Blood Cotton
Forced child labour in Uzbekistan’s cotton fields.
Cotton picked by hand in Uzbekistan. Photo © EJF.
T his is one of the most shocking
stories of forced labour that
involves children.
The setting of this story is the Central
Asian republic of Uzbekistan – one of
the most brutal among post-Soviet
dictatorships. The Islam Karimov regime
is notorious for its ruthless repression
of any kind of opposition or threat –
political, social or economic.
One example of this repression – a
massacre – shook the world in May 2005,
when Uzbek National Security Service
troops opened fire on anti-government
protesters in the eastern city of Andijan
killing more than a thousand men,
women and children. Earlier, in 2003,
a forensic report commissioned by the
British embassy in Tashkent confirmed
cases where political prisoners were
boiled to death.
26 September/october 2009
By Tasneem Khalil
Uzbek activists report that, in the
name of fighting the threat of Islamic
militancy, the regime operates a massive
program of torture, imprisonment and
executions. Of course, whether the
Islamic threat is real or manufactured,
remains a big question.
“Reports of torture or other ill-
treatment stem not only from men
and women suspected of membership
of banned Islamic groups or Islamist
parties or of having committed terrorist
offences, but from all layers of civil
society, including human rights activists,
journalists and former - often high-
profile - members of the government
and security forces. Many of them have
alleged that they had been tortured
or otherwise ill-treated in custody
in order to extract a ‘confession,’”
Amnesty International noted in a recent
Independent World report
statement.
In this backdrop, Uzbekistan is the
sixth largest producer of cotton in the
world. When it comes to the export of
cotton, it is the third largest – earning
over $1 billion yearly, through the export
of 800,000 tonnes of cotton. And – most
importantly – given that Uzbekistan is a
control economy, its cotton sector is one
of the major sources of income for the
Karimov regime.
As International Crisis Group
described in 2005, the economics of
cotton in Uzbekistan is simple and
exploitative. Millions of the rural poor
work for little or no reward growing and
harvesting the crop while the profits go
to a small group of elites.
When I asked exiled Uzbek journalist
Umida Niyazova about this arrangement,
she detailed, “All profits from the cotton
sector are concentrated in the hands of
the president, his family and those close
to him. Farmers who grow 90% of cotton
crop are in a situation that the cultivation
of cotton is unprofitable for them. The
state artificially sets low prices, while
the farmers buy the supplies needed for
production at market prices. They bear
criminal responsibility for selling their
own crops to anyone but the state. They
cannot refuse to grow cotton as it would
cause them to lose their land.”
As I enquired, organisations
working on forced child labour in
Uzbekistan described one of the most
brutal routines of the Islam Karimov
regime: Each September, as the cotton
harvesting season begins in Uzbekistan,
the government shuts down most of the
schools and forces the schoolchildren
out to the cotton fields to pick cotton.
This countrywide mobilisation of forced
labour is coordinated centrally. Human
rights groups estimate that more than
200,000 children are involved each year,
as for 2-3 months schools are turned into
suppliers of cheap/free child labour.
“We are aware of other countries
where state-sponsored forced labour
takes place, but, none that targets
children in a manner similar to
Uzbekistan,” Joanna Ewart-James of
Anti-Slavery International told me.
In 2008, International Labor Rights
Forum reported: “Schoolchildren as
young as fifth grade (eleven years old)
were sent out to pick cotton, and, most
remained in the fields into November.
Orders clearly came from provincial
governors to district governors, from
there to district education departments,
to individual schools. Schools were
assigned quotas to fulfil, and principals
of schools that did not meet the quotas
were threatened with dismissal.
[Children] performed arduous work
under hazardous conditions for full
work days and then were transported
back to their local schools and allowed to
go home for the night. Children fourteen
and older were housed in unsanitary
field sheds for the duration of the picking
season. There were no days off.”
Until 2004, the horrors of Uzbek
cotton were largely hidden from the
world. This changed when a group of
Uzbek activists launched an appeal
drawing international attention to the
plight of the children. One of the first
organisations to respond to that call was
Environmental Justice Foundation.
“EJF investigators first went to
Uzbekistan in 2004. We were horrified by
how widespread the problem was then
– and still is today. One of the human
rights defenders we met with, Mutabar
Tajibayeva, had recently launched an
appeal, supported by nineteen Uzbek
NGOs, calling on Western companies
to stop buying Uzbek cotton, as long
as children are forced to labour in the
harvest,” Juliette Williams, Campaign
Director at Environmental Justice
Foundation told me how it began.
Since then, an international campaign
against child labour in Uzbekistan
has taken shape. Organisations like
Environmental Justice Foundation,
International Labor Rights Forum and
Anti-Slavery International are now
part of the campaign that is fighting to
free Uzbekistan’s children from state-
sanctioned slavery.
One organisation that is oddly missing
from the picture is the United Nations
agency tasked with advocating for the
rights of children: Unicef. Unicef has an
office in Uzbekistan and according to the
Uzbek prime minister himself, out of all
the international organisations working
in the country “only Unicef is known by
people in every corner of the republic,
thanks to its presence on the ground.”
“We understand that Unicef has a
significant programmatic presence in
Uzbekistan, with over fifty staff based
in the country, and, also that Unicef has
excellent access to Uzbek government
officials. Despite this, Unicef has
failed to use its position to provide
the international community with any
credible information on forced child
labour in Uzbekistan’s cotton sector,”
said Bama Athreya of International Labor
Rights Forum. “Unicef did conduct a
survey of child labour in Uzbek cotton in
early 2006 which was widely discredited
by the international community for
its deeply flawed methodology. Since
that time, we wonder why Unicef has
not used its unique position and access
to develop thorough, credible and
replicable information about the nature
of the problem and its root causes? This
has been extremely disappointing to
us.”
Indeed, as I searched through the
Unicef website, apart from a few cursory
mentions of child labour here and there,
I could not find anything substantial.
Independent World report
Schoolchildren as young as
fifth grade (eleven years old)
were sent out to pick cotton.
Unicef maintains an odd silence on the
problem of state-sanctioned child labour
in Uzbekistan’s cotton sector. Why?
Maybe, this is a hint. Excerpts from an
Unicef press release, issued in December
2007: “The Unicef representative
in Uzbekistan, Mr. Reza Hossaini,
has been awarded the order Do’stlik
(National Friendship). ‘It is a mark of the
highest contribution in strengthening
the cooperation between Unicef and
Uzbekistan in developing the young
generation,’ said the president of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov,
in a statement... In receiving the
presidential order, Mr. Hossaini thanked
government, ministries, civil society and
partners at national and local level for
their commitment and hard work and
said: ‘Together we have achieved a great
deal and this order will further inspire us
to do even more for women and children
in the country.’”
When I asked Umida Niyazova about
this, she did not mince her words,
“Unicef has an office in Uzbekistan.
They hold ineffective formal meetings
and events, they never publicly criticise
the government and never demand that
the government admit and address the
problem of child labour. You will not find
much information about child labour
from their reports or their website. So,
the national friendship award from the
brutal Uzbek regime is the price for such
kind of loyalty.”
At present, Reza Hossaini is the
Unicef representative in Turkey. I
recently emailed him for his comments
on accepting the award from the Uzbek
government. As I write this, I am yet to
receive a reply from him.
However, Unicef is not the only party
guilty of silence, if not complicity, in
Uzbekistan.
On July 12, 2009 – International Day
against Child Labour – a group of forty-
seven Uzbek human rights activists
in exile, sent a renewed appeal to
the international community calling
for action against child labour in
Uzbekistan.
“We urge the US government and
the European Union to take effective
September/october 2009 27
Girl picking cotton, Uzbekistan. Photo © EJF.

28 September/october 2009 Independent World report

Cotton picking, Uzbekistan. Photo © EJF.

Independent World report September/october 2009 29

Cotton picking, Uzbekistan. Photo © EJF.

“We are the President’s children” - Soviet poster in Uzbekistan. Photo © EJF.

30 September/october 2009 Independent World report

Boys queuing to have their cotton weighed. Photo © EJF.

Young cotton-pickers, Uzbekistan. Photo © EJF.

Independent World report September/october 2009 31

If they are lucky, these twelve-year-olds can earn 100-200 sums per day harvesting cotton. Photo © EJF.
measures to prevent cotton products
bearing traces of forced child labour
from gaining access to their markets.
Europe and the US abolished slavery in
their countries, but, by purchasing Uzbek
cotton products, they are encouraging
slavery in this Central Asian country.
That Uzbek cotton continues to benefit
from the General System of Preferences
(GSP) that reduces import tax duties for
Uzbek cotton and textile, can also be
viewed as an endorsement of slavery,”
the appeal read.
“The EU, as a whole, has not been
positive or engaged. [EU] relations with
Uzbekistan appear to be led by Germany,
a long-time ally and trading partner
of the Uzbek government. Strategic
interests – whether energy resources or
military bases – sadly seem to be taking
precedence over moral and ethical
issues relating to human rights abuses
entailed in the sale of a commodity to
Europe,” said Juliette Williams. “For the
past four years, EJF has been pressing for
the removal of tax preferences for Uzbek
cotton coming into Europe – a step that
has been taken by the EU against Belarus,
when labour abuses came to light.
32 September/october 2009
However, the European Commission
continued to avoid the issue, clearly
not wanting to sour trade relations
with the regime. It is absurd that the
EU continues to give tax preferences to
cotton produced using forced labour.”
“After the 2005 massacre in Andijan,
most of the European countries distanced
themselves from the Uzbek regime.
However, Germany still maintains a close
relationship with Uzbekistan,” Umida
Niyazova – currently in exile in Germany
– told me. “The military base in Termez
[used by Germany] and economic ties
mean that Uzbekistan has an influential
EU member as its ally. Publicly, Germany
pursues a policy of constructive dialogue
with Uzbekistan, despite worsening
human rights record, including massive
use of child labour.”
“Ironically on this issue, it is the
private sector that is leading the way
and stating that they don’t want to do
business with the regime until there is
real change – it’s governments and the
EU that are having to play ‘catch-up’ with
companies that are way ahead in terms
of policy-setting,” Juliette Williams told
me.
Independent World report
She was referring to the actions taken
by major European and North American
brands and retailers in response to
calls for boycotting Uzbek cotton in
their products. Among the brands that
have banned Uzbek cotton from their
supply chains are big names like Tesco,
Wal-Mart, Marks and Spencer and Levi
Strauss.
But, that list ends somewhere.
One of the major European
companies that resist boycotting Uzbek
cotton is H&M. In public statements, the
company condemns forced child labour
in Uzbekistan.
However, H&M claims in its website,
“It is often virtually impossible to
trace the cotton because it is traded a
number of times – and because we do
not buy any cotton ourselves.” I checked
this claim with Juliette Williams since
Environmental Justice Foundation has
been working for years on the traceability
of cotton.
Juliette Williams refuted the claim
saying, “Identifying the source of cotton
used by major brands and all the steps
Cotton picking in Uzbekistan. Photo © EJF.
along the supply chain is possible. It
can be done and has been done. No one
thinks that tracing cotton is simple.
But, it is certainly not impossible.
Look at companies like Tesco and
Wal-Mart, which have made a public
commitment to avoid Uzbek cotton. The
fact that cotton at its various stages of
production and processing is traded
internationally is important, as there is
always paperwork that enables transit
through customs. In short, we know that
at every stage somebody knows where
the cotton is coming from. Companies
need to spend some effort, ask the right
questions and let their suppliers know
what is required, or, in the case of Uzbek
cotton, what they want to avoid. They do
it for quality reasons, why not for ethical
reasons too?”
When I emailed H&M seeking
its comment on my investigation
that revealed two H&M suppliers in
Bangladesh are using fabric made of
Uzbek cotton in their productions, H&M
emailed back: “We do not demand that
our suppliers in Bangladesh keep us
informed about the source of fabric or
yarn. We can not exclude the possibility
that some of the suppliers you have been
in contact with could supply fabric or
yarn for H&M products.”
Another major European company
that does not publicly boycott Uzbek
cotton is Inditex. As my investigation
found that two Inditex brands – Zara
and Bershka – are directly sourcing
their garments from a supplier in
Bangladesh who imports 45%-50% of its
cotton from Uzbekistan, I asked Inditex
for its comments on specific findings
of my investigation. However, Inditex
chose not to comment on those specific
inquiries.
When I asked Juliette Williams for
her comments on the findings of my
investigation, she said “Over the past
four years there has been a growing
international awareness of the use of
forced child labour in Uzbekistan’s cotton
fields. As a result of media coverage
and consumer awareness, many of the
major retailers have denounced the
use of forced child labour, and publicly
stated that they will no longer accept
Uzbek cotton in their supply chains. If
these companies are taking cotton from
Uzbekistan, via Bangladesh, it is almost
Independent World report
certain that it has been produced using
forced child labour, undermining their
public statements and undermining
consumer confidence in these brands. If
the companies are actually aware of the
source of the cotton, or even perceive
the likelihood it would prove to be a
shocking and highly damaging blow to
their credibility.”
I asked Umida Niyazova for her
reaction, “I think, companies which
ignore calls to boycott Uzbek cotton,
simply demonstrate their tolerance to
the shameful practice of child labour.
Uzbekistan is a dictatorship. This regime
currently holds around five thousand
political prisoners. Citizens around the
world can support democracy and human
rights in my country by boycotting
brands which use Uzbek cotton in their
production. I hope, soon, we will be
making a list of these brands available.”
Meanwhile, this September, the
children are still out in the fields. �
Tasneem Khalil is the Editor of Independent
World Report.
September/october 2009 33