[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Testimony submitted by Phil Fishman (r)



Subject: Testimony submitted by Phil Fishman, AFL-CIO at the Senate hearing

Attn: Burma Newsreaders

I apologize for giving all of you hard time to reorganize the ragged text=
=20
that I posted before. In case you miss some part of the text, I repost=20
this to you to be sure.

Free Burma (freeburma@xxxxxxx)
-------------------------------------------- =20
                         Testimony of Phil Fishman                 95-26
                 Assistant Director, International Affairs
                     American Federation of Labor and
                   Congress of Industrial Organizations
                                  to the
                     Senate Appropriations Committee=20
                    Sub-Committee on Foreign Operations


                               July 24, 1995


     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity to present the
views of the thirteen-and-a-half million member AFL-CIO on the current
situation in Burma.  I will confine my remarks to three areas.

     First, I would like to summarize for you what we know about the practi=
ce
of forced labor in Burma including the most recent information we have been
able to obtain.

     Second, I would like to inform this sub-committee about the actions of
the International Labor Organization (ILO) concerning the chronic violation
of intentionally-recognized worker rights by the Burmese military regime,
particularly its use of forced labor.=20
    =20
     Finally, I will make a few remarks about the AFL-CIO position on
sanctions.

     Mr. Chairman, while a ray of hope for democracy has certainly opened i=
n
Rangoon with the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the continued widespread
use of civilians by the State Law and Order Council (SLORC) for forced labo=
r
on infrastructure projects and forced portering of military supplies
continues unabated.  =20

     Based on interviews that the AFL-CIO and other observers have been abl=
e
to conduct in ethnic-controlled areas of Burma and in Thailand, it is clear
that SLORC administrative units and army troops continue to rely heavily on
forced labor to complete basic development projects, conduct military
campaigns against ethnic groups, and instill fear in villagers in order to
prevent support for anti-SLORC groups.  These actions are as systematic as
they are brutal, clearly indicating that the SLORC has an official policy o=
f
utilizing forced labor.  The recent testimony of a Karen woman in a refugee
camp in Thailand on July 7 is indicative of the organized way in which SLOR=
C
requires forced labor from  common villagers:  =20

     "My family and I arrived here five nights ago.  We came with one other
family and spent 6 nights along the way...people must take turns going to
work for SLORC.  If one person doesn't go, he has to pay 500 Kyats per day.
 Those who go don't get any pay and food.  The village is divided into 7
sections, and 5 men from each section have to go each month to work for SLO=
RC
for the whole month.  At the end of the month, 5 new men must go.  Also,
5 more men for the section must work for them for 5 days at a time, and eac=
h
5 days a new group of men must go."

     Indeed, the practice is so widespread that a paper trail has been put
together in a booklet of forced labor orders from SLORC commanders to villa=
ge
leaders. =20

     Such stories are common-place and yet so clearly show the SLORC's
complete disregard for the lives of the villagers who tell them.  Taken as =
a
whole, they are numbing but in the telling of individual cases, the
horrifying details come out.  For instance, an elderly farmer from the
village of Ah Mae in the south was interviewed in a refugee camp after bein=
g
conscripted by the Burmese army and experiencing repeated beatings.  He
finally escaped to Thailand.  This is some of what he had to say. =20

     =93As soon as the fighting [with Mon troops] came to an end, the comma=
nder
called and told me, you said there were no Mon troops around here, why did
they shoot us?...He continued, =91are they Mon troops or Ah Mae villagers w=
ho
attacked us...After I refused to accept the accusation that it was Ah Mae
villagers encouraged by Mon troops, [the commander] gave the order to one o=
f
his sergeants to beat me.  The sergeant severely beat by fists in my stomac=
h
several times and told me to admit to the attack of the Ah Mae
villagers...Many soldiers around me also beat me and the sergeant told me
again and again to agree and admit to their accusation...I could not tolera=
te
further torture and I admitted to their accusation by saying, =91yes, the A=
h
Mae villagers attacked you.   =20
=20
     The diversity of projects in which forced labor is performed, in
addition to its continuing use by the military in its campaigns against the
various ethnic peoples, is stunning.  Whether it be the Ye-Tavoy railroad i=
n
southern Burma referred to by those in the area as the death railroad; the
ancient palace moat in the city of Mandalay in the north; the Hai Gyi islan=
d
naval base in the Irrawaddy delta; or a sports festival to be held in the
town of Loikaw in Kayah state in November, the evidence is overwhelming.

     Let me focus for a moment on two sectors where forced labor is employe=
d.

    =20
     There is a growing body of evidence surfacing on the SLORC's showcase =
$1
billion gas pipeline paid for by the American corporation UNOCAL and its
French counterpart TOTAL. Interviews with villagers who have not only lost
their lands but have been forced to clear them to make way for the pipeline
are growing.  Village after village is being razed in this manner,
voluntarily we are supposed to believe, by those who have lived in them the=
ir
whole lives. Tomorrow, July 25th, a program is scheduled to air in Great
Britain entitled =93Life on the Line=94 which shows in vivid, horrifying de=
tail
the systematic destruction of villages and the use of forced labor by the
SLORC in the construction of this pipeline. =20

     Equally as insidious as the involvement of multinational corporations,
either knowingly or unknowingly, in the use of forced labor on the gas
pipeline project, is the SLORC's use of forced labor to ready the country f=
or
"Visit Myanmar Year" in 1996.  Aiming at convincing half a million tourists=
,
the campaign is designed to end years of isolation, revamp the regime's
tarnished image, and, obviously, attract considerable hard currency.  Force=
d
labor is used all over the country in this process, on roads, airports and
possibly hotel construction.  Last week, ABC Nightline aired a segment in
which its reporter filmed forced labor on the way to a tourist site.  Forei=
gn
investors such as Novotel are reportedly involved in the tourism promotion
campaign.

     Indeed, Mr. Chairman, there are new stories about forced labor in Burm=
a
almost every week.  The July issue of the National Geographic magazine,
hardly a publication with a political ax to grind, which rather
matter-of-factly talks about family members being seized by the army to ser=
ve
as porters never to be seen again.  =93Such stories are, unfortunately,
common,=94 the writer reports.  =20

     Mr. Chairman, let me be clear.  What we are talking about is a vast
system of forced labor which to one degree or another ensnares virtually
every family in Burma.  The SLORC calls this a voluntary system, a Burmese
cultural tradition, which those on the outside are unable to understand.  T=
he
UN Commission on Human Rights, the ILO, and most important of all the
thousands of Burmese citizens who have found the courage to tell their
terrible tale, strongly believe otherwise.=20

     Let me move on to the International Labor Organization.  For many year=
s
now, the ILO has been concerned with the systematic violation of basic work=
er
rights by the Burmese government, particularly the use of forced labor in
violation of ILO Convention #29 and the total absence of freedom of
association in violation of Convention #87.  Since 1981, the ILO's Committe=
e
on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, which is comprised o=
f
worker, employer and government representatives, has taken up the case of
Burma ten different years, a record virtually unmatched during the same tim=
e
period.  Special paragraphs, the most extreme form of sanction the triparti=
te
committee has available to urge in the strongest terms that a country respe=
ct
basic worker rights, has been given to Burma on five separate occasions. Ju=
st
this past June the Committee on the Application of conventions and
Recommendations singled out Burma with special paragraphs on both Conventio=
n
#29 - forced labor and Convention #87 - freedom of association. =20

     Finally, an Article 24 representation which is yet another form of
serious censure was accepted by the ILO's Governing Body in 1993 on the
widespread use of forced labor by military commanders through the forced
recruitment and abuse of porters. And I am confident that unless the
situation inside the country changes radically in the next few months, an
Article 26 complaint of the continued systematic use of forced labor by the
SLORC will be received by the Governing Body and will initiate a
comprehensive mission of inquiry into the matter that could last up to two
years.  This is a record of unparalleled abuse, Mr. Chairman, and places
Burma together with such countries as Sudan and Nigeria as the most flagran=
t
violators of basic human and worker rights.
=20
     I recite the unenviable record of the SLORC, Mr. Chairman, not only to
dramatize the extent of the problem, but also to emphasize to this committe=
e
the important role the ILO plays bringing attention to such unacceptable
behavior and in very concrete and effective ways applying international
pressure for change.  Where else, Mr. Chairman, are representatives of the
world's most brutal regimes interrogated, not only by governments but by
private sector employer and worker representatives, forced to publicly defe=
nd
their indefensible actions, and sanctioned by tripartite consensus?

     Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate you on your
legislation imposing trade sanctions against Burma which the AFL-CIO strong=
ly
supports in solidarity with our trade union brothers and sisters in the
exiled Free Trade Unions of Burma.  Whether it be South Africa, Pinochet's
Chile or the more recent experience of Haiti, experience has shown that
sanctions are an effective, perhaps the most effective, means to force outl=
aw
regimes to step aside and accept the will of their people. As AFL-CIO
President, Lane Kirkland, wrote in a recent letter to Aung San Suu Kyi:=20

     We believe, with you, that it is democracy and civil society -- not
economic opportunism -- which will ensure a better future for the citizens =
of
Burma. Therefore, until the rights of Burma=92s workers are respected, the
AFL-CIO will continue to support full international trade and investment
sanctions.

Thank you.       =20
-----------------------------end. (fb.072795.repost)