[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
ILO GOVERNING BODY: REPORT ON BURMA
- Subject: ILO GOVERNING BODY: REPORT ON BURMA
- From: darnott@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 14:14:00
ILO GOVERNING BODY: REPORT ON BURMA (Pt 1)
[This report will be discussed by the ILO Governing Body in the week
beginning 19 March 2001. The likely outcome is that report and the record
of the debate will be transmitted to the International Labour Conference in
June.
The report contains important information and documents, including the
Observations from the Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR), Appendix 8
-- DA]
Some emphases are lost in the text version below.
The report is available as a 39-page pdf file on
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/gb/docs/gb280/index.htm#GB
************************
GB.280/6
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
Governing Body 280th Session
Geneva, March 2001
SIXTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA
Developments concerning the question
of the observance by the Government of
Myanmar of the Forced Labour
Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
Introduction
1. At its 279th Session (November 2000), the Governing Body had before it
the report of the ILO technical cooperation mission which visited Myanmar
from 20 to 26 October 2000 and subsequent documents provided by the
Government.(1) The Governing Body concluded that the conditions set out in
paragraph 2 of the Conference resolution had not been met and that effect
should accordingly be given to the provisions of paragraph 1 of the
resolution adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 88th
Session (June 2000). The measures mentioned in paragraph 1 of that
resolution therefore came into effect on 30 November 2000.(2) In the light
of the discussion, it was however noted that the Director-General should
continue to extend cooperation to the Government of Myanmar in order to
promote full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of
Inquiry.(3)
2. In accordance with the Conference resolution, by letter of 8 December
2000, the Director-General brought subparagraph (b) of operative paragraph
1 of the resolution to the attention of governments of member States of the
ILO, and requested that they inform him of any action taken or envisaged in
this regard. The Director-General also requested that the recommendations
contained in the resolution be brought to the attention of the employers'
and workers' organizations in the country so that they might take relevant
measures and inform him either directly or through their government. A copy
of this letter was also sent to the relevant national organizations of
employers and workers.
_____________________________
(1) GB.279/6/1 and the three addenda to that document.
(2) The text of the resolution is reproduced in Appendix 6.
(3) The recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry are reproduced in
Appendix 7.
3. In addition, international employers' and workers' organizations and
other non-governmental organizations having consultative status with the
ILO were also informed of the Governing Body actions.
4. In accordance with the Conference resolution, by letter of 8 December
2000, the Director-General informed the international organizations
referred to in article 12, paragraph 1, of the Constitution of Myanmar's
failure to comply with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and
called on the relevant bodies of these organizations to reconsider, within
their terms of reference and in the light of the conclusions of the
Commission of Inquiry, any cooperation they might be engaged in with
Myanmar and, if appropriate, to cease as soon as possible any activity that
could have the effect of directly or indirectly abetting the practice of
forced or compulsory labour.(4) The Director-General also requested these
organizations to inform him of any action taken in this regard by the
competent bodies of the organization. In addition, the Director-General has
been in close touch with Ambassador Razali Ismail, the UN
Secretary-General's special envoy to Myanmar, in connection with his two
recent visits to the country on 9-12 October 2000 and 5-9 January 2001. The
Office has also discussed the matter with the Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in Myanmar, Mr. Paulo Pinheiro.
5. With regard to subparagraph (d) of operative paragraph 1 of the
Conference resolution, the Director-General has after close consultations
with the United Nations secretariat set in motion the procedures necessary
to have the question of Myanmar's failure to implement the recommendations
of the Commission of Inquiry placed on the agenda of the July 2001 session
of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), seeking the
adoption of recommendations directed by ECOSOC or by the General Assembly,
or by both, to governments and to other specialized agencies and including
requests similar to those contained in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of
paragraph 1 of the Conference resolution.
6. In addition to the information communicated pursuant to the Conference
resolution, a substantial amount of information was also received from
other sources. This was in large part due to the wide publicity attracted
by the coming into effect of the measures contained in the Conference
resolution. A number of NGOs and individuals volunteered information to the
Office regarding measures taken and other action initiated in support of
the Conference resolution, as well as information regarding the current
practice of forced labour in Myanmar.
7. Information received on measures taken in regard to the Conference
resolution will be set out in four parts: (i) developments as regards the
Government of Myanmar; (ii) measures taken by the Organization's
constituents; (iii) measures taken by international organizations; (iv)
other relevant information received.
__________________________
(4) Letters were sent to the following 59 organizations: United Nations,
UNHCR, UNICEF, UNDP, UNFPA, OHCHR, UNCTAD, WFP, UNEP, UNODCCP, UNRWA,
UNAIDS, Economic Commission for Africa, ECE, Economic and Social Commission
for Asia and the Pacific, Economic Commission for Latin America and the
Caribbean, Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, FAO, WHO,
UNESCO, UNIDO, IAEA, WIPO, ICAO, UPU, IMO, WMO, ITU, IFAD, PAHO, IMF, World
Bank, WTO, OECD, European Commission, Council of Europe, African
Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank,
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Caribbean Development
Bank, League of Arab States, Organization of African Unity, CARICOM,
Organization of American States, ASEAN, SAARC, Andean Community, SELA,
LAIA, Nordic Council, OIC, CERN, ECOWAS, Arab Labour Organization, World
Tourism Organization, IOM, Asian Productivity Organization and the
Inter-Parliamentary Union.
Developments as regards the
Government of Myanmar
8. Due to early closure of the Governing Body's 279th Session, a letter
from the Permanent Mission of Myanmar to the Chairperson of the Governing
Body stating its position following the Governing Body's conclusions
reached his office too late to be brought to the attention of the Governing
Body. This statement is reproduced in Appendix 1 for information.
9. In a letter dated 6 December 2000 to the Chairman of the 279th Session
of the Governing Body, the Permanent Representative of the Myanmar Mission
reiterated the concerns raised in the letter referred to in the preceding
paragraph. The letter also contained an annex entitled "Resumé of the
concrete measures taken by the Myanmar Government", which included
information on the Government's position prior to the Governing Body's
conclusions. This document is reproduced in Appendix 2 for information.
10. In a letter dated 22 December 2000 to the Government of Myanmar,
reproduced in Appendix 3, the Director-General informed the Government that
he had notified ILO Members and international organizations of the decision
of the Governing Body, as contemplated in the relevant paragraph of the
resolution, but stressed that he continued to extend cooperation to the
Government in order to promote the full implementation of the
recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. He expressed the sincere hope
that the measures currently in force would soon become unnecessary as a
result of the Government's full application of these recommendations.
11. In reply to the Director-General's letter of 22 December 2000, the
Government sent a letter dated 11 February 2000, reproduced in Appendix 4,
in which it recalled that it had received two technical cooperation
missions from the ILO in its efforts to make its domestic legislation fully
in line with Convention No. 29. It had put into place a framework of
legislative, executive and administrative measures to make forced labour
illegal both in law and in practice. However, "... powerful forces in the
ILO Governing Body totally ignored the concrete measures taken by Myanmar
as well as its demonstrated desire to cooperate with ILO". The letter
further stated that despite this, Myanmar was resolute in its endeavours to
implement the framework of measures that it had put in place. The Committee
for Implementation of Convention No. 29 was holding regular meetings to
review the situation. The national monitoring mechanism which had been put
in place was also functioning smoothly. There had been a few cases where
the latest legislative order had been breached. These cases had been
investigated and necessary legal action was taken against the perpetrators.
The Government thanked the Director-General for his readiness to extend
cooperation to Myanmar, and fully realized that its national efforts would
receive better acceptance by its detractors if they involved the ILO.
However, until such time that Myanmar received fair and equitable
treatment, it would have to itself continue its efforts for the total
elimination of the practice of forced labour in Myanmar. The Government
gave its assurances that it would continue to take steps to ensure that
forced labour was illegal in Myanmar and that the framework of measures put
in place would be resolutely implemented.
12. The Director-General responded to this reply by letter dated 1 March
2001, reproduced in Appendix 5 The Director-General will inform the
Governing Body of any future developments.
Measures taken by the Organization's
constituents
Measures taken by member States
13. By 5 March 2001, responses had been received from 39 member States, as
well as a number of national employers' and workers' organizations. A
summary of these responses follows. Given the ongoing nature of some of the
reported measures, the present report will be completed, as appropriate,
with any further relevant information for the International Labour
Conference as indicated in paragraph 67 below. As a result of member States
forwarding information pursuant to the Conference resolution to national
employers' and workers' organizations, a considerable amount of information
was received separately from these organizations about actions they had
taken in relation to the resolution.
14. In a letter dated 19 January 2001, the Government of the United States
indicated that it had worked continuously and with bipartisan support to
seek a return to democracy and improvements in human rights, including an
end to forced labour, in Myanmar. In this regard, the Government had
imposed a series of diplomatic and economic sanctions against Myanmar in
recent years, including suspension of economic assistance, downgrading
diplomatic representation to chargé level, an arms embargo, suspension of
trade benefits under its GSP programme, opposition to support programmes
from international financial institutions, restriction on visas for Myanmar
individuals involved in the suppression of democracy and human rights, and
a ban on US investment in Myanmar. The Government had also supported a
number of actions taken by the ILO with regard to forced labour in Myanmar,
including the November 2000 finding by the Governing Body that insufficient
progress had been made to withhold the measures adopted by the Conference.
At the same time, the Government noted that the Myanmar authorities and Daw
Aung San Suu Kyi of the National League for Democracy had confirmed that
they were engaged in dialogue. The Government hoped that this was a genuine
effort to achieve national reconciliation, and that it brought concrete and
timely progress towards ending forced labour and other human rights abuses
in Myanmar. The Government hoped this process succeeded, but
believed that in the absence of significant and measurable progress, ILO
Members, including the United States, should be prepared to consider
additional measures, including trade sanctions, in response to the article
33 decision of the Conference. The Government stressed that there was no
evidence yet before the Governing Body or the Conference that suggested the
recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had been fully implemented.
Finally, the Government expressed continued misgivings regarding an ILO
presence in Myanmar.
15. In a letter dated 15 February 2001, the Government of Thailand stated
that in order to take measures in compliance with the Conference
resolution, on 10 January 2001 the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare
had held a meeting of relevant government agencies, workers' and employers'
organizations and others, and that the Government could therefore give
assurances that no Thai investment in Myanmar contributed, directly or
indirectly, to the exaction of any form of forced labour. Every possible
effort would be made to discourage the practice of forced labour, should
the Government become aware of its existence in any form. In order to
resolve this issue effectively and strengthen cooperation with the ILO,
agreement had been reached to set up a steering committee in order to
monitor and follow up the case.
16. The Governments of Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy,
Netherlands, Sweden and United Kingdom indicated that the matter of how
best to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Conference
resolution had been discussed with employers' and workers' organizations,
among EU Member States and with the European Commission. They shared the
international concern at the practice of forced labour in Myanmar, a
practice which they feared had not yet ended. The European Community
suspended GSP trade privileges in 1997 as a result of this practice. The
European Union had also taken a number of other measures over the last four
years, set out in its Common Position, in response to the political
situation in Myanmar. The Myanmar regime had taken certain steps aimed at
ending the practice of forced labour, but it needed to be outlawed legally,
ended in practice, and any continuing practitioners punished. The European
Union was monitoring the situation closely and, should the authorities in
Myanmar fail to take the necessary action in this respect, the European
Union stood ready to take further measures. The European Union made clear
its concerns regarding forced labour during the visit of its Troika mission
to Myanmar in January 2001. It sincerely hoped that contacts would be
renewed between the ILO and Myanmar and that an ILO presence might be
established in the country in order to verify the definitive end to the
practice of forced labour. The Government of Ireland added that it intended
to write to any companies with trade or investment links with Myanmar to
express its support for the ILO resolution. The Government of Denmark added
that its Standing Committee for ILO matters had recommended that Danish
enterprises consider their relations with Myanmar. The Government of France
added that it had undertaken an exhaustive assessment of its cooperation
with and assistance to Myanmar, currently limited to the humanitarian
field, in order to ensure that these relations could not in any way
perpetuate or extend the practice of forced labour in the country. A census
of French companies working in Myanmar was also underway, in order to
inform them of the ILO resolution. The Government of Italy added that it
had instituted an in-depth review of bilateral relations with Myanmar to
ensure that they could not be taken advantage of to perpetuate the system
of forced labour in that country. Italian commercial relations with Myanmar
had been reduced to a minimum following the deterioration in the political
and human rights situation. Between January and October 2000, the most
recent period for which figures were available, the total trade with
Myanmar had been 32 million euros, and there was no Italian investment in
Myanmar, nor was any currently planned. The number of Italian tourists
visiting Myanmar between 1999 and 2000 was minor. The Government of the
Netherlands added that its policy was neither to encourage Dutch companies
to enter into activities in Myanmar nor to discourage them. Total trade
amounted to around US$19 million annually. The Government of Sweden added
that its relations with Myanmar were of limited extent. Its economic
relations were negligible, with imports for the period January-October 2000
standing at around SEK20 million (mostly wooden and textile products) and
exports for the same period standing at SEK1.2 million. It was ready to
take measures to ensure that the country's trade with Myanmar did not
support the system of forced labour. As one measure, it would officially
inform Swedish importers of the Conference resolution and the
recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.
17. In a communication dated 28 February 2001, the Government of
Switzerland stated that due to lack of progress in democratization in
Myanmar and due to systematic violation of human rights (including workers'
rights), it had passed a law on 2 October 2000 instituting measures against
Myanmar. This law, a copy of which was provided, imposed an arms embargo
and prohibited the export to Myanmar of equipment that could be used for
the purposes of internal repression. In addition, members of the Government
of Myanmar and their families were subject to a freeze of their assets in
Switzerland and were prohibited from entry into or transit through
Switzerland. Consultations had established that relations between
Switzerland and Myanmar were minor, with imports over the period January to
November 2000 standing at Sw.frs.2.2 million and exports at Sw.frs.3.5
million. The number of Swiss tourists visiting Myanmar was also minor. In
addition, the Government pointed out that the international "Clean Clothes"
campaign had particularly targeted an underwear company based in
Switzerland. The Swiss tripartite consultation commission, while welcoming
recent legal measures taken by the Government of Myanmar, hoped that these
would be translated into action. It further hoped that Myanmar would accept
a permanent ILO presence, which would be able to verify the implementation
of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, and in this way that a
normalization of relations between Myanmar and the international community
might be facilitated. Taking into account the fact that existing bilateral
economic relations were minor, and given the initial steps taken by the
Government of Myanmar towards a political opening, it was not envisaged for
the moment that the Government would take additional measures against Myanmar.
18. In a communication dated 26 January 2001, the Government of Norway
confirmed its continued support for the EU's Common Position on Myanmar. It
did not provide humanitarian assistance to organizations or activities that
contributed in any way to forced labour in Myanmar. Half of the Norwegian
assistance related to Myanmar was applied to human rights and democracy
measures. In 1998 the Government issued a call, which remained in effect,
to Norwegian firms not to trade with Myanmar. Current trade with Myanmar
was marginal. In December 2000 the Government had met with the Norwegian
Federation of Trade Unions to discuss the question of a possible boycott.
19. In a communication dated 1 March 2001, the Government of Australia
stated that it had conducted a review of relations with Myanmar, which had
established that no Australian government-funded aid programmes or
activities supported or perpetuated the practice of forced labour. The
Government was unaware of any Australian firms engaging in activities in
Myanmar which were linked with forced labour, but its embassy in the
country had advised Australian companies known to be working or investing
there of its review and recommended that they ensure their compliance with
the Conference resolution. In addition, the Australian Government had taken
constructive steps in other areas to encourage the Myanmar authorities to
eliminate forced labour. It had funded a series of human rights training
workshops in Yangon in 2000 for some 50 middle-level officials, one of
which was an "international law overview" during which participants openly
discussed sensitive issues including the issue of forced labour.
20. The Governments of Austria, Croatia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia,
Trinidad and Tobago and Ukraine stated that they had communicated the
details of the Conference resolution to their employers' and workers'
organizations, but did not have any further information to provide at this
stage.
21. The Governments of Chile, Cuba, Czech Republic, Iceland, Islamic
Republic of Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mali, Morocco,
Panama, Philippines, Romania, Singapore, Suriname and Togo stated that they
had no relations with Myanmar that could be taken advantage of to
perpetuate or extend the practice of forced or compulsory labour referred
to by the Commission of Inquiry. The Government of Singapore also
reiterated that the adoption of promotional measures rather than sanctions
would be more appropriate and effective in addressing the issue of forced
labour in Myanmar. The Government of the Czech Republic also stated that it
had joined the EU Common Position on Myanmar, adopted in 1996 and
subsequently extended. It had also joined the EU embargo on weapons,
ammunition and military equipment export to Myanmar, had cancelled aid
which was not of a clear humanitarian character as well as development aid
programmes. Bilateral relations were also suspended, including those of
social partners. The
Government of Malaysia also stated that it would continue, along with other
ASEAN
members, to urge the Myanmar authorities to implement measures that would
bring an end
to all practices described as forced labour by the Commission of Inquiry.
It looked forward
to an amicable solution which would address the issue effectively.
Measures taken by national employers'
and workers' organizations
22. The Confederation of Free Trade Unions of the Slovak Republic noted
that the Slovak
Republic followed the EU position on Myanmar. The Slovak Republic did not
maintain
any bilateral political relations with Myanmar, but did maintain trade
contacts within the
EU restrictions. There was not thought to be any investment in Myanmar by
Slovak
enterprises, but a review of the type of commodities imported from Myanmar
to the Slovak
Republic showed that the majority belonged to sectors which were subject to
violation of
fundamental labour rights. Attached to the letter was a list of Slovak
enterprises exporting
to and importing from Myanmar as well as a breakdown of this trade by
sector and
whether it was likely to involve forced labour.
23. In a communication dated 20 February 2001, the Confédération Générale
du Travail Force
Ouvrière indicated that it had requested the French Government to provide
it with a list of
French companies having relations with Myanmar as well as details and
amount of business dealings with that country. In addition, the
organization had written to a certain French company involved in hotels and
tourism to request them to reconsider their activities in Myanmar. The
Confederation was not satisfied with the company's response that its
presence would have positive effects. Moreover, the Confederation had
repeatedly pressed the French Government to become involved in the question
of the presence in Myanmar of a certain French multinational company. The
Confederation had also requested that a special session of the consultation
commission for ILO matters be held, dedicated exclusively to the question
of Myanmar.
24. Communications from Norwegian employers' and workers' organizations
were forwarded
by the Government of Norway. The Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions
stated that
together with other Norwegian voluntary organizations it had played an
active part in
trying to bring about a statutory Norwegian economic boycott of Myanmar.
The Confederation of Vocational Unions indicated that it strongly urged the
Government to implement such a boycott. The Confederation of Norwegian
Business and Industry welcomed the Government's requests for abstention
from economic cooperation with Myanmar and would encourage member
enterprises to comply with this request. In a separate communication, the
Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions provided translations of
correspondence between itself and the Government of Norway regarding the
Confederation's call for a Norwegian economic boycott of Myanmar.
25. The Swedish Trade Union Confederation indicated that it had requested
the Swedish
Government to take additional measures against Myanmar, including a ban on
investments
and on the import of products from Myanmar. Its affiliated national unions
would
undertake a review to ensure that no Swedish companies or authorities were
economically
active in Myanmar, including imports, exports, investment and trade. The
organization also
requested that Sweden, as holder of the EU presidency, should seek a
decision by the EU
Council of Ministers banning investments by all companies based in the
European Union
and banning imports of all products originating in Myanmar.
26. Information from German workers' organizations was forwarded by the
Government of
Germany. A report on the elimination of forced labour in Myanmar by the German
Confederation of Trade Unions discussed the background to the case and
noted that most
forms of economic relations with Myanmar made at least some use of
infrastructure built
with forced labour. All German companies were advised to take a critical
look at their
economic ties to business partners in Myanmar. The works councils of
enterprises that had
economic relations with Myanmar should request management for detailed
information
about the nature of these ties, and urge management to cut any ties which
could not be
maintained without making use of infrastructure constructed using forced
labour. Such
requests were covered by paragraph 80 of the Works Constitution Act, since
such an
enterprise would be party to what the international community considered a
grave violation
of the law. A letter to the Government of Germany from the German Union of
Salaried
Employees supported any action the Government could take regarding the
situation in
Myanmar, including representations to the Government of Myanmar via its
embassy.
27. The Union Syndicale Suisse provided information on the extent of trade
relations between
Myanmar and Switzerland, set out the details of the law passed by the
Government of
Switzerland against Myanmar on 2 October 2000, and noted that the
Swiss-based textile
company had been targeted by the "Clean Clothes" campaign. Similar
information was
provided by the Government of Switzerland and is set out in more detail in
paragraph 17
above.
28. Information from the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) was
forwarded by the
Government of the United Kingdom. In a letter dated 8 February 2001 to the
Government
of the United Kingdom, the Confederation indicated that its member
companies had had
the Government's policy towards Myanmar brought to their attention. The CBI
was one of
the strongest proponents of tough action against Myanmar and would continue
to support
the ILO action.
29. The Government of Finland forwarded information from the Confederation
of Finnish
Industry and Employers. The Confederation indicated that it did not have
any relations
with Myanmar or business organizations there. It supported the EU position
and informed
its membership (constituting 85 per cent of Finnish industry) on a regular
basis about the
ILO's recommendations. Finnish enterprises did not operate in Myanmar nor
have industrial investments or networks there. Trade between Finland and
Myanmar was minor, with exports over the period January-November 2000
standing at 248,000 euros and imports over the same period standing at 2
million euros (mostly clothing).
30. The Barbados Workers' Union and the National Confederation of Free
Trade Unions of
Romania indicated that they had no relations with Myanmar that could be
taken advantage
of to perpetuate or extend the practice of forced or compulsory labour
referred to by the
Commission of Inquiry.
31. The International Organisation of Employers informed all its member
federations of the
November Governing Body debate and highlighted the employers' position,
clarified the
meaning of the resolution and accompanying measures and informed them that
one of the
measures would be to ask constituents to review their relations with
Myanmar. Employers
have been involved in discussions with governments at national level on the
country
response to the resolution.
Measures taken by international organizations
32. By 5 March 2001, responses had been received from 20 international
organizations. These
came from the secretariats of these organizations, and no information was
provided at this
stage about any discussions in the relevant bodies of these organizations
regarding the
reconsidering of any cooperation they may be engaged in with the member
concerned.
33. The United Nations Secretary-General indicated that the matter had been
brought to the
attention of all offices concerned in the United Nations. The United
Nations and its
programmes and funds could not be involved in any activities that might
have the effect of
directly or indirectly abetting the practice of forced or compulsory labour
as this would be
contrary to Article 1 of the United Nations Charter.
34. The European Commission stated that it strongly supported the
significant position the
ILO had taken on Myanmar, and had consequently engaged in discussions with the
European Union Member States on the implementation of the terms of the
Conference
resolution. Action had already been taken in 1997 following an
investigation into
allegations by European trade union organizations of forced labour in
Myanmar. As a
result, Myanmar's access to the European Union's Generalised System of
Preferences had
been removed. The European Union had also taken a number of other measures
over the
last four years which were set out in its Common Position, first adopted in
1996 and
strengthened on a number of occasions since. The Commission considered that the
authorities of Myanmar needed to take rapid steps to ensure full compliance
with ILO
recommendations on the elimination of forced labour. The Commission, in
common with
the Member States of the European Union, was monitoring the situation
closely and,
should the authorities fail to take the necessary steps, the Commission
would be ready to
propose further measures to be decided by the Council, including possible
measures in the
field of trade and investment relations.
35. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
indicated
that it had made an assessment of its activities in Myanmar and concluded
that there were
no activities which might be considered as directly or indirectly abetting
the practice of
forced labour. Attached to the communication was a "note on UNHCR's
activities in
Myanmar and compulsory labour", which described the nature of UNHCR's
operations in
Myanmar in relation to each of its six areas of intervention and discussed
any impact this
assistance might have on the practice of forced labour. This note is
reproduced in Appendix 9.
36. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) indicated that its
country office in
Myanmar had recently carried out a thorough review of its project
activities in Myanmar in
the context of the Conference resolution and had confirmed that there were no
UNDP-funded activities which directly or indirectly supported the practice
of forced or
compulsory labour. The UNDP would continue to monitor this situation very
closely
during the implementation of its project activities. Attached to the
communication was a
"note on UNDP's activities in Myanmar in the context of the ILO
resolution", which gave
details of UNDP's assistance to Myanmar and discussed any impact this
assistance might
have on the practice of forced labour. This note is reproduced in Appendix 10.
37. The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) indicated that it had
evaluated the impact
that its activities might have on forced labour and concluded that by
design and practice its
programme in Myanmar neither directly nor indirectly abetted the practice
of forced
labour. A new country programme had just taken effect and during
development great care
had been taken to avoid association with parties involved in the practice
of forced labour.
Community participation in its projects was strictly on a volunteer basis,
and at all levels,
all possible precautions were taken to prevent support of forced labour in
the organization's operations.
38. UNAIDS indicated that with respect to its activities in Myanmar its
co-sponsors had
established close working relationships with the Ministry of Health as well
as international,
national and local non-government organizations. It had reviewed the
modalities of its
work in light of operative paragraph 1 of the Conference resolution and had
no reason to
believe that the Ministry of Health had violated this provision. It also
noted that all UN
agencies operating in Myanmar had their programmes examined by their
respective Boards
to ensure adherence to international conventions. Its partnerships with
international NGOs
had been consistently guided by protocols widely recognized in the
humanitarian field. In
addition, those organizations were signatories to a code of conduct that
ensured a high
level of ethical programming and operations.
39. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) indicated that although
Myanmar was one
of the priority countries under its resource allocation programme, it had
not yet supported a
full-scale country programme due largely to the prevailing political
situation. It allocated
less than $1 million annually for reproductive health activities. No
UNPFA-funded
activities benefited from or contributed to any form of forced labour, be
it directly or
indirectly.
40. The World Food Programme (WFP) stated that it operated exclusively in
the Northern
Rakhine State of Myanmar, which was a food deficit area. It had been
working in the area,
in coordination with UNHCR, since 1994 in such activities as relief, food
for education,
and food for community asset creation (FCAC). Workers received a daily food
ration of
3.5 kg of rice for a family of five. FCAC activities were community based
and voluntary,
and mainly involved the building of irrigation dams, village access roads
and the
upgrading of township roads.
41. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) stated that it
conducted technical
cooperation activities in Myanmar which were for the safety and efficiency
of civil aviation in the country and to facilitate safe movement of
international civil aviation overflying the airspace of Myanmar. Its
ongoing technical cooperation activities in this regard were related to the
procurement of essential communication and navigation equipment and for the
enhancement of capabilities with respect to the overseeing of flight
safety. Technical assistance had also been offered to the Department of
Civil Aviation of Myanmar to upgrade the capability of the Civil Aviation
Training Centre and for the expansion of Hanthawadi International Airport
at Yangon. The ICAO stressed that its technical cooperation activities in
Myanmar did not, to its knowledge, directly or indirectly abet the practice
of forced or compulsory labour.
42. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) indicated that Myanmar
had been chosen
to participate in four regional projects for Asia, which were still
ongoing. These projects
promoted ship inspections by port States, safety of non-convention ships,
training for maritime instructors and examiners and port State control
officers. In addition, some IMO courses and publications had been provided
to Myanmar in 2000, following a needs assessment of the maritime training
institutes in the country. Accordingly, the IMO's technical assistance in
improving the competency and skills of maritime personnel did not have the
effect of directly or indirectly abetting the practice of forced or
compulsory labour in Myanmar.
43. The World Trade Organization (WTO) indicated that the matter would be
followed up in
the WTO with the Chairperson of the General Council. WTO rules did not
afford the
secretariat authority to adopt an independent line of action in matters
such as these. WTO
members had to decide on any course of action.
44. The Universal Postal Union (UPU) stated that it had looked into the
matter and was not
aware of any practice of forced or compulsory labour in the postal sector
in Myanmar. If
there were at all any such practice then it would most likely exist in
remote rural areas.
Myanmar was not a member of the UPU's elective bodies and the UPU had a
rather limited cooperation with Myanmar at the official ministerial level.
It was aware, however,
that postal services were still under the direct supervision of the Myanmar
Government,
which meant that fundamental human rights were more likely to be fully
observed in this
sector. It therefore felt that there were no legal or other reasons for
ceasing any official
postal relations with Myanmar.
45. The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) stated that since Myanmar did not
have a
parliament, no contacts were maintained with the authorities in the
country. The only
dealings with Myanmar were in the context of the IPU's Committee on the
Human Rights
of Parliamentarians which since 1991 had examined the cases of members of
the Myanmar
Parliament who were selected in 1990 and were to date prevented from
exercising the mandate that was entrusted to them, in particular the cases
of those who were in detention and could therefore be subject to forced
labour. The IPU provided the text of its most recent resolution on Myanmar,
adopted in October 2000, which "called again on its member parliaments to
press for the respect of democratic principles in Myanmar and to show their
solidarity with their elected colleagues from the Pyithu Hluttaw [Myanmar
Parliament] by whatever means they deemed appropriate ...".
46. The African Development Bank Group, the International Telecommunication
Union, the
Nordic Council, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), the Pan American Health Organization, and the Arab Labour
Organization stated that they had no relations with Myanmar that could be
taken advantage of to perpetuate or extend the practice of forced or
compulsory labour referred to by the Commission of Inquiry. The Asian
Development Bank stated that it presently had no active operations in
Myanmar and that the latest loan dated back to 1987 and the latest
technical assistance to 1988.