----- Original Message ----- From: Janet M Eaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 9:01 PM Subject: Trading on child labour for profit -Dalton Camp, Tor Star Dec 8 > The WTO is not to be thought a moral force or even > an amoral one; it is concerned with broadening the > boundaries of free trade, however this can be done, > even if on the backs of sweated children. ... But to make > it easier to understand, I suggest when reading these nobly detached > editorials, or the academically sterile analyses of columnists, that > the reader, whenever she sees the words ``child labour'' substitute > the word ``slavery.'' .....It is mere sophistry for WTO's > apologists to argue that, in the end, all will come out right, as > though trade contained some secret, magic moral ingredient. .....the > true beneficiary of child labour is certainly not the child, not the > impoverished nation that allows such practice, but the employer, the > shareholder and the consumers who live amongst us. > --Dalton Camp, Toronto Star, Dec 8, 1999 > > FYI, > janet > > --------------------- > > http://www.thestar.ca/thestar/editorial/opinion/991208NEW02c_OP-CAMP8 > . html > Toronto Star > By Dalton Camp > December 8, 1999 > > Trading on child labour for profit > > I beg to be counted among those who > are opposed to the World Trade > Organization. > > My opposition can be simply stated: > The WTO's silent sanction of child > labour is to me insupportable. While it > may be said that the protests of the > North American labour movement are > somewhat self-serving, what then > could be said for the multinational > corporations - with a passion for the > WTO that is near idolatry - that are major employers > of child labour and who remain so protective of this > hideous practice? > > The argument is made, by WTO supporters, that child > labour is not a trade issue that is the exclusive > and only mandate of the WTO. > > The WTO is not to be thought a moral force or even > an amoral one; it is concerned with broadening the > boundaries of free trade, however this can be done, > even if on the backs of sweated children. > > Child labour is a cultural issue, we're told, or it > is a poverty issue, or third-worldly, and as such, > beyond our ken and competence to judge. > > But to make it easier to understand, I suggest when > reading these nobly detached editorials, or the > academically sterile analyses of columnists, that > the reader, whenever she sees the words ``child > labour'' substitute the word ``slavery.'' > > While it is not strictly factual that these children > are slaves - their chains are only psychological or, > if you like, metaphysical - they are ``properties'' > owned, nonetheless, by the ``culture'' and by the > system and cannot be freed from it. They suffer many > of the same restraints and abuses as did the slaves, > including the denial of their own personality, of > their own nature as children. > > Of course, almost everyone is against child labour, > including, apparently, the corporate executives who > employ children. > > Be reminded that Thomas Jefferson stated his > opposition to slavery, even though he owned slaves. > Jefferson believed, or so he said, the institution > of slavery would abolish itself, given time. > > We are now being told much the same thing, by allies > of the WTO and supporters of the necessity - the > present necessity - for employing children to do the > work of adults. > > They remind me of the pre-Civil War abolitionists in > the north who, while opposed to slavery, accepted > its permanence in the south. After all, the north > could not sell to the south, unless a slave economy > produced enough wealth to create purchasing power to > buy northern goods. > > England, then the most modern nation in the new > Europe, opposed slavery but embraced child labour in > conditions often worse than slavery. The > manufacturers and the slave owners were as one - a > true trade union, one could say - in that the cost > of labour was a factor in the cost of production and > the cheaper the labour, the cheaper the cost. When > Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, every slave > owner saw immediately the competitive advantage of > slave labour in world markets. Not coincidentally, > the new southern plantation economy created a new > demand for free trade. Pity they did not have the > WTO to help their cause. > > The trouble with economies propped up by child > labour - a euphemism for cheap labour - is that, as > in the example of the plantation economy in the > American south, it becomes ingrained not only in the > culture but in the economy. It is mere sophistry for > WTO's apologists to argue that, in the end, all will > come out right, as though trade contained some > secret, magic moral ingredient. All history > repudiates such expedient presumption. That was > Jefferson's argument and he was wrong. Ultimately, > it took a bloody civil war to wean the south from > its dependency upon slave labour. > > We need, however, to understand the post-Seattle > anger and outrage of the WTO's sponsors and > supporters. These are people who will argue, now > from desperation, that only the rich nations can > afford to educate their children. > > As for poor children in poor nations, they must be > put to work, without regulation, protection or the > least compassion. By their sweated labour, they may > produce tradeable goods, which, as the new world > develops, will allow others the means to purchase > imported colas, the delights of the burger > franchises, prestige brand cigarettes and fashion > denims. > > As trade grows, we are promised, even China will see > the wisdom of our ways and become like us in their > devotion to life, liberty and the pursuit of > happiness. > > It has been said we are too rich, too well off, to > understand the complexities of world trade. We > should not get lost in that argument; the true > beneficiary of child labour is certainly not the > child, not the impoverished nation that allows such > practice, but the employer, the shareholder and the > consumers who live amongst us. > > Dalton Camp is a political commentator. His column > appears Wednesday and Sunday in The Star. >
