The Burma Project -Burma Debate- The Compromise

ASEAN'S Proposal
THE RESOLUTION

Following the submission of the alternative resolution by ASEAN nations, the Chairperson of the Selection Committee prepared a compromise for consideration by the Committee members and the Conference. Excerpts from the report of the Selection Committee and from the discussions at the June 15 session of the Conference appear here.

Consideration of a Draft Resolution - June 9, 2000

The Committee considered the manner in which to proceed in the light of [the ASEAN] proposal, the delicate nature of the matter and the need for reflection and consultation. The Chairperson in particular proposed to undertake consultations with members of the Committee, taking account of the positions of different groups and the desirability of achieving a consensus. Consultations should take in as wide-ranging opinions as possible within this context. He invited Committee members from the different groups or regional coordinators to meet him in the course of the next day so that the way forward might be made clearer. When the Committee reconvened on 9 June, the Chairperson noted that the consultations had confirmed that there appeared to be three different positions among members of the Committee. One did not accept the recommendations of the Governing Body. Another believed that the ILO must take a strong decision, because it was intolerable to let the situation in Myanmar continue unabated with people living the consequences of forced labor. A third thought that Myanmar should be allowed to correct the current state of affairs: although a decision under article 33 of the Constitution could be taken only by the Conference, implementation of that decision could be suspended for a time, so that Myanmar would understand that the forced labor problem must be decisively resolved. In this light, the Chairperson had prepared a draft resolution for the Committee's consideration. Fully recognizing that the text would not entirely reflect any one of the three positions, the Chairperson wished to submit it for discussion and possible approval by the Committee.

Asia's Response

Mr. Dato'zainol Abidin

Government delegate, Malaysia

I am making this statement by Malaysia on behalf of the Governments of Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Lao People's Democratic Republic and Myanmar. We as member States of the ILO continue to insist on the question of observance by Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), which the Governing Body has decided to place on the agenda of the 88th Session of the International Labour Conference. The Asian labor ministers, at their 14th meeting held on 11 and 12 May 2000 in Manila, discussed the matter constructively with a view to contributing to a resolution of this problem. The ministers welcomed the invitation extended by the Government of Myanmar to the ILO technical cooperation mission to visit Yangon, and they strongly urged the ILO to send the mission to assist Myanmar with implementation of the Convention. As everyone is aware, the ILO mission visited Myanmar from 23 to 27 May 2000. We welcome this visit and would like to place on record our sincere gratitude to Mr. Juan Somavia, the Director-General. We also commend the members of the technical team for all their efforts. The visit and the report of the ILO technical cooperation mission to Myanmar mark important progress in efforts to secure the commitment of the Government of Myanmar to resolving the forced labor issue. This new development and, in particular, the sincerity and willingness of the Government of Myanmar to cooperate in finding a solution to this problem represent a significant change and a major step forward. It is our earnest hope that account will be taken of this goodwill and openness on the part of the Myanmar Government in determining further steps to be taken to reach an amicable solution to the issue. The Government of Myanmar went out of its way to help the technical team meet as many key government and other representatives as possible, including members of the diplomatic community. Its aim was to enable the mission to have an objective view of the situation in Myanmar. We would therefore request that the members of this august body also look at the issue in an objective fashion, since this belief would be in the interests of all the parties. In light of the foregoing, we take the view that the most effective and pragmatic means of resolving the issue of Convention No. 29 is cooperation, rather than drastic measures. The measures envisaged may have far-reaching ramifications, and could seriously undermine all the efforts taken thus far to resolve this question. We call upon the Members of the ILO to build upon the progress achieved by the technical cooperation mission and to work with the Government of Myanmar to elaborate a comprehensive framework for the elimination of the practice of forced labor in Myanmar. We also ask the Members to refrain from applying measures pursuant to article 33 of the ILO Constitution, as these are not necessarily justified. Mr. LEPATAN (Government delegate, Philippines) The adoption of measures under article 33 of the Constitution has no precedent in the long history of the ILO. The adoption of such measures will open a Pandora's box, the consequences of which nobody can foresee. Prudence dictates that such measures should only be resorted to as a last recourse, when all other avenues for resolving the problem have been closed. That stage has not yet been reached. The avenue for a cooperative solution, opened by the ILO's technical cooperation mission to Myanmar, remains to be fully explored and exploited. It is with this in mind, that the ASEAN group proposed a resolution in the Selection Committee, that would defer the adoption of drastic measures under article 33.

This would give Myanmar time, with the help of the ILO, to demonstrate in concrete terms its sincerity and willingness to comply fully with its commitments under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). If progress is achieved through this avenue, it may not be necessary for this body to consider measures that our predecessors in this Organization took care to avoid. It would be useful to note that ASEAN did not block the adoption of the Governing Body's recommendations during its 277th Session, and the ASEAN resolution in the Selection Committee did not in any way seek to alter the Governing Body's recommendations. In presenting the resolution, ASEAN was not asking that the sword of article 33 be turned into plough shears, only that the sword be placed in the scabbard while cooperation with Myanmar is being worked out. Should cooperation fail, then the sword remains available to the Conference. This, we believe, is a more logical and reasonable approach than the proposal now to adopt measures to threaten Myanmar and to force cooperation. It is, therefore, unfortunate that the proposed ASEAN resolution, and another compromise formula submitted to the Selection Committee, were not given the hearing they deserve. ASEAN is thankful to the Chair for allowing the ASEAN resolution to be placed on record. History may be the better judge on the wisdom of the ASEAN resolution. We believe that this Conference should open doors not close avenues. We continue to believe that the best approach is the cooperative approach, through the avenue opened by the ILO's technical cooperation mission. Accordingly, my delegation, on behalf of several other Government delegations, namely Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore and Vietnam, will present to this body a set of amendments to the resolution submitted to the Conference by the Selection Committee. It is our hope that the Chair will allow us, at the appropriate time, to introduce the amendments that we believe will keep the possibility of cooperation alive and put the time and effort already spent on the technical cooperation mission to good use.

Ms. Kunadi

Government delegate, India

India is strongly opposed to the practice of forced labor. Article 23 of the Indian Constitution prohibits forced labor and any contravention of this provision is an offense punishable in accordance with the law. India is also fully committed to the ILO Constitution. We have been supportive of the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its promotional follow-up. We believe that countries voluntarily adhering to the ILO Conventions should comply fully with them. With regard to the matter before us today, we have always advocated dialogue and cooperation between the ILO and the Government of Myanmar. It was therefore a matter of satisfaction for us when there was a movement in the right direction, in the form of the recent visit of the ILO technical cooperation mission to Myanmar. The report of this mission indicates that the Government of Myanmar fully honored its commitment to give the mission the necessary freedom of action to make contacts. The mission had meetings at the highest levels of the Government. According to the same report, the mission was assured that any forced labor practices would be dealt with and punished in accordance with the law. As indicated in the letter of 27 May from the Minister of Labour of Myanmar to the Director-General of the ILO, Myanmar also showed its openness to continued consultation and technical cooperation with a view to resolving the matter. We are opposed to the punitive measures recommended by the Selection Committee as, in our view, the ILO's objectives and workers' rights can best be promoted through dialogue and technical cooperation, not through punitive measures or the threat of such measures. The desirability of such measures is all the more doubtful at a juncture when a process of dialogue has already been initiated through the visit of the technical cooperation mission. We also have grave doubts about the desirability and legislative authority of the recommended measures that seek to take the issue to other organizations outside the ILO. We believe that the adoption of punitive measures would not serve to move things in the right direction and could indeed be counter-productive. India is of the view that further consideration of this matter should be deferred, so that the process of dialogue and cooperation, initiated through the visit of the ILO mission, may be carried forward to resolve outstanding problems and issues, and that nothing should be done to negate the trust resulting from the mission's visit. We are accordingly opposed to the resolution on the subject, transmitted to the Conference by the Selection Committee.

Mr. Zainal
Workers' delegate, Malaysia

I stand today in this august house in support of the Workers' group's stand in respect of the very important issue which is being discussed. During this session of the Conference, the first in the millennium, we are addressing issues concerning workers' interests and their livelihood as human beings, particularly in Myanmar. While going through the reply dated 27 May 2000 from the Myanmar Labour Minister to the Director-General, I noticed that the Myanmar Government does not appear to satisfy the recommendations of the ILO's Commission of Inquiry. The Government of Myanmar's answer is unclear. The Commission of Inquiry clearly stated its finding that any action constituting forced labor in violation of Convention No. 29 should be rendered illegal under national law. The Commission further stated that the Government should ensure that all legislative provisions in force that permit the imposition of forced labor should be repealed or properly amended. So what is proposed here? The provisions of the Village Act and the Towns Act should be brought into line with the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and the penalties imposed under section 374 of the Penal Code should be strictly applied to all persons imposing forced labor. We have seen no assurance in this regard from the Myanmar Government so far. Forced labor in Myanmar is not a new phenomenon; it has been in the system for many years now, with the Government making countless promises through the years that corrective and remedial action would be taken to bring national laws in line with the Forced Labour Convention. We have not seen any tangible evidence to date. As I said, the Myanmar Government is serious about the issue, despite its rejection of a recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry, as stated in the report. The Workers' group of the Governing Body has, for its part, made firm representations on several occasions under article 24 of the ILO Constitution, calling for concrete measures and pointing out the need to eliminate forced labor in Myanmar.

Every citizen has the right to freedom of association, worship, and the right to assembly without let or hindrance from the regulatory authorities. The trade union movement has not been allowed to exercise its rights in Myanmar, and this is a departure from the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The ILO has given ample time to the Government of Myanmar since last year when we discussed this topic. Last year, in this august house, we deliberated, we decided, we voted and we gave the Myanmar Government a year to correct themselves, to make a change. Some countries are now calling for the Myanmar Government to be given still more time. If the Myanmar Government is serious about this problem, it can demonstrate that within one month, not one year; they can do it tomorrow if they want to. If the Myanmar Government, or any other government, asks for one more year, I do not think anything will change - even if it is given ten years - if it is not sincere. I do not think they can ratify or implement this Commission of Inquiry's findings. The Government should understand that it is not the intention of the Commission of Inquiry to embarrass it. Its findings concentrate purely on the pressing need for the Government to bring national law into conformity with the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). The Government is responsible before each of its citizens, and it is its responsibility to ensure the people of Myanmar are not compelled to work against their will. In the Director-General's Report entitled Your Voice at Work, which was tabled for discussion during the 87th Session of the International Labour Conference last year, it was clearly stated that the primary goal of the ILO today is to promote opportunities for women and men to obtain decent and productive work, in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity. We need to ensure that this primary goal is achieved, as we have already entered the new millennium.

Mr. Than
Government delegate, Myanmar

This august assembly is about to take action regarding the resolution on the situation in Myanmar, contained in the appendix to Provisional Record No. 6-4. The question before us is one of great importance and extreme gravity. This is a time for soul searching. We must search our hearts and minds and think deep within our hearts. We must weigh more carefully whether the path of confrontation and coercion recommended in the resolution is, I quote, "wise and expedient." Or, whether the path of dialogue and cooperation is better, and more likely to produce fair results desired by us all. Let us not talk about the past. Let us talk about the present. More importantly, let us talk about the future. Myanmar has indicated that it is ready, and willing, to cooperate with the ILO. The report of the technical cooperation mission makes it absolutely clear that Myanmar has indeed cooperated, and is willing to carry forward the process of dialogue and cooperation. To cast doubts on Myanmar's intentions and to insist on extreme measures will not serve the cause of the workers. Instead of imposing sanctions, a more reasonable course, in the view of most delegations, is the corporate approach proposed by the ASEAN member States, which is to continue the ongoing process of dialogue and cooperation, and to review progress at the November session of the Governing Body.

Never in the history of the ILO has article 33 been invoked to impose sanctions on a member State. This should never occur. Much less, if the member State concerned has voluntarily cooperated with the ILO, and if it has been already subjected to sanctions under the resolution of the 87th Session of the International Labour Conference. The sanctions contemplated under article 33 are contrary to the spirit of the ILO Constitution. As stated in the Selection Committee on 9th June last, the application of sanctions will be tantamount to the ILO assuming the powers of the United Nations Security Council. More importantly, it would set a dangerous precedent. Any developing country may fall victim to this mechanism. The resolution contained in the appendix to Provisional Record No. 6-4 as it now stands, is excessive and extreme. It is, therefore, totally unacceptable to my delegation. It is a dangerous resolution. Its provisions, particularly operative paragraphs 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d), recommend sweeping and unwarranted drastic measures. The resolution would certainly have far-reaching legal implications. Particularly, the legal basis and the permissibility of measures recommended in operative paragraph 1(c) are highly questionable, to say the least. The moral and political implications of the resolution are also disturbing. It is hoped that the Conference will choose the path of dialogue and cooperation, rather than the path of confrontation and coercion. The former path will certainly enhance the image of the ILO, and will further advance the cause of workers. It is also hoped that reason, sense of justice and fairness, and spirit of cooperation shall prevail eventually.

Ms. Janjua
Government delegate, Pakistan

Pakistan has ratified the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and we are opposed to all forms of forced labor. Forced labor in Myanmar has been an issue of concern in the ILO, following the submission of the report of the Commission of Inquiry. We note, however, that Myanmar has shown a willingness to cooperate with the international community to address the problem of forced labor. Pakistan, therefore, is opposed to the resolution forwarded by the Selection Committee for consideration by the Conference. Our position is based on two points of principle. First, we oppose a sanction-based approach. Therefore, we believe that measures should not be adopted under article 33 of the Constitution. Invoking sanctions under article 33 is an extreme provision, and has never been resorted to in the history of the Organization. Today, adopting measures under this article would send an extremely negative signal to member States of the Organization that are willing to cooperate and work with the ILO to implement international labor standards. Secondly, Myanmar has recently welcomed the technical cooperation mission and has expressed its clear willingness to work with the ILO to eliminate forced labor. The technical cooperation mission was given complete freedom of action by the authorities in Myanmar. The situation, therefore, has changed since the adoption of the recommendation to the Conference by the Governing Body. This should be taken into account by the Conference. Myanmar invited the technical cooperation mission which has presented a rather balanced report. It is clear from the report that the Government of Myanmar has shown its commitment to work with the ILO in dealing with the problem of forced labor.

We believe that adopting the resolution before the Conference today may not help to deal with the problem. It could hardly help the Government of Myanmar to work towards dealing with the issues identified in the report of the Commission of Inquiry. We strongly support the path of cooperation and dialogue between the ILO and the Government of Myanmar. The process of cooperation and dialogue, which commenced with the technical mission, must move forward. We, therefore, disagree with the content of the resolutions sent by the Selection Committee to the Conference, and strongly recommend that we should work for cooperative action instead of adopting a confrontational approach. Those who are proposing action on the resolution proposed by the Selection Committee must realize that such confrontation will only create fissures in the Organization, and can hardly serve the purpose of promoting ILO standards. The adoption of harsh measures is not advisable by any Organization, especially the ILO, which is based on tripartite cooperation. The promotion of labor standards to a sanction-based approach has been consistently opposed by developing countries. This is a fact. There is an obvious need for greater dialogue and cooperation within this Organization, instead of resorting to punitive action by adopting the proposal before us today. Finally, we do not believe that the resolution forwarded by the Selection Committee provides the middle ground, or a compromise. We stated clearly in the Selection Committee that the extreme poles were between those who wanted punitive measures under article 33 and those who, like us, wanted the Conference to take cognizance of the commitment made by the Government of Myanmar by inviting the technical cooperation team. We are of the view that this invitation could help in resolving the issues. The resolution drafted by the Selection Committee ensures the implementation of punitive measures against a developing country.

Mr. Li
Government adviser and substitute delegate, China

The Chinese Government has consistently been of the opinion that technical cooperation and dialogue are the means with which to promote the effective application of international labor standards by the member States, whereas any form of sanction and punishment is not conducive to the general resolution and solution of such problems. We have noted that there has been very positive progress in terms of technical cooperation in the field of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), between the ILO and the Government of Myanmar. Yet the Selection Committee still insists on the application of article 33 of the Constitution, and has carried out extreme measures against Myanmar. This has now occurred for the first time in the ILO's history. It has created a very dangerous precedent. Therefore, the Chinese Government opposes the application of article 33 of the Constitution. We hope that the ILO and the Myanmar Government establish a dialogue in the field of the application of Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and will be able to achieve better results.

Mr. Ahmad
Workers' delegate, Pakistan

I intervene at this late hour because the workers of Pakistan belong to the part of Asia to which Myanmar also belongs, and we participated in the deliberations of the Governing Body and of the Selection Committee. I would like to remind the distinguished delegates that this Organization was founded in 1919 on the principles of promoting social justice, freedom, and dignity for working men and women. We are entering the twenty-first century. The question is whether slavery is compatible with freedom; whether that indignity is compatible at all with human dignity. These are among the fundamental questions with which we are confronted in this great Organization and which have led to the complaint against the Government of Myanmar.

The Commission of Inquiry in its report gave very concrete indications that a state of slavery exists in Myanmar, that workers there are victims of exploitation, and that the practice must be abolished. Under these circumstances, the ILO and the Workers' Group have appealed to the Government of Myanmar to accept dialogue and technical cooperation in order to eradicate these evils. Unfortunately, for the last three years the authorities have not heeded those calls. The ILO Governing Body passed a resolution calling for specific measures, and the Government of Myanmar agreed to admit a technical cooperation mission which visited the country. During the course of the discussions in the Selection Committee, we in the WorkersÕ Group, led by Mr. Brett, felt that we should give an opportunity to the Government of Myanmar to take advantage of the technical cooperation, instead of adopting a resolution. This has been deferred. There is thus no victimization or any sort of sanction, or any intimidation of developing countries. We all believe in the dignity of human beings and in the promotion of freedom, which are the basic rights of workers all over the world. The ILO has been declared the conscience of the world. That is why it was awarded a Nobel Prize on its 75th anniversary. Now, I listened with great interest to the intervention of the distinguished Government spokesperson. We have also filed a complaint against the previous Government of Pakistan which violated certain basic workers' rights. The Governing Body passed a resolution on the matter, and we are very happy that, thanks to our own efforts and the intervention of the Director-General, the Government has resolved that particular issue. We welcome this. Therefore, the developing countries need not worry if they are ready to abide by their obligations which they have undertaken under the Constitution and the ILO Conventions which they have ratified. The Government of Myanmar is entitled to avail itself of the opportunity during the course of five months to eradicate slavery and forced labor. Such are the conclusions which have been made by this independent body and we therefore call upon all delegates to support this report as their commitment to freedom, to social justice, to the dignity of working men and women all over the world. Our delegation fully supports the adoption of this report.

Mr. Futrakul
Government delegate, Thailand

The Thai Government is of the view that, as a matter of principle, cooperation should not be rewarded with threats or punishment. In this connection, the Government of the Union of Myanmar has fully cooperated with the ILO by inviting a technical mission to Myanmar, to engage in dialogue with the highest level of the Myanmar Government. Furthermore, the Government of the Union of Myanmar has declared its willingness to work closely with the ILO to implement the recommendations of the ILO technical mission, by producing a comprehensive framework to ensure that all relevant laws and regulations fully comply with the ILO's Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). Given such commitment by the Government of the Union of Myanmar to cooperate with the ILO to resolve this issue, the Thai Government believes that every effort should be made by all parties concerned to foster such cooperation. However, this resolution, as it stands, with its punitive measures, will be counter-productive to such cooperation. It will adversely effect the atmosphere, dialogue and cooperation between the ILO and the Government of the Union of Myanmar. Who among us would give wholehearted and voluntary cooperation with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads? The Thai Government is of the conviction that the ILO should try its utmost to foster the voluntary cooperation of all its member States. This positive course of action will enhance the stature and effectiveness of the ILO. The Thai Government, therefore, expresses its sincere hope that this august Conference will encourage further cooperation between the ILO and the Government of the Union of Myanmar in order to fully implement, as soon as possible, the recommendations of the ILO technical mission. This should be carried out in an atmosphere that is conducive to such cooperation - an atmosphere that is free from any threats or punitive measures.