[뉴욕타임스로 논술을 잡아라]In Praise of the…

■칼럼

Africa desperately needs Western help in the form of schools, clinics and sweatshops *.

Oops, don't spill your coffee. We in the West mostly despise sweatshops as exploiters of the poor, while the poor themselves tend to see sweatshops as opportunities.

On a street here in the capital of Namibia, in the southwestern corner of Africa, I spoke to a group of young men who were trying to get hired as day laborers on construction sites.

“I come here every day,” said Naftal Shaanika, a 20-year-old. “I actually find work only about once a week.”

Mr. Shaanika and the other young men noted that the construction jobs were dangerous and arduous *, and that they would vastly prefer steady jobs in, yes, sweatshops. Sure, sweatshop work is tedious, grueling * and sometimes dangerous. But over all, sewing clothes is considerably less dangerous or arduous - or sweaty - than most alternatives in poor countries.

Well-meaning * American university students regularly campaign against sweatshops. But instead, anyone who cares about fighting poverty should campaign in favor of sweatshops, demanding that companies set up factories in Africa. If Africa could establish a clothing export industry, that would fight poverty far more effectively than any foreign aid program.

Namibia was supposed to be a pioneer in Africa's garment industry, for it is stable, pleasant and safe, and its government has tried hard to entice foreign investors. On the edge of Windhoek are a series of low * factories set up to produce garments for the American marketplace.

The biggest is the Ramatex Textile Factory, a Malaysian investment that employs 6,000 people. But the owners say they are losing money and will pull out *, and other factories have stopped operating as well.

In Windhoek's Chinatown, I met Sun Zhimei, a Chinese woman who operates a small factory employing Namibians. “I'd like to help this country, by boosting * its garment industry,” she said. But on the day I visited, her factory was deserted *. “It's cheaper to import goods all the way * from China than to make them here,” she complained.

The problem is that it's still costly * to manufacture in Africa. The headaches across much * of the continent include red tape *, corruption, political instability, unreliable electricity and ports, and an inexperienced labor force that leads to low productivity and quality. The anti-sweatshop movement isn't a prime obstacle, but it's one more reason not to manufacture in Africa.

Imagine that a Nike vice president proposed manufacturing cheap T-shirts in Ethiopia: “Look, boss, it would be tough to operate there, but a factory would be a godsend * to one of the poorest countries in the world. And if we kept a tight eye on costs and paid 25 cents an hour, we might be able to make a go of it *.”

The boss would reply: “You're crazy! We'd be boycotted on every campus in the country.”

So companies like Nike, itself once a target of sweatshop critics, tend not to have highly labor-intensive factories in the very poorest countries, but rather more capital-intensive factories (in which machines do more of the work) in better-off * nations like Malaysia or Indonesia. And the real losers are the world's poorest people.

Some of those who campaign against sweatshops respond to my arguments by noting that they aren't against factories in Africa, but only demand a “living wage” * in them. After all, if labor costs amount to only $1 per shirt, then doubling wages would barely make a difference in the final cost.

One problem―as the closure of the Namibian factories suggests―is that it already isn't profitable to pay respectable salaries, and so any pressure to raise them becomes one more reason to avoid Africa altogether. Moreover, when Western companies do pay above-market wages, in places like Cambodia, local managers extort * huge bribes in exchange for jobs. So the workers themselves don't get the benefit.

One of the best U.S. initiatives in Africa has been the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which allows duty―free imports from Africa―and thus has stimulated manufacturing there. But last year, partly because of competition from China, textile and clothing imports under the initiative fell by 12 percent.

The Congo Republic's president, Denis Sassou-Nguesso, told me that he would love to have more factories. It's incredibly frustrating, he noted, to see African countries export cotton, timber and other raw materials but rarely have the chance to process them. The American initiative “is a step in the right direction,” he said. “But it needs more of a push.”

One push needs to come from African countries themselves: a crackdown on corruption and red tape. But another useful step would be for American students to stop trying to ban sweatshops, and instead campaign to bring them to the most desperately poor countries.

-June 6, 2006 / By Nicholas D. Kristof

■주해

1)이 글은 크리스토프가 나미비아의 수도 빈트후크에서 현장 취재를 바탕으로 쓴 칼럼이다.

2)아프리카 남서부에 있는 국가. 남아프리카공화국의 신탁통치하에 있다가 1990년 독립하였다. 북쪽은 앙골라, 남쪽은 남아프리카공화국, 북쪽은 보츠와나, 북동부는 잠비아와 접하며, 서쪽은 대서양에 면한다. 인구 192만 명(2003).

■어휘

*malign=To make evil, harmful, and often untrue statements about; speak evil of.

*sweatshop=A shop or factory in which employees work long hours at low wages under poor conditions.

*arduous=Demanding great effort or labor; difficult.

*grueling=Physically or mentally demanding to the point of exhaustion.

*Well-meaning=Well-intentioned.

*low=Humble in status or character; lowly.

*pull out=To withdraw, as from a situation or commitment.

*boost=To assist in further development or progress.

*desert=To leave empty or alone; abandon.

*all the way=From beginning to end; completely. 예문) drove all the way from Detroit to Pittsburgh.

*costly=Of high price or value; expensive.

*much=A large quantity or amount. 예문) Much has been written.

*red tape=The collection or sequence of forms and procedures required to gain bureaucratic approval for something, especially when oppressively complex and time-consuming.

*godsend=Something wanted or needed that comes or happens unexpectedly.

*make a go of it=성공하다.

*better-off=Being in a better or more prosperous condition. 예문) a visit to her better-off relatives.

*living wage=A wage sufficient to provide minimally satisfactory living conditions. Also called minimum wage.

*respectable=Considerable in amount, number, or size. 예문) a respectable sum of money.

*extort=To obtain from another by coercion or intimidation.

■돋보기-스웨트숍의 두얼굴

이글은 앞서 공부했던 작가 Katharine Weber의 ‘The factories of lost children(잃어버린 아이들의 공장)’과는 상반되는 내용의 글입니다. 웨버는 그 칼럼에서 방글라데시와 태국의 스웨트숍(노동착취 공장)에서 일하는 어린이들이 저임금으로 근로조건이 열악한 환경에서 일하다 목숨을 잃는 사례를 고발했습니다. 따라서 미국인들은 스웨트숍에서 제조한 값싼 옷과 장난감을 사는 구매 습관을 중단해야 한다고 주장했습니다.

니컬러스 크리스토프가 이 칼럼에서 지적한 것처럼 해외 스웨트숍에서 물건을 생산해 판매하는 제품을 상대로 불매운동을 벌이는 사람들도 있습니다. 그러나 가난한 나라에 스웨트숍이 들어가지 않으면 일자리가 없는 사람들은 더 위험한 일에 종사하게 됩니다. 가난한 집의 소녀들은 성노예로 팔려가기도 합니다.

세상 일이 모두 그렇습니다만 스웨트숍의 한 측면만을 보아서는 안 되는 것이지요. 경제성장을 이루면 스웨트 숍은 더 가난한 나라를 찾아 자연스럽게 옮아가게 됩니다.

우리나라에도 과거 1960년대에 값싼 인건비를 노리고 찾아온 일본 기업이 많았습니다. 근로조건이 열악한 공해공장이었죠. 세계 10위 안팎의 경제대국이 되면서 그러한 공장은 찾아볼 수 없습니다. 중국이나 동남아의 더 가난한 나라로 옮겨간 거죠.

여러분은 어느 쪽이 옳다고 생각합니까. 스웨트숍에 반대하는 Katharine Weber의 글과 이 칼럼을 비교해 논술을 써보기 바랍니다.