The easiest
and most pleasant part of my task is to convey on our joint behalf our sincere gratitude
to the members of the very High-Level Team (vHLT) for
having accepted a very difficult assignment and for their dedication in
discharging it scrupulously both in letter and spirit. Now comes a much more
painful and difficult task, and I am indebted to my colleagues the Officers for
having given me their support and advice.
In drawing
the conclusions of the present debate it is important to recall the conclusions
reached by the Governing Body at its previous session, which set the parameters
for our present consideration of the matter. Following recent leadership
changes, the main preoccupation of the Governing Body in establishing the vHLT was to have an objective basis to evaluate the
attitude and the real will of the authorities at the highest level, and their
determination to continue their effective cooperation on the outstanding issues;
this evaluation would then enable the Governing Body to draw the appropriate consequences
in full knowledge of the facts, including as regards action under article 33.
In that
framework, after hearing the message from the Ambassador, Mr. Nyunt Maung Shein, we have had a broad debate.
The most
largely shared sentiment was one of condemnation over the failure of the
highest authorities to take advantage of the unique opportunity that the visit
of the vHLT represented to resume a credible dialogue
on the issues of concern, and also the feelings of grave concern over the
general situation that this reveals.
Indeed, the
Prime Minister’s indications to the Members of the vHLT
as well as the comments of the Ambassador allege that the that
the necessary political will exists. However, the attitude towards the vHLT, along with the press conference held in
Apart from
the assurances and indications, there are the facts. Some of them seem to a
number of us to go in the right direction, in particular the prosecutions and
punishment of authorities responsible for having recourse to forced labour and
the establishment of a focal point in the army on the initiative of the
Vice-Senior General.
But in the
circumstances the overall assessment falls far short of our expectations. And
this is the reason why, according to the Workers’ proposal, joined by certain governments,
the Governing Body has no other choice but to ask the Office to take a certain
number of formal steps to strengthen the measures under the resolution of June
2000, but also at the same time to strengthen the Liaison Office.
Other
Government members and the Employers’, while sharing the same sense of condemnation
of the actions of the authorities, were in view of the closeness of the
International Labour Conference starting 31 May inclined to test, for the last
time, the true will of the authorities to cooperate with the ILO, before
resuming the examination of these measures and taking a decision on them. Other
governments limited themselves to calling for an urgent restarting of an
effective and meaningful dialogue, without reference to specific measures.
In the
treatment of this particularly difficult case, the solidarity of all the groups
has always given strength to the position of the ILO. It is the view of my
colleagues and myself that this strength should be
maintained. Three considerations may help us.
- First, the question is not strictly
speaking for us to adopt new measures under article 33. These measures have
already been taken under the resolution adopted by the Conference in 2000,
which is binding on the Governing Body and the other organs of the ILO as long
as it has not been modified. These measures clearly remain in force with regard
to all constituents and others to whom the resolution is addressed.
- The next question is whether it is
time for Members to resume their consideration of the action which they have
been and still are called upon to take under the resolution of June 2000. This
question arises because most of them have suspended their action since the
beginning of 2001 as a result of the progress which seemed to be under way at the
time, and which resulted in certain concrete developments in particular through
the ILO presence. At this stage, and on the basis of the information at our
disposal, the growing feeling is that the “wait-and-see” attitude that
prevailed among Members, following the initiation of meaningful dialogue since
2001, appears to have lost its raison d’être and cannot continue.
- A third consideration is that under
the resolution the ILO cannot prejudge the action which each individual Member
may find it appropriate to take as a result of their review; the only thing
which is expected from all of them is to report at suitable intervals to
explain what they have done and why.
At the same
time it is clear that the ILO is not closing the door to the resumption of a positive
dialogue with the Myanmar authorities in line with the views wisely expressed
by the vHLT and a large number of those who took the
floor during the debate; it is clear in particular that the existence of such
dialogue and the concrete results it could produce should be taken objectively
into account by Members when deciding the outcome of their review. The extent
to which progress will be achieved with regard to the strengthening of the ILO
presence as well as the other items covered by the vHLT’s
aide-mémoire, including the immediate release of Shwe
Mahn, should be a concrete test in this regard.
In the
light of these considerations, the conclusions that myself and my colleagues
think the Governing Body could unanimously agree on taking is to transmit to
all those to whom the 2000 resolution was addressed—including relevant
agencies—the results of our deliberations reflected in the present conclusions,
with a view to them taking the appropriate action resulting from the above
considerations.
The Officers
of the Governing Body are mandated to closely follow any developments. These
developments will be the subject of a document before the Committee on the
Application of Standards of International Labour Conference in June.