A family affair?

As workers in this country and around the world observe May Day, Al-Ahram Weekly considers two crucial issues of labour in Egypt
A family affair?
The onset of summer heralds the season of intensive agricultural child labour. Soha Abdelaty cracks open a debate that drowns the lives of real children in the politics of human rights
Ten-year-old Hamada knows how he will be spending this summer. He will wake up every morning at 6.30am. In half an hour, he will be in the cotton fields, where his 20-year-old foreman, the khouli, will tell him where to start the day's work. Under the hot summer sun and for the next 10 to 11 hours, with the short exception of a one-hour lunch break, Hamada will inspect cotton plants for leafworm eggs, removing infected leaves with his bare hands. If Hamada or any of the other children working the fields, are "disobedient," they will be deprived of the day's wage or water -- punishment administered only after the khouli has flexed a little muscle on them.
But at the end of the day, Hamada is just one of the estimated million children who are hired annually between the months of May and July under the auspices of the Ministry of Agriculture to take part in cotton pest control in fields nationwide. The harsh working conditions faced by these children is documented by the Human Rights Watch report Underage and Unprotected: Child Labour in Egypt's Cotton Fields, released in January.
"[M]ost are well below Egypt's minimum age of 12 for seasonal agricultural work. They work 11 hours a day... They also face routine beatings by their foremen, as well as exposure to heat and pesticides," the report states. "These conditions violate Egypt's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child to protect children from ill-treatment and hazardous employment. They are also tantamount to the worst forms of child labour, as defined in the International Labour Organisation's Convention 182."
But Al-Ahram Weekly found that not all the children working in gruelling conditions are directly hired by the government cooperatives, but are often employed through a series of informal connections: a farmer will put his own children to work, or send them to work for members of his extended family.
Irrespective of who is responsible for these children's employment, however, the harsh terms of the job remain the same. The harmful effects of pesticides on the health of these children is highlighted by the Human Rights Watch report, which explains that the children usually begin their activities 24 to 48 hours after the spraying of pesticides and even simultaneously. Regulations stipulate that a longer period should elapse, depending on the concentration and toxicity of the chemicals used. "There is no doubt that these pesticides harm children, even when there is a lengthy period separating the spraying from the worm inspection," concurs Ahmed Mourad, the engineer who heads the agricultural cooperative in Mokataa, one of the villages in Daqahliya province visited by the Weekly.
The khouli hitting one of the little workers under his supervision is a common sight, but Mourad argues that "If the child is left without discipline, he will run away from the fields. The only way we can control the work is if we allow the khouli to be strict and use corporal punishment." Many of these children who have seen their brothers, sisters or friends being beaten up have internalised this logic. "If one of the children is not doing his job well, the khouli beats him. But often it is the child's fault and he deserves it," said Mourad.
The child labour report made its impact, but many officials have complained that some of the findings are unfounded. According to Fatma Rakah of the National Council for Motherhood and Childhood, "The report is exaggerated to a large extent. It is very general and contrary to reality." Rakah went on to describe child labour as a "family affair," which the government cannot stop. "What we demand is that they work in good conditions, which a family is sure to provide for its children, since these children are considered a source of income. There is no maltreatment. It is not a form of organised governmental work," added Rakah.
The accuracy or otherwise of the Human Rights Watch report is only one part of the problem, however. The report, after all, goes beyond mere documentation, seeking to recommend action, such as urging the Egyptian government to implement the provisions of the 1996 Unified Child Law, which sets the minimum age for seasonal agricultural employment at 12 years and specifies a maximum number of six working hours for employed children. The report also recommends measures for improved working conditions, such as providing working children with proper nutrition and medical care. At no point does the list of recommendations state an outright demand for the total elimination of child labour in Egypt's cotton fields.
And while the report does not recommend that other countries boycott Egyptian cotton -- which does not carry a label assuring the importing country that child labour was not used in its manufacture -- some argue it provides the necessary framework for action of that nature.
Ahmed Abdallah, a pioneer in the field of combating child labour and head of the NGO El-Jeel, argues that it is hard to discern whether the report is demanding an immediate end to child labour in the cotton fields or whether it is just concerned with improving working conditions. "It appears that the report is hovering between two arguments. One argument is that in our cotton fields, children can have better working conditions. This means they can continue to work in the fields for now, until the whole issue of child labour has been addressed and even eradicated over a reasonable period of time. But the other argument is that work in the cotton fields is tantamount to the worst form of child labour, which means it should be stopped immediately," says Abdallah. "Although the report itself does not include a word about boycott, it lays the groundwork for those who would want to boycott Egyptian products. It provides both the grounds and justification," he said.
The issue of boycotting the products of child labour has become highly controversial. Certain World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations have insinuated that countries have the right to institute bans on imported goods where child labour has been used. However, it has been argued that boycotts are inherently flawed as a tool to promote human rights in general since they will be used only when a conflict of economic interest arises.
The United States is one of several countries that have enforced a ban on importing products that are the result of forced or indentured child labour. Only last October, a textiles shipment from Egypt worth $13 million was held at US customs for weeks until customs officials were able to certify that child labour was not used to manufacture these items. Abdallah told the Weekly that he has been contacted by American officials who are seeking to ban jasmine products imported from Egypt on the grounds that forced labour is used in production. As far as Abdallah is concerned, the issue here is not that of child labour -- which he claims is not forced -- but one of economic interest. "In many cases, we know that the issue is trade competition. Some governments want to apply sanctions not for the noble cause of respecting child rights, but for the selfish cause of having economic leverage, and promoting their own trade interests in international markets."
Local officials feel that boycotting Egyptian products is a measure that lays unjustified blame on the government for child labour. "We refuse [this measure] because it tries to place pressure on developing countries. We are trying to solve the problem of child labour at the roots -- by solving the problem of poverty," argues Aisha Abdel-Hadi, secretary for women's issues and child labour at the General Federation of Trade Unions.
After all, these children's work to help feed their families. An average wage for a child in the cotton fields is LE3 per day, a wage barely sufficient to cover the bare necessities of their families. "We do it for the money, and although it can be tiring, it is not difficult. We don't really mind it at all," says 12-year-old Ahmed, who has spent his past three summers working in the cotton fields.
"The remedy is not boycotting the products," claims Abdallah, "There are other remedies, such as helping the children; educating them while they are working and improving their working conditions in general. Boycotting our exports, even a small section of those exports, negatively affects the economy of a developing nation."
Officials and activists alike point to the fact that child labour in agricultural fields is common to most countries around the world, including the US. Only last year, Human Rights Watch published a report on children working in the United States who face similar conditions to those endured by their Egyptian counterparts. The report found that there are hundreds of thousands of children and teenagers working as hired farm labour in the United States who risk pesticide poisoning, heat illness, and work-related injuries.
Mourad indicates that with alternative methods being used to curb leafworm before it spreads to the plant, the number of children being used in the process is bound to decrease. "The labour-based method of removing the leafworm from the cotton plants was more common before the fiscal year of 1999-2000. After that we began using different methods, which attempt to control the growth of these worms in the first place," he explained.
In the meantime, children remain pawns of a system beyond their control. It is a system in which children are hired while grown-ups suffer unemployment, extreme poverty pressures families into sending their children to work and rich governments use human rights as an excuse to further their competitive goals in world markets, making poor countries even poorer. The real victims of this system remain Hamada, Ahmed and the rest of the million Egyptian children heading to the cotton fields this month.
"This is a complex issue, which should not be taken lightly," said Abdallah. "Neither by international powers, which come in typical cowboy fashion and tell us to 'stop or else'; nor by governments of developing countries, who make development their excuse to say 'We will do it one day, but not now.' Neither are serious human rights advocates."
Recommend this page
Related stories:
Dealing with the dole
Labour on the fence 11 - 17 May 2000
May Day dilemmas 29 Apr. - 5 May 1999
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Send a letter to the Editor