As I mentioned in my recent post, Decreasing Child Labor in 2012, child labor continues to hold some 215 million children in its firm grasp. While the fight to this practice has received increased attention, it is a long and hard battle. One of the largest and most public arenas where the fight against child labor is waged is in agriculture.  According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), two-thirds of children aged 5-17 work in agriculture.  Two massive consumer industries that continuously profit off the backs of child laborers are the cocoa/chocolate, and cotton/garment industries.

Rather than learning and dreaming of a brighter future in classrooms where they belong, thousands of children are working long and laborious hours in harsh and often dangerous conditions with little hope of a prosperous future, let alone a fair and decent wage- if any wage at all.

Child Labor in the Cocoa Industry

The global cocoa industry often traffics children to work as slaves. According to UNICEF, in West Africa 200,000 children are living in conditions of forced labor and slavery on cocoa farms.  One company that has been under heavy pressure to remove child labor from their supply chains is U.S. chocolate leader Hershey; however, the years of pressure by consumers and the media, not to mention the industry itself, have largely passed with little impact.  The Hershey Company has been aware that their products are tainted by slavery and child labor since at least 2001, when along with the other major chocolate companies, Hershey made a commitment to end child and forced labor in their cocoa supply chains.  In September 2001, chocolate and cocoa industry representatives signed the Harkin Engel Protocol, developed by Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Eliot Engel, in an effort to eliminate child labor in the industry. The protocol has a six-point approach to solve the problem, including a time sensitive process to establish credibility and eliminate the use of child slavery. The protocol was signed by the industry’s large cocoa producing companies and set forth an action plan to eliminate the worst forms of child labor and forced labor from cocoa farms worldwide by 2005.

However, Hershey’s has continued to produce their products undaunted by the knowledge that their profits come with a high human cost. They continue to source cocoa from the Ivory Coast, which according to the International Labor Organization (ILO), produces 43% of the worlds cocoa, without ensuring that child labor exploitation does not occur in the production of the cocoa they use.  However, it seems that 2012 is the year Hershey will finally opened their eyes and fall to pressure, mostly thanks to the International Labor Rights Forum and the public campaign “Raise The Bar“, aimed directly at the company’s failure to act.  The ILRF contacted Hershey to let them know of their plans to air an ad about Hershey’s child labor issues on a jumbo-tron at the Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis for the Super Bowl.  Suddenly Hershey’s was ready to speak up and issued a statement that, by the end of 2012, they pledged to use only Rainforest Alliance certified cocoa for its  Bliss chocolate line. Rainforest Alliance Certified farms have three pillars of sustainability: environmental protection, social equity and economic viability.  Hershey’s also stated they they plan to invest $10 million in West Africa, to encourage economic initiatives and to reduce child labor and improve cocoa supply (Huffington Post).  While this is great news, it is not yet time to celebrate, as it is a small step in the long road to freedom for millions of children victimized by child labor.

 

Children in the Cotton Fields

Over the past few years, the media has highlighted the case of Uzbekistan, a major global supplier of cotton to the garment industry.  Estimates say some 1.5 to 2 million schoolchildren between the ages of 10-16 years-old have been forced to pick cotton each year from September-November. However, despite an international outcry, and ban against cotton from Uzbekistan by many Western companies the previous year, little changed for Uzbek children last year, as they continued to be pulled from the classrooms and forced to work in the cotton fields (EurasiaNet). Sadly, Uzbekistan is not the only country utilizing child labor to harvest their precious ’white gold’; India is also a large producer of both raw cotton and processed materials. Yet unlike the children of Uzbekistan they have not found themselves under the heavy scrutiny of investigators or the public media.  “According to one Indian campaigning organization, around a third of workers in the cotton-producing industry are children. The number of child cotton workers across the country as a whole could be as much as half a million.” (SOS Children’s Villages)

This past month, retail giant and one of the top consumers of fair-trade cotton, Victoria’s Secret, under the parent company Limited Brands Inc., was thrust into the spotlight due to reports of child labor practices by a supplier from which they purchase fair-trade fiber harvested in Burkina Faso each year.  “Under regulations separate from those being examined by homeland security, the U.S. Department of Labor had determined the problem of forced child labor in Burkina Faso’s cotton sector was serious enough to ban its fiber from the federal government’s procurement system. It’s one of just 29 products from a total of 21 countries that U.S. agencies are forbidden from buying under those rules.” (Bloomberg)

 

Are we doing enough?

The case against cotton from Burkina Faso highlights that bans in themselves do not solve the problem. The same is true in Uzbekistan, whose suppliers simply found new buyers in Russia and China.  In both the cotton and cocoa industries,  there is an need for increased monitoring of suppliers and prosecution of cases of labor violations. However, countries must cooperate with investigations, making regulation difficult.  It is clear that we need to strengthen both domestic and international legislation and cooperation to allow the prosecution of acts involving child and forced labor.  Until every child is out of the fields, mines, factories, fishing boats, etc. and in a classroom, we are not doing enough.  Yes, it is a long road, but there is an end in sight and we must not stop until we reach it.

To end child slavery the pressure and willingness to rid it from each level of the supply chain must come from every direction.  This means not only governments and large scale corporations, but consumers.  When the price seems too good to be true, it usually is, and when your not paying for it someone else, perhaps a child, is paying the price for you.  Remember that while it is difficult to know each step of the supply chain producing your products, you can still be an active and educated consumer by purchasing items that are certified fair-trade.  Please also see previous posts on Child Trafficking, Child Labor and fair trade such as, Fair Trade Trick-or-Treating, Become a Conscious Consumer this October for Fair Trade Month and Impact Children, and don’t forget to check out the following resource pages: Fair Trade and Slave Free Links and Fair Trade Book List.  You can hear stories from the children who work in cocoa fields from the International Cocoa Initiative here.  For more info on the campaign to end child labor and cotton visit Environmental Justice Foundation here.

Look for my follow-up post on fair-trade chocolate and learn how to ensure that your Valentines treats are child labor and slave free.

Would President Obama’s new security strategy, a plan for a “leaner” U.S. military, unveiled earlier this month, have prevented the Iraq War were it adopted a decade sooner? Sarwar Kashmeri, a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, makes just this point in his analysis of U.S. defense strategy in the Huffington Post.  Is the history of U.S. intervention since 9/11 necessary to understand President Obama’s decision to refocus military power on small, agile forces rather than large ground troops? Or could the U.S. have implemented this defense doctrine sooner?

Read Kashmeri’s interesting analysis here.

By Alton Lu for The Huffington Post

Back in the beginning stages of the War on Terrorism, President Bush enacted the Patriot Act. This allowed the government to spy on citizens, monitoring their activities in order to discern whether or not someone is a terrorist. It brought about changes in law enforcement that allowed agencies to search phones, financial records, etc.

One of the most controversial aspects of the law is authorization of indefinite detention of non-U.S. citizens. Immigrants suspected of being terrorists would be detained without trial until the War on Terrorism finished.

On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed a law known as the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2012 fiscal year, or the H.R. 1540. Congress passes this act every year to monitor the budget for the Department of Defense. However, this year the NDAA bill has passed with new provisions that should have the entire country up with pitchforks.

Normally, this is just an act which details the monetary calls of the Department of Defense which is passed every year. However, the act passed for the 2012 fiscal year changes the bill and can be seen as an extension of the Patriot Act. Now, the indefinite detention has been extended to U.S. citizens as well. If people are spied on and suspected of being terrorists, they may be detained indefinitely without trial.

In a country famous for the belief that one is innocent until proven guilty, this is an upsetting change that is being foisted upon the American people with many unaware of what it means.

The provisions of the Patriot Act allow the government to spy upon U.S. citizens and the NDAA allows the government to whisk a citizen away for no reason other than being suspected of terrorism.

So why has this law been passed when it is very easily seen as unconstitutional? The Fourth Amendment grants liberty from unreasonable seizures, while the Sixth guarantees every U.S. citizen a trial in front of a jury. No matter what supporters of the bill might have said about the provisions being misunderstood, the simple fact is that it is unconstitutional.

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has made arguments for this provision, stating that the law would apply for US citizens’ turncoats who have aided Al-Qaeda or other associated organization. He gave a long-winded story of how a U.S. citizen might fly to Pakistan to receive terrorist training, then return home and shoot down fellow citizens a few miles from the airport.

It’s a disgusting show that Graham is pulling. He has made an example of how a single U.S. citizen might become a turncoat and because of that possible risk, the citizen’s right to a trial and jury has been abolished.

Supporter of the NDAA, Representative Tim Griffin stated in the Daily Caller:

Section 1022′s use of the word ‘requirement’ also has been misinterpreted as allowing U.S. citizens to be detained, but this provision does not in any way create this authority. This provision must be read in the context of Section 1022′s purpose, which is reflected in its title and relates solely to ‘military custody of foreign al Qaida terrorists.’ The term “requirement” does not mean that detention of U.S. citizens is optional under this provision.

He merely states that the people have ‘misinterpreted’ the provisions within the bill.

This is a situation in which they are able to detain U.S. citizens, but they won’t because that’s wrong. I will repeat: “They are allowed through the NDAA to detain U.S. citizens, but they won’t because that’s wrong.”

Similar to Griffin’s response, President Obama has released a statement regarding the H.R. 1540
(NDAA):

Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

President Obama says that his administration will not authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens. Yet Obama also said that he would close Guantanamo Bay. Obama also said he would recall the troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Obama also said he would end the Bush tax cuts.

It doesn’t matter the reason these promises were not kept. What matters is that they weren’t. Obama says his administration will not authorize the indefinite detention of citizens. But that could change. The interpretation of this bill can change on a dime. These politicians who say there is nothing to fear could quickly change whenever they see fit.

These implications grow larger as we know there is no single accepted definition of terrorism present in the United States. The State Department defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

Under this definition, the entire United States can be seen as terrorists. The government had planned the operations in Iraq and has resulted in over 100,000 civilian deaths. It can also be said that the U.S. is changing views of terrorism throughout the world… influencing an audience. Terrorism cannot be specifically defined as attacks against the United States; therefore, the United States might have been terrorizing parts of the Middle East.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has stated that there are laws regarding terrorist suspects in America in place by the Department of Justice. Issues such as having an armed weapon or having a food supply lasting at least seven days can be grounds for terrorism.

I look to my well-supplied pantry filled with foods my loving mother had purchased from Costco. I’m not one to count it all, but I’d say it would last my entire family over a week.

My father legally owns a handgun. There’s something about protecting his family that is important to him, so he keeps a gun nearby.

I am writing a story that is against what the politicians in Washington have voted for. Can I be seen as aiding Al-Qaeda because I am attempting to change the views of the public to something that is against government; because there is a gun in my home and we have a well-supplied pantry?

Can I be seen as a terrorist under the definition of terrorism? Yes I can. Will I? I hope not.

– Alton Lu is an 18 year old high school senior. Alton Lu: I see the name as the most uncommon thing about myself. I’m just a typical teenager in a stereotypical high school residing an in un-extraordinary town. I enjoy pretending that I’m a modern-day philosopher and political activist while still living out the generic high school experience. I am now embarking on the longest, most extensive campaign to the presidency. If you agree with my views, look forward to voting for me in about thirty years. If you disagree…I hope you’ll still vote for me.

Filed under: Democracy, Freedoms, President Obama, United States Tagged: Bill of Rights, Civil Rights, Department of Justice, DOD, Due Process, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Habeas Corpus, Lindsey Graham, NADAA, National Defense Authorization Act, Patriot Act, President George W Bush, President Obama, Racial Profiling, Terror Suspects, terrorism, US Constitution, War on Terrorism

By Nida Khan for The Huffington Post

While many Muslims (and people outside the faith for that matter) were heavily embedded in a debate over the controversy surrounding hardware store Lowe’s and its recent decision to remove ads from TLC’s reality show All American Muslim, a more detrimental attack against their future was all but finalized. Reversing an earlier decision to veto provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2012, President Obama made the disturbing announcement that he would sign this legislation into law and thereby solidify the ability of the military and other factions to indefinitely detain anyone they deem an enemy of the state. And on New Year’s Eve, the President unfortunately made good on this promise with the stroke of his pen. At a time when the United States is grossly engaged in both active combat and covert drone campaigns in a multitude of Muslim nations, and when loosely defined terms like ‘terrorist’ can be arbitrarily thrown about, Muslims specifically — and all of society generally — shouldn’t take this disturbing development lightly.

In post-9/11 America, many have sadly grown accustomed and tolerant to routine practices of racial profiling, bias and even attacks against Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim. But in addition to blatant violence, workplace discrimination and subliminal acts of racism, Muslims have also become aware of another nuance that other Americans may not even realize exists — hesitation to give to charity. Because of fear that any charitable Muslim organization or mosque could suddenly be called out for links to a lone extremist faction (whether it’s justified or not), many pulled their money and cut back on donations to the extent that long-established charities found it virtually impossible to survive. Usually without any valid reason, many stopped supporting Muslim aide groups for the simple notion that anyone, anywhere could at any moment single out that organization and in turn put all those who gave money out of goodwill at risk for associating with them. The victims in all this? The impoverished and destitute in many “third world” countries.

At the same time, tragically, other active Muslims who were entrenched in the community or worked in an organizing capacity (much like our president once did for the disenfranchised), ceased their activities over trepidation as to how their efforts towards equality could one day be misconstrued for something nefarious. The climate of society forced many followers of the Islamic faith to alter their involvement on a plethora of levels. Even today, as forces like the NYPD keep Muslims under intrusive surveillance and continued cases of FBI entrapment emerge, many have stopped attending mosques or interacting too much within the community out of sheer apprehension over unwarranted government action. It is an unfortunate reflection of how marginalized groups often times suffer under the radar without a representative voice in government and in the mainstream.

Throughout modern history, we’ve had other instances of outrageous fear mongering, bias and injustice against those whose patriotism we questioned. Though it is rarely covered in classrooms, the internment of hundreds of thousands of Japanese and those of Japanese ancestry during WWII is a perfect example. Literally rounded up and “excluded” from living in the cities and towns they resided in, these “suspicious” individuals were interned in camps because their allegiance to the country “could not be determined.”

In 1950, at the height of the great red scare, Congress passed the Internal Security Act which required the American Communist Party, affiliated organizations and all ‘subversives’ to get fingerprinted and officially register with the Attorney General. This draconian law was so outrageous that then-President Harry Truman even vetoed it (though Congress overruled his veto in the end). The truly tragic and troubling thing about today’s NDAA is that President Obama isn’t even attempting to veto it anymore; he is instead giving it his stamp of approval. Even though the president stated that he has “serious reservations” regarding the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists, and even though he emphasizes that his administration will not indefinitely militarily detain American citizens without trial, what happens after he is no longer in office? Future leaders of the free world, after all, have absolutely no obligation to honor Obama’s signing statement, nor follow in his footsteps.

Yes, our first African American president has changed much of the vitriolic language used when covering the topic of terrorism, and yes he has taken great caution to ensure that Muslims and terror itself are not juxtaposed together. For that, he should be commended. But by finalizing the ability of any president to deem persons — including U.S. citizens (if they so interpret this bill) — an enemy that could then be indefinitely detained without charge or without trial, he sets into motion a frightening precedent. As a former constitutional law professor, President Obama should be inherently aware of the impending ramifications.

During the struggle for civil rights, many journalists, activists and those vocal citizens working alongside Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X and other leaders suddenly found themselves targeted for their activities. Countless advocates became political prisoners and others saw their careers and lives ruined. Now at a time when we already have legislation like the Patriot Act renewed, and warrantless wiretapping is openly put into practice, this defense act not only indoctrinates AUMF (2001 Authorization for use of Military Force) and many activities that were previously in existence, but it also leaves open the possibility of silencing anyone on a level with which we never even imagined.

As American Muslims, we’re happy that some are starting to ease the negative imaging and stereotyping against us, and are instead open to learning more about what the Islamic faith truly stands for. As a routinely alienated group, we’re overly ecstatic when a program like All American Muslim actually portrays us in a light other than that of some extremist radical. But while we should embrace the boycott of Lowe’s for its open bigotry, and praise folks like Russell Simmons for stepping up to the plate to purchase ads for the program, we should put just as much focus into the potential of someone like a Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum taking over the White House and having full reign to detain whomever he pleases. Just remember the Bush-era verbiage of “you’re either with us or against us” and the atmosphere of intolerance that permeated under his presidency, and couple that with the ability of someone with his mentality being able to willfully determine any one of us a “traitor,” lock us up and throw away the key.

If Muslims scaled back their activities in the community and their charitable donations out of paranoia over the unrealistic possibility of being tied to something suspicious, just imagine the fear that will ensue if anyone can be instantly and militarily detained over accusations where the burden of proof won’t even be on the accuser. It is indeed an alarming scenario that can (and in all likelihood will) give new meaning to the term reality — no TV required.

Nida Khan is an independent journalist and producer working in print, radio and TV. As a news correspondent for WRKS 98.7 Kiss FM NY, she has covered everything from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign to protests for the defense of Sean Bell.

Filed under: American Muslims, Democracy, Freedoms, Islam, Muslims, President Obama, United States, US Commission on International Religious Freedom Tagged: All American Muslims, American Muslims, Civil Rights, George W. Bush, Islamophobia, Lowe’s, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr, Muslim Americans, Muslim Charities, National Defense Authorization Act, Newt Gingrich, NYPD, Patriot Act, President Obama, Racial Discrimination, Rick Santorum, TLC

On World AIDS Day, UN officials say end to epidemic is within reach
In his annual World AIDS day message, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, “Momentum is on our side. Let us use it to end AIDS — once and for all.” U.S. President Barack Obama announced plans to redirect $50 million in already approved funding to fight HIV/AIDS. Writing in the Huffington Post, former U.S. Assistant Surgeon General Susan Blumenthal outlines a plan for achieving an AIDS-free generation.

Resistance to AIDS drugs is shown among Asian children
Years of scientific effort, financial investment and health campaigning have yet to yield a cure for AIDS, but they have combined to provide a basic treatment. Today, World AIDS Day, advocacy groups urged that more attention be given to young HIV patients, especially those in Asia, where children as young as five are becoming resistant to AIDS drugs.

Would-be teen bride is hospitalized in Afghan acid attack
The recent acid-throwing attack on a teenage Afghan girl and her two sisters has again focused attention on the fates of child brides. The 17-year-old girl in the Kunduz province, north of Kabul, was apparently supported by her family in rejecting the match with an older suitor, who is suspected in the incident.

Guatemala battles femicide
Guatemala continues to struggle against gender-based violence, victimization and femicide, the killing of women usually by a spouse or other family member. The number of women killed in Guatemala this year is on track to equal the 2010 rate, which was down slightly from 2009.

Aid agencies warn of Somalia humanitarian disaster
Aid organizations are raising an alarm over an unfolding humanitarian disaster in Somalia after al-Shabab militants ordered 16 major agencies out of the country. The move came as aid agencies were attempting to resettle tens of thousands of famine-affected Somalis who had sought refuge in the capital Mogadishu.

Using biogas for cookstoves
A novel project in rural South Africa is training women to build bio-digesters, devices that produce biogas from cattle dung, to be used in lieu of charcoal and firewood to power cookstoves. The pilot project, to which the United Nations Development Programme is a partner, is intended to serve as an example of how communities cannot only live off the grid, but reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Are sexual assault trends changing in DR Congo?
Some health care workers in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo are seeing a change in the cases of sexual assault, with fewer victims naming military forces as perpetrators. The numbers of assaults have yet to post a significant drop and military forces do continue to be accused of widespread abuses including mass rapes.

UN reports on abuses in Syria
Syrian authorities have killed at least 256 children, and sexually tortured male detainees, during the past eight months as they have tried to violently put down anti-government protests, according to the findings of an investigation by an independent commission of the United Nations Human Rights Council. “Children were also tortured, some to death,” concludes the report, released Monday, which chronicles what it calls “gross violations of human rights” during the government’s crackdown.

India’s malnutrition efforts are falling short
India is struggling to improve child malnutrition levels despite agricultural growth and overall economic expansion, and is unlikely to achieve significant gain without a coordinated national policy, development experts warn. India was able to decrease the rate 3% between 2000 and 2006, significantly less than experts would expect in a country experiencing rapid growth. 

A crackdown on child marriage in Bangladesh
Communities across Bangladesh are beginning to act decisively against the practice of child marriage in response to coordinated efforts by aid groups and local authorities. Prevention efforts include public awareness campaigns and the creation of local income-generating activities to help keep girls in school.

In Ghana, novel anti-malaria program emphasizes drug access
Mobilize Against Malaria has created a network of more than 1,000 small medicine retailers, so-called licensed chemical sellers, that are instrumental in an innovative campaign in Ghana to promote prevention and early treatment of malaria. The group, started in 2007, targets pregnant women and children under five in areas without access to a pharmacy or hospital in an effort to fight malaria, which accounts for nearly 40% of Ghana’s outpatient illnesses.

Nigeria pursues anti-malaria battle with bed nets
Nigerian authorities and the international aid community have partnered to distribute free insecticide-treated bed nets in a bid to reach universal coverage. Malaria kills 300,000 children under the age of five in Nigeria annually.

Economic growth is not the sole factor in women’s health issues
A country’s economic growth can significantly affect women and girls through greater spending on public health and infrastructure. Countries such as China, India and Indonesia have failed to make major impacts on women’s and girls’ health despite rapid economic growth, while rising food prices, malnutrition and poor sanitation continue to disproportionately affect females.