By David Simmons
After a deranged gunman killed three children at a Jewish school in Toulouse, France, on March 19, Israeli President Shimon Peres rightly said: “There is no greater sin than the murder of a boy or a girl.
“This is the most heinous crime. To wake up in the morning and murder children in cold blood is proof of the killer’s inhumanity and insanity.”
In an interview aired by the British Broadcasting Corp, he added: “What purpose can it serve?”
But the fact is that killing children does indeed often serve a purpose. Rarely, as in the Toulouse case, is the killing deliberate and direct – rather, dead children are statistics of that hateful reality, “collateral damage”.
There is no need to dwell on the fact that Peres’ own country is deeply guilty in this regard because of its brutal occupation of the Gaza Strip in particular but also the West Bank. Israel is not alone in such crimes – far from it. Indiscriminate missile, bomb and nowadays drone attacks kill children all the time. At least such deaths are quick; but the Food and Agriculture Organization reported in 1995 that 567,000 Iraqis under the age of five had died as a result of sanctions imposed against Saddam Hussein. Famously, Madeleine Albright said on 60 Minutes in 1996, when asked if this sacrifice was worthwhile: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.” Albright was US ambassador to the United Nations at the time.
Again, this is not news. The tragedy of children being maimed and killed by wars, both the shooting kind and the more subtle versions like the decade-long sanctions against Iraq and the current ones against Iran, are well documented. But in terms of sheer numbers, even these casualties pale in comparison with those due to poverty.
Recently the United Nations Children’s Fund conducted a study on child poverty in East Asia and the Pacific, including my adopted country, Thailand, and four others in Southeast Asia: Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines and Vietnam. Mongolia and Vanuatu were also included.
“The study results show that, of the 93 million children who live in these seven countries, approximately 54% experience poverty, as measured by deprivation of basic needs,” UNICEF reported. “In 2006, approximately 36% of children suffered severe deprivation in at least one of the seven dimensions identified as relevant for child poverty (food, water, shelter, sanitation, health, education and information) and approximately 14% suffered from severe deprivation in multiple dimensions. In the group of countries with the highest rates of child poverty (Cambodia, Lao PDR and Mongolia), approximately 83% of children were severely deprived in at least one dimension.”
You don’t need statistics to see that within this region, Thailand has made better progress against poverty than many of its neighbours; a bit of travel can provide the evidence. It can’t be denied that a lot of this is due to globalization. Many of the jobs that have been shifted away from developed countries in search of profit at the expense of working people in Europe and North America have certainly improved the standard of living in places like Thailand. But the fact that ordinary Thais have benefited more from this shift than their counterparts in neighbouring Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and the Philippines must be attributed to a large degree to government.
Thailand is now the “Detroit of East Asia”, a manufacturing centre for automotive giants Toyota, Honda, Ford, General Motors and others. Of course comparatively low wage costs are the main reason these multinationals came here, but intelligent management combined with reasonably well-enforced labour laws have ensured that Thai workers in this industry have gained a reputation for quality and reliability. As a result, although the automotive industry was hit extremely hard by the flood disaster of late 2011, with several factories inundated and supply chains disrupted for months, all of the major companies have opted not to relocate to less flood-prone (and lower-paying) countries. The same is true to a lesser extent of the electronics industry; Thailand is a major global supplier, for example, of computer hard-disk drives.
Despite the country’s successes, however, the Thai right wing led by the Chamber of Commerce fights tooth and nail against every attempt of the government to improve people’s well-being. Even though its own studies show that long-term economic growth will depend on a gradual shift away from export dependency toward domestic consumption, which would depend on increased disposable income among the majority of the populace, the Chamber and its cohorts are waging a huge battle against the current government’s policy to increase the minimum daily wage to 300 baht, about C$10. It’s the same song and dance played worldwide against such efforts – higher wages will “cost jobs”.
To give substance to that mantra, the garment industry, infamous for its exploitation of disadvantaged people in Asia and Latin America, has begun moving to more welcoming ground. To its great joy, Thailand’s effort to fight the income gap – still one of the highest in the region – has coincided with the “opening up” of Myanmar right next door. Even by the shabby standards of war-torn Cambodia and communist Laos, decades of oppression and mismanagement by Myanmar’s military junta have made that country desperate for any kind of investment, and the exploiters are being welcomed with open arms.
In March, six major Thailand-based garment manufacturers announced they were setting up shop in Myanmar. The newspaper I work for, whose business section is a reliable cheerleader for Thailand’s right wing, reported this in a “told you so” tone. I was tempted to insert some balance into the story, but exercising laudable restraint (and covering my own butt), I only added a sentence explaining that the government’s wage policy was aimed at improving the standard of living and addressing the wealth gap. I also headlined the story “Garment firms flee to low-wage Burma”, which made it into print.
So mega-corporations are using their wealth and clout to hold back progress in the fight against poverty, while UNICEF reports that “nearly 8 million children died in 2010 before reaching the age of five – most from pneumonia, diarrhea or birth complications. In urban areas, high concentrations of poverty combine with inadequate services to drive up child mortality.”
To borrow Shimon Peres’ words in the wake of the Toulouse atrocity, “What purpose can this serve?” The obvious purpose is to fill the hypermarkets of the rich countries with cheap “apparel” and other goods, and to fatten the profits of the corporate giants. As for the children who don’t get the medicines they need as a result or, in the longer term, cannot access the education they need to escape the cycle of poverty and misery – well, apparently “we think the price is worth it”.
