar Adhikari,
SAWTEE, Kathmandu)
d.
It is important for Arab countries
We very much appreciate the
proposal you sent and we feel that it covers most of the areas we view as
"important" in the Arab countries (West Asia and North Africa).
The scope of research needs to be more specific in the proposal. Should it
be done on a country-basis, on developing countries collectively or on one
country per continent.
We
would love to organize such the dialogue events/debates in Cairo. It’s
easy for us to sponsor the debate, co-organize it and provide speakers. We
can also help in organizing such events in the Arab Region through the
National Coordinators but we need first to educate NGOs about the issue
before arranging for such events.
We
are offering to help you in writing any letters/requests you may need from
our network to help you in your fund-raising process. As you know,
resources in the region to support these activities are very limited. (Emad
Adly, RAED, Cairo)
e.
Dismayed by the way child labour issue was treated
Yes I was in Seattle and I
completely agree with you that the levels of understanding on the linkages
issues often left much to be desired. We were particularly dismayed by the
way the child labour issue was treated so simplistically. I have had a
very quick look at the proposal and I think it looks very promising. I may
well be able to contribute some of my time to coordination and speaking if
required. (Brett Parris, World Vision, Bath, UK)
f.
Do not mix up environment and labour standards
Your project looks interesting and
potentially very valuable. The big reservation I have is that despite your
statement that 'the two issues of environment and labour standards are
quite different from each other and should not be mixed up', you are
actually doing exactly that. I do not like this approach and do not think
that it is constructive.
Even
if it is addressed, I am not sure how helpful we could be. We do not have
money to sponsor activities like this. Indeed, it’s the other way
around; we ask other people for money! But if it would be helpful to you
for us to host one of your meetings, and if you can provide funding for
it, I might be prepared to consider it. (Duncan Brack, Royal Institute of
International Affairs, London)
g.
Educate the north about child labour
It is seldom that one finds
research supporting the concern for the children and families if child
labour were to be prohibited and your idea of subsidies is exciting. I
would be extremely interested in helping with the progress of your future
work in this area in any way appropriate.
In
connection with your Linkages project, I believe that I may be able to
offer some research support to the idea of analyses of core labour
standards through my current work. I agree with you that it is critical to
educate the "north" about the actual implications of their
proposals on the "south" in terms of child labour, your fourth
point under "research''. (Laura P. Hartman, Wisconsin University,
USA)
3.
Cross-words on Linkages
"Linking
labour or environmental standards within the sanction based mechanism of
the WTO may harm the development prospects of the third world countries.
Therefore, further dialogues and consensus building are required in this
issue". This view emerged at a panel discussion organised in Bangkok
on the sidelines of UNCTAD X.
Of
late, the debate among the civil society organisations and trade unions
concerning the issue between trade and environment as well as trade and
labour standard has occupied a much larger space. SAWTEE and its partner
organisations have a common position that these linkages are unjustified
and hence should not make their way into the ambit of the WTO. This is
quite contrary to the view of many of the civil society organisations and
trade union movement in the North, as well as the trade union movement in
the South. However, it is equally important to note that there are a large
number of trade unions and NGOs in the North, which are opposed to the
idea of linking trade with labour standards. The objective of the
programme was to "facilitate the process of dialogue between the
protagonists and antagonists of the Linkages in the sanction based
discipline of the WTO".
Some
75 participants from civil society, trade union and media along with
government delegates to UNCTAD X participated in the highly interactive
discussion. The discussion kicked off with a note that history is replete
with the examples of linkages: such as linkages between poverty and
development, population and environment, trade and environment etc.
Linkages
per se are not a taboo, but when one talks of linking one problem, which
could be better managed and solved through domestic policy intervention,
to a global sanction based mechanism the problem begins. Such were the
views expressed by Prof. Yash Tandon of International South Group Network
(ISGN), Harare.
Tracing
the history of the problem, Prof. Tandon noted that the ILO conventions on
core labour standards have not been effective at all since the enforcing
agency does not have any teeth. It is surprised to note that the
"North really does not talk of strengthening ILO, which is the
competent authority to handle all the labour issues". At the same
time, linking trade with labour standards that too at the sanction based
mechanism of the WTO, could give tough time to the third world countries.
Imposition of high labour standards could work as a protectionist tools in
the hands of the North, since the South will not be able to comply with
such requirement. At the same time, he would not oppose the idea of
linking trade with labour standard, if the same is handled by more neutral
bodies such as UNCTAD.
Admitting
the fact that there linkage do exist between trade and environment, Ms.
Beatrice Chaytor of Foundation of International Environmental Law and
Development (FIELD), London pointed towards the lack of implementation of
the commitments made by the countries in the Earth Summit organised in
June 1992. She suggested that this issue be moved into the WTO framework
so as to ensure that every member country becomes serious to comply with
the same.
Highlighting
the problem of environmental degradation and the efforts made by the
international community to address this issue, Ms. Chaytor said that
between Stockholm Conference and Rio Conference, for two decades,
governments did not do much to protect the environment and it continued to
deteriorate. "Trade and environment are not completely different, but
are part of the same issue. if we continue to handle environmental issues
outside the sanction based discipline, we cannot achieve much progress.
However, labour issue is not as significant an issue as environment and
that linking labour standards within the WTO framework will only overload
the organisation.
Mr.
Miloon Kothari of International Coalition of Human Rights Institutions on
Trade and Investment (ICHRITI), New Delhi said that governments have
ratified a number of conventions relating to human rights, but have not
effectively implemented them. As per these conventions governments are
required to give primacy to the human rights of their people over all
other rights. "Trade liberalisation is not an end, but a means to an
end. Therefore, government should use these instruments to counter the
negative impacts of trade liberalisation. Moreover, they should
internalise their human rights obligations and that UN bodies such as
UNCTAD and UN Human Rights Programme should be entrusted with the
responsibilities to deal with these issues. In this context, there should
be no linkage between trade and labour standards or trade and environment,
but an "integration" of these concerns into the trade
issues.
Mr.
G. Rajasekaran of the Malaysian Trades Union Congress, Selangor, which is
one of the protagonists of linking labour standard with trade, asserted
"if we are serious about protecting the labour rights, we should
establish the linkage. The WTO has become the mouthpiece of transnational
corporations (TNCs). When WTO can set rules for trade liberalisation as
demanded by TNCs, why can't we ask the TNCs to respect the labour standard
as well". TNCs are the main culprits for bringing the labour
standards down, who threaten that they would relocate the factory
elsewhere if the labour standard of a particular country is high.
Therefore, in order to force TNCs to respect the labour standards, this
issue should be brought within the WTO.
Though
it was agreed during the first ministerial meeting of the WTO that the
labour issue will be dealt with by ILO, nothing much has been done in this
regard. He categorically stated that, trade union movement did not demand
more than the following standards viz. global minimum wage; no child
labour; no forced or prison labour; and non-discrimination on the ground
of race, sex etc. Therefore, it was not wrong to ask for a decent wage.
Even developed countries had not implemented the basic ILO conventions.
Linkages will help disciplining the developed countries more than the
developing countries, he added. Expressing his distrust towards the WTO,
Rajasekaran cautioned that the role of supervising the implementation of
labour standard should rest with ILO, not with WTO. Sanctions, if at all
needed to be imposed, should be done under the supervision of the
ILO.
Mr.
Pradeep S. Mehta of CUTS, Jaipur started his presentation with the
findings of a research project done by CUTS on child labour in India.
During the field interaction, majority of the child workers disclosed that
they had to work because their family could not feed them. In this context
the children admitted that they are not exploited. Had the parents
possessed means to send their children to school, these children would not
have become child workers. The cost of sending (real or potential)
140 million child-labour in India to school has been assessed at
US$12-18bn per annum.
Trade
unions want to provide more power to the WTO and they are assuming that
the WTO will allow them to play a role in deciding when, where and how to
impose sanction against a particular country. However, given the opaque
nature of WTO, it is highly doubtful that it will allow any civil society
organisation or trade union to play any role whatsoever in its decision
making process. If at all we need to multilateralise the labour issues,
the power of administering the same should be given to some other
multilateral organisation than the WTO, said Mehta.
In
terms of environment, installation of effluent treatment plants (ETP) is
highly desirable, but can the small and medium enterprises afford them.
What will happen to their competitive strengths, which can be totally
eliminated by the requirement to install ETP? Therefore, we need to
approach the issue on a case to case basis. However, we should not
overload the WTO and divert its energy and resources to the activities
other than trade proper.
There
were critical comments on applying common measurement for assessing child
labour especially when there is a large traditional and unorganised and
informal sector. In traditional fisheries anywhere in the world, parents
train their children how to fish. In such case parents cannot send their
children to school and wait until they graduate and then teach them how to
fish. The practical outcome of the dolphin-tuna case is that fishermen in
trying to avoid catching dolphins and yet to ensure that their level of
income is maintained, catch juvenile tuna, which is even more harmful to
the environment. Even if the WTO had ruled against India, Pakistan,
Malaysia and Thailand in the famous shrimp-turtle case, the poor fishermen
do not have the resources to install turtle excluder devices.
One
cannot talk of universal environmental or labour standard, as the member
countries of WTO are heterogeneous in several respects. The moderator Mr.
Tony Hill observed that "at the heart of all the whole 'Linkages'
problems was the issue of how to socialise a competitive economy, which
pitched company against company, workers against workers and country
against country".
II.
News Round up
1.
Mike Moore terms Linkages as "False Debate"
While addressing the ICFTU
conference on the eve of Seattle Conference, the WTO Director General Mike
Moore rightly termed labour issue as "False Debate". Poverty,
not trade is the main cause of bad working conditions, and it must be met
by expanding commerce, not imposing sanctions. He said the solution
is "promoting trade so that it can lift workers in the developing
countries out of poverty, and tackling the mismatch in developed countries
where many workers lack the skills demanded by a new knowledge based
economy.
He
added, we must follow the Singapore mandate and ensure the WTO and the ILO
has a good working relationship. This is, in part, there is no difference
between us (ILO and WTO chiefs) on the vital importance of advancing
labour standards, and the need to do so by persuasion, positive
assistance, and gets jobs and growth- including growth through
trade. The challenge is not for one organisation to do the work of
all, but for all organisations to work together in a more coherent way.
Whether it is the ILO, UNICEF, WHO, the World Bank, IMF, or the WTO, we
need cohesion in tackling these problems.
No
single parliament or international institution can legislate away all the
evils of our planet or the miseries often made worse by bad governments.
We cannot have clean air in one country alone, or organise our fisheries
or even run a tax system or an airline with out the cooperation of others.
But, together we can "inch up" workers' and families'
conditions. (Source: WTO press release/152, 28 November, 1999)
2.
ILO looks for role in labour rights disputes
Bitter disagreements over labour
rights could be avoided by keeping the issue within the remit of the
International Labour Organisation, according to Juan Somavia, ILO
secretary-general. He was speaking at the UNCTAD X meeting in
Bangkok.
Mr.
Somavia said globalisation had caused many people in many countries to
fear for their future.
This could be addressed with a
global commitment to strive for "decent work" for all. This
still meant, however, that workers in economies at different stages of
development should expect different experiences from work. "They will
not get the same income. They will get the benefits appropriate in their
economy,". The US suggestion that developing countries with poor
labour records could be penalised played an important role in sinking WTO
global trade talks in Seattle. The issue of protective safety nets for
workers could be easily handled by the ILO, which already has a working
party on the social implications on the liberalisation of trade, Mr.
Somavia added.
Behind
the rhetoric over labour rights there was actually much common ground: in
1999 no government rejected an ILO declaration banning the "morally
abhorrent" use of children in heavy work, as soldiers or the sex
industry, for example. He also said the Asian economic crisis had taught
many developing countries that social safety nets were best erected during
good times.
Supachai
Panitchpakdi, the Thai deputy prime minister who will take over leadership
of the WTO in 2002, also raised the link between trade and labour at the
UNCTAD conference. He suggested setting up a ministerial dialogue,
organised by a neutral party that was neither the WTO nor the ILO, to
discuss the issue. It is inevitable that in the future some of us will be
discussing the issues of trade and labour rights. I want to find a way
that we can discuss this in a neutral position, with no commitments that
would infringe upon the trading rights of the nations. (Source:
Financial Times, February 16, 2000).
3.
Economic Development is Crucial for Environmental Protection: UNEP chief
The Executive Director of the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Mr. Klaus Topfer, during his
visit to New Delhi, listed 'pollution control measures and management and
conservation of natural resources as the priorities of UNEP in the
Asia-Pacific region.
He
particularly sounded the alarm bell over the depleting fresh water
resources and the overall shortage of water, the world was likely to face
in future. There is the need for developing and implementing global and
regional environmental accords and strengthening the emergency response
capacities of Governments. The countries of the South should work towards
a protocol on air pollution, particularly in the wake of imbalances in
atmospheric emissions. Developing countries contribute only one by
eighteenth of the green house gases (GHG) emissions, but the poor of these
countries will have to bear the brunt of its impact because they do not
have means for adaptation, he warned.
Emphasising
that "economic development is crucial for environment
development", Mr.Topfer said, a "new culture of solidarity was
emerging to improve the living conditions of the poor". However,
while Governments of the developing world needed assistance, they, in
turn, should strengthen their national commitments. Population is the main
determinant for environmental problems of any country, while poverty was
the most ``toxic element''.
The
emerging issues on international agenda include the creation of markets
for renewable energy, use of economic instruments in pollution control,
political and financial incentives to adapting climate change and transfer
of technology and finance. “Apart from promoting international
consensus, there has to be a further development of international
environmental law aiming at sustainable development,” Mr. Topfer added.
(Source: The Hindu, February 22, 2000)
4.
Norway urges for dialogue on Linkages Issue
Norway is to convene a meeting of
representatives of a few select countries including India, to discuss the
modalities as to how best the existing working procedures of the WTO can
be changed in the wake of increasing demand for reforms in the WTO
process. This was stated by the Foreign Minister of Norway, Mr. Kunt
Vollabaek, while addressing a meeting in New Delhi. Such a meeting would
provide an opportunity for the representatives to discuss various social
issues, including labour standards and environmental issues, besides
looking at ways to increase participation and transparency of the
multilateral trading framework.
It
would prove to be useful to conduct informal meetings of this nature
between government and labour market representatives, along with efforts
being made in other fora. India is an important participant in any forum
where international trade questions are being discussed. "I would
thus appreciate it very much if India would participate in such a
meeting,'' he said. Norway is also seeking to promote core labour
standards, as defined in the ILO, in all relevant international fora,
including the WTO. It also would like to encourage a dialogue on this
subject within the WTO. Mr. Vollabaek added that his country “believes
in dialogue, and not pressure, to ensure the fulfillment of
internationally accepted labour standards.”
Norway
also wants environmental concerns be incorporated into all relevant areas
of WTO negotiations but, rules must not be allowed to undermine or weaken
international environmental agreements. Seattle conference clearly
demonstrated that there is a need to improve the working procedures of the
WTO. We have to make sure that participation in informal groups is
representative and we need to establish better routines to keep all
members informed about the discussions in restricted groups. Changes are
also called for in terms of WTO's external relations with non-governmental
organisations and the media. (Source: The Business Line, January 12,
2000)
III.
Briefs from UNCTAD X
The
vexed issue of linkages continued to echo during the debate at UNCTAD X in
Bangkok. The following section is based on some country and civil society
statements at UNCTAD X, which highlight their concerns on the linkages
issue.
1.
Trojan horses, says India
"Ironically we saw the world
up side down at Seattle: while developing countries were pleading for
freer trade, developed countries were seeking Trojan horses to hide their
protectionist intentions. By bringing non-trade issues like core labour
standards, Seattle has failed and WTO process has become an object of
strong criticism, both in the developing and the developed world. I quote
from the editorial of The Wall Street Journal: “Once established, any
labour-environment working groups will be impossible to get rid of.
Soon they will be determining everything from minimum wage rates to
environmental standards that would preclude all sorts of development… It
is hard to see why countries trying desperately to bring prosperity to
their peoples should sign on to a deal giving politicians from rich
countries the right to dictate Third World domestic policies in order to
appease First World special interests and dilettantes.”
Therefore,
WTO process needs to be reformed. The fear, anxiety and insecurity of the
developing nations should be appropriately addressed. And most
importantly, any attempt to insulate the First World markets from Third
World competition should be stopped. Therefore, the WTO should be
given a much narrower, trade oriented remit. The non-trade issues can be
properly addressed by the appropriate international institutions- more
competent and better equipped than WTO. (Source: UNCTAD)
2.
Confront new protectionism: Pakistan
"If labour standards issue is
not to bedevil all future trade negotiations, it is essential that
politicians in the advanced countries confront this 'new protectionism'
rather than pander to the power of partisan interests. If those who
agitate for higher labour standards are sincere, they should accept the
empirical evidence of recent studies, which show that trade itself does
more to improve working conditions than even the most well-meaning
treaties and labour standards.
Exports
boost workers incomes, generate employment, improve living standards and
income distribution, increase productivity and enhance domestic savings
and investment. Therefore, the best way to improve labour standards in the
developing countries is to allow them grater opportunities to export to
the markets of the rich countries". (Source: UNCTAD)
3.
Redress inequality and imbalance, asserts North Korea
“The result of the Seattle
ministerial conference held in December last year further highlighted the
obligation of the international community for redressing inequality and
imbalance in the multilateral trading system and the WTO. It is unfair and
unjust to demand same standards from the countries that find themselves in
seriously inequitable economic relations due to their different levels of
development… At the same time, any attempt should be rejected to
introduce into the agenda of the world trade such as environment, labour
standard, intellectual property rights and human rights that have no
direct link with trade”. (Source: UNCTAD)
4.
Take a closer look: Germany
“Growing international trade and
the increasing inter-dependency between continents in its wake mean we
have to take a closer look at the link between trade and investment,
competition and the environment. Together with the International
Labour Organisation (ILO), we must ensure that the interplay between trade
and social standards, living and working conditions is not ignored.
Only,
if we are open to such issues, can we respond to the ever more pressing
question of the coherence of trade policy with other policy areas. Only
then will we get the domestic policy backing in many countries needed for
a further liberalisation of international economic relations. It is
surely a positive sign that there seems to be a growing number of
countries which are ready to partake in dialogue on these issues.” (Source:
UNCTAD)
5.
No discriminatory misuse of Labour rights: Civil Society
The Civil Society Plenary Caucus of
UNCTAD X adopted a statement which called for the establishment of a
"new development paradigm" that recognises the key role of
labour rights within a perspective of development and human rights.
It
also adds "corporate globalisation has caused a rapidly increasing
trend towards the casualisation of labour and marginalisation of
vulnerable groups of workers, especially children, working women, migrant
workers, fish workers, commercial sex workers, home workers and other
workers in the informal sector. Added protection and promotion of the
fundamental rights of these vulnerable groups beyond the existing ILO
tripartite system is urgently needed. Further, we believe that there
should be no discriminatory misuse of labour rights in North-South
exchanges for economic advantage". The resolution also calls upon all
UNCTAD member governments to "immediately ratify and ensure the
effective implementation" of the core ILO conventions.(Source:
UNCTAD)
6.
Reject Green Protectionism: WWF
In an open letter to the
participants at the UNCTAD X, the WWF International urged for the
rejection of "Green Protectionism". Green protectionism, i.e.
using environmental concerns as smokescreens for trade protectionism
should be rejected both in principle and in policy. Policies designed for
non-environmental reasons bring few green benefits. Good environmental
rules can benefit developing countries by promoting comparative advantages
in many natural resource based products (e.g. forests and fisheries) and
controlling the flow of toxic and harmful imports into their markets.
Green protectionism merely ends up discrediting these reasonable
environmental objectives and policies. (Source: WWF International,
February 2000).
IV.
Viewpoints
1.
Why a ban on child labour will not help anyone
By Clare Short (Secretary of State
for International Development, U.K.)
ALL
decent people are concerned about child labour. We all want to protect
children and are appalled that so many of them have to work long hours,
especially in unhealthy and dangerous environments. 'The sad reality is
that 250 million children are working today, nearly all in the poorest
countries of the world. This means that they lose their childhood
and miss out on school. This, in turn, means they are poor as adults and
their children, in turn, suffer poverty. Many people react by calling for
bans on goods made using child labour or imposing trade sanctions. This is
what many of the demonstrators were calling for at the World Trade
Organisations meeting in Seattle last. At first glance this seems to
be a reasonable suggestion.
But
we have to make sure that our concern does not lead us to make decisions,
which end up doing more harm than good. We now have experiences of
the effects of boycotts-for example against carpets made by children in
India. We have learned that trade boycotts lead to the poorest children in
the world being thrown out of their jobs and ending up in even worse
situations. In 1993 there was a campaign against Bangladesh's garment
industry. Public reaction to a TV programme in the U S which showed
children making clothes for Wal-Mart resulted in the cancellation of
contracts with Bangladesh.
This
led to the Bangladesh textile industry suddenly pledging to stop child
labour.
Thousands
of children were promptly sacked. Very few ended up going to school and
many resorted to begging and prostitution to earn a living. In my
time as International Development Secretary, I have seen for myself how
poverty forces children into forced labour--and how their families are
helpless to do anything to prevent it. I recently went to Nepal, one
of the poorest countries in the world and visited a village where all the
people were bonded labourers.
They
were literally in debt to their landlords for their whole lifetimes. We
were funding a local project, which was helping them to move on to their
own land. I met a woman who was standing next to her daughter - a
very pretty girl. What were her hopes for her daughter, I asked. ‘To
keep her in school and to see that she gets a job,’ was the reply.
That remark could come from any mother in whatever country. But here, I
understood that this was a real ambition. ‘It will be very difficult,’
the mother explained. ‘If anyone in the family becomes ill, we will have
no money.’ There was so much hope in that small child's face, but
in reality this little girl and thousands like her will not realise that
ambition. She will be sold into bonded labour for the rest of her life, or
worse still--and this is common--forced into a life of prostitution.
We should remember that Britain has a history of child labour. When there
was great poverty in our country, many children were forced to work.
Oliver Twist tells the story of the young Oliver running away to a life of
crime to avoid having to work for an undertaker.
Charles
Dickens wrote from personal experience. In 1820 he was forced to
work as a 12-year-old labelling bottles in a factory when his own family
was sent to the debtors' prison. Children are forced to work because of
poverty, not because their parents don't care about them. The reality is
that either the children work or the family goes hungry. Only by
reducing poverty and expanding education can we improve their lives. To
reduce their poverty, countries need to draw in investment and to sell
their exports to pay for the investment. This is why the demonstrators in
Seattle were wrong. Trade sanctions against countries with child labour
will simply punish the poorest countries and prevent their economic
growth.
There
are national and international laws on child labour agreed by the
International Labour Organisation (ILO) in Geneva. This represents
governments, business and trade unions from all the countries of the
world. The problem is that in the poorest countries these laws are
not implemented. The ILO needs to do more to ensure these are put into
practice and stuck to. We must also encourage governments of poor
countries to devote more energy to getting children into school and
improving the job opportunities of their parents.
So
what can be done to help solve the problem? In Sialkot, Pakistan, we are
working with Save the Children on tackling child labour in the
football-stitching industry. It's a ground-breaking project,
involving business, the ILO and local charities. It helps children to stop
working and get an education, while money earning schemes ensure their
families can survive without their children's earnings.
In
Bangladesh--where the problem of child labour is appalling--we are working
with the Bangladeshi government and UNICEF to provide basic education for
working children. Through the Ethical Trading initiative we are supporting
many of Britain's biggest retailers in ensuring their suppliers are not
exploiting children. These firms are committed to ensuring children's
lives are improved, not to throwing them into poverty in order to clean up
the companies' images. 'Trade sanctions punish the poor because they
prevent poor countries from selling their goods abroad. Instead, we would
prefer there to be closer co-operation between the ILO, the World Bank and
other agencies to get children into school and their parents into work.
If
we are to help the 150 million children in Asia and the 100 million in
Africa and else where in the world, we must make sure that everyone
understands the reality of the situation. 'Trade sanctions and boycotts
will not end child labour, they will make life worse for the poorest
children of the world. It would be a tragedy if genuine public
concern resulted in measures, which meant that poorer countries were
punished for being poor. We need to improve invest ment and trading
opportunities for the world's poorest countries so that they can reduce
poverty. That is the outcome we needed from the talks in Seattle.
The talks will now move on to Geneva and perhaps to success. (Source: Mail
on Sunday, December 5, 1999)
2.
Child Labour is a misnomer
Child labour is not synonymous with
abuse at least among traditional fisher folk around the world and also in
cultures where a parent trains his/her child in a familiar, traditional
profession. In traditional fisheries, normally children learn the art of
fishing by working with their parents or relatives.
Furthermore,
it is imperative that one enters this profession at an early age, to
overcome occupational hazards of sea sickness, to qualify to become a
full-time fisherman. Therefore, the suggestion is that a culturally
sensitive approach to labour standards and child labour is essential in a
pluralistic society. Apart from that, very often fish is the only
commodity that fishers produce, their entire lively hood is based on this
trade. Since fish is a major export item in the South, labour standards
and child labour issues could challenge the very survival of the
traditional fisher folk. (Source: Samudra Report, December, 1999)
V.
Announcements
1.
Asia Pacific Labour Law Review 1999
The Asia Monitor Resource Centre (AMRC)
have just released the Asia Pacific Labour Law Review 1999 which
investigates the present situation of labour laws and its implementation
in 15 Asia Pacific countries: China, Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan, Cambodia,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, South Korea, Nepal,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka and New Zealand. The book also looks at the law
with regard to groups working in increasing numbers of the fringes of
society: children and migrant workers.
The
book marks the beginning of a research project which demands to be
monitored every two years, and which will chart the changes in national
laws, international conventions and how individual countries implement (or
fail to implement) laws, in the interests of capital but to the detriment
of labour. Inquiries can be made through Asia Monitor Resource Centre at
444 Nathan Road, 8-B, Yaumatei, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Tel: (852)2332-1346/
Fax: (852)2385-5319. E-mail: amrc@pacific.net.hk. Price: US$30 (inclusive
of postage).
About
‘The CUTS-CITEE Linkages Update’
This
is a strictly non-commercial and educational service for non-profit
organizations and individuals. For subscription please write to cutsjpr@sancharnet.in
or cutsjpr@cuts-india.org |
