[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
ILO GB -- Addendum on Burma
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE GB.280/6(Add.1)
280th Session
Governing Body Geneva, March 2001
Developments concerning the question
of the observance by the Government
of Myanmar of the Forced Labour
Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
Addendum
1. Since document GB.280/6 was finalized, the Office has received a number
of additional
communications from member States, national employers' and workers'
organizations, an
international organization, and a non-governmental organization. To enable
the Governing
Body to get as complete a picture as possible, these communications are
summarized
below.
2. The Government of Canada indicated that copies of the Conference
resolution had been
sent to Canadian provincial and territorial governments and to national
workers' and
employers' organizations. The Government had also sent a letter to major
Canadian
business associations informing them of the Conference resolution and
Canadian policies
with respect to Myanmar. In 1988 Canada suspended diplomatic and commercial
relations
with Myanmar, along with support for Canadian firms doing business in the
country,
including export programmes and commercial promotion. Support for multilateral
assistance through international financial institutions was also withdrawn,
and bilateral aid
was suspended. In August 1997, the Canadian Government had announced selective
economic measures against Myanmar, which remain in force. These include
withdrawal of
trade preferences and the introduction of export controls that effectively
limit exports to
those of a humanitarian nature. The Government also issued a statement
urging the
Canadian business community to refrain from entering into further
investment agreements
or commercial ventures in Myanmar until improvements were evident.
3. The Government of Japan communicated the following points via its
Permanent Mission.
The relationship between Japan and Myanmar did not contain any element that
contributed
directly or indirectly to forced labour in Myanmar, nor did any development
assistance do
so. Japan hoped that an early solution would be attained on the question of
forced labour in
Myanmar, and that a constructive dialogue towards that objective between
the Government
of Myanmar and the ILO would start soon.
4. The Government of New Zealand indicated that it had recently reviewed
the country's
bilateral relationship with Myanmar and no element of that relationship had
been identified
that would perpetuate or extend the system of forced labour in Myanmar. The
Government
intended to keep the relationship under review. It had forwarded copies of
the Conference
resolution to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and the New Zealand
Employers'
Federation.
5. The Government of Portugal indicated that its trade with Myanmar took
place within the
framework of the WTO and the EU. It was difficult within the framework of
the WTO to
take measures against another member State for violations of fundamental
worker rights.
The EU had suspended Myanmar from its system of trade preferences because
of the
forced labour situation. The EU continued to observe the situation in
Myanmar with
concern, and would discuss the question of forced labour in Myanmar and the
Conference
resolution at a meeting of the EU Council in March.
6. The Government of Belgium indicated that although its bilateral
relations with Myanmar
were extremely limited, it had invited ministers of departments having
relations with the
country to examine measures that could be taken in support of the ILO
action and to
prevent these relations being used to maintain the system of forced labour. The
possibilities for economic sanctions were limited because bilateral trade
was minor, and
also because trade policy was mainly handled at the EU level. In July last
year, the
Government of Belgium had communicated to the president of an oil company
its strong
reservations regarding the policy followed by that company, which pursued
its goals
without taking account of the situation in Myanmar. For ethical reasons,
the Government
had ended a contract for the supply of fuel with the same company. It had
also introduced
an ethical clause preventing suppliers to the Belgian State from carrying
out activities in
countries that were guilty of certain human rights violations, although the
introduction of
this clause had yet to be approved by the European Commission. The
Government gave its
assurances that during its next term as president of the EU, later this
year, the EU's
position would be carefully examined in the light of the situation on the
ground in
Myanmar.
7. The Government of Kuwait stated that it had no direct or indirect
cooperation with the
Government of Myanmar, and indicated that it had communicated the Conference
resolution to its employers' and workers' organizations. The Government of
the Seychelles
indicated that it was studying the situation and would revert in due course.
8. The Dutch trade union federation Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging (FNV)
indicated
that it had no relations with the regime in Myanmar. It had requested the Dutch
Government to provide it with information on Dutch companies with trading
interests in
Myanmar, on the total value of trade between the two countries, as well as
details of
imports which may have been made with the use of forced labour. Further
action would be
taken on the basis of an analysis of this information, as soon as it is
received. The
federation had also requested the Dutch Government to develop concrete
proposals for a
review of its own and/or EU relations with Myanmar on the occasion of the
next EU
discussion round on these relations. It had asked the Dutch Government to
inform it of
such proposals, with whom it would discuss them if appropriate.
9. The Fiji Trades Union Congress indicated that it supported the ICFTU
position, but did
not have any further information to provide at this stage.
10. The All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions indicated that it had urged
the Government
of Pakistan to implement the spirit of the Conference resolution, and had
circulated the
resolution widely to the news media in order to inform public opinion about
the situation in
Myanmar.
11. The Swedish Employers' Confederation indicated that the content and
implications of the
Conference resolution had been discussed at a meeting of the South-East
Asia advisory
board of the International Council of Swedish Industry. The Confederation's
full
membership of 45,000 companies had been informed via its newsletter of its
support for
the Conference resolution, and companies that had any commercial relations with
Myanmar were asked to review these relations. The International Council of
Swedish
Industry had communicated the content of the Conference resolution to relevant
associations of companies.
12. The United Nations Industrial Development Organization indicated that
in reference to its
activities in Myanmar it was not aware of any non-compliance with the
Conference
resolution.
13. The non-governmental organization Images Asia, which had provided a
representative to
testify before the Commission of Inquiry at its formal hearing of witnesses
and which had
cooperated closely with the Commission's visit to the region in 1998,
transmitted a report
dated 3 March 2001 on forced labour in the Rakhine state of Myanmar. The
report referred
to the situation in northern Rakhine state in December 2000. The report
indicated that
orders to stop the use of forced labour had been transmitted by the
Government of
Myanmar to the civilian authorities in the state, and village leaders had
been requested to
organize mass public meetings to announce the change in policy. Such
information had
also been placed on official notice boards, and it had been declared that
neither civilian nor
military authorities were entitled to demand compulsory labour, and that in
case of non-compliance,
complaints should be filed with the Court, which would take appropriate
action. The report claimed,
however, that the Myanmar military, especially local battalions, were
showing no willingness to
implement these instructions. The military was continuing to requisition
labour under threat of
"dire consequences". As a result, while there had been a temporary
reduction in labour demands
in some areas, this was only slight, and there were allegations that it had
been accompanied by
an increase in extortion and arbitrary taxation.
Geneva, 22 March 2001.