Has the toy industry's attitude changed since then? Not according to a report of a non-governmental group based in Hong Kong, the Coalition for the Charter on the Safe Production of Toys.
China is now by far the world's largest manufacturer of toys, with exports worth some $3 billion a year. But, says the Coalition report, the thriving industry's 1.3 million workers, mostly females in their teens or slightly older, "fail to gain their due rewards" and are grossly exploited in other ways--to the point that their "lives are even sacrificed for the sake of economic interests." Since the toys are made in China under contract, the foreign company buying the toys "focus only on design and the marketing of its products," and seldom concern themselves with how the workers making the product are treated.
The Coalition report, based mostly on interviews with workers of nine factories making toys for export, documents at great length how these workers are victimized. Eight of the nine factories studied, all in booming Guangdong province adjoining Hong Kong, pay their workers less than the minimum wage (around 25 cents an hour) laid down by law. To increase their hold on their work force, the factories commonly withhold the first month's wages and return it only when the worker, with management's permission, leaves her employment.
Among the other abuses widely found in the factories:
"In Somerset Maugham's novel about novelists, 'Cakes and Ale,' one of the characters belittles Henry James for having 'turned his back on one of the great events of the world's history, the rise of the United States, in order to report tittle-tattle at tea parties in English country houses.' Today, as we talk about peace plans in Bosnia, elections in Haiti, and hostages in Chechnya, there is a danger of similarly neglecting the defining international political event of this era--the rise of China to world power."My own special concern is the plight of working men and women in China and the regime's persecution of its own people, especially Wei Jingsheng, Han Dongfang, and other moderate and non-violent reformers who could help China pass peacefully through its present period. See China's Wei. At the same time, I cannot avoid also being concerned by other grim realities in the People's Republic--especially by China's massive military build-up and the large U.S. financial and technological contribution to that build-up. China's new military power is often described as a threat only to its neighbors. But the threat is larger: "China is the only country in the world that targets the United States with nuclear weapons"--a little-publicized fact that I found buried in two 1994 articles, one in the New York Times and the other in Newsweek.
For decades now mainstream economists, under a mantle of infallibility rarely worn these days outside the Vatican, have been propagating successive generations of college students with a simplistic "free trade" doctrine that overrides every other principle except profit. As a result, far too much of public policy, nationally and internationally, is now set by blindly following free market abstractions that do not quite fit modern world realities.
Buchanan is sharply attacking those abstractions. Economists and other believers are counterattacking, often with smear words ("lunatic fringe stuff"). Indeed, Buchanan deserves to be criticized wherever he is wrong. He raises an outcry on how free trade, as presently constituted, harms many Americans, but in fact workers elsewhere are also losing out from the benefits of the expanding global economy. Yet he has struck a chord among many people afflicted with "downsizing" or the fear of downsizing. The job and trade problems Buchanan raises deserve to be seriously discussed, rather than angrily dismissed. Unfortunately, no Presidential candidate has so far demonstrated the kind of vision that these issues demand.
The answers are not simple, but the Presidential race would be
an ideal time for an open discussion, even a debate, about downsizing,
"free trade," and so-called "protectionism." Slanders will not make the
issues go away. Failure to address them honestly will only foster the nationalistic
protectionism that Buchanan advocates.
Bulletin #2: February 23, 1996