Caso individual (CAS) - Discusión: 2009, Publicación: 98ª reunión CIT (2009)

Convenio sobre el trabajo forzoso, 1930 (núm. 29) - Myanmar (Ratificación : 1955)

A. Record of the discussion in the Committee on the Application of Standards

A Government representative of Myanmar said his delegation was pleased to join the commemoration of the 90th anniversary of the International Labour Organization which focused on "90 years working for social justice". He commended the Director-General of the ILO on his effective and timely leadership of the International Labour Office in these challenging and difficult years and in advancing the work of the Organization substantially in response to the needs of the present financial and economic crisis.

He pointed out that the 304th Session of the Governing Body had welcomed the further extension of the Supplementary Understanding for a one-year trial period, which had been reflected in the report of the ILO Liaison Officer. In his Global Report on the Cost of Coercion, 2009, the Director-General of the ILO had also considered that the response of the Government of Myanmar to the complaints mechanism had been "positive". In response to the requests made by the 97th Session of the International Labour Conference and the 303rd Session of the Governing Body, regarding the highest level statement of the Government on forced labour, he reiterated that the statement made by the Minister of Labour following the extension of the Supplementary Understanding was the highest level statement of the Government on the elimination of forced labour. He added that the provisions of the Constitution clearly showed the high-level commitment on the eradication of forced labour.

The speaker further informed the Committee that, in follow-up to the requests made by the 97th Session of the International Labour Conference and the 303rd Session of the Governing Body, the texts of the Supplementary Understanding and its related documents had been translated into Myanmar language; 10,000 copies of the booklet had been widely distributed to the civilian and military authorities nationwide, the United Nations (UN) Agencies, the non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the intergovernmental organizations (INGOs), political parties and the general public for awareness-raising purposes. A total of 20,000 additional copies of the booklet were being produced for further distribution nationwide.

With regard to the complaints received by the ILO Liaison Officer, he stated that out of the 87 cases forwarded by the Officer to the Working Group for Prevention of Forced Labour, 12 had already received a reply after the necessary investigation conducted by the authorities; 64 cases had been closed. Only 11 cases were still under investigation with the collaboration of the departments concerned and would be finalized in the near future. He added that the Ministry of Labour was cooperating with the ILO Liaison Officer in arranging field visits in accordance with the Supplementary Understanding. The Liaison Officer had been able to travel throughout the country and observe the situation on the ground. A joint mission had been undertaken by the Ministry of Labour and the ILO Liaison Officer to the Hpan-an Township of Karen State on 27 April 2009, and to the Lashio Township of Northern Shan State on 7 May 2009. These two missions had proved the Government's willingness to implement the Supplementary Understanding. During these missions, joint awareness-raising workshops had been held on the eradication of the practice of forced labour and the Director-General of the Department of Labour and the ILO Liaison Officer had given lectures concerning the implementation of Convention No. 29 to the members of the District and Township Peace and Development Council, officials from the Department of Prison, representatives from the Myanmar Police Force and the Immigration Department, officials and staff of the Ministry of Defence, and nine representatives from national "ethnic" groups which had returned to the legal fold. In addition, the ILO Liaison Officer had given a lecture on 2 April 2009, on international and national law relating to forced labour at the annual Deputy Township Judges Training Course.

The speaker further highlighted that the labour-intensive employment project which had been launched by the ILO in the cyclone affected areas of the Delta region, was another good example of cooperation between the Government and the ILO. The objective of the project was to provide temporary decent employment to the most needed victims of the cyclone, adding value to the interventions of the other international agencies, including the Food and Agriculture Organization and the United Nations Development Fund. The project, which included the development of 60 villages in the Mawlamyine Gyun Township, was being funded by the Department for International Development (DFID) of the United Kingdom. The first stage of the pilot project, including the construction of seven kilometers of village and inter-village tracks, two jetties and five small bridges and 40 lavatories in ten villages, had been completed on 15 March 2009. Job opportunities had been created, for 7,802 workers, including 1,437 skilled labourers and 6,365 general workers in this area. Stage two of the project work plan, which covered the development of 20 villages and 12 village tracks, was being undertaken since February 2009 and included the construction of 50 bridges, 23 jetties and concrete footpaths. Altogether, 5,849 skilled labourers and 65,979 general workers had been involved in this second stage of the project, a total of 71,828 jobs had been created for the local population. Therefore, he wished to take this opportunity to extend his appreciation to the ILO on its constructive efforts in advancing the livelihood of the people in the cyclone affected area.

In response to the matter regarding the under-age recruitment mentioned in paragraph 4 of the conclusions of the 97th Session of the International Labour Conference in 2008 and paragraph 3 of the conclusions of the 303rd Session of the Governing Body of 2008, he informed the Conference Committee that Myanmar attached great importance to the protection and promotion of the rights of the child. It was a State party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child since 1991. Military service was voluntary in Myanmar, but a person could not enlist in the armed forces before 18 years of age. He further mentioned that the Myanmar Government had established a High-level Committee for the Prevention of Military Recruitment of Under-age Children on 5 January 2004, to address this issue effectively. This Committee, which had been reinstituted on 14 December 2007, had adopted a Plan of Action which included recruitment procedures, procedures for discharge from military service, reintegration in society, public awareness measures, punitive action, reporting measures, submissions of recommendations and consultation and cooperation with international organizations. A Working-level Committee of the Monitoring and Reporting Task Force on Prevention of Recruitment of Minors into the Military had been established in 2007. It coordinated courses on the prevention of recruiting child soldiers in the State and Division Commands in 2008, which had been attended by 1,308 officers and other ranks.

He further informed the Conference Committee that 83 under-age children had been rejected from the military and had been properly handed over to their respective parents and guardians. Disciplinary actions had been taken against those who had recruited under-age persons into the armed forces. Altogether, 44 armed forces personnel, including ten officers and 34 other ranks, had been charged for irregular recruitment. In this context, he particularly wished to inform the Conference Committee of a ceremony held on 2 June 2009, by the Working Committee for Prevention Against Recruitment of Minors at Mingaladon Station, to hand over eight minors, who had joined the Tatmadaw (Armed Forces) of their own accord, to their parents.

He concluded by stating that the abovementioned developments had clearly demonstrated the sincere cooperation of the Government of Myanmar with the ILO. His Government had shown its political will, and had been and would be cooperating with the ILO in a constructive manner with a view to eradicating the practice of forced labour in the country.

The Employer members expressed the view that there continued to be very limited progress with regard to Myanmar's ongoing failure to implement Convention No. 29. The Government continued to play the diplomatic game of doing just enough to create an appearance of cooperation, but the Committee remained unconvinced. Despite an apparent real and sustainable desire to end forced labour, there was still a fundamental lack of civil liberties in Myanmar, in particular, the right to freedom and security of the person, freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of assembly and association, the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal and protection of private property. Furthermore, there was still a substantial climate of fear and intimidation of citizens. Those were the root causes of forced labour, child labour, child soldiers, discrimination and the absence of freedom of association.

In 2008, the Committee had discussed two events of significant impact on the framework in which ILO activities were carried out: the civil unrest and its suppression in September-October 2007, and the devastation caused by cyclone Nargis in early May 2008. The present discussion was taking place against a background that further highlighted the lack of civil liberties, including the "pretextual" trial and continued house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi. Although U Thet Wai had been released from a severe prison sentence, U Zaw Htya, another facilitator of complaints under the Supplementary Understanding, his lawyer Ko Po Phyu, and other individuals continued to be held in jail. All persons should have access to the complaints mechanism without fear of harassment or retribution.

He further stated that each ILO body that had discussed the case had focused attention on the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Committee of Experts, in previous observations, had identified four areas in which measures should be taken by the Government to implement those recommendations: issuing specific and concrete instructions to the civilian and military authorities; ensuring that the prohibition of forced labour was given wide publicity; providing for the budgeting of adequate means for the replacement of forced or unpaid labour; and ensuring the enforcement of the prohibition of forced labour.

The Employer members welcomed the extension of the trial period of the Supplementary Understanding. The number of complaints made through the mechanism it established had increased, but fundamental practical problems persisted in the physical ability of victims and their families to file complaints and for the ILO Liaison Officer and his team in carrying out their duties. The continued detention of a number of persons associated with the application of the complaints mechanism remained a matter of serious concern. The low level of complaints made through the complaints mechanism indicated that citizens might not have adequate access to it or might not feel that they had the freedom to file complaints. As of mid-May 2009, 152 complaints had been filed. Five had not been acted upon through fear of retribution; 95 had been referred to the Government, of which only 23 had yielded concrete results; and a further 70 cases had been closed by the Government but, in 13 of those, the Government's sanction was viewed as inadequate or recommendations for further solutions had been rejected.

The Employer members welcomed the Government's approval of the translation of the extension agreement, the production of the booklet containing the texts of the Supplementary Understanding and related documents, seminars to raise awareness among both civilian and military personnel and joint missions by the Ministry of Labour and the ILO Liaison Officer. The work carried out by the Liaison Officer was to be commended, given the difficult circumstances in the country, particularly in facilitating both dialogue between the ILO and the authorities in Myanmar and the functioning of the complaint mechanism. The awareness-raising seminars, which were to be held regularly throughout the country, were of the utmost importance.

In the view of the Employer members, the ILO had played a successful role in the rebuilding project in the Delta following the hurricane, demonstrating how good work practices and reconstruction efforts could be achieved without forced labour. They encouraged the Government to support further recovery projects that demonstrated good labour practices.

The Government of Myanmar needed to make additional efforts in a number of areas. It should approve a brochure on the functioning of the Supplementary Understanding in an accessible language, based on a draft ILO text. The continuing problems in the ability of victims of forced labour and their families to make complaints should be eliminated; given the size of the country, creating a network to facilitate complaints remained a necessity. The Government should issue an authoritative statement at the highest level confirming its policy for the elimination of forced labour and its intention to prosecute perpetrators. The Employer members welcomed the statement by the Ministry of Labour, but considered that a statement at the highest level by the Chairman of the State Peace and Development Council remained necessary. Those responsible for forced labour should be prosecuted under the Penal Code, as requested by the Commission of Inquiry. Since March 2007, the Liaison Officer had not been informed of any such prosecutions.

The recently adopted Constitution contained specific articles on the right to freedom of association, freedom of expression and the right to organize. One article banned the use of forced labour, but contained certain qualifications that raised doubts concerning its conformity with Convention No. 29. There needed to be a full and complete implementation of the Constitution in practice in accordance with Myanmar's obligations under Convention No. 29.

The Government remained far from applying the measures recommended by the Commission of Inquiry that, for example, legislative texts, particularly the Village Act and Towns Act, should be brought into conformity with the Convention, the authorities should cease to impose forced labour and the sanctions provided for imposing forced or compulsory labour be strictly applied. The implementation of those recommendations would be guaranteed if the Government took action in the four areas identified by the Committee of Experts; yet, according to the Committee of Experts' latest observation, the matters that needed to be addressed remained unresolved.

The Employer members urged the Government to provide full and detailed information as an unequivocal sign of its genuine willingness to cooperate with the Committee and the supervisory bodies. Transparency and collaboration with the Liaison Officer was essential. The Government was reminded that the agreement on the Supplementary Understanding and the creation of a complaints mechanism did not relieve it of its obligations under Convention No. 29. The Government needed to make tangible improvements in national legislation and provide sufficient funds so that paid labour could replace forced labour in the civil and military administration to demonstrate its unambiguous willingness to combat forced labour and bring an end to the climate of impunity. The situation in Myanmar had persisted far too long, particularly as it had ratified Convention No. 29 over 50 years beforehand. The Government of Myanmar needed to demonstrate a sense of humanity and end forced labour.

The Worker members regretted that the seriousness and persistence of forced labour in Myanmar had once again led the present Committee to hold a special session on this case. They feared that the Committee would once again be forced to observe only modest steps forward but giant steps backwards. They recalled that in 1997 a Commission of Inquiry had concluded unambiguously that Convention No. 29 was being violated by the Government in a widespread and systematic manner, both in law and in practice, and had formulated three recommendations: (1) that the legislation be brought into line with the Convention; (2) that in actual practice no more forced or compulsory labour be imposed by the authorities, in particular the military; and (3) that the penalties which may be imposed for the exaction of forced labour be strictly enforced. The Commission of Inquiry had also recommended four concrete measures to be adopted without delay: the issuing of specific and concrete instructions to the civilian and military authorities; ensuring that the prohibition of forced labour be given wide publicity; providing for the budgeting of adequate means for the replacement of forced or unpaid labour; and ensuring the enforcement of the prohibition of forced labour. In March 2000, the failure of the Government to take action had led the ILO Governing Body to apply article 33 of the ILO Constitution. In spite of this, the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee had only been able to observe, year after year, the persistent flagrant violation of Convention No. 29. Ten years later the abovementioned recommendations still had not been given effect in a satisfactory manner. Indeed, in the new draft Constitution, freedom of association was entirely subordinate to the laws ensuring the security of the State. Furthermore, the article that provides for the prohibition of "any forced labour" contained exceptions in cases of "obligations imposed by the State in the interest of the people", which effectively thwarted the purpose of the article and rendered it contrary to Convention No. 29. Ignoring the repeated requests by the Governing Body, the Government had still not officially made public its willingness to eradicate forced labour by means of a widely publicized statement. The few training courses on the prohibition of forced labour envisaged by the instructions addressed to civilian and military authorities had apparently not had a significant impact on the extent of forced labour. The Government had indicated that resources had been budgeted in all the Ministries to cover the cost of labour. This affirmation was contradicted by the persistence of the generalized use of forced labour by the military and local civilian administrations.

With regard to the official statement on the prohibition of forced labour and the enforcement of this prohibition, the Worker members considered that the Supplementary Understanding of February 2007, certainly constituted a step forward since it established a new mechanism for examining complaints with the intervention of the Liaison Officer; this improvement had limitations, however, since the Liaison Officer was only allowed to receive complaints and could not submit any himself. The mechanism was underutilized with only 152 complaints having been received until 15 May 2009, owing to the fact that it was still largely ignored by the population. Indeed the junta had waited two years before approving the translation of the Supplementary Understanding, had only disseminated up to 30,000 copies for a population of 50 million, and had still not published it in a language understood by the population. In reality, many complainants were being harassed, or even imprisoned, as was currently the case of former facilitators, U Min Aung, Ma Su Su Sway and U Zaw Htay, and the lawyer Ko Po Phyu. Many complaints remained pending, and no penal sanctions had been imposed since the establishment of this mechanism. The few military personnel who had been found guilty had been given only light administrative penalties. As the Liaison Officer had pointed out, it would be a mistake to consider the low number of complaints to be a reflection of the real situation as regards forced labour. In any case, it would be wrong to equate a mere means to an end - the complaints mechanism - with its purpose - the effective eradication of forced labour - or to consider the role of the Liaison Officer to be limited to the implementation of this mechanism. The main objective of this mission continued to be to secure the implementation of the three recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. This mechanism in itself was indicative of two realities: the persistence of forced labour and the denial of democracy and freedom of expression. In this respect the Worker members recalled the ruthless repression of the peaceful demonstrations of September 2007, accompanied by the arrest and imprisonment of people desiring to exercise their fundamental right to freedom of expression and freedom of association. Referring to the conditions under which the 2008 referendum on the new draft Constitution had been held, they recalled that the Government had threatened to punish with three-year prison sentences any dissemination of leaflets, any speeches or other form of criticism; that monks, nuns, Hindu or Christian leaders, and Aung San Suu Kyi had been excluded from the referendum; and that the military had been granted 25 per cent of the seats in Parliament and the power of veto. Finally they mentioned the new arbitrary detention measure and the new trial against Aung San Suu Kyi. All of the above was evidence that the lack of democracy and forced labour existed side by side and that forced labour would only be eradicated through the reinstatement of the principles of democracy, and in particular freedom of association.

The Worker members also felt that the present case should not be reviewed in a historical vacuum and wished to recall the events since the last session of this Conference Committee. Shortly after the special sitting in June 2008, a judge on the Supreme Court of Myanmar rejected the appeals of six trade union activists who had been convicted to heavy prison terms for having met to discuss labour rights. In November 2008, labour rights activist Su Su Nway, who had filed a forced labour complaint under the Supplementary Understanding and had peacefully supported the Saffron Revolution of 2007, was sentenced to prison. Two months ago, the authorities arrested several members of the Federation of Trade Unions in Burma (FTUB) for participating in their organization's congress. The military regime only released them and their family members owing to the pressure exercised by the worldwide labour movement and a number of Governments. Recently, in a manoeuvre to avoid any threat for the 2010 elections, the junta subjected Aung San Suu Kyi to a ridiculous show trial with the risk of five years of prison. The recent examples illustrated once again the chronic bad faith of the Government in relation to democracy, human rights and core labour standards including Convention No. 29. The Worker members expressed their conviction that only a robust response from the ILO, the Conference Committee and the entire international community could bring change.

In its conclusions of last year, the Conference Committee had expressed hope that rehabilitation and reconstruction work in the wake of the cyclone Nargis would be undertaken without forced labour. This year's report of the Committee of Experts highlighted, however, forced labour exacted for reconstruction purposes, forced quarry work, forced cutting of trees and rebuilding of roads, and forced appropriation of money for so-called "donations". Last year's conclusions further referred to the need for a high-level statement on eradication of forced labour and the prosecution of perpetrators. According to the report of the Liaison Officer, the Government continued to fail in this respect. In its conclusions, the Conference Committee had also expressed concern about the provisions concerning forced labour in the newly adopted Constitution. The Committee of Experts deplored that the new Constitution still permitted forced labour in case of duties assigned by the State in accordance with law and in the interest of the people. Furthermore, the conclusions of the Conference Committee had condemned the widespread recruitment of children into the armed forces. The Committee of Experts found no proof that the education of military forces asserted by the Government had actually taken place. Evidence was, however, found that children continued to be conscripted in many villages over the last year, not to mention the horrific practice of the military, including battalion No. 545, of forcing villagers to act as human minesweepers. In addition, the conclusions of the Conference Committee had denounced the ongoing impunity of military for violations of the prohibition of forced labour, as well as the limited resources of the ILO Liaison Officer, the urgent need for a strengthened network of facilitators to collect and investigate reports of forced labour and the harassment of complainants and facilitators. The 2009 report of the Committee of Experts revealed no change in the situation. Notwithstanding the admirable and tireless efforts of the Liaison Officer, the ILO was denied investigative access to many areas of the country, and the number of cases of blatant retaliation against complainants was increasing. Lastly, the conclusions of the Conference Committee had demanded the release of several labour activists and Aung San Suu Kyi, but they had only been honoured in their breach.

The Worker members considered that this total disregard of the Conference Committee's conclusions threatened the very legitimacy of this forum and of the ILO, and was therefore intolerable. Although the Governing Body had decided in March 2007 to defer the question of an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) "until the necessary time", another basic query could be whether the required cooperation and progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry "met the relevant threshold". They considered that no reasonable person could give an affirmative response to this question.

The Government member of the Czech Republic, speaking on behalf of the Governments of member States of the European Union, the candidate countries of Croatia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey, the countries of the Stabilization and Association process and the potential candidates Albania and Montenegro, the European Free Trade Association countries Iceland and Norway, and the members of the European Economic Area, as well as Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and San Marino, expressed his concern about the human rights situation in Myanmar, which had remained on the agenda of relevant bodies of the United Nations and the ILO for many years. The continued arbitrary arrest of, unfair court proceedings against and severe prison sentences for political activists and human rights defenders including leaders of the labour movement were serious breaches of fundamental human rights standards. He deeply regretted that Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League of Democracy, and members of her household had been arrested and charged with breaching the terms of her detention, which the United Nations had concluded to be a violation of international and national law. It was particularly striking that these events coincided with the expiry of her house arrest. This position was shared by practically all actors in the international community. The European Union repeatedly expressed grave concerns about the non-compliance of Myanmar with Convention No. 29, which was an extremely serious case and on the agenda of the Committee of Experts for more than 30 years.

Turning to the implementation of the Supplementary Understanding of 2007 concluded between the ILO and the Government for Myanmar, he stated that the European Union had welcomed the second extension of the trial period of this Understanding which was intended to help establish an effective complaints mechanism for victims of forced labour seeking redress. While he was happy to learn from the Liaison Officer's report that 30,000 copies of the booklet containing the official translation of the Supplementary Understanding and related documents had been distributed, he considered this to be an insufficient number bearing in mind the size of the country and the seriousness of the problem. He urged again for the production and distribution of a simply worded brochure which would help to ensure that the prohibition of forced labour would be given wide publicity.

In the same context, he deeply regretted that there had still been no response to repeated calls from the ILO supervisory bodies for a widely published high-level statement reconfirming the commitment of Myanmar authorities to the elimination of forced labour. While acknowledging the statement of the Ministry of Labour at the occasion of the extension of the Supplementary Understanding, he did not consider it sufficient to fulfil the conclusions of the 303rd Session of the Governing Body in November 2008. It was of paramount importance that the Myanmar authorities reaffirmed in a public statement at the highest level the prohibition and penal sanctions against all forms of forced labour, including child soldiers and, as requested in the Committee of Experts' report, replaced the contradictory legal provisions, in particular in the Village Act and Towns Act, with an appropriate legislative and regulatory framework to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and to comply with Convention No. 29. He urged the Myanmar authorities to adopt a more pro-active approach in this effort.

Like the Committee of Experts, he further regretted that the new Constitution, which was due to take effect next year, contained a provision, which might be interpreted in such a way as to allow a generalized exaction of forced labour from the population and therefore not in conformity with Convention No. 29. While regretting the lack of substantial progress on the ground, he noted with interest the positive aspects of activities such as meetings, trainings and seminars. At the same time, no further information had been given that, in practice, recourse to forced labour by the authorities, and in particular the military, had declined on account of instructions regarding the prohibition of forced labour, which the Government indicated had been conveyed to them.

He reiterated his full support and appreciation for the work of the Office and its Liaison Officer in assisting the Myanmar authorities to abolish the practice of forced labour in the country, and urged the authorities to facilitate the increase of staff of the Liaison Officer. Referring to the report presented by the Office to the 304th Session of the Governing Body in March 2009, he emphasized that the decrease in the number of new complaints to the Liaison Officer could not be taken as an indication of less incidence of forced labour throughout the country. He remained concerned about the number of people who had lodged complaints or acted as facilitators and who had recently been sentenced to lengthy prison terms. The European Union would continue to closely follow these cases of labour activists, as it was unacceptable that anyone could still be accused or receive more severe punishment for having contacts with ILO representatives.

He concluded by recalling that even multiparty elections would lack any credibility unless the Myanmar authorities released all political prisoners including Ms Aung San Suu Kyi and engaged in an inclusive and time-bound dialogue with the opposition and ethnic groups. Only a process that involved the full participation of the opposition and ethnic groups would lead to national reconciliation and stability. He called once more for full respect for human rights, including ILO fundamental principles and rights at work, such as the universal prohibition of all forms of forced labour.

The Government member of New Zealand, speaking on behalf of the Governments of New Zealand and Australia, expressed her appreciation for the continued dedication of the ILO Liaison Officer in promoting observance of Convention No. 29 by the Government of Myanmar. She wished to pay tribute to the achievements of the ILO Liaison Officer who had been able to build upon the solid foundation left by his predecessor and had furthered the imperative of eradication of forced labour in the country. Recent steps, albeit small ones, had been taken by the Government of Myanmar towards this goal, including the continuation of awareness-raising activities undertaken by the ILO Liaison Officer.

Nevertheless, there continued to be specific concerns about the willingness of the Government of Myanmar to address the forced labour problems that persisted on its territory. She urged the Government to let the complaints mechanism function unhindered as it was unacceptable that persons who were associated with complaints on forced labour through the mechanism continued to be harassed and detained. The Government was also urged to release those persons who were currently serving prison sentences because of their association with the enforcement of the Supplementary Understanding. The absolute commitment of the Government to the eradication of forced labour - wherever it appeared and in whatever guise - remained paramount. The Government needed to approach all of the cases transmitted to it under the complaints mechanism with gravity, good faith and objectivity. It needed to fulfil its international obligations under Convention No. 29 and to proactively enforce its own legislative prescriptions against the use of forced labour. She urged the Government of Myanmar to increase and enhance its dialogue with the ILO to strengthen the effectiveness of the mechanism.

Turning to the general human rights situation in the country, she stated that the Government continued to disregard basic human rights, and that her country as well as Australia had expressed grave concern about the recent trial and continued detention of pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. This was another setback for political reform in Myanmar. New Zealand and Australia, along with the wider international community, had repeatedly urged the Government of Myanmar to release Aung San Suu Kyi immediately and to take meaningful steps towards democratic reform and national reconciliation. Both countries would continue to speak out on this issue at every opportunity. In conclusion, she urged the Government of Myanmar to work towards the full implementation of the recommendations of the Committee of Experts.

The Government member of Nigeria, having listened carefully to the statement of the Government of Myanmar and the deliberations of the Conference Committee, considered that considerable efforts still needed to be deployed by the Government of Myanmar to ensure conformity with Convention No. 29. He made a plea to the ILO to continue to exercise pressure and provide technical assistance, so that full compliance could be achieved in the near future.

The Government member of the United States thanked the Office for the detailed and candid report on the situation in Burma and commended the continued admirable work of the Liaison Officer under difficult circumstances. The ILO had again managed to maintain dialogue with the military authorities while steadfastly holding them to their voluntarily accepted legal obligations ensuing from the ratification of Convention No. 29, 54 years ago.

The Conference Committee was meeting in special session for the ninth consecutive year owing to the persisting failure of the Burmese regime to implement the clear recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. It would continue to consider the case until: (1) the relevant legislative texts were brought into line with Convention No. 29; (2) forced labour was no longer imposed in practice by the authorities; and (3) criminal penalties for the exaction of forced labour were strictly enforced.

She welcomed the further extension of the Supplementary Understanding and certain positive steps acknowledged by the Governing Body, mainly related to raising awareness of the complaints mechanism. The report of the Liaison Officer further mentioned improvements in dealing with under-age recruitment and the distribution of publications concerning the Supplementary Understanding. Those modest steps, however, did not go nearly far enough towards eliminating the scourge of forced labour in Burma. She deplored that forced labour practices were still persistent and widespread. The relevant legislative texts, in particular the Village Act and the Towns Act, had not yet been amended, and the new Constitution contained a provision violating the Convention. Forced labour was still not punished as a criminal offence. Moreover, individuals who used or facilitated use of the mechanism continued to run the risk of harassment, retaliation and imprisonment. Awareness of the complaints mechanism remained low, especially in rural areas. Also, an authoritative statement at the highest level of government, reconfirming the prohibition of forced labour, was still needed. Finally, the Government continued to implement economic and agricultural policies that resulted in forced labour practices.

The speaker concluded that the situation remained extremely serious and that sustained measures continued to be required and should urgently be taken. As emphasized by the Committee of Experts, the only way to make real progress in the elimination of forced labour was for the Burmese authorities to unambiguously demonstrate their commitment to that goal by taking the necessary long-overdue steps to rectify, with the assistance of the ILO, the violations of the Convention identified by the Commission of Inquiry. She also expressed her hope that the regime would take the necessary measures to permit the Liaison Officer to supplement his staff.

The speaker deeply regretted that this special sitting took place under the shadow of grave concerns about the trial and detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and stressed that only a truly democratic government was in a position to guarantee human and workers' rights. In order to achieve a credible transition to democracy, she urged the military regime to immediately and unconditionally release Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners, and begin a genuine and open dialogue with the Burmese people.

The Government member of China commended the close collaboration between Myanmar and the ILO, which had facilitated the adoption of concrete measures, such as extending the Supplementary Understanding by 12 months, organizing awareness campaigns on the elimination of forced labour, creating training programmes aimed at local authorities and the visits to various areas by the ILO Liaison Officer and government officials. He stressed also that the cooperation of the Government of Myanmar with other international organizations, such as UNICEF, demonstrated the Government's willingness to eliminate forced labour.

The Government member of Viet Nam felt that the written and oral information provided by the Government of Myanmar illustrated that considerable progress had been made since the last session of the Governing Body. The ILO Liaison Officer and representatives of the Ministry of Labour had jointly undertaken field missions and held workshops on forced labour. The Liaison Officer had given lectures to officials from various township departments, including judges, police and armed forces. Reconstruction and rehabilitation projects were under way in numerous villages and created jobs for the local people. At the same time, the Government sought to strengthen its law on the prevention of recruitment of children for military services and conducted training programmes and awareness raising in this regard. The abovementioned evidence showed the commitment of the Government of Myanmar to the elimination of the practice of forced labour in the country.

In his Government's view, a stimulation of the process of dialogue and close cooperation between the Government of Myanmar and the ILO, along with a greater involvement of the UN Country Team (UNCT), could bring about a positive outcome in the foreseeable future.

In conclusion, he expressed his Government's strong support for the continued cooperation and dialogue between the Government of Myanmar and the ILO. At the same time, he called upon both sides, including all stakeholders involved, to intensify their efforts and build mutual confidence, so as to ensure that forced labour in Myanmar would soon be eradicated.

The Government member of Japan appreciated the progress made by the Government of Myanmar in cooperation with the ILO and its Liaison Office. However, there remained room for stepping up efforts towards the full implementation of the Supplementary Understanding. First of all, the alleged cases of detention of forced labour complainants and facilitators should be appropriately addressed. Second, a simple explanatory brochure concerning the Supplementary Understanding should be approved and widely distributed so that the complaints mechanism could be fully utilized. Third, military and civil perpetrators of forced labour and under-age recruitment should be held accountable in a fair and strict judicial procedure. He urged the Government of Myanmar to take measures to address those issues and he supported the ILO's efforts to enhance its presence in the country by implementing not only the complaints mechanism but also rehabilitation projects in cyclone-affected areas. He strongly hoped that further improvements would be achieved by the Government of Myanmar in cooperation and dialogue with the ILO, and that democratization would be promoted with participation of all the parties concerned. In this regard, the speaker expressed his Government's deep concern over recent developments in the country. The Government of Japan would follow the situation closely, and sincerely hoped that the Government of Myanmar would address the situation appropriately, taking into account the voice of the international community.

The Government member of Cuba reaffirmed his Government's attachment to the principles laid down in Convention No. 29. He thanked the Government of Myanmar and the Liaison Officer for their reports, which provided an update of the activities carried out by the Office and the Government of Myanmar. The report gave evidence of the progress made and the activities being implemented to achieve the eradication of forced labour in Myanmar. The positive results achieved up to now had been the fruit of the technical cooperation and bilateral dialogue between the Government of Myanmar and the ILO. Therefore he continued to recommend that the technical cooperation and the transparent and genuine dialogue, in conjunction with an analysis of the local conditions and economic situation, be continued. This was the only way to help secure the objectives of Convention No. 29.

The Government member of Singapore stated that his delegation, at the 304th Session of the Governing Body, had welcomed the renewal of the Supplementary Understanding containing the mechanism for dealing with complaints on forced labour, and the agreement to hold regular awareness-raising field visits and seminars in Myanmar. His Government was pleased to learn that such awareness-raising events had been taking place, that they had been well received in many parts of the country and that several more were planned. He commended the diligent efforts of the ILO Liaison Officer in conducting those activities, along with lectures and training courses.

The speaker expressed satisfaction at the success of the pilot project, funded by the United Kingdom, that had been established in the area affected by cyclone Nargis. The project showcased a best-practice employment model against forced labour, as detailed in the Liaison Officer's report, providing participants with valuable knowledge on governance and community development and clearly demonstrating that such projects could be established without the use of forced labour.

There had been developments regarding the under-age recruitment of soldiers: all children, except two, who had been the subject of a complaint, had been discharged to their families. It had also been generally accepted by the authorities that any child recruited to the military, which was, by definition, illegal, could not be legally charged or sentenced as a deserter. Any who were found to have been so charged would be released and discharged, with their convictions quashed. Another positive development was the Government of Myanmar's agreement to review its prison manual with regard to its compliance with Convention No. 29 and its request for assistance from the Liaison Officer.

Such positive efforts and work by the ILO significantly advanced progress towards eliminating forced labour practices in Myanmar. Nevertheless, while urging the ILO to continue its work, his Government called on the Government of Myanmar to redouble its efforts and work expeditiously to instil greater awareness of the law against forced labour at all governmental levels and in all areas and to implement that law accordingly.

He considered that the fact that some other speakers had not referred to Myanmar by its proper name reflected political agendas that went beyond the competencies of both the Committee and the ILO as a whole and undermined the Committee's credibility. Nevertheless, the speaker expressed serious concern over recent events in Myanmar and stressed that dialogue remained the best way of making progress towards reconstructing the country.

The Worker member of Japan expressed her appreciation of the efforts of the ILO to improve the situation in the country. However, the achievements were small, and there was a lack of understanding on the side of the Burmese authorities as to the steps to be taken to ensure compliance. This was illustrated by the provisions of the new Constitution, which enshrined an unacceptable exemption from the prohibition of forced labour. A revision of the new Constitution in this respect was vital. Moreover, local authorities had recently forced farmers owning more than one acre of land to plant jatropha. Farmers refusing those instructions had been fined, beaten and arrested. Another example of forced labour was the under-age recruitment.

The speaker emphasized that the elimination of forced labour was closely linked to the democratization process. The first and foremost step towards democracy should be the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and more than 2,100 political prisoners including labour activists. The ILO resolution of 2000 had recommended that member States review their relations with the Government of Myanmar so as not to give undue advantage to a country continuing to use forced labour. However, the resolution was far from being implemented properly, considering that foreign investment in Burma had increased as compared to 2007. Substantial funds had recently been attributed to the mining sector, out of which most of them had been injected by China. A total of US$15 billion had so far been invested by 29 countries, of which Thailand held the first place, followed by the United Kingdom, Singapore and China, with Japan being 13th in the ranking. There was no doubt that such economic activity helped the Burmese regime to continue to oppress the people and exact forced labour. The speaker urged member States investing in the country to review their relations with the Burmese Government. She invited the Office to prepare for the possibility of submitting to the ICJ a request for an advisory opinion concerning the violation of Convention No. 29 and the non-compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Government member of Thailand, sharing the concerns relating to the issue of forced labour, was pleased that the Government of Myanmar and the ILO had continued their close dialogue and cooperation to address this issue. He was encouraged by the developments in Myanmar which reflected the commitment of the Government to implement the conclusions of the 304th Session of the Governing Body in March 2009 and welcomed the joint field visits conducted by the ILO Liaison Officer and the Ministry of Labour. He hoped that the booklet on the text of the Supplementary Understanding, now that it had been distributed, would be fully utilized in ensuring understanding of rights and responsibilities among all relevant stakeholders and the general public in Myanmar. Furthermore, he noted with great satisfaction the cooperation between the Government of Myanmar, the UN agencies and the international community in the post-Nargis recovery efforts. This had clearly demonstrated the commitment and willingness of the Government in addressing the needs of the people affected, and he was pleased with the rehabilitation and reconstruction work in the Delta region. The community-driven and labour-based project had created many job opportunities. It was hoped that these processes could be further enhanced through the effective implementation of the complaints mechanism contained in the Supplementary Understanding in order to achieve the eradication of forced labour in Myanmar. In conclusion, he encouraged the Government to work closely with the ILO in fulfilling its obligations under Convention No. 29, and expressed the wish that such efforts and cooperation would be conducive to bringing about positive developments for the overall situation in the country.

The Worker member of Brazil said that the serious violations of Convention No. 29 by the Government of Myanmar had been the object of comments by the ILO supervisory bodies for some 30 years. In 1993, the former International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) had made a representation under article 24 of the ILO Constitution based on the forced recruitment of workers by the military and, in 1995 and 1996, Myanmar had been the object of a special paragraph in the report of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards.

In 1997, following a complaint presented by 25 delegates during the 84th Session of the ILC, a Commission of Inquiry had been created by virtue of article 26 of the Constitution. The Commission of Inquiry had concluded that Convention No. 29 was being violated in a widespread and systematic manner and formulated a number of recommendations. In 2000, based on the observations of the Commission of Inquiry, the Conference Committee had recommended that the ILO constituents break off their relations with the Government of Myanmar; it had asked the Director-General to request the relevant bodies of international organizations to review any existing cooperation with Myanmar and to cease, as appropriate, all activities that could lead to forced or compulsory labour; it had invited the Director-General to put an item on the agenda of the July 2001 ECOSOC meeting with regard to Myanmar's non-observance of the recommendations made in the Commission of Inquiry's report, for purposes of getting its recommendations adopted by ECOSOC, the General Assembly and other specialized agencies.

Subsequently, the Committee of Experts had stipulated four areas in which the Government had been required to adopt measures to ensure that the recommendations would be implemented. In March 2007, the Governing Body had asked the Office to request an advisory opinion of the ICJ on Myanmar's serious and persistent non-observance of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and of the ILC, and the repeated violations of Convention No. 29. She recalled that, according to the Committee of Experts, there still had been no substantive change in Myanmar's situation and that the international community had addressed the problem in other forums than the supervisory bodies of the ILO, the issue having been the focus of debate in several United Nations bodies.

In March 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council had urged the Government to put an end to imprisonment on political grounds, the recruitment and exploitation of children as soldiers and all forms of discrimination, and had made a series of recommendations. The issue had also been addressed in the Security Council, whose members had reiterated the importance of freeing political prisoners and emphasized the negative consequences of the situation of the opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Aung San Suu Kyi.

In conclusion, she stated that it would be appropriate and opportune for the ILO to request an advisory opinion of the ICJ, as such a measure would place the Government of Myanmar before an international tribunal immediately prior to the elections scheduled in 2010, and this could help bring democracy to the country. Furthermore, such a measure would strengthen the role of the ILO. Finally she added that, given the quantity and quality of the jurisprudence that had been accumulated by the Committee of Experts and Committee on Freedom of Association in these past years, and the decisions of the Governing Body, the likelihood of a positive outcome for the ILO and the ICJ was great; such an outcome would further strengthen the juridical and political credibility of the ILO and increase its visibility.

The Government member of Cambodia welcomed the agreement signed on 26 February 2009 between the Government of Myanmar and the ILO to extend the application of the Supplementary Understanding, which included the complaints mechanism, for a further year. Implementation of the Supplementary Understanding over the last year had demonstrated the progress achieved from cooperation between the ILO and the Government of Myanmar and the clear commitment of both parties to continuing cooperation on the eradication of forced labour. He therefore expressed strong support for and encouraged continued cooperation between the Government of Myanmar and the ILO.

The Worker member of Italy emphasized that forced labour in Myanmar continued to be imposed on a daily basis on the country's population. She said that those who perpetuated this system were individuals who represented the authorities and consisted, in most cases, of the principal commanders of the military units present in the whole country, and whose identities had been established and actions widely documented, in the states of Shan and Chin for example, by the legitimate trade unions of Myanmar. In this regard, she presented a long list of names of commanders and identified the Light Infantry Battalions responsible for forced labour cases and not at all punished under the Penal Code. The persistence of forced labour in Myanmar was not only a result of the stubbornness of the country's Government but also of the passivity or failure to take action of international institutions, foreign governments and foreign enterprises; this was evidenced by the general non-observance of the ILO resolution of 2000, which enabled the regime to continue its pernicious requisition of labour, repression of complainants, oppression of the population, women and children included, torture, assassinations, land confiscations, denials of property rights and forced recruitment of children. It was with these methods that the military junta continued to maintain its power, as was evidenced by the conditions under which the referendum on the new draft Constitution had been conducted in 2008, an instrument the purpose of which was to legitimize future political elections, by means of which the junta would attempt to change in appearance while changing nothing in its actions. This was why today governments and institutions had to stop limiting themselves to mere political statements, closing their eyes to the generalized exploitation of Myanmar's national resources which were used to increase repression, for the acquisition of weapons, and the construction of an experimental nuclear power plant, for example, and begin to consider more concrete measures. The ILO had to review the implementation of the ILO resolution of 2000 and put in place a reinforced reporting mechanism to monitor the measures adopted by member States and international institutions in this regard. It was necessary, without delay, to decide on a new set of economic, juridical and diplomatic measures to bring the generals to sit at the negotiating table. The European Union had to intensify its targeted actions in the financial and insurance sectors and its member States had to work in this direction as well, thus introducing also adequate monitoring mechanisms. Sanctions should be linked to political initiatives and high-level missions to Burma by UN, EU, ASEAN envoys to apply political as well as economic pressure. Finally, it was necessary to succeed in initiating legal proceedings at the international level with the ICJ, the International Criminal Court and national tribunals; and for this to be possible, employers and governments had to be unanimous and fully committed to supporting such an approach, as of now, by means of coherent and sustained actions, under the auspices of the ILO.

The Government member of India expressed his Government's satisfaction with the progress achieved in Myanmar and the strengthened cooperation between the Government of Myanmar and the ILO. He further welcomed the extension of the Supplementary Understanding for another year from 26 February 2009, and noted the progress in the work of the Liaison Officer, especially as regards joint field visits facilitated by the Government of Myanmar. Another matter of satisfaction was the effective functioning of the mutually agreed complaints mechanism with regard to underage recruitment. The abovementioned improvements illustrated the commitment of the Government of Myanmar to the eradication of forced labour. The Government of India had consistently encouraged the continuation of dialogue and cooperation between Myanmar and other member States to resolve all outstanding issues, and wished to commend the ILO Director-General for assisting Myanmar in its efforts. While remaining strongly opposed to the practice of forced labour, his Government welcomed the recent positive developments in the field.

The Worker member of the Republic of Korea echoed the view that all ILO constituents should respect and implement the ILO resolution of 2000 in order to eradicate forced labour in Burma. Recalling his comments to the Committee two years previously regarding the Shwe Gas Project and his call to the companies concerned and his Government to postpone the project until alleged human rights abuses could be investigated, he said that the Government was in fact moving in the opposite direction, under the guise of "national interest". Following the ASEAN-Republic of Korea Commemorative Summit held in early June 2009, the governments of the Republic of Korea and Burma had signed a Memorandum of Understanding on agricultural technology cooperation. Such cooperation, however, was likely to benefit only the Burmese military regime, not its people.

The Republic of Korea, as a member of both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the ILO, should be committed to promoting the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, which were a set of principles for corporate social responsibility. He considered, however, that the Government of the Republic of Korea had betrayed his confidence, by rejecting a complaint from national trade unions and EarthRights International alleging that certain companies were in breach of the OECD Guidelines in respect of their involvement in the Shwe Gas Project. The Government simply repeated the opinions expressed by one of the companies, ignoring all evidence showing that the two companies concerned had failed to take the necessary steps to prevent the project from having a negative impact on labour rights. He urged the Government of the Republic of Korea to fulfil its obligations, as an ILO and OECD member State, beginning by intervening to have the project postponed and all related allegations of labour rights abuses investigated.

The speaker emphasized the duty of all governments and employers to help eradicate forced labour in Burma. China and India, in particular, were unwilling to implement the ILO resolution of 2000 because of national interests, for example significant Chinese investment in the hydropower and extraction sectors in Burma. Not only private but also state-owned companies from countries such as China, India, Republic of Korea and Thailand were involved in large-scale projects in Burma, demonstrating little respect for either the ILO resolution of 2000 or the country's labour rights situation. He urged the companies and States concerned to respect and implement the ILO resolution of 2000 and conduct human rights impact assessments before deciding to invest in Burma. Action was needed to prevent loss of natural resources and human rights abuses on a massive scale.

The Government member of the Russian Federation, stressing the need to eradicate forced labour throughout the world, welcomed the extension of the Supplementary Understanding between the ILO and the Government of Myanmar for a further 12 months, which spoke well for the constructive dialogue between the two parties. According to information from the Office, the complaints mechanism provided for in the Supplementary Understanding was in operation and was yielding positive results. Several dozen complaints had been examined by the competent authorities in Myanmar and practical measures had been taken, including the establishment within the Ministry of Labour of Myanmar of a working group to examine complaints regarding forced labour. He welcomed the fact that the ILO Liaison Officer had visited various regions of the country to see the situation on the ground, which increased the effectiveness of the ILO's activities, and commended his personal efforts. Work was under way to raise awareness of the complaints mechanism among the population. The involvement of the Ministry of Defence in the complaints process was encouraging. He welcomed the ILO's participation in a pilot project in the Delta region for communities affected by cyclone Nargis and endorsed continued and deepening constructive cooperation between the ILO and the Myanmar Government as the best way of solving the problem of forced labour in Myanmar and ensuring implementation of Convention No. 29.

The Worker member of Pakistan associated himself with the statements made by the Worker members and other speakers pertaining to the common concern and condemnation of forced labour in Burma which was a flagrant violation of fundamental human rights and of Convention No. 29. Asia, including Burma, was a continent, where the people had a tradition of great historical culture and great human values. Unfortunately, in spite of the continued struggle of the international community, including the ILO, the Burmese Government had not been able to respond to the call to take effective measures to eliminate forced labour. This year's report of the Committee of Experts once again demonstrated the Government's failure to amend the relevant laws and punish the culprits committing forced labour. Forced labour was not punishable under the Constitution and double standards were used for military personnel committing forced labour. He appreciated the work done by the Liaison Officer and urged that the first Memorandum of Understanding be used when cases of forced labour committed by the Government came to his attention. He called upon all Asian governments and the Employer members to use their influence upon the Burmese Government to eliminate all forms of forced labour, establish a democratic prospect and release Ms Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners, as well as to withdraw immediately the unfounded charges against the leadership of the National League for Democracy. He recalled that human rights could only be observed where there exist democratic values and civil liberties, which were a sine quo non for promoting social justice.

The Government member of Canada recalled that 12 years had already passed since the Commission of Inquiry, and nine years since the Governing Body had invoked article 33 of the ILO Constitution. The Commission of Inquiry had set out clear steps: (1) bringing the relevant national legislation into line with Convention No. 29; (2) ensuring that forced labour was no longer imposed in practice by the military; and (3) ensuring that penalties for the exaction of forced labour were enforced against the perpetrators. Despite the adoption of the Supplementary Understanding, the pace of progress was desperately slow. There was still no indication of measures envisaged to repeal the Village Act and the Towns Act, and the new Constitution allowed for the generalized exaction of forced labour. Criminal penalties were either totally absent or risible for military. The Government of Myanmar continued to refuse to issue a clear high-level statement against forced labour. The moderate progress made had only been achieved due to the tenacity of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the ILO and the complainants who were risking reprisals. The speaker subscribed to the Committee of Experts' view that the only way to make real progress was the concrete demonstration by the Burmese authorities of their commitment to achieve the goal of eradication of forced labour. His Government called on the Burmese authorities to proactively embrace the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Worker member of the Russian Federation stated that, despite its rare participation in debates on the issue, violations of Convention No. 29 by the Government of Myanmar were a matter of concern to the Russian labour movement. Russian trade unions had supported the conclusions of the report by Vaclav Havel and Desmond Tutu on the subject and had approached the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs for clarification of the Russian Government's position. It was obvious that the only way to solve the persistent problem was unconditional compliance by the Government of Myanmar with all recommendations addressed to it by the Committee of Experts and other ILO bodies.

He drew attention to the fact that the objectivity of reports and, consequently, recommendations relied on the credibility and impartiality of information and facts, and expressed full confidence in the information and analysis contained in the reports of the Committee of Experts and in the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry. He echoed the calls made by other speakers to all governments, without exception, to take the measures provided for in the ILO resolution of 2000. Fulfilment of the obligations arising from membership of the ILO and continued cooperation between the ILO and the Government of Myanmar would make a significant contribution to reaching a positive solution to a long-standing problem and to promoting the elimination of forced labour in Myanmar and throughout the world.

An observer representing the Federation of Trade Unions of Burma (FTUB), speaking on behalf of the ITUC, thanked the ITUC, the ILO and the Liaison Office for their successful efforts to secure the immediate release of four FTUB members arrested in April 2009. Six persons were still in custody for attempting to organize a May Day discussion, and 22 other labour activists were serving long prison sentences for their efforts to secure rights for Burmese workers.

The speaker indicated that forced labour still persisted in all parts of Burma. The perpetrators, the majority of whom were military personnel, continued to abuse citizens through forced labour because of the lack of meaningful penalties. For the military, the most severe penalty for the exaction of forced labour was the removal of one year of seniority. As a result, the value of using forced labour was greater than the threat of any possible sanction. The rural population still lived in fear that they would be taken by force to carry out "duties assigned by the State", or that their land would be forcefully confiscated for "security reasons". He welcomed the increase in the number of reports to the Liaison Office, which showed that, despite the slowness of the junta, many education and awareness programmes had reached the people. Those programmes needed to be extended so that the majority of the population could understand basic workers' rights.

The successive juntas had always claimed that it was the lack of funds that was hampering change in Burma. The speaker contested this claim, recalling the recent shift of the capital of Burma to an isolated location equipped with new buildings and airport, and significant imports of nuclear and other military technology. A fraction of those funds from oil and gas revenues would have sufficed to replace forced or unpaid labour and solve the social and economic issues of the population. Multinational enterprises working with the junta should be aware of the negative impact of their activities.

A decade after the adoption of Order 1/99, which provided that the power to requisition forced labour under the Village Act and Towns Act should not be exercised, the new Constitution would permit forced labour under its article 359. The FTUB called on the ILO and all governments, employers and workers present in the room to do everything in their power to push for change in Burma and for a review of the Constitution, before the junta would succeed in imposing it through forced elections in 2010. Lastly, he asked the ILO to request an advisory opinion from the ICJ as a key part of the UN system. This would not only convey to the junta that the generalized use of forced labour did not go unnoticed and unpunished but would also send to the labour activists in Burma the strong message that the world was fighting for them.

An observer representing the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM) expressed his concern about foreign investment and economic activity of certain multinational enterprises in Myanmar despite the use of forced labour. In his view, without serious efforts being deployed by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the democratization process would never be initiated in Myanmar. He considered however that the ASEAN, while recognizing the deficiencies in Myanmar in terms of democracy, let its business interests in the country prevail. From all governments present at ASEAN Plus Three, only the Government of Japan had recently supported a resolution tabled by the ICEM. Lastly, given that the improvements mentioned by the Governments of China and Viet Nam only concerned forced labour, the speaker felt that the lack of progress as regards democratization had been generally recognized by this Conference Committee.

The Government member of the Republic of Korea, welcoming the ILO's tireless efforts to eliminate forced labour in Myanmar, expressed appreciation for the slow but meaningful improvements in the situation since the signing of the Supplementary Understanding between the Government of Myanmar and the ILO. In the long term, eradication of forced labour in Myanmar could be facilitated by social and economic development in the country.

The Government representative of Myanmar, in reply to the interventions made, recalled that Myanmar had ratified Convention No. 29 in 1955 which was an enduring testimony of its political will to eradicate forced labour. Following the signing of the Supplementary Understanding, the Ministry of Labour had reaffirmed this commitment to eliminate forced labour. The complaints mechanism had functioned smoothly since its establishment in 1997 and this would not have been possible without the political will and good faith of his Government. With respect to the charges against Ms Aung San Suu Kyi, these would be dealt with in accordance with the law and applying the principle of fair justice. He requested the Chairperson to remind the speakers to address a sovereign member State in its official name properly in future deliberations in this august body which was the common practice in all UN forums and conferences.

The Worker members, observing that the analysis of the case was already complete, summarized their requests, which fell into three areas:

- immediately liberating Aung San Suu Kyi and all trade union activists and political prisoners who had been imprisoned for having exercised their right to freedom of speech and freedom of association; immediately ending the harassment and imprisonment of those persons who filed complaints regarding forced labour; and ending the criminal impunity of the perpetrators of forced labour;

- implementing all the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry; reviewing the draft Constitution, particularly the articles relating to forced labour and freedom of association and, as a result, legally recognizing the FTUB; and

- reporting on the implementation of the ILO resolution of 2000; reporting on the action taken by international institutions, governments, employers' organizations and workers' organizations in implementing the resolution adopted in June 2000; holding a conference to bring together all parties concerned in order to establish best practices for implementing the ILO resolution of 2000; putting into operation other mechanisms provided for by international law against the perpetrators of forced labour.

With regard to practical and immediate action, the Worker members requested in particular that:

- the Liaison Officer should be committed to the implementation of all the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry;

- the resources available to the ILO in Myanmar should be strengthened, through increasing its number of offices and creating a network of facilitators in the country; and

- the ILO Secretariat should study, in consultation with the competent authorities and with the necessary legal precautions, the issue or issues that could be submitted to the ICJ for an advisory opinion, with a view to a decision that could be taken in that regard by the Governing Body at its next session.

The Employer members stated that ratification of a Convention was not, in and of itself, an indication of political will. The only true indication was full implementation in law and in practice: nothing else was sufficient. The Committee had heard some positive indications during the course of its meeting, but, fundamentally, there was no real, genuine or sustained political will to end the practice of forced labour. The Government had barely scratched the surface. Widespread forced labour still existed, but it was within the Myanmar authorities' power to end it immediately. The Government needed to take the actions it knew were required in order to end the continued violations of human rights, which were not only harmful to Myanmar's citizens but also resulted in the Government losing its moral authority to govern and its credibility within the international community. Disrespect for human rights impeded economic development because few would invest in a country with no civil liberties or democracy and with a low level of human development.

It was a matter of deep concern that forced labour was still widespread, and concrete evidence of changes, verifiable in law and in practice, was needed. In particular, the Government should be receptive to the expansion of the capacity of the ILO Liaison Officer in order to extend community development projects to other areas of the country and provide the Liaison Officer with more authority within the complaints mechanism. The Employer members expressed profound regret that forced labour had not yet ended and that there seemed little prospect of the situation changing in the near future. The Government needed to take seriously the warning that stronger measures might be called for if it did not rapidly increase its efforts to end the practice of forced labour.

Conclusions

The Committee noted the observations of the Committee of Experts and the report of the ILO Liaison Officer in Yangon that included the latest developments in the implementation of the complaints mechanism on forced labour established on 26 February 2007 with its trial period extended on 26 February 2009 for a further 12 months. The Committee also noted the discussions and decisions of the Governing Body of November 2008 and March 2009. It also took due note of the statement of the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

Since its last session, the Committee acknowledged some limited steps on the part of the Government of Myanmar: the further extension of the Supplementary Understanding for another year; certain activities concerning awareness raising of the complaints mechanism established by the Supplementary Understanding; certain improvements in dealing with under-age recruitment by the military; and the distribution of publications relating to the Supplementary Understanding.

The Committee was however of the view that those steps were totally inadequate. The Committee, recalling the conclusions reached in its special sitting at the 97th Session of the Conference (June 2008), again placed emphasis on the need for the Government of Myanmar to work proactively towards the full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Governing Body in March 1997 under article 26 of the Constitution. It also recalled the continued relevance of the decisions concerning compliance by Myanmar with Convention No. 29 adopted by the Conference in 2000 and 2006 and all the elements contained therein.

The Committee fully supported all of the observations of the Committee of Experts and the decisions of the Governing Body referred to above, and had the expectation that the Government of Myanmar would move with urgency to implement all the actions requested.

The Committee strongly urged the Government to fully implement without delay the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the comments and observations of the Committee of Experts, and in particular to:

(1) take necessary steps without any further delay to bring the relevant legislative texts, in particular the Village Act and the Towns Act, into line with Convention No. 29;

(2) amend paragraph 15 of Chapter VIII of the new Constitution in order to bring it into conformity with Convention No. 29;

(3) ensure the total elimination of forced labour practices that were still persistent and widespread;

(4) ensure that perpetrators of forced labour, whether civil or military, were prosecuted and punished under the Penal Code;

(5) issue an authoritative statement at the highest level clearly confirming to the people of Myanmar the Government's policy for the elimination of forced labour and its intention to prosecute perpetrators;

(6) approve a simply worded brochure in accessible languages on the functioning of the Supplementary Understanding; and

(7) eliminate the continuing problems in the physical ability of victims of forced labour or their families to complain and immediately cease harassment, retaliation and imprisonment of individuals who used or facilitated the use of the complaints mechanism.

The Committee specifically called on the Government of Myanmar to take every opportunity, including through the use of all of the various media channels available, to increase the awareness of the people as to the law against the use of forced labour, their rights under that law and of the availability of the complaints mechanism as a means of exercising those rights.

The Committee, whilst acknowledging the continued use of joint awareness-raising seminars/symposia, called on the Government and the ILO Liaison Officer to redouble these efforts towards ensuring a full understanding on the part of all officials (military and civil) as to their responsibilities under the law.

The Committee noted with serious concern the continued human rights violations in Myanmar including the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi. The Committee called for her release and that of other political prisoners, as well as labour activists. It further called for the immediate release of those persons who were associated with the operation of the complaints mechanism and who were currently incarcerated.

The Committee called for the strengthening of the capacity available to the ILO Liaison Officer to assist the Government in addressing all of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and to ensure the effectiveness of the complaints mechanism, and expected the Government to cooperate fully in that regard.

Not reproduced:

Document D.5

B. Observation of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations on the observance of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), by Myanmar

C. Report of the Liaison Officer to the special sitting on Myanmar (Convention No. 29) of the Committee on the Application of Standards

D. Conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards in its Special sitting to examine developments concerning the question of the observance by the Government of Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) (International Labour Conference, 97th Session, June 2008)

E. Documents before the Governing Body at its 303rd Session

F. Documents before the Governing Body at its 304th Session

Document D.6

G. Information received from the Government of Myanmar - Communication received by the Office on 1 June 2009