BURMA AT ILO: FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATIO

[darnott@xxxxxxxxxxx]

                    BURMA AT THE ILO JUNE 1997
 
                FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION CONVENTION 
 
 
BELOW ARE DOCUMENTS FROM THE DISCUSSION IN THE COMMITTEE ON
THE APPLICATION OF STANDARDS ON BURMA'S NON-OBSERVANCE OF ILO
CONVENTION 87 CONCERNING FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION*. 
 
 
                             CONTENTS
 
1) TEXT OF THE SPECIAL PARAGRAPH ON MYANMAR
2) TEXT LISTING MYANMAR FOR CONTINUED FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT
3) PROVISIONAL RECORD OF THE DEBATE ON MYANMAR 12-13 JUNE 1997 
   IN THE COMMITTEE ON THE APPLICATION OF STANDARDS (OFFICIAL  
   PRECIS OF A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS) 
4) FULL TEXT OF THE STATEMENT BY THE US WORKER MEMBER
 
           
On 12-13 June 1997 the Committee on the Application of
Standards of the International Labour Organisation discussed
Burma's non-implementation of the Convention concerning
Freedom of Association - one of the ILO's core Conventions,
which Burma ratified on 4 March 1955. After listening to
statements by Worker, Employer and Government members as well
as statements by the representative of the Government of
Myanmar, the Committee issued a Special Paragraph on Myanmar.
To mention a case in a special paragraph of the Committee's
report is one of the strongest measures the ILO can take on a
country. The Committee also listed Myanmar under a paragraph
on continued failure to implement.
             
                         ...............
 
 
1) TEXT OF THE SPECIAL PARAGRAPH
 
168. As regards the application by Myanmar of Convention No.
87, the Committee took note of the statement made by the
Government representative and of the wide discussion which
took place. It recalled that this case has been discussed by
the Committee on numerous occasions, in 1987, 1989, 1993, 1994
1995 and 1996. In 1995 the Committee put its conclusions in a
special paragraph of its General Report and in 1996 it also
mentioned this case in a section of its General Report
highlighting the continued failure to implement, taking into
account that, for many years and in spite of various appeals,
serious discrepancies with the Convention continued to exist
in legislation and practice. The Committee could not but
deplore the fact that no government report was received by the
Committee of Experts and expressed its profound regret that
serious divergences between the national legislation and the
Convention continued to exist. It also deplored the fact that
the Government failed to cooperate. Being greatly concerned
with the total absence of progress in the application of the
Convention, the Committee once again urged the Government to
adopt, as a priority, the measures and mechanisms necessary to
guarantee, in legislation and practice, to all workers and
employers, without any distinction or any previous
authorization, the right to join organizations of their own
choosing to protect their interests. The Committee insisted
also on the need for those organizations to have the right to
affiliate with federations and confederations and with the
international organizations, without any interference from the
public authorities. The Committee expressed a firm hope that
substantial progress in the application of the Convention
might be noted in the very near future and urged the
Government to supply a detailed report to the Committee of
Experts.
 
                          ..............
 
 
2) TEXT OF PARAGRAPH ON CONTINUED FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT
 
173. The Committee recalls that its working methods provide
for the listing of cases of continued failure over several
years to eliminate serious deficiencies previously discussed,
in the application of ratified Conventions. This year the
Committee noted with great concern that there had been
continued failure over several years to eliminate serious
discrepancies in the application by Myanmar of the Freedom of
Association and Protection of the Right to Organise
Convention, 1948 (No.87); by Nigeria of the Freedom of
Association and Protection of the Right to Organise
Convention, 1948 (No. 87); and by Sudan of the Forced Labour
Convention, 1930 (No. 29).
 
                       ...................
 
 
 
3) DEBATE ON MYANMAR UNDER CONVENTION 87
 
 
C. App/PV.15
12.06.97
Afternoon
 
 
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE
85th session, Geneva, June 1997
 
COMMITTEE ON THE APPLICATION OF STANDARDS
 
15th sitting, 12th June 1997, 3.15 p.m.
 
 
Discussion of individual cases
 
Convention No. 87: Freedom of Association 
and Protection of the Right to Organise, 1948
 
 
 
[GOVERNMENT OF MYANMAR REPRESENTATIVE]**
 
Myanmar (Ratification: 1955). A Government representative
recalled that, in previous sessions of the International
Labour Conference, information relating to the application of
Convention No. 87 had been provided to the Conference
Committee, regarding which some members of the Committee
commented on the continued efforts of his Government to enact
a new trade union law. He reaffirmed the interest of his
Government in promoting and protecting the legitimate rights
of all workers. A total of 17 labour-related laws were still
in force in his country. Half of those laws had been enacted
during the British colonial days, while the remaining half had
been adopted after the attainment of independence nearly five
decades ago. The Department of Labour under the Ministry of
Labour was mainly responsible for reviewing and redrafting all
laws to ensure that they were in conformity with changing
circumstances. In the process of reviewing and redrafting
laws, priority had been given to the Trade Union Law, the
Workman's Compensation Law, the Factories Law, the Leave and
Holiday Law, the Minimum Wages Law and the Employment and
Training Law. Other labour laws were also scheduled to undergo
the same process.
 
     Focusing on the draft trade unions law, he stated that
the Department of Labour and the Office of the Attorney-
General had approved the draft and submitted it to the Central
Laws Scrutiny Body. After scrutinizing the draft, the Central
Body had returned it to the Labour Ministry with remarks and
recommendations for modifications and redrafting. One
important recommendation by the Central Body was that,
following the necessary drafting, the revised text should be
tabled and subjected to extensive consultation with all the
parties concerned, namely employers' organizations, such as
the Union of Myanmar Chamber of Commerce and Industry,
representatives of public and private enterprises and workers'
welfare associations. Taking into consideration the
recommendation of the Central Laws Scrutiny Body, which it was
planned to implement within the year, it was hoped that it
would be possible to submit the revised draft to the
respective supervisory body at an appropriate time.
 
 
[WORKER MEMBERS]
 
     The Worker members recalled that Myanmar was a persistent
violator of the Convention and had therefore frequently come
before the Committee. The case had been discussed in 1987,
1989, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996. For over 40 years, the ILO
had been requesting the Government to respect the fundamental
principles of freedom of association. The Committee had
requested it to ensure the right of workers to freely
establish and to join first-level unions, federations and
confederations, without previous authorization, subject only
to the rules of the organization concerned, and to freely
affiliate to international workers' organizations, in
accordance with Articles 2, 5 and 6 of the Convention.
 
     Over the years, the Government had bluntly refused to
cooperate with the Committee and had once again failed to
supply the report requested, despite the inclusion of the case
in a special paragraph last year. The case had been mentioned
by the Committee in a special paragraph in 1993, 1995 and 1996
and deserved to be placed in a special paragraph once again
this year. The message from the Government of Myanmar was
clearly that it considered it more important to deny the
workers in the country freedom of association than to live up
to the obligations deriving from the Convention. This amounted
to an insult to all ILO constituents and the Government
rightfully deserved worldwide condemnation for its behaviour.
 
     In 1996, the Government representative had reaffirmed his
Government's firm commitment to the principles of freedom of
association and to a multi-party democratic system, a free
market economy, justice and human rights for all. However, the
Government's conception of what this implied appeared to
differ enormously from that of the Worker members. The
continued repression and violation of human rights, including
the right to freedom of association and democracy, by a
military regime showed that the Government had no intention
whatsoever of complying with its obligations or the requests
of the Committee. The Worker members recalled that a
Commission of Inquiry had been set up to investigate a
complaint under article 26 of the Constitution concerning the
non-observance of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29).
Moreover, the Government representative had requested
technical assistance from the ILO, but the ILO representative
had been prevented by the authorities from undertaking the
mission.
 
     For some years the Worker members had been raising the
matter of seafarers in Myanmar and had been requesting the
Government to confirm that they were no longer required to
sign contracts obliging them not to contact international
trade union organizations and that they were no longer
intimidated if they exercised their rights in accordance with
the Convention. Regrettably, the question had to be repeated
once again this year.
 
     The Worker members expressed surprise that Myanmar had
recently been admitted to become a future member of the
Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). This
constituted a setback for the democratic forces in Myanmar and
had been criticized by the Nobel Prize winner, Aung San Suu
Kyi. The Worker members were concerned that the Governments
concerned might relax their demands concerning respect for
freedom of association in the country and that, in reality,
the ILO Constitution might be set aside. The Declaration of
Philadelphia stated that all national and international
policies and measures, in particular those of an economic and
financial character, should be judged and accepted only if
they promoted the fundamental principles of the Organization,
including freedom of expression and association. The
acceptance of Myanmar as a future member of ASEAN was not a
good example of the application at the regional level of the
ILO principles of objectivity, impartiality and transparency,
which were actively advocated in the ILO by many of the
Governments concerned.
 
     In conclusion, the Worker members urged the Government to
immediately accept the right of workers to organize freely in
trade unions without prior authorization and to affiliate
freely with international trade union organizations. However,
as no action had been taken by the Government, the Committee
should express its dissatisfaction in the strongest possible
terms and mention the case in a special paragraph for
continued failure to implement the Convention.
 
 
[EMPLOYER MEMBERS]
 
     The Employer members observed that the comments made by
the Committee of Experts on the case of Myanmar were getting
shorter. This was due to the fact that, after repeated
examination of the case, there was almost nothing new to be
said. The ILO supervisory bodies had been examining the
continued non-existence of freedom of association in the
country for decades. Since the early 1980s, the Conference
Committee had been placing its conclusions on this case in a
special paragraph of its report due to persistent violations
of the Convention. When the case had been examined by the
Conference Committee the previous year, the Government
representative had nothing new to report and had merely
repeated his statements from previous years. There had briefly
been some hope that an ILO mission might be able to assist in
addressing the problems related to application of the
Convention. However, although the mission had been invited, it
had not been received by the authorities in Myanmar and had
not therefore been able to provide the necessary assistance.
For the part 40 years it had been impossible to establish a
trade union or an employers' organization without prior
authorization from the national authorities and there were
therefore no federations at higher levels. In effect, there
was no freedom of association in the country. Although the
Government had referred in general terms to certain draft
Bills on a number of issues of labour law, there had been no
clear indication that any of these would lead to the
development of freedom of association. Moreover, once again
the Government had not submitted the requested report
to the Committee of Experts. This was a very clear indication
of a lack of cooperation, and indeed non-cooperation on the
part of the Government. The Conference Committee was therefore
bound to repeat what it had stated last year and express its
regret even more profoundly that, despite its observations,
not the slightest progress had been made. Its conclusions
should be included once again in a special paragraph of the
Committee's report.
 
The sitting closed at 9 p.m.
 
                           ............
 
 
C. App/PV.16
13.06.97
Afternoon
 
16th sitting, 13 June 1997, 3.15 p.m.
 
Convention No. 87: Freedom of Association 
and Protection of the Right to Organise, 1948
 
 
[WORKER MEMBER OF JAPAN]
 
Myanmar (Ratification: 1995) (cont.) The Worker member of
Japan (Mr NAKAJIMA) pointed out that this was one of the
oldest and most serious cases of violation of Convention No.
87 before this Committee. The Government had accepted to
receive a direct contacts mission to the country. Its
subsequent failure to do so showed a complete lack of respect
for the supervisory machinery and the requirements of the
Convention. He further pointed out that freedom of association
could not exist without freedom of speech, freedom of
expression and freedom of assembly all of which were absent in
Myanmar. People who had participated in peaceful
demonstrations were regularly arrested and detained, and more
than 2,000 had been arrested in 1996. Students and fellow
workers who participated in these demonstrations were
unfortunately forced to seek asylum. He insisted that the
Government bring, without delay, its legislation into
conformity with the requirements of the Convention, and
announce a scheduled time frame for doing so. He urged the
Committee to have Myanmar placed in a special
paragraph.
 
 
[WORKER MEMBER OF PAKISTAN]
 
     The Worker member of Pakistan (Mr AHMED) regretted that
the Government representative had not bothered to reply to the
observation of the Committee of Experts concerning the
prevalence of the denial of freedom of association in Myanmar.
Basic human rights, including freedom of association, as
incorporated in ILO core Conventions, were fundamental to all
persons and if they were denied these rights, in any country,
no social justice could exist. He, along with the Worker
members, fully supported that freedom of association
principles be immediately respected in Myanmar.
 
 
[WORKER MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES]
 
     The Worker member of the United States (Mr FISHMAN)
pointed out that this case had been examined by the Committee
of Experts and this Committee on numerous occasions, for many
reasons. The most obvious was the hope that, despite the long
history of no progress, the unrelenting pressure of the ILO to
ensure that the Government respects its obligation taken
together with a growing international campaign to force the
military regime to step down and allow civilian self-
government, would one day begin to have an impact. Secondly,
despite the fact that nothing of substance had been heard from
the Government representative thus far, this was yet another
opportunity to communicate directly to the representatives of
the military regime, the condemnation of the international
community. Finally, it provided the Committee with an
opportunity to bring to the attention of the Committee of
Experts even more information on the violations of freedom of
association by the military regime.
 
     The speaker wished to ask the Government representative,
given the vague statements that the latter had made earlier
on, about the regime's respect for the rights of workers in
Myanmar, why the Free Trade Unions of Burma (FTUB) was not
allowed to function inside Myanmar. Moreover, he wondered why
workers who were identified with the FTUB were under constant
surveillance by the police and the military intelligence, and
why they lived in permanent fear of arrest and torture. He
strongly supported the view of both Employer end Worker
members that this Committee had to find a way to express its
extreme displeasure over the lack of progress and cooperation
from the military regime in even stronger terms than the
previous year. The Committee's conclusions should be
contained, once again, in a special paragraph of its report as
a case of continued failure to apply the Convention.
 
 
[GOVERNMENT MEMBER OF DENMARK]
 
     The Government member of Denmark (Mr HESS), speaking on
behalf of the Governments of Austria, Belgium, Canada,
Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway,
Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, expressed his deep
regret that the Committee, once again, had to examine the
violations by Myanmar of the Convention. In addition to the
fact that the Government had not sent a report to the
Committee of Experts, it regrettably had not been possible for
an ILO mission to visit the country, due to the lack of
cooperation on the part of the Government. Although the
Government representative had told the Committee, the previous
year, that it was his Government's intention to apply the
Convention, nothing had happened with regard to the rights for
workers in Myanmar to establish and join independent trade
unions. References also had to be made to Resolution 1997/64
of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, which had been
adopted by consensus. The Government of Myanmar had been asked
to "fulfil its obligations as a State party to the freedom of
association Convention No. 87 of the ILO, and to cooperate
more closely with the ILO". He firmly hoped, that it would be
possible to agree on a date for a mission to Myanmar in the
near future, that it would be undertaken before the next
Conference and that the Government would take the necessary
measures to ensure fully the right to organize and join
independent trade unions.
 
 
[GOVERNMENT MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES]
 
     The Government member of the United States (Mr SPRING)
stated that the situation of the rights of workers in Myanmar
was, quite simply, and very sadly, deplorable. There were no
functioning trade unions. Workers continued to be unable to
organize freely. Efforts by the ILO to offer technical
assistance had proved fruitless and were at present suspended.
In addition, seafarers from Myanmar who had attempted to
receive fair treatment and wages for their services on
international vessels, were intimidated and harassed when they
returned home. Those who did speak of free trade unions, dared
not return to their country for fear of imprisonment by the
Government and were obliged to live in exile. Although
Myanmar had freely ratified the Convention in 1955, the
Committee of Experts and this Committee were obliged to
conclude that it was not applied and that freedom of
association just did not exist in Myanmar. There were no
adequate explanations for this horrible situation. The only
appropriate answer was swift and concrete action to fully
restore trade union rights in Myanmar. In the meantime, he
joined the overwhelming call in the Committee for the
strongest possible conclusions in this case.
 
 
[WORKER MEMBER OF GREECE]
 
     The Worker member of Greece (Mr DASSIS) invited the
members of the Committee who were not familiar with this case
to consult the reports adopted by this Committee during its
1994, 1995 and 1996 sessions. In those reports, the Committee
had noted the commitment of the Government to bring its
legislation and practice into conformity with the provisions
of the Convention. The Government representative had just made
the same statement again this year. The Employer members were
quite right when they stated that everything had been
thoroughly discussed regarding this case. The Committee of
Experts also noted the absence of any new element. The list of
delegates for this Conference revealed an interesting aspect
of the trade union situation: the Worker member appeared in
that list in his capacity of controller of oil wells and sites
in the petroleum company. Although Myanmar was a third world
country, it had an abundance of resources. By forbidding
workers and citizens to organize themselves, a minority was
only trying to prevent the majority from organizing itself to
defend its own interests. The means available to incite a
change of attitude by the Government were unfortunately
limited to the adoption of a special paragraph. As we move
towards the twenty-first century, other means should be
envisaged in dealing with such a serious case where a regime
did not respect the most fundamental human rights.
 
 
[REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MYANMAR]
 
     The Government representative indicated that an
interesting dialogue had taken place in the Committee for
improvement in the application of the Convention, both in law
and in practice. He stressed that the present Government was
building the country into a peaceful modern and developed
nation, after having laid down clear-cut political, economic
and social objectives, which reflected the aspirations of its
citizens and the objective situation of the country. In this
context, efforts for national reconsolidation and the
emergence of an enduring new State constitution were being met
with success as a result of the goodwill of the Government. It
was to be recalled that Myanmar was a union of more than 100
ethnic groups, and that the Government through its goodwill
had been successful in bringing 15 out of 16 armed groups back
into the legal fold. This meant that peace reigned in the
country after almost half a century of internal conflict that
had held back development.
 
     He stressed that the other important task to which his
Government was firmly committed to, was the establishment of a
genuine multi-party democratic system and the enjoyment of the
principles of justice, liberty and equality. At this juncture,
although there were no trade union organizations in the actual
sense of the term, workers' welfare associations in various
industries were functioning on a tripartite basis. There were
more than 2,000 associations of this kind. Workers'
supervisory committees at the township level also looked after
matters relating to industrial relations. There were clear
indications that the Government never neglected the well-being
and welfare of workers. The labour administration system was
as strong as ever in terms of protecting the legislative
rights of workers. There was no doubt that trade unions'
rights would prevail within the framework of a new
constitution. Stability and national reconsolidation were the
prerequisites to reach this desired goal in the shortest
possible time. His Government had learned from the painful
events that had recently occurred in some countries that hasty
changes lead to disorder and instability that resulted in
suffering for the citizens. Therefore, it was making efforts
at gradual and stable progress towards the goal of a genuine
democratic society.
 
 
[CONCLUSIONS OF THE COMMITTEE]
 
     The Committee took note of the statements made by the
Government representative and of the wide discussion which
took place. It recalled that this case has been discussed by
the Committee on numerous occasions in 1987, 1989, 1993,
1994, 1995 and 1996. In 1995, the Committee put its
conclusions in a special paragraph of its general report and,
in 1996 it also mentioned this case in a section of its
general report highlighting the continued failure to
implement, taking into account that for many years and in
spite of various appeals, serious discrepancies with the
Convention continued to exist in legislation and practice. The
Committee could not but deplore the fact that no Government
report was received by the Committee of Experts and expressed
its profound regret that serious divergences between the
national legislation and the Convention continued to exist. It
also deplored the fact that the Government failed to
cooperate. Being greatly concerned with the total absence of
progress in the application of the Convention, the Committee
once again urged the Government to adopt, as a priority, the
measures and mechanisms necessary to guarantee, in legislation
and practice, to all workers and employers, without any
distinction and any previous authorization, the right to join
organizations of their own choosing to protect their
interests. The Committee insisted also on the need for those
organizations to have the right to affiliate with federations
and confederations and with the international organizations,
without any interference from the public authorities. The
Committee expressed a firm hope that substantial progress in
the application of the Convention might be noted in the very
near future and urged the Government to supply a detailed
report to the Committee of Experts. The Committee decided that
its conclusions would figure in a special paragraph of its
report and to mention this case among cases of continued
failure to implement Convention No. 87.
 
                           ...........
 
 
4) FULL TEXT OF STATEMENT BY PHIL FISHMAN, U.S. WORKER MEMBER
 
     This long-standing case concerning the very serious and
persistent violation of the fundamental principles of freedom
of association by the Burmese military regime brings into
focus the limitations of the ILO's standards enforcement
machinery.  The ILO relies on moral suasion to compel member
states to honor their obligations concerning ratified
conventions.  This presumes a minimal commitment to the
principles of the ILO as spelled out in the constitution. The
Director-General says as much in his report when he talks
about a Declaration of  Principles on Fundamental Worker
Rights.  Without this minimum commitment, moral suasion has no
power.  
 
     Such is the case with the pariah state of Burma. The
absolute denial of freedom of association must be viewed in
the context of the absolute denial of all basic human rights
and freedoms by the military regime.  Freedom of association
receives particular attention, however, for the leaders of the
military regime understand all too well that the freedom of
association - the right to come together, to organize, is a
necessary prerequisite for the protection of all other rights. 
This case comes before our committee only a few weeks after
316 followers of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi were arrested in order to keep them from meeting with each
other on May 27, the seventh anniversary of the landslide
victory of her party, the National League for Democracy, in
national elections. 
 
     We have already heard about the number of times this case
has been scrutinized by the Committee of Experts over the past
forty years and the number of times it has come before our
committee, a dubious record of distinction matched by few
other governments in the history of the ILO.   We continually
return to this case for many  reasons.  The most obvious is
the hope that, despite the long history of no progress, the
unrelenting pressure of the ILO, when taken together with a
growing international campaign to force the military regime to
step down, allow civilian self-government, and to respect the
rights of Burma's people, may one day begin to have an impact. 
Second, despite the fact that we have heard nothing of
substance from the government representative thus far, we have
yet another opportunity to communicate directly to the
representatives of the military regime the condemnation of the
international community to be carried back by them to Rangoon. 
And finally, it provides us an opportunity to bring to the
attention of the Committee of Experts even more information,
new information, on the violations of the freedom of
association by the military regime.  Who knows?  Maybe one day
the cumulative weight of the abuses will be too much for the
regime to bear.   
 
     Recently, I have been in contact with some
representatives of Burmese workers. I am not referring to the
supervisor of the notorious Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise
brought to the conference by the military regime - I say
"notorious" because it is precisely this state enterprise
which has been implicated in the widespread use of forced
labor to construct an overland gas pipeline in joint venture
with two multinational oil companies, one American and one
French.  I am talking about leaders of the Free Trade Unions
of Burma forced to operate from outside the country.  I wish
to ask the government representative, given the vague
statements he made yesterday about the regime's respect for
the rights of Burmese workers, why the FTUB is not allowed to
function inside Burma?   Why are workers inside the country
identified with the FTUB under constant surveillance by the
police and military intelligence?  Why do they live in
permanent fear of arrest and torture?  Mr. Chairman, there
will come a day in the not-too-distant future when our
brothers and sisters in the Free Trade Unions of Burma will be
able to carry out their trade union duties in their own
country, under the protections afforded them by Convention 87.
 
     In closing, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the combined
statements of both the worker and employer spokespersons that
the committee must find a way to express its extreme
displeasure over  the lack of progress and cooperation from
the military regime in even stronger terms than last year, and
that the conclusion should be contained once again in a
special paragraph of the committee's report as a case of
continued failure to apply Convention 87.
 
[13 June 97]
                        .................
 
 
* Text of the Convention posted separately
**(Headings in square brackets added - ed)