> Foreign Policy In Focus: Child Labor in the Global Economy > > By Terry Collingsworth, General Counsel, International Labor Rights Fund > Editors: Tom Barry (IRC) and Martha Honey (IPS) > > Vol 2, No. 46 > October 1997 > > > Key Points > * Child labor is a serious problem with over 250 million children working > around the world. > * Poverty is an immediate reason why families send their child to work, but > putting children to work in lieu of education condemns them to a life of > poverty. > * Legislation introduced by Senator Harkin to ban products made with child > labor from import to the U.S., while never enacted, provided the stimulus > for model programs like RUGMARK. > > > Advocacy by human rights groups, repeated media exposure, and reaction to > legislative proposals advanced to ban products made by child labor have led > to widespread acknowledgment that child labor is a serious problem in the > world. It is a problem that has its roots in poverty and the lack of > educational facilities for children of the poor. Around the world, but > particularly in the South, these circumstances force children into the work > force-pushing children into the streets to beg, into the fields to labor as > farm hands, and into factories. The International Labor Organization (ILO), > the tripartite body representing governments, labor and employers, > estimates that more than 250 million children are at work in the global > economy. Many products, ranging from hand-knotted carpets sold in the most > exclusive stores to soccer balls and T-shirts sold in malls, are made with > child labor. > > Concrete action, however, lagged behind debate over child labor. Only in > 1992 when Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) introduced the Child Labor Deterrence > Act, which sought to ban products made with child labor from importation to > the U.S., did the action begin. > > Much of the initial response from export-oriented industries amounted to > aggressive denial followed by accusations that the Harkin legislation was > "protectionist" and aimed at destroying foreign competition. Such positions > may have played well in the local press, but the business community soon > realized that serious steps were necessary to avoid the law's potential > application. > > Animated by the ideas and leadership of Kailash Satyarthi, Chair of the > South Asian Coalition on Child Servitude (SACCS) based in India, the > RUGMARK Foundation was one of the first and most successful efforts to > create a program to deal effectively with child labor in the notorious > South Asian hand-knotted carpet industry. The RUGMARK model confronting the > problem of child labor includes two key components: Independent monitoring > and education/rehabilitation programs for the former child workers. The > ultimate goal is to break the cycle of poverty by moving children out of > factories and into schools. Efforts to implement RUGMARK were languishing, > however, until a group of Indian carpet manufacturers and exporters, > concerned about losing access to the U.S. market, teamed up with SACCS, > UNICEF, and other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to launch the > program. With offices around the world, RUGMARK provides on-site monitoring > and certifies that manufacturers are making carpets without child labor. > Certified carpets receive a RUGMARK label, assuring consumers that the > carpets meet the child-labor-free requirements. > > The most significant aspect of the program places any children identified > in the inspection process into RUGMARK-supported schools. RUGMARK, whose > schooling programs also reach out to street children and child workers in > nonexport industries, finances the schools from a service fee charged to > importers who are licensees of the RUGMARK label. > > Garment manufacturers in Bangladesh, who depend on the U.S. for 60% of > their export market, also reacted. After the U.S.-based Child Labor > Coalition called for a boycott of garments from Bangladesh, the Bangladesh > Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) reached an > agreement with UNICEF and the ILO. The BGMEA agreed to contribute to a new > schooling program (sponsored by the ILO and UNICEF) that would educate all > the children transferred from the garment factories. Roughly 10,000 > children have been placed in education programs and provided with a small > stipend to offset their loss of income. These programs manifest hope that > once the child labor problem is identified as a priority, solutions are > possible. > > Advocates for child workers are now hopeful that further progress will be > facilitated by a law that was passed in early October 1997 that finally > provides a tool for regulating child labor in the global economy. Congress > passed an amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930 that will now prohibit the > U.S. Customs Service from allowing the importation of any product that is > made by "forced or indentured child labor." The law will no doubt > re-energize efforts to develop programs to shift working children into > schools and develop mechanisms for certifying that products are made > without child labor. > > > Problems With Current U.S. Policy > > Key Problems > * The U.S. lacks any clear policy direction on a comprehensive program to > combat the use of child labor in the global economy. President Clinton's > call for "voluntary" codes of conduct to get companies to stop exploitative > practices is either naive or cynical. > * The Clinton administration espouses trade agreements that regard boycotts > and labeling programs as unduly restricting international trade. > * A fundamental aspect of any forward-looking policy is that child workers > need quality education programs that provide them with skills for the future. > > The U.S. government has yet to formulate an effective, coherent, and > consistent policy with regard to child labor in the global economy. The > administration has complied with congressional mandates to conduct > comprehensive studies of the use of child labor in the global economy, and > these have produced some extremely thorough and useful reports by the > Department of Labor. Yet none of the reports have led to firm policy > objectives. The administration has publicly encouraged companies to abide > by "voluntary" codes of conduct. But asking companies that have benefited > from the use of exploited child labor to suddenly become guardians of > higher standards is either naive or cynical. > > The new legislation prohibiting the importation of products made by forced > or indentured child labor must be implemented by the U.S. Customs Service, > under the Department of the Treasury. What remains to be seen is whether > the administration will enforce the law and devote the necessary resources > to developing a more comprehensive and effective overall policy on child > labor in the global economy. > > The lack of a clear U.S. policy is more problematic than mere > indecisiveness or deliberation. Trade agreements negotiated and signed by > the Clinton administration effectively preclude the U.S. from dealing > effectively with extreme worker rights violations, including the pervasive > use of child labor. For example, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade > (GATT), now enforced by the World Trade Organization (WTO), would > presumably prohibit the U.S. from the importation of products made by child > labor. > > The WTO does not allow for social sanctions, which could be classified as > impermissible "technical barriers to trade." Likewise, even labeling > schemes like RUGMARK might run afoul of GATT provisions and could be > considered technical barriers to trade. The separate WTO Agreement on > Government Procurement (AGP) would limit options for any comprehensive > selective purchasing requirement that prohibits the U.S. government from > purchasing goods made with child labor. > > Membership in the WTO technically precludes the U.S. government from > combating child labor by developing options that might be inconsistent with > specific obligations in existing trade agreements. In the short run, the > administration has been circumspect in commenting on whether selective > purchasing or voluntary labeling programs like RUGMARK would violate WTO > constraints. Clearly, the administration is loathe to make a public issue > out of the broad reach of the WTO, particularly when the president is > involved in the sensitive process of seeking "fast track" authority to > negotiate new trade agreements. > > Proponents of RUGMARK and selective purchasing on the local level would > welcome a WTO challenge to their efforts. Now that legislation is in place > banning the importation of products made with child labor, such a challenge > will hopefully provoke an appropriate discussion of the reach of the WTO in > preventing sovereign nations from regulating social issues as they relate > to trade. Although there may indeed be room to debate the extent to which > trade rules should be the exclusive means to deal with social issues in the > global economy, few would deny that all reasonable efforts should be made > to eradicate the use of exploitative child labor. > > The child labor issue should drive the larger struggle to regulate > fundamental rights in the global economy. As nations lose their sovereign > rights to prohibit child labor (through stealth provisions in complex trade > agreements), there must be a plan to ensure that the global economy does > not force countries with reasonable child labor prohibitions to scrap those > protections and offer up their children as a source of extra cheap labor in > order to compete in the global marketplace. Should Washington find itself > in the position of seeking to dismantle child labor prohibitions in order > to comply with WTO rules, the U.S. will forever forfeit any credibility to > its claim that free trade is in the interests of people at the lower end of > the global economic spectrum. > > Another basic problem with U.S. policy is the lack of clear priorities in > its development thrust. As the RUGMARK program illustrates, a key aspect of > any child labor policy is to ensure that child workers are taken out of > factories and placed in education programs that will provide them with > skills for the future. > > The U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), the primary U.S. > government agency charged with development issues, is still struggling to > find its place in the post-cold war world. Much of its past was spent > funding programs in developing countries to preempt the spread of communist > movements. Now, after a major reorganization, it is funding a range of > programs-from helping women achieve a voice in governance to promoting > democracy in general-but precious little is devoted to basic education and > other support for children who are at risk of being put to work. > > The basic education of children does not seem to fit into any of the > anagrams that AID has devised. Unfortunately, desperate, poor, illiterate > children do not have a strong lobby in Washington. If the U.S. wishes to > have a credible voice in efforts to stop child labor, it is essential that > it support its rhetoric with significant resources. Such a commitment would > demonstrate that the U.S. is motivated by a genuine concern for working > children and their future development prospects rather than by an economic > desire to eliminate the cheap-labor competitive advantage they provide. > > > Toward a New Foreign Policy > > Key Recommendations > * To assume a global leadership role on child labor issues, the U.S. must > ratify ILO Convention 138 and initiate a process to create an enforcement > mechanism for that universal standard. > * Any new trade agreements with the U.S. should include a provision to > prohibit both the use of child labor in manufacturing and the trafficking > of products made with child labor. > * Through its AID programs and its membership in UNICEF and the World Bank, > the U.S. must make education and rehabilitation programs for child workers > a development priority. > > The policy void on social issues in the global economy is at least partly > due to a failure to prioritize. There are many new problems attributable to > the rapid spread of global capital, ranging from inhumane conditions for > workers in developing countries desperate for employment to the destruction > of natural resources and environmental degradation. All these problems > arise from the same basic condition: Global trading rules have created a > safe atmosphere for the expansion of capital and the protection of > property, but the resulting social problems have been dumped on national > governments, which are themselves restricted by trade agreements like GATT. > > The only provision for social issues is the discredited assumption that > more trade will lead to employment and prosperity for all. The gaunt faces > of Pakistani children making soccer balls for Nike and Adidas, the > thousands of Burmese villagers working at gunpoint to build a gas pipeline > for Unocal, and the brave political prisoners in China making soft fuzzy > animals for sale in leading U.S. department stores should constitute > conclusive evidence that the promised development nirvana will not evolve > on its own. Fully developed and highly profitable multinational firms are > benefiting from extreme cases of exploitation and will continue to do so > until some form of global regulation is in place to make them stop. > > It is a significant step to begin a process of meaningful global regulation > of social issues, and it will take a combination of leadership and > political will. Eradication of child labor would be an appealing place to > start the global regulation of social issues. Even hardened free trade > boosters balk at the use of child labor in the global economy. Successful > programs like RUGMARK and the agreement with the Bangladesh garment > industry provide strong evidence that progress can be made in partnership > with business. Putting exploited child workers in schools and giving them a > future is a laudable development objective that will, in the long run, > alleviate the need for direct development support as the educated children > form a new cadre of skilled workers ready for the competitive global economy. > > The Clinton administration could assume a leadership role in eradicating > child labor by pursuing three distinct goals. First, the U.S. must ratify > ILO Convention 138 and then initiate a process to enforce this standard on > a multilateral basis. Whether the solution is to give the ILO enforcement > powers, to use the WTO process to enforce the ILO Convention, or to develop > an alternative solution is a decision that should be made following a > consensus-building process. The key step is to avoid becoming paralyzed by > the overwhelming array of problems and take a visible role in making the > specific issue of child labor a high priority. This would necessarily > require the U.S. to upgrade its own child labor laws and plug the gaping > holes that, for example, exempt agricultural workers from coverage. > > As a second step, the U.S. should rigorously enforce the new legislation > banning products made by forced or indentured child labor and begin the > process of linking trade to a policy of eradicating child labor. Washington > should insist that new trade agreements include enforceable provisions that > prohibit the production and export of goods made with child labor. > Washington should also take other unilateral steps to reinforce its policy > commitment, including adopting a child-labor-free procurement policy. > > Finally, to assure that working children do not simply become victims of > high-minded policy, the U.S. should adopt a clear development priority to > fund programs that target working children for rehabilitation and > education. AID, simply by declaring child labor a priority, could achieve a > significant impact. Through coordination of AID, World Bank, and UNICEF > programs, real progress could be made toward providing children with an > option better than starving or working: going to school and being fed a > nutritious meal. Now that a ban on some forms of child labor is in place, > it is imperative for the U.S. to immediately make it a priority to provide > education assistance to ensure that the beneficiaries of this law, the > exploited children, truly do benefit from the law. > > > Sources for More Information > > Organizations > > Child Labor Coalition > c/o National Consumers League > 1701 K St N.W. #1200 > Washington, D.C. 20006 > Voice: 202-835-3323 > Website: http://www.essential.org/clc > /home.html > > International Labor Office > 1828 L Street NW > Washington, D.C. 20036 > Voice: (202) 653-7652 > Fax: (202) 653-7687 > Website: http://www.un.org//depts/ilowbo > > International Labor Rights Fund > 733 15th Street NW #920 > Washington, DC 20005 > Voice: 202-347-4100 > Fax: 202-347-4885 > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Website: http://www.Laborrights.com > > RUGMARK Foundation U.S.A. > 733 15th Street NW # 920 > Washington, DC 20005 > Voice: 202-347-4205 > Website: http://www.Rugmark.com > > Senator Tom Harkin > Rosemary Gutierrez, Child Labor Issues > 731 Hart Senate Office Building > Washington, DC 20510 > Voice: (202) 224-3254 > Fax: (202) 224-9369 > > UNICEF > UNICEF House > 3 UN Plaza > New York, NY 10017 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Website: http://www.unicef.org > > U.S. Department of Labor > Bureau of International Labor Affairs > 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Room S-1308 > Washington, DC 20210 > Voice: (202) 208-4843 > Fax: (202) 219-4923 > Website: http://www.dol.gov/dol/ilab/public > /aboutilab/org/child.htm > > > Publications > > U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International Affairs, By the Sweat & > Toil of Children (2 vols 1994 and 1995) > > U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International Affairs, The Apparel > Industry and Codes of Conduct: A Solution to the Child Labor Problem? (1996). > > The International Labor Rights Fund, A Comparative Study of the Provisions > of ILO Convention 138 and Federal and State Laws Governing Child Labor in > the United States, 1997. > > "Scourge of Child Labor," Multinational Monitor, Jan-Feb 1997 (special issue). > > > ***************************************************************** > Foreign Policy In Focus is a joint project of the > Interhemipsheric Resource Center (IRC) and the Institute for > Policy Studies (IPS). In Focus briefs document the problems > of current U.S. foreign policy and offer recommendations for > alternative policy directions that would make the United > States a more responsible global partner. > > To order Foreign Policy In Focus, call (505) 842-8288 or visit > our website for ordering information at: http://www.zianet.com/infocus. > > To subscribe to the New U.S. Foreign Policy discussion list, send > a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Inside the body of the > message write: Join newusfp [Your Email Address]. > ***************************************************************** >
