VOICES ON THE ILO

Mr. Bill Brett
Spokesperson, Workers's Group

BD: I'd like to get your comments on the ILO technical mission to Burma in May. Was there a clear understanding between the ILO and the Burmese government as to the purpose of the mission? Was the fact that the mission was to assist with the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the fact that the government refused to even recognize the CommissionÕs findings a problem?

Mr. Brett: That's the curious thing about it. That tendency to say that there isn't any forced labor. I was speaking with the Burmese ambassador and in one of his more persuasive moments he said to me, "You have to understand, the government and the military officers are used to giving orders, not taking orders, so what you will find is that they will do what is requested, but they will not acknowledge that they have done what is requested."

Now that's quite disingenuous. Its fascinating to me that they try to make virtues out of past vices. The regime has said, "Look, we don't even accept the Commission of Inquiry. We don't accept that any forced labor took place. So should the fact that they accepted the technical mission ten days before the Conference, be viewed as a major concession? Someone actually said to me, Aung San Suu Kyi was allowed to be visited by the delegation. This was a tremendous problem for the government of Burma, but also a tremendous sign of their commitment. Now again, one has to ask whether the government giving an independent citizen of the country some great "privilege" to meet with individuals should be viewed as a major concession. So, I think all that's happened in the last three years is that the credibility of the Burmese government has grown thinner and thinner. The real question you might have is about the sincerity of the Burmese. You have the letter [from the Minister of Labor given at the end of the mission], which talks of being "sincere." It's a very well-written letter in English, by the way. Whoever wrote it went to a good English university, or a university with a good English department. Because they use the word "sojourn," which is a pleasant stay, but we hardly found the mission to be "a pleasant stay" to be honest. And to "ardently hope" as they stated in their letter is almost beyond reason. I'm not sure they're quite so ardent as they suggest. But to be "sincere," is obviously what we want to see. There are all these things at the same time. But forced labor in Myanmar is not about the happy, smiling faces of myrth, which is what their documents are trying to show. Add to that their description of employers and workers and the "workers paradise" that is Burma, and you should wonder why we aren't all going there on holiday.

Most people are not persuaded, not conned, by that kind of information. And I don't believe that the trust the Employers' Group was willing to show the Burmese was deserved. On at least two occasions - first, the decision of the Selection Committee to proceed with article 33, and then the vote of the Conference to effectively carry it - we had prepared statements of denunciation from Burma. When I say prepared, the statement read by the Burmese ambassador on the floor of the Conference after the vote was written in "Word Perfect." Now, I know "Word Perfect" is a swift way of producing text, but I didn't see any laptop there in front of the ambassador. The statement was produced from the ambassador's pocket and he hadn't moved from his chair for an hour. So again, it was a prepared-before-the-event statement, which says much for their foresight, but little for their sincerity. The debate yesterday preceding the Conference vote was ultra-democratic. I think there were 12 or 13 speakers. Seven spoke in support of the regime, including China, India, Sudan, Malaysia, and Thailand. The ones who spoke supporting the resolution, who represented a much larger segment of the Conference as was proved by the vote, only numbered five: the United States, the EU, Norway, New Zealand, and Canada. The Japanese ambassador made a good contribution in his statements following the vote by the conference. He made it really clear that Burma has one last chance. The impressive part of the ambassador's statement is Japan's decision to give the message publicly, so Burma at last will have to start to take it seriously. And I hope Japan come November will be amongst those saying "enough is enough."
Because if we can't take action against Burma on forced labor on the evidence available, then when can we? I was rather more convinced by that than I was of the defensive arguments of some other governments. It was interesting that among the governments endorsing the argument to give more time to Burma, were India, Pakistan, and Sudan. It is not beyond coincidence I suspect, that they are three governments that have special paragraphs carried in their applications, the ultimate condemnations of the ILO on forced labor issue in the last ten years. There is total disregard by the Burmese government for the Commission of Inquiry's findings, which in their correspondence were never even talked about. They never talked about the ILO recommendations, or the special paragraphs, or Convention 29. They never talked about the three international Supreme Court judges who, through the $1.2 million Commission of Inquiry, found a horror story and published it. None of that has been acknowledged. The denial of this is total. There are colleagues in the Workers' Group who are sick of lies. They point out, "Well, the most amazing thing is that they issue an order to ignore legislation [which allows forced labor, i.e.: The Village and Towns Acts], but they don't even acknowledge the existence of forced labor! Presumably the Burmese are only here this week to give some degree of acknowledgement to receiving the mission because of pressure, because the ASEAN governments around them have been embarrassed beyond reason. What the Conference's vote does now is it gives people - people like me - the opportunity to say, directly in parliament, that companies doing business in Burma are beneficiaries of a regime that is still practicing forced labor. We did not use on this occasion the latest dossiers and reports of forced labor. But, come November, we will want all the facts presented. Someone here suggested that simply a nod and a wink from Burma that they're going one step further would be enough. I don't think it is. I mean, it's quite clear: You have to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry by November, or we implement the points of the resolution.

BD: Why do you think the government accepted the delegation?

Mr. Brett: Undoubtedly because they were told that if they didn't, they would have the action of article 33 imposed immediately, and the people who told them that were their ASEAN colleagues. They said, "We can only defend you if you show some sign of accepting the mission."

BD: What about the argument put forward by the Burmese government that this is basically a move by the developed countries against the developing countries?

Mr. Brett: Look, there are no defenders in this place. There are apologists for Burma, but there are no defenders. No one actually says, "Forced labor is good for you. We quite like the idea." The worker delegates from Pakistan and Malaysia have roundly denounced forced labor. Even the government representatives from Pakistan and India, both of whom spoke in the debate, commenced their statements by saying, "The government of my country has ratified the Convention and is totally opposed to forced labor," before they went on to apologize and ask for more time for Burma. I think in that sense the Burmese government has no credibility. Even the argument that this is a voluntary service that is willingly given was totally squashed by the chilling indictment of the Commission of Inquiry. The US representative calls it up every time, by quoting big chunks of the horror stories of the Commission of Inquiry, of laborers forced to walk over heavy minefields, the rape of women. Ironically, while the government of Burma makes much about the fact that it has issued an order to ignore the Village and Towns Acts and that order was given to the headmen in villages, they haven't issued anything on forced labor to the military. So asking the village headmen, who have no authority to disobey a military order, without staying the military order itself is nonsense.

BD: Was the proposal that some Asian countries presented to the Selection Committee, attempting to stall any action on article 33, expected?

Mr. Brett: I expected something, because we have the same countries that supported Burma in the Selection Committee as in the Government Body. What was a surprise at first, perhaps, was the absence of Thailand, which significantly didn't sign on to the proposal. But Thailand later felt that it needed to perhaps show some kind of solidarity and did make the same kind of statement as the other Asian countries about the role of the good intentions of Burma.

BD: The employers took a softer approach toward this Asian proposal. Why?

Mr. Brett: I know the employers were split. I know there was some pressure from Asian employers, and indeed, some did abstain at the Selection Committee. But to their credit, some of the same people, including Asian employers and workers, did in fact vote better in many ways than the Asian governments. I think the difficulty was that all the way through, the employers wanted to give one last chance to Burma. But it is somewhat naive to think if you say "please" to a regime like Burma's, it will respond. I think military governments tend only to understand force, not reason. Because when does a military officer act out of reason? He takes orders and gives orders. And the fact here is that the Minister of Labor is a Major General.

BD: When it came to the vote, those who had supported the amendment proposed by Malaysia and other Asian governments could have abstained from voting on the compromise resolution thereby denying a quorum and killing the resolution, and they chose not to.

Mr. Brett: We asked for a recorded vote on the resolution, which meant that each country's government, employers, and workers were asked how they voted. And I think that created a problem. Had those supporting the Government of Myanmar decided to switch from opposition to abstention, which they could have done, thereby denying a quorum, it would have been rather remarkable. The Government of Myanmar claimed afterwards that the resolution was "unjust, unrequired and unwarranted." So there was really no choice for them but to vote against it. If they had in fact abstained on the grounds of tactics, I'm not sure that even the newspapers would have understood. If, for example, Indonesia or Japan or someone else had moved to absentia, that would have been seen as deserting Burma. The intention of the recorded vote is to have individuals claim some degree of responsibility. If one was bull-headed enough or determined enough to insist on opposing, they in effect signed their own death warrant.

BD: What do you expect will happen over the next six months?

Mr. Brett: I don't know. I think the ILO should send a mission immediately. That mission should do two things; provide technical assistance, which is legitimate, to bring about compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, and insure verification that this is done. The mission should have the same freedom of movement that was offered in the letter of May 27. Regrettably this last ILO mission did not have time to go outside Rangoon. Free movement around the country is a prerequisite: If they aren't willing to allow that, they have something to hide.

The ILO should be able to offer technical assistance to what is required, to provide a legislative framework to end forced labor. They should be able to verify and receive comments from diplomats and people deep within the country. With that, we'd have an accurate, up-to-date report in November, of what precisely, legally, administratively and in practice, the government of Burma has done to prevent forced labor. Then we have to render judgement and I'll have to put my own prejudices aside. I don't think we will ever use sanctions in anything but the most extreme cases. If in the end they've done all the things they say, then we have a responsibility given by Conference not to be punitive. There's no retroactive punishment for all the heinous things they've done. If of course, some things happen that are more cosmetic than real, then we have to recognize what is cosmetic, what is real, and take action accordingly. In the meantime some of us better start thinking about how we, if worse comes to worst, get all the international organizations, get the governments - to put action behind words. By doing that we will move into a new era for the ILO.