Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2003, Publication: 91st ILC session (2003)

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Myanmar (Ratification: 1955)

A. RECORD OF THE DISCUSSION IN THE COMMITTEE ON THE APPLICATION OF STANDARDS.

A Government representative of Myanmar commended the Director-General on his strong and effective leadership and substantial contribution to the advancement of the dignity, decent work and welfare of workers. He stated that the ILO Liaison Officer had reflected in detail long and difficult negotiations leading to the successful conclusion of the joint Plan of Action for the elimination of forced labour in Myanmar. Her official activities until the end of May 2003 included, among other things, a meeting with General Khin Nyunt, First Secretary of the State Peace and Development Council in May 2003, which emphasized the importance attached by Myanmar to cooperation with the ILO. He noted that the Committee on the Application of Standards had before it a full and positive report on the ongoing cooperation between Myanmar and the ILO. The agreement between the Government and the ILO on the joint Plan of Action for the elimination of forced labour in the country was a breakthrough, a landmark agreement which was the outcome of a long process of continuous and intensive negotiations.

As he had said in the past, given the delicate and sensitive nature of the issue, a step-by-step approach had to be adopted in the endeavour to eliminate forced labour in the country. The Government was committed to the elimination of forced labour and, to this end, was taking the necessary measures in good faith with genuine goodwill and with the best of intentions. When the situation in 1999 was compared with today, no one could deny that a great deal of progress had been made. A comprehensive framework of legislative, administrative and executive measures existed in Myanmar. Order 1/99 and the Order Supplementing Order 1/99, issued in 2000, provided a statutory basis for the implementation of Convention No. 29. These Orders clearly stipulated that the requisition of forced labour was illegal and strictly forbade such acts. They also clearly set out the legal consequences for breach of these orders. It should also be noted that these Orders had the full force of law. Furthermore, necessary instructions had been issued to all ministries, including the Ministry of Defence, and all departments, and peace and development councils at the various levels. The administrative and executive measures taken by the Government included the establishment of the ministerial level ILO Affairs Working Committee, chaired by the Minister of Labour, and the ILO Convention No. 29 Implementation Committee, chaired by the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs. These bodies gave the necessary guidance and oversaw the implementation of Convention No. 29. Seven field observation teams were in full operation, making frequent visits to various parts of the country to oversee the implementation measures and the prevailing conditions on the ground. Close cooperation between the Government and the ILO dated back to 2000. Four technical cooperation missions had taken place in May and October 2000, May 2001 and February 2002. Moreover, an ILO High-Level Team (HLT) led by Sir Ninian Stephen, the former Governor-General of Australia, had visited the country in September-October 2001. The visits of these ILO teams had produced tangible results. The high point was the visit of the HLT, which had been a significant success. In its comprehensive report, the HLT had made a number of recommendations and suggestions for important steps, including some form of ILO presence, a plan of action for the elimination of forced labour in the country and a mechanism to receive complaints in accordance with the agreed procedure. The steps that were currently being taken in cooperation with the ILO stemmed from those recommendations and suggestions. An ILO Liaison Officer in the person of Mrs. Hong-Trang Perret-Nguyen, had assumed duties since October 2002 and had been functioning fully and effectively. An agreement had now been concluded with the ILO on the joint Plan of Action, which covered a wide range of actions for the elimination of forced labour, as recommended by the HLT. The Plan addressed, among other matters, the role of the Facilitator to receive complaints in accordance with the agreed procedure, a public information campaign, public awareness-raising programmes, the translation of the Orders into ethnic languages, the designation of the pilot project area of Myeik district, the pilot construction project in Myeik district, the expansion of animal transportation and the functions of the field observation teams. The joint Plan of Action covered a period of 18 months with effect from 1 July 2003.

In the past, some criticisms had been expressed that the Government had done "too little, too late" and that the measures it had adopted were only procedural and not substantive. The adoption of the joint Plan of Action refuted these criticisms. Informal consultations with the ILO on the Plan of Action had started in March 2003 following the 286th Session of the Governing Body and had been concluded within the time limit set by the Governing Body. Nobody could deny that the Plan was substantive, not procedural. Its conclusion marked a new phase of cooperation with the ILO. Its effective implementation would indeed be essential and no efforts would be spared in this respect. The Government remained committed and determined to further cooperate with the ILO to resolve the issue.

He expressed the hope that the goodwill and commitment of the Myanmar authorities would be reciprocated by the Conference and the present Committee and that, in the light of the substantial and substantive progress and major important steps taken by the authorities, the Committee would respond with a positive gesture with a view to being constructive, forward-looking and positive.

The Worker members emphasized that forced labour had been ravaging Myanmar for many years. Until very recently, and thanks to the efforts of the ILO, there had been hope of an improvement in the situation. However, for the past week they had been witnessing a deterioration in the progress accomplished until then. For the second time, this Committee was holding a special sitting on the case of Myanmar and the recent events were an additional reason for holding the sitting.

The Worker members recalled that the discussions of the Committee were based in the first place on the report of the Committee of Experts, supplemented by the information contained in documents D.5 and D.6. The violations of Convention No. 29 were grave, generalized, systematic and structured in law and in practice. The Government had been requested to implement the three recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry: (1) to amend the legislation in order to bring it into conformity with Convention No. 29 and thus abrogate all legislation which made forced labour possible; (2) to put an end in practice to the exaction of forced labour; and (3) to enforce the penalties provided for in the Penal Code against persons found guilty of having exacted forced labour. The conclusions of the Committee of Experts were clear.

Concerning the amendment of the legislation, the laws concerned had not yet been modified despite the repeated promises made by the Government for over 30 years. On this subject, the Government indicated that these laws were ancient and untouchable. But in 2001 and 2002 it had adopted and reformed other laws. Order 1/99 could constitute a sufficient legal basis to ensure the application of the Convention in practice provided that it was applied by the civil and military authorities. Concerning the exaction in practice of forced labour, the Worker members noted that the measures taken by the Government of Myanmar were not sufficient to put an end to such exactions, as indicated by numerous documents. On this subject, the Committee of Experts had stated in its report that the instructions given by the Government to the civil and military authorities were not sufficiently specific and concrete and that the Orders had not been publicized in a sufficiently general way in order to bring an end to the exaction of forced labour. Moreover, even if the Government had created a Committee for the supervision of the implementation of the legislation and had sent an observation team to the field in order to examine whether the population was aware of the Orders and verify whether any complaints had been lodged, no information had been provided as to the progress made up to now. Concerning penal sanctions, the Committee of Experts stated that the Government had not adopted any measures so that those responsible for the exaction of forced labour could be prosecuted. Thus, despite the Government's promises, none of the three recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had been implemented in practice to this day.

Admittedly, following the efforts of the Office, certain changes had been observed. But these were principally, if not exclusively related to procedural issues. All the request of the Committee, the ILO had sent a High-Level Team in September 2001 to Myanmar and the border regions in order to evaluate the situation on the spot. On the basis of the report of the mission, the Governing Body had adopted conclusions, particularly for the Director-General to pursue the dialogue with the authorities in order to define the modalities and parameters of continued and effective ILO representation in Myanmar. Under the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding between the ILO and the Government of Myanmar, a Liaison Officer had been appointed in May 2002.

Documents D.5 and D.6 indicated the latest developments in Myanmar. A Plan of Action by the Government and the ILO for the elimination of forced labour practices in Myanmar had been finalized just in time for the beginning of the Conference, but too late for the recent dramatic events. In view of these events, the Worker members were sceptical as to the viability of the new agreements and initiatives between the Government and the ILO as the Government's attitude was proving to be misleading. In fact, despite the Government's indication that the elimination of forced labour would be its main objective, the fact remained that nothing had really changed. Before last week's events, the Workers could have been optimistic and have talked about progress. However, the current events, that is the detention and holding in secret of the executive of the National League for Democracy (NLD), and in particular Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, were a setback in that they resembled the events of 1995-97. Although political progress had been made over the past two years, these events cast doubt on the implementation of the Plan of Action.

The Worker members stated that they placed much hope in the visit to Myanmar of Mr. Razali, Special Envoy of Mr. Kofi Annan. The Governing Body had clearly recommended to the Government that it should take measures to abolish forced labour practices, ensure that those who exacted forced labour were brought to justice and modify the legal procedure so as to implement the required measures. The Worker members stated that, as long as the recommendations had not been implemented, the measures adopted under 33 of the Constitution of the ILO should not be revised.

The Worker members, also recalled that, according to the report of the Commission of Inquiry of 1998, the impunity with which government officials, in particular the military, treated the civilian population as an unlimited pool of unpaid forced labourers and servants at their disposal was part of a political system built on the use of force and intimidation to deny the people of Myanmar democracy and the rule of law, which were indispensable prerequisites for the suppression of forced labour. Moreover, they expressed concern at the deeply disturbing developments of the past week, which had a profound impact on the ability of the ILO to go forward in its cooperation with the Burmese Government. Contrary to what the regime had been saying, the growing body of information emerging from the country indicated that a massive crackdown of the NLD was under way, with killings, injuries and disappearances seeming to take place, not only in the area where Daw Aung San Suu Kyi had been ambushed, but also in many areas around the country. There was reliable information that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi had been injured and the fact that the authorities had not allowed the ICRC or her own doctor to see her was deeply disturbing. The discussion of forced labour over the past few years, both in this Committee and the Governing Body, had been conducted in the context of a climate of political reconciliation and it was no coincidence that the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest and the beginning of confidence-building talks between the regime and the NLD had coincided with the adoption of the 33 resolution. However, the events of the past week cast a dark cloud over the discussion. If the Government wished to improve its credibility it should inform the Committee when Daw Aung San Suu Kyi would be released and be able to receive medical attention, the whereabouts of the missing NLD activists, when the brutal crackdown would end and if the process of political reconciliation would ever resume. Until these events ended, it was hard for the Worker members to see any way for the cooperation between the ILO and the regime to go forward.

Concerning the agreement tentatively reached between the Government and the ILO on a plan of action that included a formal understanding on a facilitator and a pilot project, he said that it was not surprising, given the long history of the case, that only a week before the start of this Conference, an agreement had been reached on the Plan of Action. The Committee had seen this pattern many times before. Only days before a Governing Body meeting or the beginning of the Conference, the Government came to some agreement with the ILO after months of delay and subterfuge, and then touted this agreement as a breakthrough. As the Committee of Experts had pointed out, there was no evidence that these agreements had led to any discernible decrease in forced labour. The Federation of Trade Unions of Burma had just released a report outlining 71 new cases of forced labour. Reputable international NGOs, such as EarthRights International and Forum Asia, had also released reports recently. Most importantly, the Liaison Officer herself had reported to the Governing Body that forced labour remained prevalent in many parts of the country, particularly in ethnic areas and in those areas with a substantial military presence. Although the Liaison Officer had reported allegations of forced labour to the Government, the latter had not confirmed any of these allegations. The Worker members had not forgotten the case of the seven Shan villagers who had allegedly been murdered for complaining about forced labour, a case which had been discussed on a number of occasions by the Governing Body and still remained pending. The Governing Body's suggestion for an independent investigation had been rejected outright by the Government. The fact remained that in villages, townships, and large areas of the country, forced labour was not only practised, but was a way of life for untold thousands of people.

The latest tentative agreement on a Plan of Action included seven work programmes dealing with various issues on the elimination of forced labour throughout the country, including the dissemination of information, awareness-raising programmes, the pilot project for local road construction, enhancing public awareness of the mechanism to make complaints and, of course, the role of the Facilitator. The Worker members' understanding was that, although the pilot project was envisioned as a concrete expression of the Government's political will to proactively eliminate forced labour, it was only a place to begin. They emphasized that this commitment by the Government to eliminate forced labour in practice had to apply to the country as a whole, and not just to the area of the pilot project. The Government was under an obligation to implement these programmes, especially the dissemination of information, awareness-raising and enhancing public awareness of the mechanism to make complaints everywhere and not just in the area of the pilot project. Similarly, it was clear that the role of the Facilitator to improve the access of the alleged victims of forced labour to the judicial process went beyond the area of the pilot project and extended throughout the country. It was important to emphasize that a fundamental objective of these activities was to increase the confidence of the people, and the victims of forced labour in particular, that legal redress was possible without recrimination. Until now there had been no confidence that a remedy was possible given the fact that the practice continued unabated, that the military was the primary perpetrator and that more often than not it had been the victims with the courage to complain who had been punished rather than those who were responsible. It had not gone unnoticed that there had been virtually no prosecutions. The Facilitator, in particular, would be asking victims to trust him so that he could help them gain legal redress. And the public-awareness campaign was a deliberate attempt to raise public expectations that something could and would be done. The Worker members asked the Government how any of this could happen under the current climate of fear and intimidation. Could the Facilitator in any way guarantee that those individuals who came to him would be safe after the appalling developments of the past week? Was it possible or ethical for the ILO to be raising public expectations in view of what had been happening? The answer to such questions was a resounding no. They could not envision any way for the implementation of the Plan of Action to begin without a return to some sense of normalcy, to a renewed and invigorated political reconciliation process.

Although the Worker members viewed the Plan of Action with a healthy dose of scepticism, they also noted it with interest. They looked forward to the day when the process of implementation would begin and they would do their part to monitor developments closely. But they could not see how such a process could begin under the current state of repression. As to what was to be done in the future, only days ago legislation entitled the Burma Freedom and Democracy Act had been introduced in the United States Congress on a bipartisan basis banning all exports from Burma to the United States. The Bill specifically cited the Director-General's call in response to the article 33 resolution for all member States and constituents to review their relationship with the regime to ensure that they did not directly or indirectly contribute to forced labour. Many other countries were considering similar action. In the light of the lack of progress regarding the actual elimination of forced labour after all these years and the recent developments inside the country, it was time for the Director-General to re-issue and strengthen this call. And the Worker members hoped that this time governments would respond in a much more serious way.

The final paragraph of the report of the Commission of Inquiry revealed a saga of untold misery and suffering, oppression and exploitation of large sections of the population inhabiting Myanmar by the Government, the military and other public officers, a story of gross denial of human rights to which the people of Myanmar had been subjected since 1988. The report had expressed the hope that in the near future the old order would change, yielding place to a new one in which everyone in Myanmar would have the opportunity to live with human dignity and to develop his or her full potential in a freely chosen manner without subjection or enslavement by others. This could happen only through the restoration of democracy. The current events inside the country appeared to show that the people of Burma were as far or further from that goal today than they had been when the report was written five years ago.

The Employer members recalled that the case of the use of forced labour in Myanmar was an extraordinary one as forced labour had been a reality in the country for decades, embracing all areas of life on the basis of national law and deep-rooted practice. Intensive efforts had been made for a decade to adopt effective measures to put an end to this grave violation of Convention No. 29, which was the fundamental Convention with the highest number of ratifications. All efforts so far had been extremely difficult. As shown in the voluminous information before the Committee, many small positive steps had been taken over the years, but many setbacks had also occurred. The position of the Government of Myanmar had been characterized for a long time by silence, preferring not to hear the denunciations and contesting the existence of forced labour in the country. Formal cooperation had emerged only recently. The activities undertaken by the ILO from July 1998 to May 2002 had revealed the deep-rooted legal and practical causes of forced labour in the country and had resulted in a difficult but also intensive period of cooperation, although such cooperation was always delayed and occurred only after pressure had been exerted.

Concentrating on recent developments and with reference to the joint Myanmar/ILO Plan of Action, the Employer members pointed out that this agreement had been initialled but not yet signed. They recalled that the agreement had been the result of great efforts made by the ILO Facilitator and had been approved by the Governing Body at its November 2002 and March 2003 sessions. They thanked the ILO for the efforts made in this respect. The agreement related to the same basic demands that had been made for some time. Firstly, the Village Act and the Towns Act, which set the legal basis for forced labour, had to be removed and, secondly, new provisions abolishing forced labour had to be enacted, published in all the necessary languages and disseminated in order to raise awareness. The almost secret decrees issued so far had been inadequate. The measures contained in the Plan of Action were to be implemented from July, in particular in a pilot region. By furnishing technical assistance, the ILO was providing significant help to the Government. However, the core demands for clear legal provisions which would prohibit forced labour throughout the country remained the same. Violations of such provisions had to be accompanied by sanctions and such sanctions had to be implemented in an impartial manner, especially as those who violated the law were often high officials in the administration and the military. Victims should be able to lodge complaints without fear of reprisals. In this regard, the task of the Facilitator was particularly important. Concerning the pilot project, the Employer members wondered how the Government would finance the replacement of forced labour by regular paid workers.

The Employer members concluded that this case continued to reflect a dual picture, as in the recent past. On the one hand, the Government announced its formal cooperation with the ILO based on agreements. From this point of view, the situation was one of progress. On the other hand, the situation with regard to the more important issue of practical progress towards the abolition of forced labour was unsatisfactory. Forced labour in Myanmar was not rooted merely in legislation or a practice that had run out of control, but was part of the whole state system. It was a systemic phenomenon from which the whole population suffered. The recent agreement offered a glimmer of hope, but it was for the time being only an agreement on paper which had not been implemented in practice. The Employer members also expressed deep concern at the recent developments. They emphasized that the discussions had gone on long enough and that it was now essential to see concrete results as soon as possible for the benefit of the people of Myanmar.

The Employer members added that they were aware of the gravity of the situation which had led to the holding of the present sitting. They indicated that the case of Myanmar was one of the most serious in the modern history of the ILO and that it concerned the violation of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). They emphasized their support for the principles of labour law relating to the abolition of forced labour. There were no productive advantages which were not based on the respect of these rights. States had to contribute to seeking solutions and to the application of all instruments of the ILO for the achievement of these goals. That is why they did not question the application of article 33 of the Constitution, an unprecedented event in the history of the ILO. Following the Governing Body and the International Labour Conference, the Employers would follow closely this discussion and the progress that was being achieved, and they would share their doubts and their observations. The Employers commended those steps which implied the opening and initiation of dialogue. Evidently, such steps were not the solution, but only the tools for reaching a solution. The solution was in the effective application of the Convention, with a view to the effective and complete abolition of forced labour. There had to be the conviction, not just the presumption that forced labour had been completely eradicated, and this had to be verified by tripartite means. Furthermore, there should not be any doubts that the victims of forced labour could have access to justice, and the Facilitator would have an important role to play in this respect. The Employer members expressed their gratitude to the Liaison Officer, and for the appointment of a Facilitator, as well as for the adoption of the Plan of Action. This had to be implemented on the ground and immediately, since the case concerned violations of fundamental human rights. Beginning with the present session of the Conference and until the next session of the Governing Body in November, the Employer members expected to receive sufficient information to dispel any doubts. It was important to distinguish between the means used to identify violations and the real situation. The events of recent days had had a negative impact on the situation in the country, as well as on the abolition of forced labour. They hoped that the Plan of Action would be implemented in an efficient way and that it would introduce a new order that would change the attitude of the Government.

The Government member of Viet Nam, speaking on behalf of the ASEAN member States of the ILO, expressed appreciation to the Director-General for his efforts in promoting cooperation with the Government of Myanmar and welcomed the political will and commitment of the Government to observe Convention No. 29, as well as its continuing determination to eradicate forced labour from the country. He also welcomed the Plan of Action for the elimination of forced labour practices in Myanmar concluded between the Government and the ILO. This important agreement would go a long way in assisting the efforts of the Government to resolve the issue. The Plan of Action and the strenuous efforts by the ILO Liaison Officer in Myanmar would foster better cooperation between the ILO and Myanmar. It was therefore extremely important that the discussion in the Committee on the Application of Standards on this issue be conducted in a constructive and forward-looking manner. He expressed the hope that the effective implementation of the Plan of Action would bring about an improvement of conditions in Myanmar and would lead to a situation that would enable the Conference to remove, upon the recommendation of the Governing Body, the measures taken against Myanmar under article 33 of the Constitution. He finally encouraged the Government and the ILO to continue their cooperation until the issue was completely resolved.

The Government member of Greece, speaking on behalf of the European Union countries, the candidate countries (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia), the associated countries (Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey), and Iceland and Norway, which associated themselves with his statement, he emphasized that the establishment of genuine democratic procedures in Burma/Myanmar was essential for the expression of the will of the people and for its well-being and that the European Union fully supported the people in their efforts to bring justice and social advancement to the country and to tackle impunity, human rights violations and the practice of forced labour. It also fully supported the work of the ILO and its Liaison Officer and their efforts for the implementation of the Plan of Action, which was a positive step forward, although its successful implementation would be the key issue. He expressed support for the appointment as Facilitator of Leon de Riedmatten, who should be allowed to operate freely to help victims of forced labour seek redress. It would be important to establish a local office in the pilot region to review and support complaints. If successfully implemented during the initial 18-month period, the Plan of Action should be extended beyond the pilot region.

However, the European Union deplored the recent decisions by the Burma/Myanmar authorities, especially the detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and NLD party officials, the closing down of NLD offices and the suspension of the activities of universities throughout the country, and called on the authorities to release immediately Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her party officials, to allow the opening of the universities and NLD offices, and to engage constructively with the United Nations Secretary-General's Special Representative, Mr. Razali. These acts were of grave concern to the European Union. They seriously undermined the stated commitment of the authorities to the process of national reconciliation and the creation of an environment that would facilitate the proper implementation of the Plan of Action and they demonstrated a lack of political will for the restoration of democracy in the country. Credible action on forced labour was very difficult in the absence of full commitment by the authorities to pursue economic, social and political reform. The European Union was concerned that the recent political developments reflected a serious decline in the authorities' interest in pursuing national reconciliation and the return to democracy in the country, as demonstrated by the stalling of the political reform process and the continued absence of credible policies to tackle the worsening economic situation. The issue of national reconciliation was of crucial importance if the use of forced labour was to be ended. Also of grave concern was the continued refusal of the Government to enter into a genuine democratic dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Moreover, the structure and the size of the armed forces, and their use for internal security reasons, contributed significantly to the overall incidence of forced labour and the reported acts of associated violence. It was also clear that it was the armed forces which were the most resistant to cooperation with the ILO.

The situation would be kept under close and continuous review and the European Union would respond quickly and proportionately to developments on the ground, be they positive or negative. In view of the lack of sufficient progress to date, it would be inappropriate for any consideration to be given to removing the measures imposed under article 33 of the Constitution. Before such consideration was warranted, the Conference and the Governing Body would need substantial evidence that the authorities had met the conditions of the Commission of Inquiry and had taken sustained action to eliminate forced labour. In the meantime, this issue required close monitoring by the ILO.

The Government member of Switzerland indicated that her Government endorsed the statement by the Government member of Greece, who had spoken on behalf of the Member States of the European Union.

The Government member of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya stated that, since the adoption of the resolution on the use of forced labour in Myanmar under article 33 of the ILO Constitution, various efforts had been made with a view to ensuring the application by the Government of Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). Several meetings had been held, missions sent to the country, a Liaison Officer had been appointed, administrative measures had been adopted and special orders had been issued, circulated in ministries and published in order to acquaint the people with the prohibition of forced labour and enable them to submit complaints. The Plan of Action had been adopted and now needed concerted efforts in order to be implemented. As long as the political will was present in Myanmar, as had been repeatedly affirmed, the ILO should continue to provide technical cooperation in order to achieve the main objective, which was to eliminate forced labour and alleviate the suffering of the people of Myanmar. He considered that, in order to demonstrate good intentions on all sides, with a view to encouraging the eradication of forced labour in the country, it might be advisable to suspend the application of the resolution on Myanmar adopted under article 33 of the Constitution.

The Government member of the United States recalled that the Committee of Experts, after reviewing all the information available to it at the end of the previous year, had concluded once again that none of the three recommendations formulated by the Commission of Inquiry in 1998 had been implemented. The Village and Towns Acts had not been amended. The administrative orders regarding forced labour had not been sufficiently publicized, and their dissemination had not stopped the recruitment of forced labourers and the brutal treatment that so often accompanied it, particularly by the military. Finally, there was no indication that anyone responsible for using forced labour had ever been prosecuted under the laws of Burma.

In the face of this discouraging report, the Plan of Action came as a welcome new development. The Government acknowledged that forced labour was ignoble and stated that it would make unremitting efforts to eliminate it from the country. The various work programmes, if implemented in good faith, should help to raise awareness among public officials, military personnel and the population in general of the issue of forced labour and the right to redress. The understanding on the Facilitator and pilot region were particularly important, as these were the elements that were missing when the Governing Body had examined the Plan in March. The Office, and particularly the Liaison Officer and her assistant, deserved much credit for successfully negotiating these agreements. She also expressed gratitude to Mr. de Riedmatten for agreeing to serve as the Facilitator.

She emphasized the importance of the implementation of the Plan. Over the next 18 months, it would be necessary to watch closely for evidence that the Government was genuinely committed to the strict enforcement of the ban on forced labour in the pilot region and in the country as a whole. The various components of the Plan, including in particular the role of the Facilitator, had to be implemented with the Government's full cooperation and without delay. While she agreed that, as stated in the Plan's conclusion, the elimination of forced labour could not be accomplished overnight, she also believed that measurable progress could and had to be made within the 18-month period. Good faith implementation would be the test of the Government's commitment.

In that connection, it was impossible to ignore the violent events that had taken place in Burma on 30 May of 2003. Officials from the United States Embassy in Rangoon who had visited the site of these events found evidence of a premeditated attack, instigated by the Government, against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, one of the world's most courageous defenders of human rights. The Government's version of the story was not credible and its actions so far suggested that it had decided to end efforts aimed at national reconciliation. The Government had not lived up to its commitments in the past, and it was only to be hoped that it would demonstrate by its actions in implementing the Plan of Action that it could fulfil the commitments it had entered into on forced labour.

The Government member of Australia stated that the Australian Government's position on forced labour practices in Burma was clearly on record, not only in the context of the ILO, but also in its support for the United Nations resolutions on Burma. He said that his Government had paid close attention to the observations of the Committee of Experts, the additional report provided to the Conference Committee by the Office and the statement made by the Government representative of the Government's observance of its obligations under Convention No. 29.

He noted that the Committee of Experts in its report referred to the lack of concrete developments over eight years in Burma, including those in the drafting of a new constitution and the redrafting of old labour laws. He emphasized that Australia had on many occasions expressed its disappointment at this slow rate of progress in addressing the issue of forced labour. He stated that in this context the agreement reached on the Plan of Action was a development worthy of international support. This Plan of Action contained many positive elements. In particular, he offered strong support for the appointment of the Facilitator, the creation of field observation teams and the identification of a pilot project. These were all moves in the right direction and he urged the Government to extend the various activities nationally.

Although he did not believe that it was appropriate for the present Committee to become involved in broader political debates, it was nevertheless appropriate for Committee members to convey clearly to the Government that recent events had raised serious doubts about its intention to implement the Plan of Action. Although welcome, the Plan of Action was a modest achievement when set against the work still to be done in the country to stop abuses of human rights. The detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Secretary-General of the National League for Democracy, and her supporters had brought that into sharp focus in the past week. The Australian Government had called for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's immediate release and expressed concerns about her welfare. There was no justification for her detention and he again urged the Government to release her without delay. He expressed his gratitude to the Office and, in particular, to the Liaison Officer and her assistant for their ongoing efforts to help eradicate forced labour in Burma.

The Government member of New Zealand emphasized that her Government had repeatedly called on the Government of Myanmar to make strenuous and effective efforts to fulfil its obligations under Convention No. 29. Her Government was heartened to see a credible Plan of Action before it, which included, significantly, an agreement on the establishment of an independent facilitator and a pilot region.

Nevertheless, she remained concerned that there were currently few signs of improvement on the ground towards the elimination of forced labour in Myanmar. A Plan of Action was a very positive step in the right direction, but the key test remained that tangible results were delivered to those experiencing, or facing the threat of forced labour. These results had to be driven by a firm political commitment to end this abhorrent practice. She reiterated previous calls on the Government of Myanmar to give higher priority to this issue. While recognizing that the implementation of the Plan of Action had to be a step-by-step process, she urged the Government to exceed targets in view of the considerable time taken to agree on the Plan and the long history of violations of human rights that had prompted it.

While emphasizing the long-standing position of her country that technical bodies such as the ILO should not be drawn into debate on more general political issues which might detract from their mandated tasks, she noted that the eradication of forced labour in Myanmar was unlikely to take place in a climate of fear, where freedom of expression was suppressed. It was in this context that she reiterated her condemnation of the re-arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters and urged their immediate release.

The Government member of Sri Lanka welcomed the efforts made by the Government of Myanmar in cooperation with the ILO towards the elimination of forced labour. He expressed his confidence of Myanmar's commitment to its obligations under Convention No. 29. Furthermore, he believed that the Plan of Action signed by the Government and the ILO last month in Yangon was a positive step towards realizing this objective. The concrete elements detailed in the Plan of Action provided a good basis in this regard. He encouraged Myanmar and the ILO to continue working together and expressed the hope that the effective implementation of the Plan of Action would lead to constructive discussion on this issue in the future, resulting in the removal of measures taken against Myanmar by the Conference.

The Government member of India was pleased to note that this matter, which had engaged the attention of the Conference Committee and the Governing Body for some time, was in the process of being resolved satisfactorily. In his view, the Committee would wish to express its appreciation for the accommodation and flexibility shown by the Government of Myanmar.

He recalled that at the last session of the Governing Body the Chairperson, referring to the Plan of Action proposed by the Government of Myanmar, had indicated the supplementary elements necessary in order to meet the concerns expressed by some members. Those concerns had been addressed, leading to the successful conclusion of the agreement between the Government and the ILO on 27 May 2003. In addition to the formal understanding on the Facilitator, the Plan of Action comprised a road-building project in a pilot area, alternatives to the use of forced labour and information and measures aimed at awareness raising.

His country had consistently advocated the path of constructive dialogue between the ILO and the Government of Myanmar, which had brought results. He referred to previous calls to give Myanmar the necessary assistance to bring about the needed changes, rather than linking it to the political process and economic reforms.

As a matter of principle, his country supported the adoption of a promotional approach by the ILO in matters falling within its mandate, rather than a confrontational one. The appointment of an ILO Liaison Officer last year with the full support and cooperation of the Government was an important step in the right direction. The Myanmar-ILO joint Plan of Action, to be implemented over an 18-month period starting from 1 July 2003, was the logical next step. The ILO had undertaken to provide technical assistance and support to Myanmar for the projects identified in the Plan of Action. These were positive steps in the right direction and involved commitments by the ILO and the Government. He believed that nothing should be done to jeopardize these positive trends. The Conference Committee should encourage the ILO and the Government to continue moving in this positive direction. The Plan of Action therefore deserved full support.

An observer representing the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), speaking with the authorization of the Officers of the Committee, emphasized that, despite the denials of the military regime, forced labour still occurred in Burma because the regime did not have the political will to change its treatment of the people. After all the time and effort devoted by the ILO to the issue, the authorities had destroyed the confidence of the ILO and the international community by their attitude towards Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. This was proof indeed that the military regime relied on brute force to solve problems, whether they were financial, political, or ethnic. He said that before and during the ILO's visits to the country, a major plan had been implemented to ensure that all the people, even in rural areas, denied the existence of forced labour. But this action showed that the authorities were concerned about the repercussions of ILO action. They were not worried about the representatives of the European Union, the United Nations, or the Red Cross, who did not interact with the people and were not visible. But the ILO was visible to the people and it was only ILO action that would be able to eradicate forced labour, forced relocations and violations of workers' rights in the country. He therefore said that, as part of the pilot project, monitoring visits should be carried out by the ILO to every city to reinforce the hope of the people. With reference to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, he reaffirmed that she was a hostage and that United Nations representatives had been refused access to her. He therefore called upon the ILO and its Members to take strong and concrete action to enforce a solution in the country.

The Worker member of the Netherlands recalled that very rapidly after the adoption of a resolution concerning Myanmar by the Conference in 2000, the ILO had made a first effort to monitor its follow-up by the tripartite constituents. By the end of 2000, the Office had requested governments, employers' and workers' organizations in member States to indicate what they had done to implement the resolution and review their relations with Burma.

The trade unions in his country had welcomed these measures as a wake-up call and an encouragement to make changes. They had made good use of the first report to put pressure on the Government of the Netherlands to change its policy. Moreover, this action had been effective and, although in February of 2001 the Government had reported to the ILO that its policy was neutral in this respect, three months later this had changed to a policy of "further discouraging" contacts with Burma. However, three years after the adoption of the resolution by the Conference, it was strange that the ILO had not made any efforts to repeat this action. He expressed his regret at this lack of activity and asked whether there were any plans for a new reporting exercise and, if so, when it would take place. He suggested that when the Office was preparing a new round of reporting on the implementation of the resolution, it should include questions not only on the activities of the three constituents, but also on tripartite activities at the national level. He added that the Office should also encourage the use of existing relevant non-ILO instruments for the implementation of the resolution, in an effort to improve awareness among governments, the business community and trade unions. He referred, in particular, to the United Nations Global Compact, and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The latter had been used in his country to encourage enterprises to make a contribution to the elimination of forced labour in Burma, both directly and by requesting their business partners in the host country to respect the paragraph on forced labour in the Guidelines. He referred to complaints under the OECD Guidelines lodged by the trade unions in the Netherlands against a dredging company and a number of travel agencies which continued to operate in Myanmar. Another complaint against a company importing wood from Myanmar was being prepared. Jointly with the Austrian Trade Union Centre the Dutch unions were looking into possibilities of lodging a complaint under the OECD guidelines against the Austrian airline Lauda Air. In all these cases, the trade unions were working closely with the Burma Committee in the Netherlands, and possibilities were being explored of joint action with trade unions in other countries. He therefore called upon all governments, employers and trade unions to review their commercial relations with Myanmar.

The Worker member of Italy deplored the injury and the arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the nationwide crackdown on the democracy movements which made it very hard to believe in the Government's good will in the implementation of the recently agreed Plan of Action. The key problem was unfortunately the confirmed absence of a real political will to eliminate what could be called one of the backbones of the survival of the military junta.

The Ambassador of Burma had declared in the Governing Body in November 2002 that his was a country in transition striving to become a modern, peaceful, prosperous and democratic State and that transition needed to be a gradual process. It should then concentrate its budget and macroeconomic policy on the social development of its people and should refuse forced labour and undemocratic behaviour.

It was therefore difficult to understand why, instead of investing in the eradication of forced labour and the promotion of productive and decent jobs, it had doubled the size of its army since 1988 with an estimated 470,667 soldiers. Seventy seven thousand children under the age of 18 are forcibly recruited, threatened with jail or brutally beaten if they refused to join the army or if they tried to escape. It should be borne in mind that the Burmese Army was now one of the largest armies in South-East Asia and that 49.9 per cent of state expenditure was used for military expenses. Large quantities of weapons were imported from China, the Russian Federation and other countries. It was clear that forced labour was essential to the survival of the army and there was no way that the country could get out of the vicious circle of forced labour unless there was serious political commitment to completely reverse the situation. For these reasons, it was important that the Plan of Action focused as a matter of utmost urgency on the military, and particularly on regional commanders, to oblige them to change their behaviour and their means of working. Another important way of eradicating forced labour was to intervene to radically change the national budget structure. The already difficult economic situation was worsening, due also to the militarization of the rural economy. Forced labour, the land confiscation policy and rice procurement for export and for rice supplies to civil servants at subsidized prices forced farmers to sell most of the harvest to the Government at a price four to five times lower than that of the market price. This, together with the export-orientated policy to earn hard currency, explains the shortage of rice and the deterioration in the health conditions of farmers.

With the aim of developing the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings and its branch, the Myanmar Economic Corporation, which constituted another instrument for the perpetration of forced labour, the Government had promoted travel and tour companies and factories exporting to Europe, the United States and Canada. Joint ventures had become the main logistical and economic support for the organization of the military regime. Since full foreign ownership of companies was forbidden, all the investments in the country were developed through joint ventures with the military.

The ILO resolution implementing article 33 of the Constitution had given rise to important actions, such as the European Union Common Position. She thanked those companies which had withdrawn from the country but deplored that many others still had significant investments in the country. According to Eurostat, since 1996 European Union countries had increased their imports from Burma more than 500 per cent. Denmark was the highest on the list, with 3.75 per cent procapita followed by the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Belgium and France.

Other urgent measures are needed to make the ILO resolution really effective. The multilateral development banks, such as the ADB and of governments financing such institutions as the Italian Government, also needed to be consistent and revise their policies and agreements by suspending their participation, technical and financial support of the country through such programmes as the Great Mekon Subregion Economic Cooperation Programme. She called for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, set up by the Genoa G8, to withdraw the recently approved $17 million project directly in favour of the military regime and regretted that it had refused a programme which would have been implemented by democratic Burmese organizations.

European governments and the European Union should go far beyond the measures taken already. She urged them to adopt economic measures and to impose a ban on investments and trade with Burma on the grounds that any commercial or economic link would help the regime to perpetuate forced labour. Moreover, she appealed to governments and the European Union to implement XX of the GATT Agreement, which referred to measures relating to the protection of human health and measures relating to the product of prison labour. According to the WTO reply to the ICFTU request for clarification on this matter, governments could take trade measures the Government of Burma without fear of reprisals.

The Government member of Japan emphasized that his Government's position had always been and would be to resolve the problem of forced labour in Myanmar through dialogue and cooperation. In this regard, the Government of Japan, in cooperation with the international community, wished to continue to cooperate with the parties concerned through its comprehensive approach, encompassing social, economic and political dimensions. In this context, he referred to the recent incident involving the detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other NLD members by the Government. His Government regarded this incident as deeply regrettable. Through its continued engagement with the Government of Myanmar, Japan had persistently called for their immediate release, assurance of their political freedom and the prompt rectification of the present situation in Myanmar.

Referring to the question of forced labour in Myanmar, he expressed his appreciation to the Director-General and the staff of the ILO for their efforts to strengthen dialogue and cooperation with the Government of Myanmar. He also commended the work of the Liaison Officer since her assignment in Yangon.

He expressed his belief that it was of the utmost importance for the Government to take appropriate measures in response to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. In this respect, he understood that the ILO and the Government had negotiated the Plan of Action for the elimination of forced labour, following the guidance of the Governing Body in November 2002. He wanted to emphasize that the purpose of this Plan was to encourage the authorities in their efforts to ensure the prompt and effective elimination of forced labour.

He welcomed the fact that a formal understanding on the Facilitator had been reached in Geneva in May 2003 and that the rest of the Plan of Action had been agreed upon in Yangon at the end of May 2003. He hoped that through the implementation of the Plan of Action, first in pilot areas and later at the national level, the Government would be able to discharge its obligations under Convention No. 29, by taking substantial steps towards the eradication of forced labour in the country.

He encouraged the Government to make further efforts and demonstrate its political commitment by the steady implementation of the Plan of Action, and expected the ILO to be able to present a report on the implementation of the Plan of Action to the next Governing Body in November 2003. If this report was positive, it would be possible to discuss further cooperation between the ILO and the Government beyond the scope of the eradication of forced labour.

The Worker member of Senegal stated that the re-examination of the case of Burma showed that, despite certain improvements, the Government had refused to implement the recommendations that had been made. This refusal by the Government to honour its commitments was the principal cause of the ineffectiveness of the procedures and the immunity enjoyed, in particular by the military. No specific or concrete instructions had been given to the civil or military authorities. The interpretation given by the military authorities to concepts such as work that is offered or benevolent was a method of evading Order 01/99 adopted by the Ministry of Interior. This Order, despite its adoption, did not prescribe the types of activity for which the requisitioning of labour was prohibited. The line between compulsory work and voluntary work was unclear and related to the question of the payment of wages.

The field observation teams had found that the documents distributed were printed in English and Burmese. However, despite the promises made, no explanations had been provided in the various ethnic languages in view of the scarce respect shown these people. Moreover, the villagers frequently had to pay fees for informational meetings, as well as the travelling expenses of the officials of the State Council for Peace and Development. The villagers questioned had indicated that they had not been informed of the measures taken to put an end to forced labour. The widespread confusion that now reigned and the terror inflicted upon the population were not conducive to the submission of complaints against forced labour. Furthermore, the authorities had not provided for any budget to recruit paid workers. The budgetary changes requested by the mission had not been put into effect. In this respect, the lack of commitment of the authorities was likely to seriously affect the credibility of the official agreement on the pilot region.

Finally, he emphasized that the approach taken by the authorities for the elimination of practices of forced labour seriously undermined the credibility of the official agreements concerning the Facilitator and the pilot region.

The Worker member of Pakistan said that, while he welcomed the Government's expression of commitment to the elimination of forced labour, he could only be dismayed by recent developments, and particularly the detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. He emphasized once again that freedom from forced labour could only be fully achieved when civil liberties were respected, as reaffirmed in the Declaration of Philadelphia. He recalled that the issue of forced labour in the country had been under discussion by the Conference Committee and the Governing Body for many years and urged the Government to heed the very strong signals sent out through the ILO by all of its member States. Through its failure to take adequate action to amend the relevant provisions of the national legislation, the Government was in violation of the Convention. The orders that it had issued had not been fully disseminated and were not understood or complied with in the country in general. Moreover, the orders themselves were very inadequate. He therefore called upon the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, the High-Level Team and other ILO bodies by amending the legislation which allowed the use of forced labour and by adopting penalties against all those persons, including the members of the armed forces, who are responsible for its use. While welcoming the adoption of the Plan of Action, he warned that monitoring would be required for its effective implementation. In view of the overriding need to pursue social development in conditions of freedom, he called upon the Government to comply with its obligations relating to the rights of workers.

The Worker member of Greece recalled that the condition of slavery, to which the people of Burma had been reduced for approximately 30 years, had been on the agenda of this Committee for 12 years now. Despite this, progress had only been made on paper, and even so, the Government still had to translate into the ethnic languages the Orders it had agreed to adopt and to disseminate them during the first quarter of 2003. Moreover, the information brochures on forced labour would have to be published in the ethnic languages of the country, as the Government had undertaken to do in the first quarter of 2003. And finally, the victims of forced labour would have to be able to have recourse to justice. At the present time, while the authorities pretended that this possibility existed, the absence of any information concerning complaints, judicial proceedings and penalties demonstrated the considerable gap between the reality on the ground and the picture presented by the authorities. This contradiction became more evident in view of the statement of the Government to the Governing Body in November 2002 according to which Myanmar was a country in transition striving to become a modern, peaceful and prosperous democratic State. In conclusion, he said that history showed that tyrannical regimes did not last forever and that the intensity of the fall of tyrants was always proportionate to their cruelty.

An observer representing the World Confederation of Labour (WCL), speaking with the authorization of the Officers of the Committee, stated that until now there had been continuous use of forced labour, coordinated by high-ranking military officers in some areas of Burma. In most villages, road constructions and repairs were done by villagers themselves at the order of the military commander through the village chairman. Villagers were summoned to do the hard work and required to bring their own tools and food. They were obliged to work for a certain number of days without pay, and fines were imposed in case of failure to work. This kind of work was also required in the construction of military stations. Prisoners were also required to do hard labour, such as fetching thousands of buckets of water per day, serving as porters to battalions of soldiers and carrying rice and rum bottles weighting about 30 kilos, as well as military supplies and ammunition to nearby army camps. Since prisoners were not well fed, they could hardly carry the heavy weights and were therefore subjected to beatings by the soldiers.

The farmers who used to toil their own fields were forced to work in government rice fields, with the result that their land became unproductive and they lost their harvest. Leaving them with nothing to survive on resulted in an increased flow of refugees to Thailand.

Referring to Convention No. 87, she indicated that a large number of human rights violations were linked to freedom of association. There was a blatant denial of freedom of assembly, association and expression. The legal framework in Burma deterred and even banned any legitimate action aimed at establishing well-functioning, independent and representative workers' organizations in the country. Anyone who invoked the law to challenge arbitrary power faced arrest, violence and possibly death.

The situation in the country was greatly affecting the region. It was inhumane and unjust to deprive the Burmese people of their human rights and freedom. While most of the countries in the region were evolving democratically, Burma had not improved economically since the Asian crisis and the spread of SARS in the region. The issues of the illegal migration of workers and the increase in refugees from the country significantly aggravated this problem.

She emphasized that if the authorities were to implement their responsibilities towards their citizens, it had to provide more job opportunities to its people by diverting its budget allocation to income-generating activities, rather than allocating most of its finances to the military. In this way, the people would no longer resort to fleeing to nearby countries for jobs and the issue of irregular migration could be addressed.

The Worker member of Japan stated that, despite the promises of the Government, forced labour was still widespread even today. He urged the Government of Burma to implement the recommendations in paragraph 47 of the report of the Committee of Experts, including the amendment of the Village Act and the Towns Act, and Order No. 1/99 and its supplementing order.

He recalled that under the resolution adopted by the Conference in 2000, member States had to review their relations with the Government of Burma and, at the same time, not give to it any advantages to prevent the continued use of forced labour. He expressed the view that sanctions would be the most effective form of action if all member States could get together to put pressure on Burma. Unfortunately, in reality, there were several countries and some multinational companies which supported the Government, financially and politically. He did not deny the fact that international investment could help to open societies and bring democratic changes in some countries. However, this was not the case of Burma. Foreign direct investment in the country had to be carried out through joint ventures with the military regime. Under the law, fees and benefits from investments went straight to military generals. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit report, foreign direct investment in Burma from 1988 to 2000, except for the Asian financial crisis, grew steadily from US$56 million to 1,352 million US dollars. This was largely due to the fact that most of the top investors in Burma were ASEAN countries, such as Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. By the end of March 2001, foreign investors from 25 countries had committed themselves to 322 projects in 11 sectors of economy, amounting in total to US$7,395 million. The most important aspect was that the amount of investment was greatly increasing even now, in spite of the ILO resolution.

The ten major foreign investors, most of which were multinational companies, originated from Singapore, the United Kingdom, Thailand, Malaysia, the United States, France, Indonesia, the Netherlands, Japan and the Democratic Republic of Korea. He added that his own country, as one of those that supported Burma economically and politically, had not fulfilled its responsibilities with respect to the democratization of the country. He mentioned that China was ranked the 15th with 61 million US dollars and it cannot be exonerated from political responsibility of supporting the military regime of Burma. There was no doubt that these types of financial and political support helped the military regime to survive and to oppress the people of the country. He urged the representatives of these governments and employers' groups no longer to offer any advantage to the military regime.

The Worker member of Malaysia recalled that he had spoken on the issue of forced labour in Myanmar on many occasions in the Governing Body. Referring to the promises made by the Government representative to the Governing Body, he emphasized that in reality nothing had been done for the past five years. Yet the Government representative was once again making promises. He recalled that no responses had been supplied to the many questions raised in the Governing Body in November 2002, in particular concerning the killing of seven people and the action taken to find and punish those responsible. Referring to the issue of human rights, he indicated that people of Burma had been waiting for many years to see the light at the end of the tunnel. There was no point in listening to any more empty promises. It was time for the Government to accept its responsibilities and to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. However, no amendments had yet been adopted to the Village Act or the Towns Act. He therefore called upon the Governing Body to set up a committee to follow the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Worker member of Canada expressed his frustration and anger at the intolerable situation of forced labour in Myanmar. He referred to the developments since the last Conference as outlined in document D.5. A Liaison Officer had been appointed and a Plan of Action, including a pilot project and a facilitator mechanism, to help victims of forced labour to seek redress had been put together at the last second. Indeed, on 29 May 2003, as noted in the report, satisfaction had been expressed at finally reaching this level of progress. Unfortunately, the recent attack near a copper mine, merely hours after the meeting of the Liaison Officer with General Khin Nyunt, clearly pointed to the challenges posed by the eventual implementation of the Plan of Action. Firstly, the Plan of Action was to be implemented over an 18-month period. The question was what assurances the Conference Committee had that the authorities would not use this period to continue its attacks on the democratic opposition, while claiming to comply with the Plan, putting the time frame in question. Secondly, with respect to the mechanism for making complaints by those who had been subjected to forced labour or those whose rights had been violated, under the present circumstances in the country it was doubtful whether many persons would seek redress, thus rendering public-awareness campaigns ineffective. Thirdly, while the purview, composition and functions of the field observation teams were outlined in great detail, any specific role for the facilitator remained completely undefined. It was unthinkable that under such circumstances and in the absence of the clearly recognized independence of the facilitator, an effective mechanism could be contemplated.

He expressed appreciation of the efforts made by the Director-General of the ILO, and the Liaison Officer. Unfortunately, the events of the past week served as an overwhelming and painful reminder that these challenges could not be overcome in the present context. He pointed out that the attacks of last week took place near an enormous copper mine operated by a Canadian mining company, Ivanhoe Mines, which was actively seeking to increase its investment in the country and therefore continuing to profit directly or indirectly from the existence of forced labour. In fact, Canada had become the third largest investor in the country.

He said that the Plan of Action should now be put on hold until such time as the Committee was satisfied with the commitment of the authorities to live up to their international commitments. Until then, regular visits by members of the Committee and/or the Governing Body should be considered as a means of ongoing monitoring of the situation.

The Worker member of India commended the Director-General and the Office on the adoption of a policy of considered, calculated and persuasive action for the elimination of forced and bonded labour in the country and welcomed the cooperative attitude of the Government. He emphasized that forced and bonded labour anywhere were a curse upon humanity and had to be brought to an end as soon as possible. Nevertheless, the issue needed to be seen in the context of the colonial past of the countries concerned. Myanmar had lost its traditional vocations, trade, culture and value system, together with enormous wealth, and was struggling for survival. He said that it was the essence of democracy that it needed to encompass diversity to achieve unity. While survival of the fittest was the law of the jungle, in a civilized world laws were needed so that the survival of the weakest became the responsibility of the fittest. He therefore called upon the ILO to use all the means at its disposal to raise awareness, educate and assist the authorities and people of Myanmar so that they could eliminate forced and bonded labour. However, he warned that this would require a change in national attitudes which could only be achieved through careful nurturing.

The Government member of Bangladesh commended the ILO for its constructive efforts to deal with the situation of forced labour in cooperation with the Government. He welcomed the Plan of Action and the Government's expressed commitment to eradicate forced labour and believed that its constructive engagement with the ILO was the most effective means of addressing the issue. He hoped that the measures agreed upon would generate an important momentum that would provide further impetus for continued constructive cooperation.

The Government member of Brazil emphasized the importance accorded by his country to the eradication of forced labour and respect for human rights. With respect to the issue of forced labour in Myanmar, he noted that the Government had shown the will to cooperate and had signed the Plan of Action with the ILO. He indicated that the proposed measures, especially the designation of the Facilitator, could contribute more effectively to promoting a climate of dialogue and cooperation. He expressed the hope that this would bring about changes in the country in the future. On the other hand, he expressed his concern at recent events and expressed the hope that such events would not have the effect of making it more difficult to apply the measures aimed at the eradication of forced labour.

The Government member of Canada regretted that, at a truly painful and tragic time in Burma's history, it was necessary to doubt the willingness of the Government to respect internationally recognized human rights, including the rights of workers, and particularly freedom from forced labour. At the Governing Body in March, his Government had cautiously welcomed the announcement of renewed commitment by the authorities for the appointment of a Facilitator to assist victims of forced labour to file complaints in a secure environment, as set out in the Plan of Action developed by the Government and the ILO. He gave thanks to the Office, and the Liaison Officer in particular, for their tremendous efforts in developing a more meaningful Plan of Action than that originally submitted by the authorities. The Plan of Action now set out concrete alternatives to the use of forced labour in the country and emphasized the need to eliminate this heinous practice. In particular, he welcomed the appointment of Mr. de Riedmatten as Facilitator and emphasized the need for him to be able to operate freely in helping victims of forced labour seek redress. It would be critical for the authorities to cooperate fully and make every effort to ensure that the Plan of Action was implemented as quickly and effectively as possible.

However, he regretted that, despite the repeated condemnation of forced labour by the international community and the measures taken by the ILO, no appropriate action had been taken by the Government to achieve concrete results. The report of the Committee of Experts gave little reason for optimism and he recalled that the promises made in the past had been hollow. None of the key recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry had so far been met. In the absence of such action, how was it possible to be sure that the Plan of Action was the appropriate way forward? The grave doubts concerning the political will of the authorities were compounded by the absolute lack of evidence that they were genuinely committed to national reconciliation or democratic transition. In other words, they had yet to establish an environment favourable for the implementation of the Plan of Action. He therefore called upon the authorities to engage immediately in substantive dialogue on national reconciliation, initiate the measures they had already agreed to in the past and implement in full the Plan of Action. Finally, he joined with other members in calling for the immediate release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the other NLD party officials who had been detained.

The Government member of the Republic of Korea expressed appreciation of the progress made by the Government of Myanmar, including the appointment of the Liaison Officer, the development of the Plan of Action and the understandings adopted concerning the Facilitator and the pilot region. She emphasized the significance of the role of the Facilitator in seeking remedies for any victims who were or had been subjected to forced labour. She also hoped that the Government would continue to provide full support to and cooperate with the ILO and that it would adopt a credible and effective response to the ILO's recommendations. She called upon the ILO to help and facilitate the Government in its efforts to achieve concrete progress.

She said that all human rights were interrelated and indivisible. In this respect, she recalled that the Committee had recognized the need to address the important issues that lay within the ILO's mandate in a more integrated manner. She therefore believed that the establishment of a genuinely democratic government in Myanmar was essential for the achievement of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. However, she expressed concern at the recent detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and her colleagues in the NLD, and the closing down of the NLD headquarters. She called for their immediate release and an early normalization of NLD activities. Finally, she hoped that the Government would fully respect human rights and democratic principles and that it would further enhance its cooperation with the international community in its endeavours to improve the situation in the country, including the eradication of forced labour practices.

The Government member of Namibia reaffirmed that the situation of forced labour in Myanmar was undoubtedly a serious and contentious matter that had been on the ILO's agenda for some time. Positive action had been undertaken to provide technical assistance to the country in a structured, responsible and objective manner. He expressed satisfaction at the appointment of the Liaison Officer and Facilitator and the adoption of the Plan of Action and he urged the ILO to continue its valuable work. However, he emphasized that the most difficult part, namely the implementation of the Plan of Action, was still ahead and called upon the Government to provide full assistance and cooperation for this purpose.

An observer representing the World Organization Against Torture (OMCT) stated that this organization, known as a network of non-governmental national and international organizations, was justified in taking action on forced labour in Myanmar because the means used to impose this form of slavery notoriously included physical and moral torture, rape and summary execution. The Committee had raised the issue the previous year of the murders of victims of forced labour in the State of Shan, of which there had been no serious investigation. The Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Commission had described the action taken by the Government on this case as hardly convincing and credible.

Although, from a formal point of view, progress had been noted with the abolition of forced labour on paper, the establishment of a Plan of Action and the appointment of a Facilitator, the need to implement these intentions in practice should not be overlooked. Recent events had been marked by a new wave of political repression, arrests of the opposition and massacres, which had occurred immediately following certain signs of openness towards the international community. Faced with such setbacks, the Facilitator should clearly take all possible precautions, as there were grounds for doubting the guarantees offered to victims who might wish to denounce reprehensible acts. A survey by EarthRights International and the experience of the Human Rights Commission clearly illustrated the extent to which such guarantees could be tenuous.

The scope of forced labour in Myanmar was well known to everybody. A United States government body estimated the number of persons who were victims of these practices at between 100,000 and perhaps millions. There were grounds for doubting whether a regime founded on the reduction of the population to slavery could sincerely wish to reform its system. It could also be doubted whether the regime would have been elected if there had been free elections. In this respect, the United Nations Human Rights Commission had recalled that the will of the people of Myanmar had been clearly expressed at the elections in 1990. The objectives of the ILO (the elimination of forced labour) and the United Nations (the re-establishment of human rights) necessarily depended on a return to democracy in the country.

The Government member of Japan, exercising his right of reply to criticisms raised with regard to the economic assistance provided by his country to Myanmar, emphasized that such assistance was offered solely to address the real needs of the people in the fields of health, education and human development. It was important that the real objective of this assistance should not be misunderstood. He also expressed surprise at the criticism levelled at his Government's participation in the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and emphasized that action needed to be taken against these diseases wherever they occurred.

The Executive Director of the Standards and Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work Sector, in response to the question raised by the Worker member of the Netherlands as to whether the Director-General had, or had not, written to member States concerning the review of the measures taken by them in relation to Myanmar, recalled that the Director-General took such measures upon the instructions of the Governing Body. Accordingly, he had written to member States following a decision by the Governing Body in November 2000 and reported the information supplied in response to the Governing Body in March 2001. The possibility of reactivating this measure in accordance with the article 33 resolution had been raised in the Governing Body in March 2003, although the Chairperson of the Governing Body had noted then that the Governing Body was not in agreement that the Director-General should proceed with these measures at this stage.

The Government representative said that he had listened with great interest to the statements and comments made and gave sincere thanks to the many speakers who had welcomed and expressed appreciation of the Plan of Action agreed upon by the Government and the ILO. In particular, he expressed profound gratitude to the ASEAN countries and other Government members who had made positive statements in support of his Government. He therefore concluded that, despite some critical comments on extraneous matters, there was a general sense of approval in the Committee, which welcomed the Plan of Action and the ongoing cooperation between the Government and the ILO. He reminded speakers who had expressed pessimistic points of view that the Plan of Action was a landmark agreement which would have been unthinkable even six months earlier. It was the best that could be achieved and met the requirements laid down by the Governing Body. Its implementation was clearly of crucial importance and his Government was committed to its effective application with a view to creating positive conditions that would eventually lead to the elimination of forced labour in the country.

However, he regretted that the forum had been abusively addressed by the observer from the ICFTU, Mr. Maung Maung, whose background of unlawful activities, including terrorism, made him unfit to intervene at the Conference. He also stated that Maung Maung (a) Pyi Thit Nyunt Wai was nothing but a criminal and a fugitive from justice and a terrorist. His criminal activities included, for instance, his involvement in an abortive terrorists' attempt to carry out bomb attacks in Yangon in 1997. He also regretted that certain speakers had referred to recent political developments in his country, which only served to detract from the main subject of the discussions. In his view, there was no linkage between politics and his country's observance of the Convention. The ILO dealt with labour matters, and not political or human rights issues. However, as the matter had been raised, he reluctantly felt the need to respond to the comments made. In this respect, he recalled that his Government had been engaged in national reconciliation efforts since the advent of the State Peace and Development Council. These efforts had borne fruit and, as part of the systematic transition to democracy, the Government was permitting legal political parties, including the National League for Democracy (NLD), to expand their political activities. Since the lifting of restrictions in May 2002, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi had been allowed to travel freely throughout the country and to engage in a wide range of political activities, including meeting the people, foreign diplomats and the international media, and opening NLD party offices throughout the country. In this connection, there had been agreement that the members of the NLD would not engage in any activity that could disrupt the existing peace and stability in the country. While Daw Aung San Suu Kyi had been free to engage in normal political activities, it had also been agreed that prior consultations should be held concerning all her planned trips. However, militant members of the NLD had recently become lawless and their activities had given rise to unrest and disturbances. He expressed the belief that democracy must be disciplined, but indicated that the practices of the militant members of the NLD were a far cry from normal democratic practices. He cited cases of unrest, and even injuries caused by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's motorcade. He stressed that, if Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was prudent and clever enough, she could have overcome all these problems. It was, therefore, evident that there was premeditation on the part of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, but not on the part of the Government. In view of these events, the authorities had been compelled to control the situation and take temporary measures to provide protection to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and some of the militant members of her party. He emphasized that these measures were temporary and gave assurances that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was safe and unhurt. He said that she did not have even a bruise.

Finally, he reaffirmed that his Government would continue its policy of national reconciliation and of transition to democracy in a systematic and step-by-step manner. He also recalled his Government's determination and commitment to resolving the issue of forced labour and to implementing the Plan of Action.

The Worker members strongly protested against the accusations made by the Government representative with regard to Mr. Maung Maung. They emphasized that the statements were false and that other authorities, including the Thai Government, had recognized their wrongfulness. This was an old technique and was often used to prevent the application of Convention No. 87. They concluded that, after last week's events, there were good grounds for wondering who the real terrorists were.

The Employer members emphasized that the discussion had been long, serious and very necessary and that a rare degree of agreement had been reached on the subject under discussion. The Government should take note of this and ensure that its efforts went much further than in the past. Urgent action needed to be taken to implement the Plan of Action. In practice, this would require almost revolutionary measures, since forced labour was a part of the system in the country and there was no separation of powers within the State. An extraordinary effort would therefore be required from the Government to ensure that its people enjoyed their basic human right to freedom. However, if the practical steps agreed upon most recently were not taken, this would amount to a major setback. It was to be hoped that the Government realized that it was at a crucial crossroads and that a country which refused to fulfil its international obligations faced isolation from the international community, with all the consequences that this entailed for its people. The Employer members hoped that the Government realized this and would adopt a responsible approach in taking concrete action.

The Worker members stated that they did not wish to repeat the analysis of the case nor the conclusions of the Committee of Experts which had provided many irrefutable arguments. They repeated their main conclusion that the Government of Myanmar never followed up its assertions of good intentions with concrete action. The Plan of Action might be an indication of good intentions, but its implementation was completely undermined in advance by last week's events. In order to make this Plan of Action (which was positive in itself) credible, at least three elements were necessary. The Government should immediately release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters, allow democracy in the country and engage in a constructive dialogue with the ILO's representatives.

Finally, they requested the ILO and the Director-General to reiterate and reinforce the call made in 2000 to the constituents of the Organization to inform the Office of the measures taken in order to help eliminate forced labour in Myanmar.

The Government representative regretted that some of the Committee's conclusions were incorrect. He emphasized that recent political developments in the country were not relevant to the subject under discussion and he expressed his reservation in this respect.

The Worker member of the Netherlands, while fully aligning himself with the positive position adopted by the Worker members with a view to the conclusions, emphasized that the latter were very weak as regards the point of reporting on the implementation of the June 2000 ILO resolution which he had raised.

(not reproduced:

B. Observation of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations on the observance of the Forced Labour Convention, l930 (No. 29) by Myanmar

Document D.5

Brief summary of developments since June 2002

Developments since the 286th Session of the Governing Body (March 2003)

Annexes

Document D.6

Developments concerning the question of the observance by the Government of Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) (Governing Body documents GB.285/4, GB.285/4(Add.) and GB.285/4(Add.2)

G. Extracts from document GB.285/PV: Minutes of the discussion at the 285th Session (November 2002) of the Governing Body of developments concerning the question of the observance by the Government of Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)

Developments concerning the question of the observance by the Government of Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) (Governing Body documents GB.286/6, GB.286/6/1, GB.286/6/1(Add.) and GB.286/6/1(Add.2)

Extracts from document GB.286/PV: Minutes of the discussion at the 286th Session (November 2003) of the Governing Body of developments concerning the question of the observance by the Government of Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)

The Committee recalled that its debate was taking place at a moment when the international community was deeply concerned at the events which were occurring in Myanmar, namely the incommunicado detention of the leadership of the National League for Democracy, in particular its General Secretary, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and the alleged killing and disappearance of an unknown number of people. In this connection, a number of speakers expressed their concern at the personal situation of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and asked that she immediately be released. These events, and the resulting climate of uncertainty and fear, called seriously into question the will and ability of the authorities to make significant progress in the elimination of forced labour. The Committee requested the Government representative to convey its profound concern to his Government.

In its observation, the Committee of Experts had noted that the three recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had still not been implemented: the Village and Towns Acts had not been amended, although Order 1/99 and its Supplementary Order could, if applied in good faith, provide a statutory basis for ensuring compliance with the Convention in practice; measures to stop the exaction of forced labour in practice, such as concrete and specific instructions to the civilian and military authorities and budgetary allocations for the effective replacement of forced and unpaid labour, had not been taken; and there had been no prosecution of or sanctions imposed on persons for exacting forced labour.

The Committee took note of the statement of the Government representative, as well as the other information and documents before it. It noted with appreciation the Government's cooperation with the ILO Liaison Officer in Myanmar since she had taken up her position in October 2002. It had to note, however, that the measures taken by the Government to publicize widely Order 1/99 and its Supplementary Order, including the translation of these texts into six languages of national minorities, and the field visits carried out by the field observation teams of the Convention No. 29 Implementation Committee, still had not resulted in tangible progress in the application of the Convention. It was clear from the information available from various sources, including the impressions of the Liaison Officer, as reflected in her report to the 286th Session of the Governing Body, that recourse to forced labour continued in practice and that the situation was particularly serious and appeared to have changed very little in certain areas with a heavy presence of the army. It also noted that despite the discussions between the authorities and the Liaison Officer in the Convention No. 29 Implementation Committee, all the investigations carried out by that Committee into the allegations of forced labour presented by the Liaison Officer had found that these allegations were unfounded.

Taking into account the urgent need expressed repeatedly by the Committee of Experts, the Governing Body and the present Committee to move from procedural steps to substantive progress in putting an end to forced labour, the Committee welcomed the fact that the Government and the ILO had agreed on 27 May 2003 on a joint Plan of Action for the elimination of forced labour and expressed its support for this Plan. It noted with interest that, on the basis of the suggestion made by the High-Level Team, the Plan envisaged the designation of an independent Facilitator to assist victims of forced labour to obtain redress under national legislation. It was noted that the Facilitator would carry out his functions throughout the country. Under the Plan of Action, the Government had undertaken to strictly enforce the prohibition on forced labour in the pilot region. While emphasizing that the implementation of the Plan of Action was without prejudice to the general obligation of the Government to put an end to forced labour in the whole of the country, the Committee felt that this Plan of Action, if it was applied in good faith, could enable tangible progress to be made in the elimination of forced labour and could open the way to more substantial progress. The Committee urged the Government to take all the measures required for this purpose. The reports of the Facilitator to the Governing Body, as well as the evaluation reports on the implementation of the Plan of Action, should allow the results obtained to be judged.

In view of this, the Committee was bound to deplore the situation created by recent events in Myanmar. A climate of uncertainty and intimidation did not provide an environment in which the Plan of Action, and in particular the Facilitator mechanism which it established, could be implemented in a credible manner. The Committee trusted that the Government would take the necessary measures to bring an end to this situation. The Committee hoped that the implementation of the joint Plan of Action would go ahead as soon as the Director-General considered that the conditions were met for its effective implementation. The Director-General was expected to report to the Governing Body at its November 2003 session on developments in the situation, in the light of the discussions in the present Committee.

The Government representative regretted that some of the Committee's conclusions were incorrect. He emphasized that recent political developments in the country were not relevant to the subject under discussion and he expressed his reservation in this respect.

The Worker member of the Netherlands, while fully aligning himself with the positive position adopted by the Worker members with a view to the conclusions, emphasized that the latter were very weak as regards the point of reporting on the implementation of the June 2000 ILO resolution which he had raised.

(not reproduced:

B. Observation of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations on the observance of the Forced Labour Convention, l930 (No. 29) by Myanmar

Document D.5

Brief summary of developments since June 2002

Developments since the 286th Session of the Governing Body (March 2003)

Annexes

Document D.6

Developments concerning the question of the observance by the Government of Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) (Governing Body documents GB.285/4, GB.285/4(Add.) and GB.285/4(Add.2)

G. Extracts from document GB.285/PV: Minutes of the discussion at the 285th Session (November 2002) of the Governing Body of developments concerning the question of the observance by the Government of Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)

Developments concerning the question of the observance by the Government of Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) (Governing Body documents GB.286/6, GB.286/6/1, GB.286/6/1(Add.) and GB.286/6/1(Add.2)

Extracts from document GB.286/PV: Minutes of the discussion at the 286th Session (November 2003) of the Governing Body of developments concerning the question of the observance by the Government of Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)