During my 2009 visit to Bangladesh, in my capacity as vice president of the Delegation of the European Parliament for relations with South Asia, I had an hour’s discussion with Sheikh Hasina, who had become Prime Minister that year.
Although our conversation had disaster looming in the background, we had climate change primarily on our mind, to whose ravaging effects Bangladesh is particularly prone. I was taken to visit specific areas to witness sites devastated by flooding. Little did I imagine that, just over three years on, the Prime Minister would be presiding over a disaster of another kind altogether.
There are decisions that Europeans should take as consumers
On April 24, an eight-storey building collapsed in the capital, Dhaka. Some 3,000 factory workers, part of the country’s garment industry, were in the building at the time.
They had been forced to enter the building by their employers even though visible cracks had appeared in the building a day or so earlier.
The number of victims runs into hundreds. The number of potential victims, however, is considerably higher.
Bangladesh is one of the world’s leading ready-made garment producers. It is perhaps second only to China. The industry employs four million people directly and exports account for some 80 per cent of Bangladesh’s total.
Working conditions are notoriously poor. The monthly take-home wage for many workers is around $40. Apart from low pay and limited rights, the working conditions themselves are often dangerous.
This may explain why the owner of the collapsed building, who is now being detained by the authorities, and the factory owners could get away with forcing workers to enter a visibly dangerous building. Indeed, the general lack of enforced regulations probably explains why he could get away with building an extra three storeys and insisting that heavy machinery was introduced into the building when, it seems, it was not built of materials that could take that weight.
The poor general working conditions also explain the reaction of many garment industry workers in the wake of the disaster. Although all of them were given the weekend off, as a cooling period, thousands walked out of their factories on the first working day as a sign of protest.
Since then, the authorities have begun to clamp down on other dangerously built factories. It has been reported that many factories have been closed down. The new unemployed have been given their wages, so far it seems, by the authorities.
The disaster has brought out various sides to Bangladesh and its international relations.
We should not ignore the heroism that some people have shown in trying to save their compatriots and in not giving up the search even several weeks after the incident itself.
One man interviewed by the BBC described how his own place of work was right opposite the collapsed building. He was forbidden from leaving his work site by a security guard and he just ignored him. Overcoming his fear, he entered the collapsed building. The very first body he encountered was decapitated. He pulled it out and went back straight inside.
Over the course of the next several days, he pulled out about 34 people, many alive, sometimes taking as many as five hours to rescue just one person from under the debris.
The most moving part of his testimony was how he had to amputate the hand, leg or foot of three victims, who could not be dislodged otherwise. A doctor he begged to enter the building to perform the operation refused, so he did it himself armed with just a knife and some local anaesthetic.
In criticising other aspects of the rescue operations, we should never forget the shining heroism of ordinary people.
The government turned down international offers of help, saying it could manage on its own. There is some evidence, however, that some of the equipment used, and coordination of the efforts, would have been greatly helped if the offer of assistance had been accepted.
We cannot say that this disaster has nothing to do with Europe (or the US). Most of the exports produced by such factories are aimed at the European and US markets. Several European high street chains have been identified as being direct or indirect buyers. It should also be said that at least a couple of them have offered compensation to the victims.
The entire incident, however, highlights matters that go beyond charity or good works. There are ethical and legal issues at stake as well.
There are decisions that Europeans should take as consumers. A decision to be aware of where and how what we buy from the global south is made. Otherwise, our bodies may be clothed but our principles would be bare.
There is also the weight that the EU can bring, as a major global market, to influence labour conditions of health and safety. The EU delegation in Bangladesh has already offered European help so that the necessary reforms can be made.
If necessary, however, European politicians should do more to ensure our clothing is not made so cheaply thanks to the blood spilt by others.
John Attard Montalto is a Labour member of the European Parliament.