Child Labour in Uzbekistan’s Cotton Sector

Introduction

Child labour remains one of the most serious human rights violations in the world, depriving millions of children of several human rights such as education, health and dignity. According to Save the Children, an estimated 160 million children aged between 5 and 17 years are engaged in work worldwide, with almost 79 million engaging in hazardous work that jeopardize their health and psychological well-being.

In Central Asia, Uzbekistan is one of the countries that has always been associated with state-sponsored child labour, particularly in the cotton sector, which was the lifeblood of the economy. For decades, Uzbekistan's classic annual cotton harvest involved forced mobilization of schoolchildren, university students and government employees, as teachers and doctors. Even if there has been incremental progress over the last decade, Uzbekistan's cotton sector represents a powerful case study to analyse how entrenched human rights abuses are maintained and, ultimately, addressed.

This thesis traces the historic development of child labour in Uzbekistan's cotton sector, explains the drivers of change and the forces behind them as internal and external and evaluates the country's path towards upholding children's rights.

Historical Context: from the Russian Empire to the independence of the country 

Cotton production in Uzbekistan dates to the colonial period. In the 1860s, as a part of its imperial expansion, the Russian Empire tried to develop cotton cultivation within its newly incorporated Central Asian areas to stem imports of American cotton. Uzbekistan's favourable climate and rich soils made it become a cotton-generating hub.

Following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, the Soviet Union increased Uzbekistan's monoculture of cotton by placing a high priority on the extraction of raw materials in furtherance of its industrial ambitions. Gargantuan irrigation projects such as excavating canals off the Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers allowed an increase in cotton production at the cost of the drying up of the Aral Sea.

By the 1950s, cotton, called also "white gold," was a pillar of the Soviet economy. Coerced into meeting unrealistic quotas, Uzbek officials engaged in widespread corruption, falsifying production reports and employing forced labour and child labour to pick the maximum amount of cotton. It all culminated in the famous Cotton Scandal of the 1980s, which contributed to the Soviet Union's crisis of credibility.

Uzbekistan declared independence from the collapsing Soviet Union in 1991. However, Soviet domination was not followed by liberty for Uzbek citizens. Islam Karimov, Uzbek's autocratic president from 1991 until his death in 2016, maintained the state firmly in command of the cotton sector. Each autumn, the state organized a "mass mobilization" of the cotton crop, mandating involvement of children, university students, teachers and other civil servants. Refusal usually meant fines, loss of employment or expulsion from school. Children were removed from classrooms, placed into fields under hazardous conditions and often they were not even paid.

Year after year, groups of the international community like Human Rights Watch and Anti-Slavery International started to report these systematic abuses. 

Child Labour in Uzbekistan’s Cotton Industry

Uzbekistan's cotton industry has long been affected by extreme human rights violations. Children as young as 10 years old, along with other workers, were subjected to inhuman conditions, including long hours of work, low pay, physical mistreatment and dangerous working conditions. Teachers, doctors and civil servants were often compelled to do so, taking staff away from schools and hospitals during harvest season.

Besides, child labour deprived millions of Uzbek children of their right to education, as provided in international agreements such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

Several factors sustained the presence of child labour. Poverty was a central factor because most families relied on the earnings from their children's work to survive. World Bank statistics indicate that poverty levels were high throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. Additionally, the presence of a weak educational system, especially with the closure of schools during harvest seasons, made it common for children to engage in farm work. Moreover, the absence of legal safeguards and enforcement tools hindered efforts to fight exploitation at the judicial level. Finally, child labour was perceived in Uzbekistan as a cultural norm, especially in rural areas where it was often regarded as a familial duty, blurring the line between tradition and exploitation.

The consequences of mass child labour were profound. Children who missed out on schooling were locked into poverty traps and limited in their social mobility. Health consequences from pesticide poisoning and excessive working hours further undermined their prospects. A report made by the Environmental Justice Foundation also highlighted the environmental degradation linked to cotton cultivation, imposing additional hardship on already marginalized groups.

International Pressure and Advocacy

The transformations that have affected Uzbekistan's cotton sector would not have been possible without continuous and collective effort by the international community. Over the decades, international organizations, foreign governments, NGOs and civil society organizations imposed persistent pressure on Uzbekistan, denouncing the human rights abuses and demanding change at the internal level.

One of the most powerful actors in this regard was the International Labour Organization (ILO), which played a specific role in counting the extent of child and forced labour in Uzbekistan. The ILO reports, grounded in accurate field observation, provided irrefutable proof of the structural nature of the problem. The dialogue between the ILO and the government of Uzbekistan included official negotiations, pilot schemes and the establishment of the Third-Party Monitoring Program, which came to serve a function in confirming reforms.

In addition, activism served a revolutionary purpose. The most important has been the Cotton Campaign, a coalition of human rights organizations, trade unions, socially responsible investors and business associations. Established in 2007, the Cotton Campaign utilized corporate responsibility and consumer activism to boycott Uzbek cotton from global supply chains. Having involved hundreds of foreign brands like H&M, Gap, Adidas and Tesco, the campaign succeeded in keeping Uzbekistan out of the main international textile markets. The cost and reputational consequences of the boycott created large incentives for the Uzbekistan government to pressure for reform.

National Reforms under President Mirziyoyev 

The death of Islam Karimov in 2016 was a turning point for Uzbekistan, and the rise to power of Shavkat Mirziyoyev created a new political direction. Mirziyoyev, aware that Uzbekistan had been under international pressure for the existence of forced and child labour in the cotton sector, embarked on a process of reform that was ambitious and strategically calculated. This transformation included several changes enacted to address one of the country's most entrenched human rights violences.

Among the key elements of this transformation was the reform of the cotton industry itself. Under Karimov, cotton cultivation was controlled exclusively by the state in the form of obligatory quotas, sending children, students and bureaucrats out onto the fields each harvest season. Mirziyoyev abolished this quota system and introduced the cotton cluster model, where private enterprises could assume the production process. This privatization removed direct state control and radically changed the incentives at the heart of the industry. Private operators, who wanted to reach global markets and maintain reputational standards, had no reason to maintain exploitative labour practices that might jeopardize their business prospects.

At the same time, Uzbekistan undertook substantial legal reforms. The Constitution was amended to render the prohibition of forced labour more robust, and the Labour Code and Criminal Code were amended to introduce harder sanctions for the abuse of workers' rights. National institutions were engaged to oversee the enforcement of the reforms, such as the creation of a National Commission tasked with coordinating efforts to eradicate forced labour at different levels of government.

Another decisive factor in the reform process was Uzbekistan's openness to international scrutiny. The government allowed the International Labour Organization (ILO) to carry out independent Third-Party monitoring during the cotton harvests, a change from the earlier policy of denial and secrecy. The monitors were able to record the eradication of forced and child labour practices and added legitimacy to the reform process in the eyes of the international community.

By 2022, the ILO officially declared that forced and systematic child labour were eliminated from Uzbekistan's cotton farms. This change enabled Uzbekistan to further open doors to significant international markets and to join programs like the Better Cotton Initiative, aimed at sustainable and ethical production methods.

Conclusion

The modernisation of Uzbekistan's cotton industry by President Shavkat Mirziyoyev has been a success, particularly considering the nation's history of state-supported child and forced labour. The eradication of systematic abuses of workers during the cotton harvest is a significant human rights achievement and is an indication of the intention to address domestic calls for reform as well as international pressure. But while Uzbekistan is attempting to come out as a modern, responsible world country, it must face its root structural issues, which have been slowing down full democratization and the safeguarding of human rights. 

Although child labour has been officially banned and the apparatus of mass mobilization has been dismantled, forced labour remains far from being completely eradicated. Local authorities and private companies continue to occasionally coerce vulnerable groups, particularly in rural areas, where old practices are unlikely to disappear and where control and verification systems are being strengthened. Economic vulnerabilities, low wages and a lack of robust labour protections create a landscape where exploitation, while no longer systemic, can still occur sporadically.

In addition, broader political constraints remain. Freedom of speech remains limited, and the independence of civil society and the media is severely limited. Trade unions, which could be powerful advocates for workers’ rights, remain disorganized and state controlled. Without a truly independent judiciary and an equitable civil society, there is a risk that gains in workers’ rights in sectors such as cotton production will be undone or dismantled.

Environmental degradation, a result of decades of monoculture cotton cultivation, is also a significant hindrance to sustainable development. Water resource shrinkage, soil salinization and biodiversity loss threaten the long-term sustainability of agriculture reforms unless the reforms are complemented by comprehensive environmental policies.

Overall, however, Uzbekistan’s reforms are commendable: the path forward is not limited to eliminating forced labour in a single sector. It requires a commitment to building strong, independent institutions, engaging in civic activism and addressing the socioeconomic conditions that foster exploitation. Only through a coordinated and sustained effort can Uzbekistan ensure that the progress made not only lasts but also provides the foundation for a more equitable and democratic future.