Sunanda K Datta-Ray: Some realism is in order

WHERE MONEY TALKS

Desirable working conditions are fine, but having work is equally important.

Somewhere along the line, a balance has to be struck between the most desirable working conditions and the need for people to earn the best living they can. That applies to child labour, which is undoubtedly evil, but without which many families in India and elsewhere would starve. It is also true of the export of unskilled workers who are exploited in most countries but whose annual repatriation of £90 billion makes a difference to the economies of Bangladesh, the Philippines and "" yes "" India.

Similarly, a new report by the British charity, Oxfam, that top sportswear manufacturers use exploitative factories in Sri Lanka, Indonesia and other Asian countries deserves to be treated with circumspection. Its publication on the eve of the World Cup soccer matches was obviously planned to mobilise opinion against the suppliers of multi-billion dollar brands such as Adidas, Nike, Fila and Puma.

Criticism is justified. But the charges are not new; nor are they confined to sports. International fashion houses that order their designer items in India are guilty of the same offence. So are the Western retailers of Chinese ready-mades and electronics. So, indeed, are the principals of all those much-talked about call centres in Bombay and Bangalore.

It would be a cruelly virtuous response to the problem of price differential if all these thousands of Asian factories and work places are closed down in the name of morality and millions of people thrown out of employment. A more rational answer lies in an international mechanism that takes into account ground realities in developing countries while supervising work conditions and wages and deciding on a relevant pricing formula. Often, the fault lies not with the brand sellers but their Asian subcontractors whom some might compare with 19th century compradors.

Their female workers toil for long hours for low wages. Union rights are not recognised, and demands for higher wages mean dismissal. Under international pressure, some companies claimed to improve working conditions without actually doing anything. Other international companies rejected suppliers who did carry out reforms and were obliged in consequence to raise prices.

The report's British release coincided with an outburst of related controversies. Amnesty International complained that the new Terrorism Act that increased the maximum time police can detain terror suspects without charge from 14 to 28 days will cause "serious human rights violations." Another conflict between human rights and common sense concerned a convicted criminal who being released early from prison, promptly murdered a woman. As the chief inspector of probation reported, the authorities considered the man's human rights before their duties to the public.

Also, were the nine Afghans who hijacked an airliner on a domestic flight in Afghanistan in 2000, flew it to Stansted airport near London and sought asylum criminals or political refugees? Britain's Immigration Adjudication Panel granted them asylum but Charles Clarke, then home secretary, sought to send them back. Recently, the High Court criticised him and his two predecessors (Jack Straw and David Blunkett) for "conspicuous unfairness amounting to an abuse of power". They were accused of violating Britain's 1998 Human Rights Act which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights.

None of these cases can justify carte blanche dismissal of all human rights. But, obviously, rights have to be tempered with a realistic assessment of attendant circumstances.

It is not very relevant, for instance, to blame Adidas because it pays the French footballer Zinedine Zidane nearly £1 million in sponsorship while workers at the Indonesian factory which makes his and David Beckham's boots earn only 30 pence an hour. What matters is what Adidas pays the factory, the Indonesian equivalent of 30 pence and how it compares with local wages.

It is also relevant "" and heartening "" that countries where workers have few legal rights now account for 38 per cent of Nike shoes against 52 per cent in 1998.

Since Adidas, with a £4.41 billion revenue, has suppliers in Japan, as well as Cambodia and Indonesia, it cannot rely only on cut-price goods. Nike (revenue £6.07 billion) buys from Sri Lanka, Thailand, Bulgaria and Indonesia.

What Oxfam thinks is the worst instance of exploitation proves that pushing human rights too hard in societies without a social welfare safety net is counter-productive. This concerns the American Sport Brands International's £140.37 million-revenue Fila brand that reportedly used an Indonesian factory which denied workers basic rights, subjected women to sexual harassment and was guilty of serious labour abuses. But when the factory closed down last year, its former employees were left high and dry.

That danger faces all Asian countries that cater to Western principals in whatever form. The absence of full employment should not be exploited. But how can principals be prevented from hopping from country to country (or supplier to supplier) in search of lower prices? How can Asian suppliers be made to treat workers better? Can international prices be linked to local costs? Perhaps, these are aspects of globalisation that merit the World Trade Organisation's attention.