Western initiatives to eradicate child labour by restricting trade with countries showing a high incidence of it claim to be aimed at the best interests of the children themselves, however, the authors of trade restrictions such as these fail to realise that if children are primarily engaged in work to prop up their families' economy, for them to be no longer able to work would result in greater poverty and more suffering for them and their families. As much as the West would like to believe it, children who are expelled from workshops one day, are not found the next sitting up all clean and tidy in their newly pressed school uniform ready for lessons. Rather, they are likely to be out on the streets somewhere, searching for another way of earning money.

These initiatives also fail to recognise that they can only hope to make a difference for children engaged in the formal sector of organised labour in larger factories and workshops. The huge informal employment sector, including children engaged in domestic service, those self employed, and those employed in the many, many small time workshops and industries, remains untouched by measures designed to protect working children. By their nature, these interventions assume that work in the factories is the worst engagement for children. While children can be exploited and abused in all forms of employment, it is in the larger establishments where there is perhaps a greater chance of them being watched over by other workers and a greater likelihood that new child labour controls can be put into place monitoring their hours of work and conditions.

In Bangladesh, talk of the introduction of the "Child Labour Deterrence Act" in the United States, also known as the Harkin Bill must have sent shivers down the spines of garment factory owners who relied on the United States to import nearly all of their merchandise. They reacted by dismissing an estimated 50 000 children from the factories overnight. Although some education programmes were set up for the children, studies carried out a year later revealed many were now working in far more hazardous occupations such as stone crushing and prostitution.

Clearly, child labour is a complex issue. As indicated earlier, I am not advocating that it be ignored or allowed to continue unabated. It is my opinion that local and international efforts related to child labour should have the improvement of the lives of working children as their core focus. They should aim at stopping the exploitation of children rather than excluding them from the labour market and should include the children, who are the primary stakeholders, in project planning where possible.

Measures such as the Harkin Bill have the complete removal of children from employment at their heart. This is an unrealistic objective and it allows for no improvement in working conditions, no reduction in working hours, and no access to education while working.

An AusAID study of Child Labour in Bangladesh recommended that "...financing measures designed to integrate school and work time....are to be avoided absolutely" because supporting such measures would reward employers and encourage child labour. My experience in Pakistan has led me to reject this position. For the most part, child labour is about children and families responding in the most creative way they can to the poverty that engulfs them. For this, they should not be punished. If programmes can bring about a gradual reduction in hours incorporated with appropriate education, a step is being taken in the right direction.

Sandie Walton-Ellery is a Masters student in the Department of Political Science at the University of Western Australia. Her thesis concerns the effect of Western policies on working children in the garment factories of Bangladesh. She lived in Peshawar, Pakistan as part of the Australian Volunteers Abroad Programme from 1995-1997.