VOICES ON THE ILO

Ambassador Asda Jayanama
Permanent Representative of Thailand to the UN

BD: Did Thailand support sending the ILO technical cooperation mission to Burma in May?

Mr. Ambassador: Yes, we did. We are still in favor of the country resolving the problem in a peaceful, non-pressured way if possible. So with this view in mind, of course we were in favor of a technical mission going to Myanmar to work things out. The only question is, How successful was this technical mission? I believe the mandate of the mission was to try to assist Myanmar in implementing the resolution of the International Labour Conference. And that is the way countries and delegations will judge it. Of course we were in favor of the technical mission, but there has to be substantive work too. It should not be perceived as a delaying tactic.

BD: Why do you think the Government of Burma agreed to accept the mission in May?

Mr. Ambassador: This problem of forced labor has been on the table for some years. I think the Government of Myanmar has only lately begun to think of it as a serious problem that it has to solve. We, in the region, have strongly urged them to do something about it. We don't want to isolate them. We want to bring them into the international community. I think all of us in the region have encouraged them to work this out. So I believe that this invitation was part of an understanding on the part of the Government of Myanmar of the need to accommodate the international community, and of course more importantly, to live up to their own commitment under the ILO Convention.

BD: So do you feel that it was the influence of Burma's neighbors that led the Government to realize the seriousness of the situation?

Mr. Ambassador: I think it was a combination of the outcome of the vote and the views of the region.

BD: Do you think there could sincerely be some change within the Government regarding their views on this issue?

Mr. Ambassador: I think they will have to change, but the question is how fast. I think there is a feeling with the regime that, "We have to change, but we are going to change in our way." That is my perception. A non-democratic regime is used to deciding things for itself, and interaction with outsiders is one of the things that it has to learn.

BD: At the Conference, the Government of Malaysia and some other Asian countries co-sponsored an alternative to the resolution of the Governing Body. Would Thailand have been a co-sponsor if given the opportunity?

Mr. Ambassador: When you co-sponsor something in an international forum it must be something that you agree with one hundred percent. Politically you should also do everything you can to convince other countries to support it. "Co-sponsor" means two things: First that you agree one hundred percent with the text and secondly that you want to be politically involved in advancing it. We did not agree one hundred percent with the text of that resolution. Basically, on this matter, I think the Myanmar delegation should have done more to defend itself, rather than having others do it for them. The reason that we did not agree with the alternative resolution was because the text did not encourage Myanmar enough to abide by the resolution.

BD: The ASEAN labor ministers held a meeting before the ILO Conference. What position did Thailand take at that meeting regarding the ILO recommendations?

Mr. Ambassador: Basically, I think the labor ministers wanted to give political encouragement to Myanmar for them to implement the ILO resolution. Since it was held before the ILO meeting, I know the Myanmar government wanted a show of political support. And it got political support. I believe the trend at that meeting was to urge Myanmar to have a meeting with the ILO and to urge the ILO to accept the invitation to send a team there to encourage Myanmar and the ILO to work together, which of course, we supported.

BD: When it came to the vote on the final resolution at the ILO meeting in Geneva, Thailand chose to abstain. It did not vote against the resolution, as many of the ASEAN governments did. Why was that?

Mr. Ambassador: You could look at it two ways. First of all we abstained because - as our foreign minister has said publicly - we thought the resolution was too strong. But at the same time, we didn't vote against it because we also think that Myanmar should do more to follow through on the recommendations of the ILO.

BD: In your view, what does the Burmese government need to do between now and November in order to prevent the points in the resolution from being implemented?

Mr. Ambassador: It has to show a definite commitment that it's willing to work out a comprehensive program with the ILO to completely eliminate forced labor. It is not a question of "Okay, we will do this, we will do that." The ILO needs a road map, in detail, not just a simple agreement. They need a full commitment with a comprehensive program.

BD: One of the things the ILO suggested to the Government of Burma as a result of its technical mission was to establish an ILO presence in Burma. Is this something that the Thai government would support?

Mr. Ambassador: This is something for the ILO and Myanmar to work out. If Myanmar agrees, of course that would be very good because it would show a definite sincerity. [And] in the minds of many countries, you cannot properly observe the situation if you don't have a presence there, and you cannot really supervise something from outside. But I heard that they are not very agreeable to a permanent ILO presence. So I think this is, to some degree, a test.

BD: What type of parameters or conditions do you feel would have to be in place for such a presence to be effective?

Mr. Ambassador : The host country should respect the immunities and privileges of the ILO as an international organization. The ILO must be able to implement its workplan - it needs freedom of movement and access to workplaces. Eventually when everything is worked out to mutual satisfaction, the ILO's permanent presence should not be needed. Before concluding, I would like to make a general remark. Thailand's attitude toward the ILO situation is a little different from the other ASEAN countries, geo-politically, and also on social issues. We are right next door to Myanmar. Other countries are farther away. They enjoy the luxury of distance, but we, the burden of proximity. Thus the first thing that comes to our mind regarding Myanmar's internal policies and activities is their effect's, especially negative ones, on Thailand. Look at the almost one million illegal workers from Myanmar in Thailand, and the large number of displaced people on the Thai side of the Thai-Myanmar border. There is also the huge production of amphetamine tablets on the Myanmar side of the Thai-Myanmar border by ethnic Wa and their illegal distribution into Thailand. In this regard, forced labor in Myanmar, among other things, is linked to these movements of people from Myanmar to Thailand. So when ASEAN solidarity is invoked in the International Labour Conference, we will have to take into consideration these movements of people to Thailand and other related negative problems, and of course their solutions. This does not mean good relations with neighbors are unimportant, but there are other goals in our foreign policy, and when goals contradict one another, we must know how to balance them.