ILO GOVERNING BODY: REPORT ON BURMA

[darnott@xxxxxxxxxxx]

ILO GOVERNING BODY: REPORT ON BURMA (Pt 2)

The whole report is available as a 39-page pdf file on

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/gb/docs/gb280/index.htm#GB



Appendix 1

Statement by His Excellency U Mya Than,
Leader of the Myanmar Observer Delegation
at the Plenary of the 279th session of the
ILO Governing Body after the adoption of
the decision on the situation of Myanmar (1)
(Geneva, 16 November 2000)

_________________________
(1) This statement could not be given to the 279th Session of the Governing 
Body and is reproduced here for information.


Mr. Chairman,
Today is indeed a sad and solemn day for the ILO. It will go down in the 
history of the ILO as
the most deplorable day for this Organization.

Today Myanmar is singled out for punitive action. Tomorrow it may be 
another developing country. As all of us are aware, judgement of observance 
or non-observance of labour standards are, more often than not, subjective 
and arbitrary and, in some instances, even politically-motivated.

In the case of Myanmar, the problem arose from the arbitrary judgement, 
based on misinformation. This misinformation emanates from elements, 
opposed to the Myanmar Government, insurgent groups and self-proclaimed 
workers' organizations which are more politically-motivated than dedicated 
to promoting the interests of workers. One such dubious workers' 
organization has only a handful of members, who represent no one but 
themselves.

Mr. Chairman,

It is the sadder and the more deplorable, because the proponents of the 
draft decision to apply
sanctions to Myanmar completely ignore the concrete and positive measures, 
taken by the Myanmar
Government.

They turn a blind eye to the comprehensive, concrete and solid framework of 
legislative,
executive and administrative measures put in place in Myanmar and the offer 
by the Myanmar
Government to receive an ILO representative, based in the ILO Regional 
Office in Bangkok or in
Geneva, to assist the national supervisory mechanism in the implementation 
of the ILC's
recommendation.

Notwithstanding the more prudent approach, advocated by many of its Member 
States, the
Governing Body has chosen the path of confrontation and coercion by 
applying sanctions under
Article 33. The ASEAN Member States, together with like-minded countries, 
have expressed reservations against the action taken by the Governing Body. 
Myanmar appreciates the principled
stands, taken by those countries that Article 33 of the ILO Constitution 
should never be  invoked and that, sanctions should not be applied to a 
Member State.

Mr. Chairman,

It is most regrettable that a drastic decision, contrary to what many 
members believe in and
uphold, was taken by the Governing Body. It is obvious that this 
unwarranted and unjustified action by the Governing Body is aimed at 
exerting pressure on Myanmar.

The decision, just taken by the Governing Body, will no doubt place the 
credibility, the
integrity and the reputation of the Governing Body and the ILO in question. 
It penalizes a Member State which has been voluntarily cooperating with the 
ILO and has put in place the comprehensive, concrete and solid framework of 
legislative, executive and administrative measures in accordance with the 
ILC's resolution.

This action by the Governing Body is most unfair, most unreasonable and 
most unjust.

This decision is totally unacceptable to my delegation.

For these reasons, my delegation totally and categorically rejects the 
decision and dissociates
itself from it and any activities and effects connected with it.

As such, Myanmar will cease to cooperate with the International Labour 
Organization in
relation to the ILO Convention 29 and any activity connected with it.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.



Appendix 2

Resumé of the concrete measures
taken by the Myanmar Government (1)
______________________
(1) Appended to the letter of 6 December 2000 from the Permanent 
Representative of the Myanmar
Mission


- Since the 88th Session of the ILC which adopted the resolution on 
Myanmar, the following
steps have been taken to put in place a framework of legislative, executive 
and administrative
measures to comply with the ILC resolution.

- Initially, intensive consultations were made among all departments and 
agencies concerned
regarding the measures needed to fulfil the conclusions of the report of 
the Technical
Cooperation Mission (TCM) and the ILC resolution.

- An independent study group headed by Baron Walter von Marschall, former 
Ambassador of
FRG to Myanmar was invited to have an independent opinion of what 
constitutes the satisfactory measures regarding the framework that the LC 
resolution referred to. The group visited Myanmar from 25 September to 6 
October, 2000 and gave various options which in their opinion would satisfy 
the required measures mentioned in the ILC resolution.

- In addition, at the invitation of the Government of Myanmar, a 
five-member Technical
Cooperation Mission (TCM) visited Myanmar from 20 to 26 October, 2000. 
Based on the advices and suggestions of the TCM, a new legislative order 
was issued on 27 October 2000. The order made it clear that the requisition 
of forced labour or involuntary services is illegal and is an offence under 
the existing laws of the Union of Myanmar. It also spells out the 
consequences for the breach of the legislative order by explicitly spelling 
out that any one, including the members of the armed forces shall have 
action taken against him under Section 374 of the Penal Code or any other 
existing laws. In the words of the TCM, this order has general applicability.
- This Order was supplemented by a directive from the State Peace and 
Development Council
(SPDC), the highest organ of state power in Myanmar. The SPDC is the 
legislative authority,
and as the TCM has pointed out, the highest military authority and the 
highest civilian
authority in the country. This document, TCM pointed out "provides 
confirmation that there is
political will at the highest level to reach a solution".

- Apart from this legislative measure, concrete and detailed framework of 
administrative and
executive measures have been instituted.

- This consists of the Ministerial Committee headed by the Minister of 
Labour and the
Implementation Committee on Convention 29 as well as a national supervisory 
mechanism for
monitoring compliance.

- Myanmar has thus put in place a concrete, comprehensive and solid 
framework of legislative,
administrative and executive measures to ensure that there is no forced 
labour both in law and
in practice.

- With regard to the ILO presence, Myanmar is also willing to accept an ILO 
representative,
either based in the Regional Office in Bangkok or based in Geneva, to 
observe, assess or assist
the national supervisory mechanism in the implementation of Convention 29. 
The representative of ILO will be given full cooperation to effectively 
carry out his responsibilities. The representative will enjoy, for these 
purposes and for the duration of his mission, the same legal protection and 
status accorded to officials of comparable rank in the United Nations. The 
representative, either based in the ILO Regional Office in Bangkok or in 
Geneva, may make frequent visits to Myanmar, as the need arises.

- In view of this concrete, comprehensive and solid framework of 
legislative and executive
measures and Myanmar's willingness to address the issue of the ILO 
presence, the actions
envisaged by the ILC are no longer required and necessary. The Members of 
the Governing Body ought to take the necessary decision so that the 
measures envisaged by the ILC will not come into effect on 30 November 2000.


Appendix 3

Communication dated 22 December 2000 from
the Director-General to the Minister for Labour
of the Government of Myanmar

Dear Mr. Minister,

I write concerning the action taken by the Governing Body on 16 November, 
at its 278th Session, with respect to the effect given by the Government of 
Myanmar to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry concerning the 
application of Convention No. 29. The Governing Body had before it on this 
occasion the report of the second ILO technical cooperation mission to 
Myanmar, which visited your country from 20 to 26 October.

While some of the positive developments reflected in the report of the 
technical cooperation
mission and in subsequent documents provided by the authorities were 
acknowledged, the
Governing Body was, as you know, not satisfied, that the conditions for the 
non-implementation of the measures listed in paragraph 1 of the Conference 
resolution had been met. These measures are taking effect on 30 November, 
and I have notified ILO Members and international  organizations concerned 
accordingly, as contemplated in the relevant paragraph of the resolution.

At the same time, the strong sense of the Governing Body was, as noted by 
the Chair, that the
Director-General should continue to extend cooperation to the Government of 
Myanmar in order to
promote the full implementation by that Government of the recommendations 
of the Commission of
Inquiry. This conclusion is indeed in line with the mandate I have received 
from the Conference
itself.

The Governing Body debate underlined once more that the ILO's objective has 
always been,
and remains, the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of 
Inquiry. It is thus
my sincere hope that the measures now in force will soon become unnecessary 
as a result of your
Government's full application of these recommendations.

In that connection, I have noted that, according to a statement issued 
shortly after the debate
by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Myanmar intends to adhere to and 
implement the positive
measures taken at the end of the technical cooperation mission visit. Let 
me assure you that, for its part, the Office stands ready to extend its 
cooperation for the purposes of ensuring the implementation of the 
recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in such a way that positive 
and credible developments could already be reported to the Governing Body 
at its next session.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Juan Somavia.



Appendix 4

Communication dated 11 February 2001 from the
Government of Myanmar to the Director-General
forwarded by the Permanent Mission of Myanmar

Excellency,

I received your letter of 22 December 2000 in which you were kind enough to 
inform that
your office stands ready to extend cooperation to Myanmar.

Myanmar had received two Technical Cooperation Missions from ILO in our 
efforts to make
our domestic legislation fully in line with Convention 29. With the 
assistance of the Technical
Cooperation Mission which visited Myanmar from 20 to 26 October 2000, we 
had put in place a
framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures to make 
forced labour illegal both in law and in practice. But 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. I regret 
to say that the way things were conducted at the 279th Session of the 
Governing Body was a grave travesty of the rules of procedure of the ILO. 
As a result, the proposal put forward by Malaysia on behalf of ASEAN 
countries, supported by India and China, to defer Implementation of the 
measures in ILC resolution on Myanmar was not put to a vote. The Governing 
Body's discussions on the matter, therefore, ended inconclusively. This has 
led to the entry into  force of the measures envisaged in the ILC 
resolution. This is a great injustice on Myanmar, which had in good faith 
implemented its obligations under Convention 29.

However, we are resolute in our endeavours to implement the framework of 
legislative, executive and administrative measures which we have put in 
place. The Committee for implementation of Convention 29 is holding its 
regular meetings to review the situation. The national monitoring mechanism 
which we have put in place is also functioning smoothly. There had been a 
few cases where the latest legislative order was breached. These cases were 
investigated and necessary legal action was taken against the perpetrators.

I wish to thank you for your readiness to extend cooperation to Myanmar. I 
fully realize that
our national efforts that involved ILO would receive better acceptance by 
our detractors.

However, under the present circumstances, until such time that Myanmar 
receives fair and
equitable treatment that must necessarily be accorded to all members of the 
ILO, we must ourselves continue our national efforts for the total 
elimination of practice of force labour in Myanmar.

I wish to assure you that we will continue to take steps to ensure that 
forced labour is illegal in Myanmar both in law and in practice. I also 
wish to assure that we will resolutely implement the framework of 
legislative, executive and administrative measures we have put in place.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Major General Tin Ngwe,
Minister for Labour,
Union of Myanmar.


Appendix 5

Communication dated 1 March 2001 from the
Director-General to the Minister for Labour of
the Government of Myanmar

Dear Mr. Minister,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 11 February 2001 in reply to mine of
22 December 2000, and would like to offer the following comments.

As regards the second paragraph of your letter, I can assure you that your 
views, as well as the text of the statement which your Ambassador intended 
to make and which reached the  Chairman's Office after the closure of the 
session, will be reflected appropriately in the documentation before the 
next session of the Governing Body.

I have taken note of your statement that Myanmar is "resolute in our 
endeavours to implement
the framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures which 
we have put in place"
with a view to the total elimination of the practice of forced labour in 
Myanmar, and in particular of the information that some action has already 
been taken against the perpetrators of such practices.

However it is clear that Myanmar cannot expect to receive credit for these 
endeavours in the
absence of an objective assessment of their practical implementation and 
actual impact. The ILO
alone is in a position to provide such an assessment with the authority 
necessary to carry legal, practical and political consequences at the 
international level. This is all the more relevant in the light of the 
continuing flow of information from various sources concerning the issues 
in question.

For these reasons I would like to reiterate that the Office stands ready to 
engage in discussions about the possible format and modalities such an 
objective assessment could take. In my view, it  would be highly desirable 
that such discussions take place before the next session of the Governing 
Body. It should be recalled that the International Labour Conference will, 
in accordance with paragraph 1(a) of its resolution, review the situation 
at its next session in June, on the basis of all relevant information then 
available.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Juan Somavia.



Appendix 6

Resolution adopted by the International Labour
Conference at its 88th Session (June 2000)

The International Labour Conference,

Meeting at its 88th Session in Geneva from 30 May to 15 June 2000,

Considering the proposals by the Governing Body which are before it, under 
the eighth item
of its agenda (Provisional Record No. 4), with a view to the adoption, 
under article 33 of the ILO Constitution, of action to secure compliance 
with the recommendations of the Commission of
Inquiry established to examine the observance by Myanmar of its obligations 
in respect of the
Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29),

Having taken note of the additional information contained in the report of 
the ILO technical cooperation mission sent to Yangon from 23 to 27 May 2000 
(Provisional Record No. 8) and, in particular, of the letter dated 27 May 
2000 from the Minister of Labour to the Director-General, which resulted 
from the mission,

Considering that, while this letter contains aspects which seem to reflect 
a welcome intention
on the part of the Myanmar authorities to take measures to give effect to 
the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, the factual situation on 
which the recommendations of the Governing Body were based has nevertheless 
remained unchanged to date,

Believing that the Conference cannot, without failing in its 
responsibilities to the workers
subjected to various forms of forced or compulsory labour, abstain from the 
immediate application of the measures recommended by the Governing Body 
unless the Myanmar authorities promptly take concrete action to adopt the 
necessary framework for implementing the Commission of Inquiry's 
recommendations, thereby ensuring that the situation of the said workers 
will be remedied more expeditiously and under more satisfactory conditions 
for all concerned;

1. Approves in principle, subject to the conditions stated in paragraph 2 
below, the actions
recommended by the Governing Body, namely:

(a) to decide that the question of the implementation of the Commission of 
Inquiry's recommendations and of the application of Convention No. 29 by 
Myanmar should be discussed at future sessions of the International Labour 
Conference, at a sitting of the Committee on the Application of Standards 
specially set aside for the purpose, so long as this Member has not been 
shown to have fulfilled its obligations;

(b) to recommend to the Organization's constituents as a whole - 
governments, employers and
workers - that they: (i) review, in the light of the conclusions of the 
Commission of Inquiry,
the relations that they may have with the member State concerned and take 
appropriate
measures to ensure that the said Member cannot take advantage of such 
relations to perpetuate
or extend the system of forced or compulsory labour referred to by the 
Commission of
Inquiry, and to contribute as far as possible to the implementation of its 
recommendations; and
(ii) report back in due course and at appropriate intervals to the 
Governing Body;

(c) as regards international organizations, to invite the Director-General: 
(i) to inform the
international organizations referred to in article 12, paragraph 1, of the 
Constitution of the
Member's failure to comply; (ii) to call 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 may be engaged in with the 
Member concerned
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;

(d) regarding the United Nations specifically, to invite the 
Director-General to request the
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to place an item on the agenda of its 
July 2001
session concerning the failure of Myanmar to implement the recommendations 
contained in
the report of the Commission of Inquiry and 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 proposed in 
paragraphs (b) and (c)
above;

(e) to invite the Director-General to submit to the Governing Body, in the 
appropriate manner and at suitable intervals, a periodic report on the 
outcome of the measures set out in paragraphs (c) and (d) above, and to 
inform the international organizations concerned of any developments in the 
implementation by Myanmar of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry;


2. Decides that those measures will take effect on 30 November 2000 unless, 
before that date,
the Governing Body is satisfied that the intentions expressed by the 
Minister of Labour of Myanmar in his letter dated 27 May have been 
translated into a framework of legislative, executive and administrative 
measures that are sufficiently concrete and detailed to  demonstrate that 
the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry have been fulfilled and 
therefore render the implementation of one or more of these measures 
inappropriate;

3. Authorizes the Director-General to respond positively to all requests by 
Myanmar that are
made with the sole purpose of establishing, before the above deadline, the 
framework mentioned in the conclusions of the ILO technical cooperation 
mission (points (i), (ii) and (iii), page 8/11 of Provisional Record No. 
8), supported by a sustained ILO presence on the spot if the Governing Body 
confirms that the conditions are met for such presence to be truly useful 
and effective.



Appendix 7

Recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry
(extracts)

In paragraph 539 of its report, the Commission of Inquiry urged the 
Government to take the
necessary steps to ensure:

(a) that the relevant legislative texts, in particular the Village Act and 
the Towns Act, be brought into line with the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 
(No. 29) as already requested by the Committee of Experts on the 
Application of Conventions and Recommendations and promised by the 
Government for over 30 years, and again announced in the Government's 
observations on the complaint. This should be done without further delay 
and completed at the very latest by 1 May 1999;

(b) that in actual practice, no more forced or compulsory labour be imposed 
by the authorities, in particular the military. This is all the more 
important since the powers to impose  compulsory labour appear to be taken 
for granted, without any reference to the Village Act or Towns Act. Thus, 
besides amending the legislation, concrete action needs to be 
taken  immediately for each and every of the many fields of forced labour 
examined in Chapters 12 and 13 [of the Commission's report] to stop the 
present practice. This must not be done by secret directives, which are 
against the rule of law and have been ineffective, but through public acts 
of the Executive promulgated and made known to all levels of the military 
and to the whole
population. Also, action must not be limited to the issue of wage payment; 
it must ensure that
nobody is compelled to work against his or her will. Nonetheless, the 
budgeting of adequate
means to hire free wage labour for the public activities which are today 
based on forced and
unpaid labour is also required;

(c) that the penalties which may be imposed under section 374 of the Penal 
Code for the exaction of forced or compulsory labour be strictly enforced, 
in conformity with Article 25 of the Convention. This requires thorough 
investigation, prosecution and adequate punishment of
those found guilty. As pointed out in 1994 by the Governing Body committee 
set up to consider the representation made by the ICFTU under article 24 of 
the ILO Constitution, alleging non-observance by Myanmar of the Forced 
Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the penal prosecution of those resorting 
to coercion appeared all the more important since the blurring of 
the  borderline between compulsory and voluntary labour, recurrent 
throughout the Government's statements to the committee, was all the more 
likely to occur in actual recruitment by local or military officials. The 
power to impose compulsory labour will not cease to be taken for granted 
unless those used to exercising it are actually brought to face criminal 
responsibility.2()

______________________
(2) Paragraph 539 of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry appointed 
under article 26 of the
Constitution of the International Labour Organization to examine the 
observance by Myanmar of
the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). ILO Official Bulletin, Vol. 
LXXXI, 1998, Series B,
Special Supplement. The full text of the report is also available on the 
ILO website at the following address: 
<http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/gb/docs/gb273/myanmar.html.>.


Other relevant information received

Correspondence between the Government
of Myanmar and the United Nations

47. The Office received from the United Nations copies of correspondence 
between the Government of Myanmar and the United Nations Secretary-General. 
In a communication dated 8 January 2001 the Government of Myanmar informed 
the Secretary-General of certain action that it had taken to implement the 
recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and stated that the decision 
of the Governing Body was "a grave injustice". The Government also 
considered that the measures contained in the Conference resolution calling 
on other international organizations to "impose sanctions" against Myanmar 
"clearly overstepp[ed] the constitutional mandate of the ILO". The 
Government called on the Secretary-General in his role as the Chief 
Executive of the entire UN system to use his good offices to prevent these 
measures being taken. The Government was greatly concerned that the outcome 
from such extreme measures would set a dangerous precedent
for the entire UN system. The Secretary-General responded in a letter dated 
24 January 2001, noting that the Conference resolution was a decision of an 
inter-governmental body and that the ILO Director-General was mandated to 
implement it. The Secretary-General also suggested that the Government 
might wish to consider writing to the ILO Director-General expressing its 
readiness to receive a mission to assess and verify the progress made on 
the forced labour issue before the next meeting of the Governing Body.


Communications from groups in Myanmar
regarding the Governing Body conclusions

48. An "open letter regarding ILO decision on Myanmar" dated 29 November 
2000 from "Workers of Myanmar" was received by the Director-General. The 
letter stated that it was from 18 million workers employed by public and 
private enterprises. The workers believed that the Governing Body's 
conclusions would have a direct and immediate negative impact on the 
workforce. The Government of Myanmar had passed strong penal laws to 
prohibit forced labour and the workers believed that the ILO had already 
succeeded in bringing better working conditions for the workers in Myanmar. 
The workers therefore petitioned the ILO to reconsider its actions and 
maintain a constructive partnership with Myanmar.

49. An open letter of the same title and same date was also received from 
the "International
Business Community in Myanmar". The letter stated that the International 
Business Community was deeply disappointed by the Governing Body's 
conclusions. The wide range of businesses it represented employed a total 
of over half a million workers in Myanmar, and indirectly provided 
employment to many more. It suggested that the "sanctions" would only hurt 
the majority of Myanmar workers, rather than helping them. The ILO had 
secured the issuance by the Myanmar authorities of a number of orders 
making forced labour illegal and the ILO should remain constructively 
engaged with Myanmar to review compliance with these orders. It urged the 
ILO member States and workers' and employers' organizations to carefully 
reconsider their position, as it was concerned for the real welfare of 
workers in Myanmar. It also urged the Government of
Myanmar to maintain a positive dialogue with the ILO.


Information on action taken in support of the
Conference resolution

50. The Office received copies of letters from a number of national 
workers' organizations to
their governments regarding the Conference resolution.

51. The National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers' 
Union of Canada (CAW) called on the Canadian Government to act upon the 
Conference resolution without delay, beginning with an immediate halt to 
the activities of all Canadian commercial and economic interests in 
Myanmar, including a ban on imports from that country, pending a 
comprehensive review. Such a review had to prove unequivocally that these 
activities did not benefit in any way, or encourage in any form, the 
practice of forced labour. The Confédération des syndicats nationaux 
requested information from the Canadian Government regarding the mechanisms 
set up by the Government to ensure that Myanmar implemented the 
recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, and insisted that Canada took 
all means at its disposal to ensure the implementation of these 
recommendations. The Canadian Labour Congress communicated to the Canadian 
Government the text of a statement on Myanmar to be adopted by its 
Executive Committee and Council. The Congress would continue to monitor 
Canadian investment directly or indirectly connected to forced labour in 
Myanmar. The Congress was encouraging its members to boycott products 
imported from Myanmar. The Canadian Government should now take a number of 
concrete steps regarding Myanmar, including researching, monitoring and 
reporting on investments and imports, reviewing the Special Economic 
Measures Act to allow for concrete and specific measures to be taken, and 
convening a meeting, with the participation of the Congress, of the 
Government's Working Group on Corporate Social Responsibility to jointly 
develop steps to address the issue.

52. The Centrale des Syndicats des Travailleurs du Rwanda and the 
Bangladesh Jatio Sramik
League urged their respective governments to take action with regard to the 
Conference
resolution.

53. The Lanka Jathika Estate Workers' Union recommended that the Sri Lankan 
Government take up the matter of the Conference resolution with the 
Government of Myanmar and urge it to implement the recommendations of the 
Commission of Inquiry, suggested that the leading government trade union, 
possibly with the assistance of the Labour Ministry, coordinate a joint 
representation of all unions to the Government of Myanmar, and noted that a 
similar protest and appeal by the Employers' Federation would be appropriate.

54. The Office also received information from two international workers' 
organizations
regarding action taken in support of the Conference resolution.

55. In a communication dated 26 January 2001, Union Network International 
(UNI) transmitted the report of a joint mission to the Thai-Myanmar border 
that it had conducted with the ICFTU in January 2001. The mission had 
visited two sites on the border and met with numerous refugees and trade 
union activists operating in Mon State and Karen State. The persons met 
noted that the Conference resolution and resulting international pressure 
had been effective to a certain extent, but there was continuing use of 
forced labour or payments of money having to be made in lieu of force 
labour. There were numerous killings and destruction of paddy fields and 
villages causing thousands to be displaced, particularly in Karen State. 
The majority of those displaced were starving and suffering from disease. 
All persons that the mission met, including hundreds of refugees, supported 
the imposition of more comprehensive sanctions on Myanmar by the 
international community. While they accepted that ordinary people would 
suffer as a consequence of sanctions, they were of the strong opinion that 
it was necessary to force the Myanmar
authorities to restore democracy and end the use of forced labour. The 
mission recommended that trade unions should continue to provide moral and 
financial support to the Federation of Trade Unions of Burma (FTUB), that 
UNI should work closely with all its affiliates in the finance sector to 
develop a coordinated strategy to discourage any investments or provision 
of financial services to business related to Myanmar, that UNI might 
consider working closely with its affiliates in other strategic sectors to 
put further economic pressure on the Myanmar authorities, that UNI would 
provide training and assistance to the FTUB and other unions, as well as 
humanitarian assistance for displaced civilians and refugees, and that the 
ICFTU/Global Unions Conference on Myanmar to be held in Tokyo from 28 
February to 1 March 2001 would be a timely opportunity to express 
commitment to the struggle for the restoration of democracy and respect for 
human rights and trade union rights in Myanmar.

56. A communication dated 16 February 2001 from the ICFTU provided abundant 
information regarding the current practice of forced labour in Myanmar 
(dealt with in the following
section of this document), as well as information on action taken by the 
ICFTU in support
of the Conference resolution. As regards action taken, the ICFTU indicated 
that it had
sought to review relations maintained with Myanmar by its constituents to 
determine which of these relations might have the effect of aiding Myanmar 
to perpetuate the system of forced labour. However, to the best of its 
knowledge neither the ICFTU, the international trade secretariats, their 
regional organizations, nor any of their affiliates maintained any relation 
with the Myanmar regime. Any relationship which they may have with Myanmar 
was limited exclusively to the promotion of workers' fundamental and other 
human rights. In January 2001, the ICFTU issued a circular to all its 221 
affiliated national union centres in 148 countries, its regional 
organizations, all its executive board members and to the international 
trade secretariats, requesting them to take a number of steps with respect 
to the Conference resolution. These steps included requesting their 
respective governments and national employers' organizations to provide a 
complete list of enterprises based in their respective countries 
maintaining trade relations with Myanmar, and requesting their respective 
governments to provide comprehensive information about the total value of 
that country's trade with Myanmar, taking into account a list of products, 
provided by the ICFTU, production of which might involve forced labour. A 
briefing paper appended to the circular discussed far-reaching measures, 
including trade and investment bans, on the grounds that economic 
engagement with Myanmar supported the military regime.

57. The ICFTU communication also provided information on other steps taken 
by it and its
affiliates. Prior to the departure of the recent EU delegation to Myanmar, 
the ICFTU had
briefed one of the members of the delegation on its views. An ICFTU 
affiliate, LO-Sweden, had also briefed its own Government which, as holder 
of the rotating EU Presidency, led the delegation. In February 2001 the 
ICFTU had given its views to separate meetings of European NGOs and the 
Development Committee of the European Parliament. A number of ICFTU 
affiliates had reported taking various steps in support of the Conference 
resolution, including pressing their respective governments to strengthen 
their position against Myanmar (such as by the adoption of trade and 
investment bans), and calling for consumer boycotts of brands produced in 
Myanmar or made by companies having economic relations with Myanmar. A 
number of other initiatives were also taken at the regional or subregional 
level.

58. The ICFTU also noted in its communication that several EU governments 
remained reluctant to contemplate a strengthening of the EU Common Position 
when it is reviewed in April 2001, and that several governments seemed to 
be hoping for a notable improvement in the situation as a result of the 
"secret dialogue" between the Government of Myanmar and Daw Aung San Suu 
Kyi. These governments seemed to ignore the fact that similar talks in the 
past had yielded no result and that opposition members, who should never 
have been arrested in the first place, were often released shortly prior to 
important diplomatic visits. Some analysts believed that the ILO measures 
had played an important role in bringing about a dialogue between the 
Government and the National League for Democracy, and thus any hesitation 
in implementing the measures at this time might well jeopardize the talks.

59. The ICFTU noted that a comprehensive union strategy on Myanmar would be 
discussed at
a conference to be held in Tokyo at the end of February. The Office was 
represented at this
conference, which brought together trade unionists and international trade 
secretariats from
across the Asia-Pacific regions, as well as from Europe and the United 
States. The Federation of Trade Unions of Burma (FTUB) was also 
represented. The conference adopted a Declaration, as well as a Plan of 
Action which is reproduced in Appendix 11.


Information regarding the current practice
of forced labour in Myanmar

60. A considerable amount of information was also received from a number of 
international
workers' organizations and other non-governmental organizations regarding 
the current
practice of forced labour in Myanmar. The information concerning actual 
practice since
November 2000 is briefly summarized below.(5)
_____________________________
(5) Information on the practice of forced labour up to November 2000 is 
contained in the 2001 report of the CEACR. The individual observation 
concerning the observance of Convention No. 29 by Myanmar is reproduced in 
Appendix 8.

61. In its communication dated 26 January 2001, Union Network International 
indicated that,
according to persons met by its joint mission, the Conference resolution 
and resulting international pressure had been effective to a certain 
extent, for example in helping to bring
about the dialogue between the Myanmar authorities and Daw Aung San Suu 
Kyi. There was, however, continuing use of forced labour or payments of 
money having to be made in lieu of forced labour.

62. In its communication dated 16 February 2001, the ICFTU provided 
extensive information
regarding the current practice of forced labour in Myanmar. The ICFTU noted 
that the military junta had not taken any action aimed at genuinely 
curbing, let alone eliminating, forced labour. Rather, military and 
administration officials at every level had taken action aimed at hiding 
the extent and nature of forced labour imposed on the civilian population, 
at weakening or nullifying the effects of any orders preventing forced 
labour that might have been issued by superior levels, and at preventing 
and countering, through propaganda, disinformation and deception, the 
measures foreseen by the Conference resolution. This action included a 
massive campaign of letter-writing and petition signing, by so-called 
"representative workers". Referring to the open letter discussed in 
paragraph 47 above, the ICFTU considered that this letter was part of a 
campaign by the Government to counter the Conference resolution.

63. Appended to the ICFTU communication were 21 documents providing over 
300 pages of
detailed information on the recent practice of forced labour in Myanmar. 
According to the
ICFTU, this information showed that in practice forced labour had continued 
unabated. The information included detailed testimonies, reports and 
photographs of forced labour in various areas. On the basis of one of these 
reports alone, the ICFTU believed that at least 80,000 individuals, 
including women, children and elderly persons, from four districts of Karen 
State were forced to perform labour during the period November 2000 to 
January 2001. Two army  Officers were named in the report as having ordered 
and organised forced labour on road construction.

64. An essential part of the ICFTU submission consisted of translations, as 
well as many
copies of originals, of orders demanding forced labour issued by the 
military or paramilitary groups under its control, as well as the local 
administration and the Myanmar Police Force. The submission contained over 
500 such orders issued after May 1999, including many that had been issued 
since November 2000. These orders are similar in style, form and content to 
the orders already examined by the Commission of Inquiry and the regular 
ILO supervisory mechanisms and found to be authentic.

65. Details of a large number of specific instances of forced labour were 
contained in the
ICFTU submission, relating to portering for regular patrols and military 
operations, the
construction of roads, bridges and fences, the construction and servicing 
army camps,
including the provision of building materials for these camps, the 
provision of transport for
the military, the collection of firewood for use by army camps or in 
army-owned brick kilns, work in army-owned rice plantations, and work as 
unarmed sentries or messengers for the military. One order from an army 
battalion informed village heads that porters and bullock carts would only 
be requisitioned for use on military operations, and not for administrative 
purposes, but in general the pattern of forced labour demands appeared to 
be essentially unchanged from the practice reported by the Commission of 
Inquiry. The large number of different military units and other authorities 
issuing demands for forced labour suggested that the practice remained 
widespread.

66. A document prepared by the Federation of Trade Unions of Burma, and 
contained in the ICFTU submission, indicated that a number of means had 
been used by the authorities to cover up their use of forced labour. These 
included issuing orders for villagers to attend meetings at the army camp, 
where they were requisitioned for forced labour, rather than issuing 
explicit orders for forced labour; issuing undated, unsigned and unstamped 
orders; demanding that written orders were returned to the issuing army 
personnel; using civilian authorities to requisition labour on behalf of 
the military; and arbitrarily arresting young, healthy persons, who after a 
few days in prison would be sent to work as porters for the military, 
dressed in used army uniforms (but who could be recognized as porters as 
they were barefoot).


Concluding comments

67. In the light of the above, and in accordance with paragraph 1(a) of the 
Conference resolution, the question of the implementation of the Commission 
of Inquiry's recommendations and of the application of Convention No. 29 by 
Myanmar will be discussed by the 89th Session of the International Labour 
Conference, at a sitting of the Committee on the Application of Standards 
specially set aside for the purpose. In this connection, the Governing Body 
may wish to request the Director-General to transmit to the Conference 
Committee the present report together with the record of its consideration, 
as well as any further information of relevance for its discussion. The 
Conference Committee will have before it the report of the CEACR together 
with any other relevant information.

Geneva, 9 March 2001.