Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 2001, Publication : 89ème session CIT (2001)

Convention (n° 29) sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Myanmar (Ratification: 1955)

Special sitting concerning the application by Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), in application of the resolution adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 88th (2000) Session

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

The Chairperson recalled that the item which was being discussed at the present sitting of the Committee had been placed on the Committee's agenda pursuant to paragraph 1(a) of the resolution adopted by the Conference at its 88th Session, under article 33 of the ILO Constitution, with a view to the adoption of measures to ensure compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry established to examine the observation of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) in Myanmar. The resolution of the Conference stated that: "The question of the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations and of the application of Convention No. 29 by Myanmar should be discussed at future sessions of the International Labour Conference at a sitting of the Committee on the Application of Standards specially set aside for the purpose, so long as this Member has not been shown to have fulfilled its obligations."

For the examination of this case, the Committee had before it the following documents:

(1) the observation of the Committee of Experts on the application of Convention No. 29 by Myanmar; and

(2) on the one hand, document D.6 (containing the document GB.280/6, GB.280/6 (Add. 1) and GB.280/6 (Add. 2) (March 2001) regarding item 6 of the agenda of the Governing Body on "Developments concerning the question of the observance by the Government of Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)" and the provisional minutes of the discussion of this item), and, on the other hand, document D.7 (Arrangements for an objective assessment of the situation of forced labour following measures taken by the Myanmar Government), which had been submitted to the Committee at the request of the Governing Body. Annex 5 to document D.7 contained the text of an understanding for an objective assessment to be carried out on how the legislative, executive and administrative measures reported by the Government were being applied in practice. This understanding made direct reference to the observation of the Committee of Experts.

A Government representative of Myanmar welcomed the general feeling that the situation surrounding the issue of Myanmar had radically changed and that the atmosphere in the Conference Committee had also changed a great deal from the atmosphere that had prevailed at the 88th Session of the Conference in June 2000 and the 279th Session of the Governing Body in November 2000. There was now much optimism and positive outlook shared by most of the member States and delegates on the Committee. This atmosphere of optimism and the positive outlook had been generated by a very important development, namely the agreement between the Government of Myanmar and the ILO on the "modalities of the objective assessment", which was the outcome of the visit of the ILO Team to Myanmar the previous month.

He reviewed the process that had now culminated in the agreement on the modalities of the objective assessment. The Government of Myanmar had already put in place a comprehensive framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures to ensure that there was no practice of forced labour in Myanmar. In addition, the Order supplementing Order No. 1/99, issued on 27 October 2000, clearly stipulated that the use of forced labour was illegal and that it was an offence under the existing laws of the Union of Myanmar. It directed responsible persons, including members of the local authorities, members of the armed forces, members of the police force and other public personnel, down to the village and ward levels, not to requisition forced labour or involuntary service. It also clearly set out the legal consequences for breach of the Order by explicitly stipulating that any person, including local authorities, members of the armed forces, members of the police force and other public personnel would have action taken against them under Section 374 of the Penal Code in consequence of such a breach. Moreover, Secretary (1) of the State Peace and Development Council had himself issued a directive on 1 November 2000 to all chairmen of the State and Divisional Peace and Development Councils in all regions of the country prohibiting the requisitioning of forced labour. National implementation measures and national monitoring activities were also being continued.

He emphasized that, at the 279th Session of the Governing Body, most member States and delegates had recognized the concrete measures taken by the Government of Myanmar. However, the issue of "objective assessment" had turned out to be a sticking point. The Government of Myanmar had made a generous offer to receive an ILO Team, either based in Bangkok or in Geneva. At that time, there had been differences of opinion on this issue. He said that what had happened at the 279th Session of the Governing Body had been most unfortunate. Nevertheless, he reaffirmed his belief in the process of engagement, dialogue and cooperation as a means of resolving the issues. For that reason, Myanmar had entered into an engagement with the Director-General of the ILO. On 22 March 2001, the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs had called on the Director-General of the ILO, on his way to attend an international conference in South America, and had held exploratory discussions on the modalities of the objective assessment. In the course of the discussion, the Deputy Minister had informed the Director-General of the ILO that the Government of Myanmar had designated the Permanent Representative of the Union of Myanmar in Geneva as a contact point to conduct discussions with the Director-General of the ILO on the modalities of the objective assessment. Accordingly, the Government representative had himself conducted wide-ranging discussions with the Director-General of the ILO on this matter. Subsequently, on 4 June 2001, the Minister at the Office of the Prime Minister, attending the 89th Session of the Conference, had called on the Director-General of the ILO and had held fruitful discussions on matters of mutual interest.

He recalled that document D.7 provided full information concerning the visit of the ILO Team the previous month. The ILO Team had visited Myanmar from 17 to 19 May 2001. The outcome of the visit had been the important agreement between the Government of Myanmar and the ILO on the "modalities of the objective assessment". Under the agreement, a High-Level Team, led by an internationally respected person, would go to Myanmar on an objective assessment mission in September 2001.

He expressed the belief that the measures taken by the Government of Myanmar were concrete, comprehensive and effective. He recalled that the ILO considered that there ought to be an objective assessment of these measures to lend them international credibility and confidence. He therefore reaffirmed that the Government of Myanmar had not only put in place a comprehensive framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures, but had also accepted to receive the objective assessment by a High-Level Team. Things were therefore moving forward in the right direction.

He warned, however, that the value of the application of sanctions was highly questionable. He expressed the belief that the best sanctions were those that were never used and never carried out. Sanctions were like nuclear weapons. Their value lay in their deterrent effect, not in their actual use. As a matter of principle, his Government opposed the application of sanctions against a member State as a means of resolving an issue. Now that there was an agreement between the Government of Myanmar and the ILO on the modalities of the objective assessment, the difficulties to which he had referred had been overcome.

He urged the Committee not to look back on the past, but to look to the future and move forward to resolve the issue step by step. Most member States and delegates had recognized that the Government had the genuine political will and commitment to resolve the issue of the alleged use of forced labour. No one could deny that the agreement on the modalities of the objective assessment constituted a significant step. Indeed, it was a breakthrough. In view of this very important positive development, he urged the Committee to recommend to the 282nd Session of the Governing Body that it should review the measures taken under article 33 of the ILO Constitution in the light of the outcome of the visit of the High-Level Team, with a view to removing those measures.

The Worker members stated that the situation of forced labour in Myanmar concerned so many people that the Committee could discuss this case for three days, or even a week. It was essential that this case, as with all other cases, be seriously reviewed, according to the procedures of the Conference Committee. They noted that, as with the discussion on individual cases, it was important to know the position of the Employer members, even though they were convinced that in this particular situation they shared the same views.

They deplored the fact that the case of Myanmar was once again before the Committee. Unfortunately, this case already had a long history, which had, for the first time in the existence of the ILO, required the use of a special procedure (article 33 of the ILO Constitution). They strongly regretted this situation, which was due to the persistence of unacceptable forced labour practices in Myanmar. They stated that they would continue to place this matter on the agenda of the ILO supervisory bodies as long as the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry were not implemented. With regard to the Commission of Inquiry, the Government of Myanmar was required to ensure that: (a) the legislation was brought into conformity with the provisions of Convention No. 29; (b) that practice was brought into line with the provisions of Convention No. 29, in other words, that no compulsory or forced labour could be imposed by the authorities; and (c) that sanctions were provided for and applied to those found guilty of violating the prohibition against forced labour.

They added that they did not intend to review the history of this case, but recalled the serious, persistent and systematic violations of Convention No. 29 on forced labour which existed in Myanmar. They stated that they had not invented these violations and recalled that there was abundant proof of these practices.

The Worker members added that the Committee was once again discussing this very serious case of forced labour after a two-year hiatus, during which time the severity of the situation and the chronic nature of the Government's lack of cooperation and compliance had driven the case to unprecedented levels of the ILO's supervisory machinery. The Committee was acting on the resolution adopted under article 33 of the ILO's Constitution at last year's Conference that charged it with keeping the spotlight on the practice of forced labour in Burma. The Committee's special session today was an essential part of the ILO's efforts to compel the Government to fulfil its treaty obligations under Convention No. 29 and to end the suffering of the tens of thousands of victims of forced labour. The Worker members considered this to be a very important responsibility.

The Worker members emphasized at the outset that, notwithstanding the comments made by the Government representative, only a few months ago the Government had continued to deny the existence of forced labour in the country. In its 9 March 2001 statement to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the representative of the Permanent Mission of Myanmar in Geneva had stated that "Myanmar nationals believe that the contribution of labour is both meritorious and conducive to mental and physical well-being. Accordingly, the local populace contribute labour in village community works (...) The populace, who are contributing labour, look fresh and happy with full of mirth and laughter and in festive mood. They do not at all look unhappy; nor show signs of being forced to work against their will." The Worker members noted that such statements by the Government had been a staple in past Committee discussions. Further, the "conciliatory" tone taken by the Government representative did not in any way concede that a problem existed or that one had ever existed.

Not surprisingly, the Committee of Experts had structured its rather extensive comments this year in accordance with the three recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry. The first section of the Committee of Experts' comments focused on the legal aspects of ending forced labour by addressing the issue of amending the relevant legislation. The second section focused on the measures taken, or rather not taken, to end the continuing practice of forced labour by the regime, as well as the available information on the actual practice. Finally, the report contained a third section on enforcement, in order to determine whether any actions had been taken to hold anyone accountable for using forced labour under the Penal Code, or in other words whether anyone had been punished. The answer to those questions, according to the Committee of Experts, was a resounding "no."

The Worker members emphasized that all three aspects of the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations must be implemented in full before any consideration could be given to ending the measures adopted by last year's Conference under article 33 of the ILO Constitution. This meant that the legal framework providing for the widespread use of forced labour had to be eradicated, the practice itself had to be demonstrably eliminated and all those found to be responsible for using forced labour had to be punished. Until such actions were taken, the regime had to be made to understand that the ILO would remain vigilant.

The ILO had demonstrated its willingness to assist the regime in any and every way possible to implement fully the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. But the bottom line had to be that the only avenue available to the regime, to reduce international pressure and ostracism, was the complete end of the system of forced labour, both in law and in practice, and the punishment of those responsible. The comments of the Committee of Experts demonstrated that there was still a long way to go.

In the first section of its report, the Committee of Experts once again reviewed the legal steps taken by the regime, namely the Order issued to disregard those provisions of the Village Act and the Towns Act that provided for forced labour. The Committee of Experts' view of this Order remained quite clear. Paragraph 4 of the report indicated that these orders "still reserved the exercise of powers under the relevant provisions of the Village Act and the Towns Act, which remain incompatible with the requirements of the Convention". Paragraph 6 of the report then concluded that the amendment of these two Acts sought by the Commission of Inquiry and promised by the Government for many years had not been made.

Furthermore, the first part of the second section of the Committee of Experts' report expressed the repeated concern that those most responsible for the use of forced labour, namely the military, did not appear to be affected by this Order. The Worker members had heard the Government representative's statement that the military authorities no longer made use of forced labour. The fact was, however, that the military remained somehow above the law. This had of course been the reality in the country for many decades, and until this situation was remedied, forced labour would continue.

The report devoted a few short, but extremely important paragraphs to the information available on actual practice. Paragraph 20 recalled that the documentary appendices contained in the ICFTU report of last November, representing over 1,000 pages drawn from 20 different sources, included reports, interviews of victims, over 300 forced labour orders, photographs, video recordings and other material. The report noted that the overwhelmingly large proportion of the documents concerned the period from June to November 2000. In other words, it concerned the period after the article 33 measures had been adopted at last year's Conference, leading to the November Governing Body session, when the regime and its supporters had lobbied extensively to avoid having the article 33 measures take effect. The report emphasized that an essential part of the ICFTU submission consisted of hundreds of "forced labour orders", issued mainly by the army, which were similar in kind, shape and content to the orders examined by the Commission of Inquiry and found to be authentic.

The ICFTU had issued a second report for the March 2001 Governing Body, which consisted of another 300 pages of similar documentation demonstrating that, without question, the practice continued. As reported in paragraph 66 of document D.6, the ICFTU report indicated that the authorities had used a number of methods to cover up the use of forced labour. These had included "issuing orders for villagers to attend meetings at the army camp, where they were requisitioned for forced labour, rather than issuing explicit orders for forced labour; issuing undated, unsigned and unstamped orders; demanding that written orders were returned to the issuing army personnel; using civilian authorities to requisition labour on behalf of the military; and arbitrarily arresting young, healthy persons, who after a few days in prison would be sent to work as porters for the military, dressed in army uniforms (...)".

There were other credible reports, such as a report to be issued by Amnesty International in two days, that included interviews with victims of forced labour this year. The Worker members pointed out that, when the time was taken to independently investigate whether or not forced labour was continuing, especially near ethnic border areas, it was clear that new evidence, conclusive evidence, tragic evidence continued to flow out of the country. They reminded the Committee that, according to the Commission of Inquiry and the Committee of Experts, the practices in question particularly affected farmers and the most impoverished, as well as the non-Burmese ethnic communities. It was a practice that was especially cruel and inhuman to women, who had found themselves the victims of rape and other barbarities, and to children. People, including women and children, were being used to clear minefields for the military in its continuing military action against some of the ethnic communities.

Many speakers had reminded the Committee during its general discussion that its role was to go beyond the legal analysis of the Committee of Experts and to bring a dimension of reality to the situations discussed, and this was the reality in Burma today, a reality which had existed tragically for decades, a reality so pervasive that it affected virtually every community and every family in certain parts of the country. It was a reality which persisted despite the best efforts of the ILO to compel change after many years.

With regard to the Director-General's communications to the ILO's constituent groups and the responses given to his request (contained in document D.6), the Worker members expressed their extreme disappointment over the lack of action taken by member States. Citing the example of the Japanese Government, they stated that there were even some governments that had responded to the Director-General's request by doing precisely the opposite, by enhancing their relationship with the military regime through the resumption of development assistance. The Worker members found such action to be not only unfortunate, but deplorable. They noted the statements made in defence of such actions that these governments saw the ILO, figuratively, as the north wind, while projecting themselves as the sun, arguing that both the north wind and the sun were needed to produce the changes that were desired by everyone. It was clear to the Worker members that, from the point of view of the perpetrators of forced labour, these governments were indeed the warm sun. However, they stressed that, from the point of view of the tens of thousands of victims of forced labour, from the point of view of the citizens of the country, these governments were the northern wind and it was the ILO that, to its credit, was the warm sun.

Some governments, including the United States, had given the Director-General a good explanation for their lack of action. Shortly before the Governing Body met in November 2000, the regime had begun a conversation with Ms. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who had been under virtual house arrest for almost a decade and remained so today. It was the view of the Worker members that the beginning of these secret talks was no coincidence, and that the actions of the ILO, especially the adoption of measures under article 33, had convinced the regime to do what it had steadfastly refused to do for over a decade. The ILO deserved credit for this.

Citing the example of the United States, the Worker members expressed their conviction that in late 2000, the United States Government had been poised to impose a ban on imports from Burma in response to the Director-General's call. The emergence of the secret talks had delayed the imposition of such a ban. There was, however, bipartisan legislation introduced in the United States Senate to ban all imports from Burma to the United States. The legislation specifically referred to the measures called for by the ILO. In addition, there was a coalition of groups in the United States that were communicating with major retail companies requesting them not to allow any apparel items produced in the country to be sold in their stores. The ILO's actions were cited in the letters to these companies. Thus far, nine companies, including a number of the larger and most well-known retailers in the United States, had given a public commitment, or strengthened a previous commitment, to keep such products out of their stores. The same could not be said, unfortunately, about many extraction industry companies which had been entrenched in the country for many years. Recently, however, resolutions had been introduced at shareholder meetings supporting disinvestment because of the widespread practice of forced labour. One of these resolutions had been supported by 22 per cent of the shareholders, a significantly large and apparently growing percentage for this type of resolution.

The Worker members noted that all those present, except perhaps the representatives of the military regime themselves, wanted talks to succeed, producing a transition back to civilian rule and the rule of law. But these talks had been going on for nine months with no apparent result. They surely could not yet be described as reconciliation talks given the fact that, as the Worker members had stated previously, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi remained under virtual house arrest. She still could not travel, nor could she consult with large groups of her supporters. Accordingly, the Worker members questioned how long member States were willing to wait, using the secret talks as a pretext for inaction, before responding to the Director-General's call. Would one year of no reported progress be sufficient, a period which would elapse before the November 2001 Governing Body meeting? When would a "decent interval" to allow these discussions to produce results become "indecent" and merely a pretext to avoid action under any circumstances? It remained clear to the Worker members that pressure had to be maintained on the regime as, in their view, any perceived weakening of international pressure would doom the talks to failure.

The Worker members reminded governments that the issue before the Committee, as it had been for almost 40 years, was not political normalization, but the eradication of forced labour inside Burma. This was the sole measure that the Committee must use to assess the effectiveness of steps being taken by the regime, and as long as there was evidence of forced labour, then the measures taken under article 33 must continue. To weaken or eliminate those measures prematurely might do irreparable damage to the ILO at a time when the ability of the ILO to enforce its own standards was being called into question.

The Worker members noted that, in a recent development, the regime had agreed to accept a High-Level Team into the country in September 2001 to conduct an assessment of the extent to which forced labour had been eliminated. The Worker members viewed this mission as a potentially positive, if somewhat flawed, first step and hoped that it would develop into an effective and if necessary long-term programme to eliminate the widespread use of forced labour in that country once and for all. But this was only a first step and, in reality, only a baby step, not a radical change, as claimed by the Government. They recalled the (unfounded) rumours at last year's Conference and at the November Governing Body meeting that, in order to avoid the measures under article 33 coming into effect, the regime was willing to accept a permanent ILO presence inside the country to monitor the elimination of forced labour. Now was not the time to debate the pros and cons of such an idea, but the Worker members emphasized that what was being proposed was not even close to what had been discussed last year.

The Worker members affirmed that they would monitor closely the results of the mission, and hoped it would bring positive results. But clearly this latest gesture by the regime was only a very small beginning. And there was already evidence emerging of the regime instructing people to deny the existence of forced labour. The Worker members had seen one report that just last week an SPDC township chairman in Mon State had called a gathering of villagers to inform them that foreigners might soon be coming to the area to ask questions about forced labour. They had reportedly been instructed to deny any forced labour and to deny paying the military to avoid forced labour. Such evidence would, of course, be turned over to the ILO.

The effectiveness of the ILO regarding this long-standing case of forced labour must not be measured in baby steps. It must only be measured by its ability, our ability, to compel this member State to do what it clearly had never wanted to do - that is, to live up to its treaty obligations under Convention No. 29. While some governments seemed content with gestures by the regime even at this late date, the tragic reality was that, even now, thousands of men, women and children were poised to become the latest victims of the most unspeakable forms of forced labour. This was the reality that the Committee had to confront.

In light of the preceding developments, the Worker members indicated that the problem of forced labour in Burma was complex, due to its very nature, its diversity, its scope and size. The situation was one which weighed heavily on the entire population of Burma/Myanmar. It had had terrible consequences for the country's inhabitants, including on their social life. It was detrimental to employment, as it kept people from being able to have "normal" jobs, particularly due to the problem of mass requisitioning by the authorities. The situation was consequently disastrous for the economy of the entire country.

The violations of Convention No. 29 were widespread, systematic and institutionalized, in national legislation and in practice. The military and civil authorities systematically resorted to forced labour for a series of tasks and services. Thousands of people were requisitioned to carry out this work. From a legal standpoint, most of the violations of the Convention were based on the Towns Act and the Villages Act. As previously indicated, forced or compulsory labour was imposed by the authorities at all levels and especially by the military.

The Worker members considered that, after having described the problem, it was appropriate to work towards finding possible solutions. To this end, they noted the promises made by the Government including the declarations made by the Government representative, according to which progress had been achieved and improvements made. They wished to remind the Government that these initiatives and changes needed to be evaluated by the ILO. It was necessary for the ILO to be able to evaluate the practical implementation and real impact of the measures taken by the Government in an objective and impartial manner.

The Worker members considered that it was essential for the ILO to be able to send missions to the field regularly in order to guarantee an objective evaluation of the situation. Once this first condition had been met, the mission Team would need to be composed of individuals of a high level, with outstanding expertise in the subject matter and familiar with the region and the situation of the country. One of the members of the Commission of Inquiry should take part in the mission.

The Worker members stressed that, as Burma was a large country, it was not possible to visit all regions in a short period of time, particularly if there were not many members of the mission Team. It would be desirable for the Team to be large enough to distribute the work geographically and essential for the mission members to have contacts, not only in the country itself, but also in neighbouring regions. They emphasized that, owing to its existence in many forms, the problem of forced labour was widespread and that the mission must be able to examine all the forms of forced labour which existed, which was another reason to send a large mission.

They considered that, in order to ensure an effective outcome, the members of the mission should have access to all information, regions and persons they deemed it necessary to consult, a requirement which would probably be the greatest problem the mission faced. They asked that every possible measure be implemented in order to avoid, to the greatest extent possible, having any limitations imposed on the mission's investigations. The subject of security must not be a pretext for restricting the mission's access to regions in conflict. It was important that interpreters be placed at the disposal of the mission, not only for translation from Burmese, but also from the languages of the ethnic minorities. It was the ethnic minorities who were the primary victims of forced labour in the country. In their view, the most important condition concerned the protection of witnesses. It was essential to guarantee effective protection for persons possessing essential information and whom the mission might contact. This protection must be guaranteed not only at the time of the contact, but also and even more importantly, after contact. Creative means might be required to find the means to guarantee this protection. Finally, careful thought should be given to deciding the best time for the mission to take place, taking the climatic conditions into account.

The Government of Burma wished to convince the Conference Committee of its willingness to improve the present situation with a view to abolishing forced labour. The Worker members expressed the hope that, in accepting a mission with the mandate described above, the Government would prove its political will. In any event, such a mission would not mark the end of this case. It represented only the beginning of a process, one step towards the improvement of the forced labour situation in the country. The Worker members recalled a suggestion made by a colleague during the general discussion to the effect that the Committee on the Application of Standards was a patient committee. They therefore undertook to follow the development of this particular case closely and to regularly request that the Government take measures until such time as it actually took action. The Committee would insist on this point until the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had been implemented and forced labour in Burma abolished. The Worker members informed the Committee that they would urge that missions be sent to Burma at different times of the year until this objective had been achieved.

The Worker members took careful note of document D.9, Memorandum on the understanding between the Myanmar Government and the ILO on the modalities of objective assessment on Myanmar's observance of ILO Convention No. 29 (prohibiting forced labour), and of the statement made by the Government representative. They disagreed with the conclusions contained in that document. The Worker members insisted that the ILO continue on the same path and that its objective remain the same, namely the implementation of the recommendations by the Commission of Inquiry. The situation must be evaluated by the ILO in a permanent objective manner. Only on the basis of such objective evaluation could the ILO draw conclusions in respect of this case.

The Employer members thanked the Government representative of Myanmar for his statement. They noted that, although he had predicted a certain optimism, it remained to be seen whether this prediction was premature.

The Employer members considered this to be an unusual case, not because of the circumstances involved or the interest it generated. Rather, it was unusual due to the serious nature of the violations of the most ratified of all Conventions, the length of time the situation of grave violations of human rights had persisted, and the stubborn refusal of the Government over many years to comply with its international obligations under Convention No. 29. This case had been examined by the ILO supervisory system over a period of years. The Employer members noted that the ILO standards system was rightly considered the most efficient in the United Nations system, pointing out that this two-tiered system had been introduced 75 years ago this year. As always, the Committee's deliberations were based upon the report of the Committee of Experts. The report once again contained a precise description of the situation in Myanmar and its evolution over the past three years. They noted that the Committee of Experts had examined this case almost every year since 1991 and time and again had reported on multiple and serious violations of the Convention. Similarly, the Conference Committee had examined this issue four times since 1992 and had repeatedly expressed its concern at the seriousness of the violations of the Convention in special paragraphs entitled "continuous failure to implement" in 1995, 1996 and 1997.

The Employer members recalled that many people in Myanmar were forced to engage in forced labour and that this practice affected women, young people and older persons, who were required by local and state authorities, both military and civilian, to carry out forced labour. This forced labour included transporting materials for the armed forces, constructing and maintaining military camps, building roads and participating in industrial and agricultural projects. This was heavy labour which many people were forced to carry out. For many years, the Government had denied these violations of the Convention, referring inter alia to a tradition under which such labour was considered as community work and usual.

The Employer members noted that the July 1998 report of the Commission of Inquiry established by the ILO had found that this widespread practice of grave violations of the Convention was based mainly on the Towns Act and the Villages Act. Amendment of these Acts had long been called for and the Commission of Inquiry had asked that this be done by 1 May 1999. A government Order of 14 May 1999 had not made the requested changes. In parallel with amendment of the law, profound changes also needed to be made to the practice in the country through clear and specific (and not secret) orders to all the authorities, including the military. Finally, Section 374 of the Penal Code needed to be strictly enforced. Although it provided for penalties for the imposition of forced labour, it was never applied in practice.

The Employer members recalled that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had been taken up by the Governing Body and the Conference Committee and that both bodies had demanded repeatedly that the Government comply with them. In the absence of sufficient noticeable progress, last year's International Labour Conference, at the recommendation of the Governing Body, had adopted its resolution under article 33 of the ILO Constitution. The resolution demanded that Myanmar implement fully the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. All ILO bodies and member States were to be informed and review their cooperation with Myanmar. The same applied to the United Nations and the specialized agencies. Further developments were to be discussed in the Conference Committee.

The measures mentioned in the resolution had come into effect on 30 November 2000, after the Governing Body had determined that the measures taken or announced by the Government until that date had been insufficient. At its November 2000 session, the Governing Body had examined the Government's Order of 27 October 2000, supplementing the May 1999 Order to eliminate the use of forced labour. An ILO technical cooperation team had visited the country and recommended that this be supplemented with specific orders or directives. In its report this year, the Committee of Experts had called for a detailed list of such specific orders or directives. Only in this way could enforcement of the prohibition of forced labour be achieved in practice. There had then been an exchange of correspondence between the Director-General and the Myanmar Government in which the Government had indicated its willingness to comply with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Employer members referred to documents D.6 and D.7, which contained further details in this regard.

The Employer members indicated in the first place that over a period of years they had followed the case of Myanmar with concern. They stressed the seriousness of the issue of forced labour and added that there should be no doubt that the Employer members considered the observance of these fundamental principles to be crucial, and particularly the principles contained in Convention No. 29.

The Employer members recalled that, in November 2000, under the authority delegated to it by the International Labour Conference, the Governing Body had determined that the resolution under article 33 of the ILO Constitution should enter into force. At the same time, the Governing Body had requested the Director-General to continue his cooperation with the Government of Myanmar to promote the full implementation of the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations. The Employer members did not consider that article 33 was the only means to be adopted. They were also concerned to resolve the core of the problem which had given rise to the application of article 33 in order to put an end to forced labour. Moreover, they indicated that the contacts with the Government of Myanmar continued to demonstrate that the measures adopted by the Government should be verified and verifiable by the ILO, with a view to determining their implementation and the current situation in practice.

They recalled that a mission had visited Yangon from 17 to 19 March to discuss specific details regarding the High-Level Team to be sent. As a result, it had been agreed that the Team would visit the country in September, that its members would be designated by the Director-General on the basis of their qualifications, impartiality and knowledge of the region, that the Team would have discretion in establishing its programme as well as the full authority to act and move within the territory, with all procedural guarantees and, lastly, that the Team's report would be submitted to the Governing Body in November.

The Employer members also indicated that the Committee of Experts considered that the amendment to the Village and Towns Acts of 27 October 2000 could form a basis for observance of the Convention. The Employer members considered that the necessary steps should be taken to ensure the elimination in practice of forced labour imposed by the authorities, particularly by the armed forces. They stressed that the Committee was dealing with fundamental human rights deriving from the fundamental Conventions ratified by Myanmar. They were convinced that both law and practice should be clear with regard to the prohibition of the exaction of forced labour by the authorities, including the armed forces.

They indicated that they had listened carefully to the statements of the representative of the Government of Myanmar and had taken into account the comments of the Worker members. They requested that the Government of Myanmar give the High-Level Team all the cooperation necessary to enable it to carry out its functions and verify the absence of forced labour in the country. The Governing Body should receive the new report in November to enable it to present the relevant recommendations to the next International Labour Conference.

In conclusion, they stated that any progress made must be clearly demonstrable, that the Government must cooperate fully and the High-Level Team must be granted broad powers of verification. They hoped that, in the future, they would be able to confirm that the situation which had given rise to the application of article 33 had been resolved.

The Government member of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the Member States of the European Union, the Central and Eastern European countries associated with the European Union, namely the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, the associated countries, Cyprus, Malta and Turkey, as well as Croatia and Norway, said that, in view of the deep concern about the situation with regard to forced labour in Myanmar, the European Union supported the resolution adopted by the Conference in June 2000 which had led to the implementation of measures in November 2000 under article 33 of the ILO Constitution. He recalled that, four years ago, the Commission of Inquiry on forced labour in Burma/Myanmar had made a series of clear recommendations to the Government on the issue, namely that the legislation should be brought into line with Convention No. 29, no more forced or compulsory labour should be imposed by the authorities in practice and that those enforcing forced labour should be brought to face criminal responsibility. The Government was therefore under an obligation to implement these recommendations fully.

On many occasions, the European Union had made it clear that, in order for the Conference to lift the measures taken under article 33 of the ILO Constitution, it needed to be assured that forced labour was completely eliminated. Only the ILO could make such an assessment. The European Union had urged the Government to resume its cooperation with the ILO and to allow a full-time ILO presence in the country with a view to verifying whether the Government had put an end to the practice of forced labour and enabling the ILO to provide technical assistance to that end. In that context, he welcomed the decision taken by the Government to resume cooperation with the ILO and noted the agreement on the modalities for an objective assessment of the practical implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The High-Level Team should be allowed complete freedom of movement throughout the entire territory and he trusted that the authorities would provide any security measures necessary. The Team should also have full freedom of access to speak to anybody it wished to, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other NLD leaders. The Team should decide upon the timing of its visits and on its programme. Finally, the Director-General should have complete freedom to decide on the composition of the High-Level Team. He noted the commitments entered into by the Government in that regard.

Finally, he emphasized that a three-week mission was not enough. Further steps needed to be taken. He expressed the belief that a full-time ILO presence in the country was necessary to assist the Government to implement the legislative measures it had adopted and verify their implementation. He looked forward to receiving the report of the High-Level Team following its mission in September with a view to considering its implications for further action at the Governing Body in November 2001.

The Government member of Australia, speaking on behalf of the members of the Asia-Pacific Group, noted with interest the report to the Committee on the developments since the last session of the Governing Body. The Asia-Pacific Group welcomed the decision of the Government to receive a High-Level Team appointed by the Director-General to carry out an objective assessment in September, for a period of up to three weeks, on the issue of forced labour. This was a very positive development. He particularly welcomed the fact that the Government had agreed that the ILO Team should have complete discretion to establish and implement its programme of work, meetings and visits. He expressed appreciation for the continuing efforts of all concerned, including the Director-General and the staff of the Office. He called upon the Government to continue to extend every cooperation to the ILO and the High-Level Team when it visited the country in September. He urged the members of the Conference to await the report of the Team's visit and its consideration by the Governing Body in November before deciding upon any further action.

The Government member of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of the ASEAN member States of the ILO, thanked the Director-General for his readiness to cooperate with the Government of Myanmar. He noted with appreciation the visit by the Representative of the Director-General and his team to Myanmar in May 2001 and the report of the mission, and particularly the agreement reached between the ILO and the Government on the modalities of an objective assessment of its observance of Convention No. 29. He expressed encouragement at the assurance given by the Government that it would implement the comprehensive framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures that it had put in place and the follow-up implementation measures and national monitoring activities, as well as the cooperation between the Government and the ILO. He recognized the political will of the Government to resolve the issue and to receive an ILO High-Level Team in September 2001 to carry out the objective assessment.

He concluded that the 282nd Session of the Governing Body in November 2001 should review the measures taken by the ILO under article 33 of the Constitution in the light of the outcome of the objective assessment, with a view to removing those measures. He also called upon the Government and the ILO to continue cooperation until the issue was completely resolved.

The Government member of the United States recalled that the previous year the Conference had adopted the measures recommended by the Governing Body under article 33 of the Constitution to secure compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The evidence of the continuing use of forced labour in its most brutal forms was so compelling that it had been recognized that to do otherwise would be to fail in the responsibility of the Conference towards the workers of the country and to the historic mission of the ILO. Her delegation had stated on that occasion that "to do any less, to look away, to avert our gaze would be to break faith with all that we are and hope to be". At the Governing Body in November 2000, it had been decided that there was no reason to delay the implementation of the resolution, notwithstanding the fact that the authorities had taken a number of administrative measures following a last-minute ILO technical cooperation mission to the country in October 2000.

The Committee of Experts had thoroughly analysed the measures taken, as well as extensive information from other sources on the actual situation in the country. The Committee of Experts had concluded that the Government still needed to: amend the relevant legislative texts; ensure that in actual practice no more forced or compulsory labour was imposed by the authorities, and particularly the military; and strictly enforce penalties for the exaction of forced or compulsory labour. Additional evidence of the continuing use of forced labour on a large scale had been presented to the Governing Body in March 2001. This included reports of efforts by military and civilian authorities at every level to hide the extent and nature of forced labour, to weaken or nullify the effects of any orders preventing forced labour which might have been issued by superior levels, and to counter the resolution adopted by the Conference through campaigns of disinformation and deception.

She recalled that, despite its rejection of the Conference resolution, the Director-General had continued to extend cooperation to the Government in relation to Convention No. 29, as requested by the Conference and the Governing Body. She commended him for those efforts. The objective of the ILO was not to exact punishment, but to help the Government eliminate a practice which all the members of the ILO, whether or not they had ratified Convention No. 29, had agreed must be eliminated. As a result of the Director-General's efforts, the Government had now agreed to receive a High-Level Team for up to three weeks in September 2001 to carry out an objective assessment of the situation regarding forced labour. While welcoming the agreement, she called for realism about what the High-Level Team could accomplish in so short a period. The understanding reached with the Government in May 2001 was a step in the right direction. But the usefulness and effectiveness of the visit of the High-Level Team would depend on the extent to which the Government fulfilled the commitments that it had undertaken. It had agreed to accord the High-Level Team its full cooperation. Such cooperation must include, at a minimum, the right of the Team to meet with whomsoever it wished, in closed and confidential session if it so desired, and the right of all persons who wished to meet with the Team to do so without fear of retaliation against themselves or their families. Anything less would tend to cast doubt on the credibility of the Team's efforts, which would serve neither the interests of the country nor those of the ILO.

She noted that the Governing Body would listen attentively to the report of the High-Level Team in November 2001 and would also examine the report in the context of the full range of information available to the Governing Body from other sources. At that time, it would be decided what further action, if any, the ILO should take in pursuance of the objectives of the Conference resolution. Meanwhile, all the provisions of that resolution remained in effect and should continue to be implemented, including steps to ensure that the issue was discussed at the forthcoming session of the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Her Government would continue to review its relations with the country and urged others to do the same. The United States already had a strong set of sanctions in place against the country, including a ban on new investment, a ban on assistance to the military regime, denial of trade preferences and a visa ban on senior government officials. Those measures would remain in place and additional options had not been ruled out at the present time.

The Government member of South Africa emphasized it had long been his country's conviction that the existing situation in Myanmar could only change with the coming into play of new elements on the basis of an objective assessment carried out by the ILO. His Government had also indicated its unambiguous and unwavering support for the maintenance of action against the Government of Myanmar as long as it showed no willingness to change its position on forced labour. He was therefore heartened by the report before the Committee, which showed some positive gestures towards the achievement of the objective of eradicating forced labour in Myanmar. The report of the mission led by the Representative of the Director-General was quite encouraging and he commended the parties on their vision in resolving the matter.

The speaker urged the Office to remain vigilant and support the dispatch of the High-Level Team, which should be allowed complete discretion as to its activities during its work. He urged the Government of Myanmar to continue on its positive path, which he believed would lead to a conducive working environment for its people. He looked forward to examining the report of the High-Level Team in November.

The Worker member of Pakistan recalled that the resolution adopted by the Conference the previous year under article 33 of the ILO Constitution was the result of a process which dated back to the 1960s. The Committee of Experts had already raised the issue of the use of forced labour in the country in 1964, 1966 and 1967. Following the ICFTU representation under article 24 of the Constitution in 1993, and the persistent attempts by the Government to deny the evidence of forced labour, the Commission of Inquiry had been set up in 1997. In its report, following a series of hearings in which the Government refused to participate, as well as refusing to let the Commission into the country, three areas had been addressed in which measures were required to achieve compliance with Convention No. 29: the amendment of the legislation in accordance with the Convention; the adoption of measures to stop the exaction of forced or compulsory labour in practice; and the imposition of penalties on those who had perpetrated the crimes. The time limit set by the Commission for compliance with the recommendations was 1 May 1999.

This historical review underlined the fact that the series of measures envisaged by the Conference the previous year were rooted very clearly in the implementation of all three of the broad recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The resolution adopted in June 2000 had been the decisive factor in prompting the Government to enter into discussions with the NLD leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and to accept an ILO mission. However, until all the three areas had been irreversibly addressed with action to restore democracy and end forced labour, the measures envisaged in the resolution should be maintained and their implementation strengthened as a key instrument of pressure on the regime. He therefore commended the Director-General on the action taken and he hoped that the work of the ILO would bring relief to those who were suffering in the country. He urged the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in their letter and spirit and to give all due cooperation and support to the ILO.

The Government member of the Netherlands supported the statement made on behalf of the European Union. He added that since the decision taken by the Governing Body in November 2000 to give effect to the measures under the resolution adopted in accordance with article 33 of the ILO Constitution, his country had held tripartite consultations and reviewed its relations with the Government. Since its first response to the request for information from the Director-General, his country had taken further steps and had the intention of discouraging transactions relating to trade with and investment in the country. The Netherlands had taken note of the agreement of the Government to receive an ILO High-Level Team and took a keen interest in the findings of the Team, which would be discussed by the Governing Body in November 2001. His country would continue to monitor carefully the forced labour situation and was convinced that, in the absence of a concrete and clear improvement in the situation, it was too early to exclude the possibility of further measures.

The Worker member of Japan welcomed the understanding concluded between the ILO and the Government in May 2001 concerning the visit of the High-Level Team and urged both parties to implement it with sincerity. He expressed the hope that all forms of forced and compulsory labour would be eliminated in the country as soon as possible in both law and practice. However, he noted information that the military regime had threatened villagers in several areas not to tell the truth about forced labour. He therefore urged the ILO and the Government to give the High-Level Team full authority to investigate the current situation. He hoped that the work of the High-Level Team would enable the international community to understand what was going on in the country. He appreciated the efforts made by the United Nations and Asian countries, including Japan, to restore dialogue between the ILO and the Government.

He emphasized that democratization was another important issue which was closely related to resolving the situation with regard to forced labour. Human rights and trade union rights were of great importance to democracy, but were incompatible with the military regime. The Japanese Trade Union Confederation (RENGO) supported the activities of those who had been compelled to leave Burma because of their participation in democratizing the country. A Burma office had been set up in Tokyo to promote democracy in Burma. He urged the Government to guarantee pro-democracy activities without any restrictions in the country. He also called upon the Government of Japan to put pressure on the Government to guarantee its people freedom from all kinds of oppression and for the restoration of democracy. An important meeting had been held in Tokyo earlier in the year on further trade union action on the question. It had been decided to implement a programme of action to promote and strengthen the ILO resolution and to request the Government of Japan to review its relations with the country. Trade union representatives had proposed that Japanese overseas development aid should be strictly limited to humanitarian purposes and used cautiously so as to ensure that it did not promote the use of forced labour. They had also called on the Government of Japan to request the Government not to use forced labour for the activities covered by Japanese overseas development aid and to accept an international group of inquiry to monitor its use.

He expressed deep concern about the resumption of Japanese overseas development aid to the country, which had been halted in 1988 after the takeover of the military regime, and especially the grant for the repair of the Baluchaung hydroelectric power station. The aid was still premature. Apart from humanitarian assistance, Japan should not provide aid that would benefit the military regime. The Japanese Government had a great responsibility for resolving the forced labour issue, as Japanese aid had amounted to 62.7 per cent of the total external aid to the country in 1997. If the current situation with regard to forced labour was not improved, this assistance should immediately be stopped. If necessary, concrete action should be taken with the international community to eradicate all forms of forced and compulsory labour in the country.

The Government member of Canada welcomed the recently signed understanding on the ILO's objective assessment, which was to focus on the practical implementation and actual impact of the framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures against forced labour which the Government had announced that it had taken since October 2000. He stated that unless this assessment suggested otherwise, existing ILO measures should remain in place and emphasized that the ILO alone could provide an assessment of sufficient authority to bear legal, political and practical consequences internationally.

Given the vital standards at stake, he hoped that the Government of Burma would fully respect the agreed modalities and provide every guarantee that it would cooperate to ensure that the assessment was objective and credible. He emphasized that, to that end, the ILO's High-Level Team should be accorded complete discretion and freedom of movement in the organization and conduct of its programme of activities and meetings, as agreed in the understanding signed on 19 May 2000. He repeated his comments to the Governing Body in November 2000, namely that Canada had never sought a quarrel with the people of Burma, but sought an end to the abuse of their rights. He emphasized that forced labour amounted to indecent work which was unworthy of any ILO member State.

The Worker member of Colombia regretted that the members of the Committee were once again required to address the issue of Myanmar due to the Government's stubborn refusal to comply with ILO Conventions and Recommendations, to which was added the Government's inexplicable failure to comply with the resolutions adopted by the ILO.

He added that in 1997 Myanmar's unacceptable conduct had forced the Committee on the Application of Standards to place its comments in a special paragraph, given the Government's failure to effect any real change. He called for all workers to unite in the face of Myanmar's failure to submit to the ILO supervisory mechanisms and expressed his solidarity with the workers of Myanmar, especially in their struggle to achieve the observance of the ILO's fundamental Conventions and Recommendations, particularly Convention No. 29 on forced labour.

He stressed that under no circumstances could any government in any part of the world justify work performed under conditions of slavery and exacted through the use of force. He agreed with the Government of Myanmar that the best sanctions were those that were not applied. However, when a Government systematically refused to play by the established rules, implementing sanctions was the only method left, although no one liked to apply such methods.

Speaking on behalf of the workers of Latin America and the Caribbean, he once again urged the Government of Myanmar to comply fully with the provisions of ILO Conventions and Recommendations, beginning with Convention No. 29, thereby ending the suffering of those workers who were victims of forced labour. He also asked the Government to impose sanctions designed to make an example of those responsible for these violations of human rights.

He appealed to the Government of Myanmar to cooperate fully so that the ILO might carry out its work directly in the territory where the events had taken place. If the Government were truly convinced that its attitude and conduct were democratic, it should not have any reservations in agreeing to the ILO mission.

The Worker member of Italy, referring to the major problems and results relating to companies under paragraph 1(b) of the Conference resolution, said that the report to the Governing Body showed that few employers' organizations had replied to the Director-General's request for information. Respondents included the Finnish Confederation of Industry, the Confederation of Norwegian Business and the Confederation of British Industry, as well as the International Organization of Employers. She appreciated the fact that many companies had ceased to do business in the country. However, major companies based in other countries were still importing goods produced in the country. There had been an explosion of clothing exports, including to the United States and the European Union, despite the ILO action which had been taken. Goods such as rice and beans were being exported by transshipment through countries such as Malaysia and Singapore. Before the last session of the Governing Body, the ICFTU had presented the ILO with a wide-ranging report indicating that many companies involved in the oil and gas, timber, rice, agriculture, fisheries, textiles, finance and tourism industries were still doing business with or in the country and had made other business contacts with the regime since November 2000. There were some 300 such companies from over 30 countries.

The ICFTU report also contained information on over 580 cases of forced labour. Some of the evidence of forced labour related directly to the operation of the gas pipeline linking Burma with Thailand, involving French and American multinationals, as well as the construction of tourist infrastructure, in which the country's military leaders appeared to be directly involved. A British-owned company was also heavily involved in gas pipeline operations in the country. Moreover, a hydroelectric plant would be built as a result of a 29 million dollar grant from the Japanese Government, as a reward for opening dialogue with the opposition leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Some other governments and industries were hiding behind these apparently new developments to continue business as usual. In that respect, she recalled that similar talks in the past had yielded no results.

She said that a large share of the income generated by foreign investment was used by the Junta to buy weapons for use against its own people. China was one of the main arms suppliers. The ICFTU and the International Trade Secretariats had already planned action to place pressure on those companies, some of them multinationals, which had been identified in Canada, France, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Spain and the United States. Trade unions in the energy industry, meeting recently in Bangkok, had called on oil and gas companies to cease investments in Burma while the use of forced labour continued. The trade union campaign had also started to target shareholders and institutional investors in some multinational enterprises investing in the country. One of the largest pension funds in the world had announced at its annual general meeting that it was proposing a resolution asking the company to withdraw from the country. In a case in the United States, a judge had stated the opinion that the company concerned by the lawsuit knew that forced labour was being utilized and that joint ventures benefited from the practice. In the past, governments and companies had hidden behind the absence of a global and binding decision to justify their inaction. Now there was a global decision by a United Nations body which gave them legitimate grounds to take action, as some of them had already done. She therefore urged employers' organizations and companies, in consultation with trade unions, to comply with the full provisions of the resolution. She also called on international and regional financial organizations to verify carefully the indirect projects and foreign direct investment in the country carried out through other countries and organizations. Any hesitation at this stage in implementing the agreed measures could jeopardize the efforts to eliminate forced labour and the resumption of talks for democracy.

The Government member of Switzerland noted that she had listened attentively to the explanations given by the Government of Myanmar as well as to the opinions expressed by the Employer and Worker members.

She indicated that the report of the last mission to Myanmar had contained positive points. She added that the three-week evaluation mission, which would take place next September, should examine the effective and good faith application of the legislative amendments requested. It was important that this mission have complete freedom of action, particularly so that it could define its own programme. These recent developments were an important step toward a constructive commitment on the part of the Myanmar Government to respond to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Swiss Government therefore awaited with optimism the report that the mission would submit to the November 2001 Governing Body and would evaluate at that time the real political will of the Burmese authorities.

The Worker member of Swaziland emphasized that forced labour was a very serious violation and flagrant disregard for human dignity and must not be forgiven for as long as it existed. Every effort to eradicate the evil of forced labour had to be supported by all advocates of humanity and social justice. The present case put to the test the fundamental obligation of the ILO and its mandate. The ILO needed to answer the question of what was the acceptable desired result of ratification. Was it merely the adoption of a statute that was in conformity with the obligations undertaken, or did it need to be applied in both law and practice? The ICFTU report had shown that forced labour was still prevalent on the ground. He affirmed that a law that only existed on the statute books, and was not applied in practice, was not worth the paper it was written on. Unless the Government accepted that it was out of line with the requirements of Convention No. 29, which it had ratified voluntarily 46 years ago, it would be impossible for it to correct the wrongs that it was committing. Nevertheless, as indicated in document D.6, the Government had written to the United Nations Secretary-General condemning the decision of the Governing Body as a "grave injustice" and querying the mandate of the Director-General and the Conference on this issue.

He reaffirmed that the ratification of any international covenant by any government was a direct undertaking that it would enforce the covenant in law and in practice and that it would accept being monitored and questioned in the event that it violated the provisions of the covenant. Convention No. 29 was one of the core labour standards which, when applied, gave dignity to the worker. Without such dignity there could be no decent work. Moreover, forced labour constituted slavery and a crime against human dignity, and as such was incongruent with the dictates of social justice. The Committee was duty bound to uproot the evil of forced labour to restore dignity to the workers and people of the country. It should not therefore underestimate the gravity of this violation against humanity.

He said that governments which were prone to commit crimes against humanity did not readily desist from such practices without international pressure. If sanctions had not been applied against the apartheid regime in South Africa, its people would not have achieved democracy when they did. He therefore implored all countries to support social justice and maintain the sanctions until the people of Burma enjoyed an environment which was free of forced labour, guaranteed democracy and respected human and trade union rights and the rule of law. Only when the evaluation process by the ILO confirmed that Convention No. 29 was applied in law and practice could the sanctions be lifted.

The Worker member of Thailand indicated that in his country, there were more than 1 million illegal immigrants and nearly 20,000 refugees from Myanmar. These migrations had taken place over many years. The persons affected suffered from very bad social and economic conditions and had migrated to Thailand to escape poverty which resulted from both economic conditions and forced labour in Myanmar. These immigrants from Myanmar were vulnerable and were often badly exploited by their employers as they had no one to help them. At the same time, employers used the illegal immigrants to replace Thai workers who were facing difficulties in maintaining their working standards, especially in the area of occupational safety and health, and who demanded that ILO standards be respected. The political, economic and social condition of Thai workers was affected by these illegal immigrants and refugees who were the result of the political, economic and social conditions in Myanmar. Unless there was stability in that neighbouring country, Thailand would continue to face adverse consequences. Finally, the speaker welcomed the decision to send an ILO High-Level Team which would monitor the forced labour situation in Myanmar. He suggested that this Team visit the border between Thailand and Myanmar to gather information about the situation by talking to the refugees and the immigrants there. At the same time, he suggested that in accordance with article 33 of the ILO Constitution, the ILO resolution on Myanmar be kept in place until forced labour was totally eradicated in that country.

The Government member of Namibia stated that his Government was deeply concerned and horrified by the continued instances of forced labour in some parts of the world and, in particular, the critical situation in Myanmar. While he welcomed the statement of commitment and the assurance made by the representative of the Government of Myanmar, he strongly urged it to match this undertaking with concrete steps. Furthermore, he unreservedly endorsed the proposal for the ILO to send a team of experts to Myanmar to fully investigate the situation as soon as practicable. It was his firm view that this matter should remain on the ILO agenda until the Government of Myanmar fully complied with Convention No. 29.

The Government member of India stressed that her Government was strongly opposed to the practice of forced labour. Countries voluntarily adhering to the ILO Conventions should comply fully with them. In regard to the matter before the present Committee, her Government believed that the ILO's objectives could best be promoted through dialogue and cooperation and not through punitive measures or the threat of use of such measures. Her Government, therefore, advocated the path of constructive dialogue and cooperation between the ILO and the Government of Myanmar. The speaker also took note of an ILO mission to Myanmar the previous month, mentioned in document D.7. She also took note of the information submitted by the Government of Myanmar in document D.9 (information submitted in writing by the Government of Myanmar regarding the Memorandum on the understanding between the Myanmar Government and the ILO on the modalities of objective assessment on Myanmar's observance of ILO Convention No. 29 (prohibiting forced labour). The undertaking of an ILO objective assessment through the visit of a High-Level Team to Myanmar in September this year was a step in the right direction. The flexibility and constructive approach shown by the Government of Myanmar and the ILO were to be appreciated. This development underscored yet again the need to abnegate the punitive approach and to pursue the path of dialogue and technical cooperation.

The Worker member of Sweden indicated that her intervention would be focused on the replies of the governments and UN agencies to the 200 letters sent by the Director-General, asking them to act in accordance with the ILO resolution and to inform the ILO about specific measures taken. She was pleased to note that in some countries the political establishment was responding. On 22 May 2001, in the United States, Senators Tom Harkin and Jesse Helms introduced a Bill prohibiting all imports from Myanmar, specifically in response to the ILO's request. This Bill had bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress. In Norway, the Government was engaged in serious talks with groups in opposition to the Junta in order to divest its investments. At the same time, the speaker stressed that more should be done, and that pressure on the regime should be maintained by all. Disturbing events had taken place since the timid steps taken by the Junta. After the visit paid by the European Union Troika to Yangon at the end of January, the European Union had considerably slowed down its engagement in condemning the current situation in Myanmar. The European Union was apparently content with the mere hope that contacts would develop further, broadening as well as deepening, so as to promote national reconciliation, democracy and human rights. The speaker put into question the decision by the EU to grant a visa to a high representative of the Government enabling him to participate in an international forum last May in Brussels. What was most disturbing, however, was the situation regarding trade and investments. Myanmar's trade with both the United States and the European Union had soared recently, while the United States remained Myanmar's largest export market. In this respect, she indicated that the government export to the US grew by around 400 per cent after 1997 and by about 200 per cent to Norway. Bilateral trade between Myanmar and the three north-east Asian countries (China, Japan and the Republic of Korea), totalled US$187.69 million in the first two months of this year, a 36.3 per cent rise compared with the same period in 2000. China, which had border trade with Myanmar in addition to normal trade, stood as Myanmar's third largest trading partner after Thailand and Singapore, while Japan and the Republic of Korea remained Myanmar's fourth and fifth largest trading partners respectively. In particular, the speaker recalled the reported intention of the Government of Japan to provide a 3.53 billion yen grant for the repair of the Baluchaung Hydropower Station, a project in Karenni State, a region affected by the civil war in Myanmar for which forced labour would most likely be used, directly or indirectly. This was against the spirit of the adopted ILO resolution which needed to be implemented by all its member States, now more than ever.

The Government member of the United Kingdom fully supported the statement made by the Government member of Sweden on behalf of the European Union. He recalled that the European Union had been unstinting in expressing its concern about the practice of forced labour in Burma and had been instrumental in pushing for steps to apply article 33 measures during the last International Labour Conference and the Governing Body in November. He therefore did not recognize the portrayal of the European Union position contained in the Swedish Worker member's statement. The crucial question before this Committee was not a technical issue relating to the bureaucratic processes adopted by the Burmese regime. It was for the Committee to decide how and when the morally abhorrent practice of forced labour in Burma could be ended. The visit of the High-Level Team to Burma in September would be a first step in the assessment process, although three weeks was a very short time to ascertain whether forced labour had diminished or stopped in Burma. He reiterated the importance of the High-Level Team being granted freedom of access to witnesses and stressed the importance of all interviews being conducted in conditions where the interests of witnesses could be protected. The High-Level Team should be able to visit all areas of the country, including difficult border areas such as Rakhine, Chin, Kayin, and Kayah. The High-Level Team should also be able to decide when was the most appropriate time to visit Burma and the Director-General should have full freedom in appointing members of the team. In that context he was attracted by the suggestion that members of the original Commission of Inquiry should participate in the team. One thing should be clear: if in November the High-Level Team was able to report that forced labour in Burma had ended, then article 33 measures would be lifted. If, however, the High-Level Team reported that forced labour still existed or that they had been impeded in carrying out their assessment, then the United Kingdom Government, like that of the Netherlands, would be forced to consider what further measures could be taken against the Burmese Government.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom endorsed his Government's sentiments that the visit of the High-Level Team in September of this year was a step in the right direction. However, he did wish to raise certain issues. First of all, he wondered whether it would not be better for the High-Level Team to undertake this mission a little later when the monsoon season was over. Moreover, in order for the High-Level Team to do its work effectively and visit various regions of Myanmar during a three-week period, it might be preferable to appoint five members rather than three to this High-Level Team. In addition, a single visit of a three-week duration might prove insufficient to provide a clear and comprehensive picture of the situation regarding forced labour in the country. Hence, it would be necessary to ensure that follow-up visits were undertaken. Preferably, a permanent ILO presence in the country could well prove necessary to ensure that Myanmar remained free of forced labour. Another important aspect was the requirement of full cooperation from the Government of Myanmar in providing access for the High-Level Team to the border areas. A very important issue was that of the protection of witnesses. Those who were accused might seek reprisals. Indeed, the Worker members knew, and it had been reported by Amnesty International, that some 12 persons who had spoken to a UN envoy had subsequently been detained, tortured and given long prison sentences. Hence, it was the responsibility of all involved, including the Government of Myanmar, the Office, the High-Level Team, as well as governments who maintained a mission in the country to ensure that those who volunteered to give evidence were not subjected to reprisals. Finally, persons who were not part of the current Government, including members of the democratic opposition, should be involved in the work of the High-Level Team.

The Government member of Japan indicated that the Government of Myanmar had taken a variety of legislative and administrative measures to eradicate forced labour. While results at the level of implementation remained to be seen, he considered that a constructive approach with the Government of Myanmar was the only one that would solve the problem prevailing in that country. The ILO was to be commended for its cooperation with the Government of Myanmar. The Government of Japan was constantly in touch with Myanmar at several levels in order to remind it of the need to cooperate with the ILO. Finally, the speaker stressed that his Government's relationship with Myanmar, including in the form of development assistance, did not and would not in any way induce, directly or indirectly, forced labour in that country. In this regard, he emphasized that the assistance by the Japanese Government to repair the Baluchaung Hydropower Station was only intended to prevent, in the future, further harm to the general population by the deterioration of the said power plant. Regarding this assistance, he pointed out also that the Japanese Government took into account the solicita- tion made by the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Rasali.

The Government member of Portugal endorsed the interventions made by the Government member of Sweden on behalf of the European Union and the Government member of the United Kingdom on the measures taken by the European Union with regard to putting to effect article 33 of the ILO Constitution. The Commission of Inquiry had recommended that a series of administrative, legislative and regulatory measures be taken so as to put an end to the practice of forced labour, and to ensure the application of Convention No. 29. The previous year, the Governing Body of the International Labour Organization had noted that such measures had not been taken and thereby for the first time referred to article 33 of the Constitution. That decision was taken in order to strengthen the role played by the ILO as well as enhance its credibility in the promotion of fundamental rights at work. In that context, there was reason to endorse the sending of a High-Level Team, even if the option of a continued presence in the country would have been better. A step forward could be made by the Team provided that three conditions were fulfilled: the mission should be free to move; it should have access to all requested places; and finally, the Director-General should be free to select its members. As a member of the Governing Body, Portugal expressed its specific wish to participate in a constructive tripartite discussion on that question at the next session of the Governing Body.

The Government member of Brazil reiterated his support for constructive dialogue and cooperation as the way to resolve the question of forced labour in Myanmar. He underlined the importance of the ILO presence on the ground as a way of ensuring the credibility and effectiveness of the legislative and administrative measures applied by the Government. He expressed his support for the visit by a High-Level Team to Myanmar which would allow an objective evaluation of the measures adopted. That evaluation would provide a sufficient basis for the Governing Body, at its November meeting, to be able to recommend in an impartial and objective manner the measures to be taken in the future.

The representative of the Director-General indicated that he already had some clarifications on certain points raised. Regarding the participation and provision of information to actors other than the government authorities in the process which lead to the Memorandum of Understanding and the High-Level Team, he underlined that Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi had been informed of the content and importance of the Memorandum of Understanding. In this respect, she had expressed the wish to get in contact with the High-Level Team. Moreover, regarding the representatives of civil society, a list of NGOs present in Myanmar had already been established. Regarding the period during which the High-Level Team would visit Myanmar, the month of September had been chosen after taking into consideration the climatic conditions and the need to have adequate time to prepare a report for the November Governing Body. These considerations were of a practical nature and the exact date could be re-examined later on.

The Employer members recalled, at the end of a detailed and serious discussion, that their position, as clearly presented at the outset, was fully in line with the steps taken up to now by the various bodies of the ILO. It was their impression that there was today a rather uniform evaluation of many aspects of the case by different members of the Committee, which had expressed very cautious hope. The Government of Myanmar had made the first step in the right direction. However, the desired results had not yet begun to become reality. Great efforts were still required to overcome the difficulties, which included the size of the country, the long duration of forced labour practices, as well as the fact that over the years many authorities in Myanmar had become used to the practice of forced labour: in particular many civil and military authorities were beneficiaries of forced labour and this was a barrier to change. In view of these facts, the results sought were a difficult task and a challenge for all involved. The agreements so far reached did not yet guarantee anything: they contained promises and formal arrangements for addressing the problem. Without real goodwill nothing would succeed - not even an objective assessment of what was actually occurring in practice. Under these circumstances, it was necessary to stick without any modification to the decisions taken up to now by the ILO bodies. In this respect they could not support the Government of Myanmar's suggestion in the Memorandum on the understanding between the Myanmar Government and the ILO on the modalities of objective assessment on Myanmar's observance of ILO Convention No. 29 (document D.9) to loosen the measures taken regarding Myanmar in application of article 33 of the Constitution. Up to now, all small steps announced stood on sheets of paper. But the Committee's objective here as with regard to all ILO standards was to shape social reality. Where could this be more necessary than with regard to human rights? Being optimists with experience - i.e., realists, the Employer members considered that further developments in this case should be followed soberly and critically, with hope for the people in Myanmar.

The Worker members said that they had listened carefully to the various statements. Despite the information provided by the Government representative of Myanmar, the serious violations of Convention No. 29 continued. The case under examination was extremely important because of the gravity of the violations and the continued systematic, not to say institutionalized, practice of forced labour. The Organization's objective remained to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. To that end, the Government must ensure that national legislation and practice were aligned with Convention No. 29 such that no forced or compulsory labour could be imposed by the authorities and that persons who infringed the prohibition on forced labour would be punished. The ILO was the only body which could objectively evaluate whether the recommendations had been implemented. The High-Level Team was a first step in that evaluation. The Worker members, however, considered that the composition and functioning of that Team should meet certain criteria. It should be composed of people with a high degree of expertise in the subject, including at least one of the members of the Commission of Inquiry and participation by the International Labour Standards Department. It should be big enough to cover the different regions of the country and the various types of forced labour which had been identified. It should have access to all the information, persons and places that it wished both inside and outside the country. It should have interpreters available. It should be guaranteed that witnesses would enjoy effective protection and it should be allowed to choose an appropriate period to undertake its mission. The Worker members were at pains to emphasize that the mission to be carried out by that Team should under no circumstances be regarded as the end but rather the beginning of a process. The Organization must pursue the examination of this case assiduously and undertake the objective evaluation of the implementation of the three recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Further missions would be necessary for that purpose. In conclusion, the Government representative who spoke on behalf of the European Union deserved support when he stated that the measures taken in application of article 33 of the Constitution could only be lifted if forced labour was genuinely abolished and the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry effectively implemented.

The Government representative of Myanmar noted that a number of delegations of member States had expressed their appreciation concerning the agreement between his Government and the ILO on modalities of the ILO objective assessment. He expressed his gratitude to the ASEAN member States and the member States of the Asia/Pacific Region for their joint statement on the issue. With regard to the timing of the visit of the High-Level Team, the speaker recalled that the month of September had been chosen after taking into consideration the weather conditions. The monsoons would almost have stopped by then and the High-Level Team could undertake its visits without any problem. However, other dates were also possible such as the month of October as had been suggested. Regarding the size of the High-Level Team, nothing had yet been decided on this matter. However, he pointed out that the membership of the High-Level Team should not be too large. Furthermore, measures were already being taken with regard to implementation. In this respect the National Implementation Committee had formed five teams in April 2001 to ensure implementation. However, the application of legal texts required a certain amount of time which was why no immediate results could be observed. With regard to the protection of witnesses, these were fully protected by the existing provisions of the Penal Code. In this respect, the legal system of the country was inherited from the British legal system and was therefore very solid. Concerning freedom of movement of the members of the High-Level Team, they could have free access to all areas, including those where there were allegations of the use of forced labour. The only exception to this were those places where the security of the members of the High-Level Team would be under threat due to the ongoing activities of the armed insurgents. This issue was already reflected in the terms of the Agreement. The Government representative stressed that now was the time for confidence-building through the High-Level Team which would conduct an objective assessment mission in Myanmar this year. The Government of Myanmar was ready to cooperate with, and facilitate the work of the High-Level Team, in accordance with the agreement on the modalities of the objective assessment. He asked that the words of appreciation and positive comments made by speakers during the present sitting of the Committee be reflected in the closing remarks of the Chairperson. He also asked that the closing remarks reflect the opinion of member States that the 282nd Session of the Governing Body in November 2001 should review the measures taken against Myanmar under article 33 of the ILO Constitution in light of the outcome of the forthcoming visit of the High-Level Team, with a view to removing them.

The Worker members, referring to their earlier statements, indicated that they had not been convinced by the Government's plea.

The Employer members recalled that their hopes, expectations and demands had been summed up in their earlier declarations; positive results were still awaited and could not be taken for granted.

The Government representative of Myanmar asked that the closing remarks of the President reflect the positive comments regarding the agreement reached by the Government and the ILO on the modalities for the objective assessment which had been made by delegates, including a number of Workers' delegates. This would introduce better balance into the text. He suggested therefore that the sentence in the conclusions beginning with "In this regard, it noted with interest ..." read "In this regard, it noted with appreciation ...". He also suggested that the phrase concerning Order No. 1/99 reflect the original wording of the Committee of Experts which read that the Order "... could provide a statutory basis for ensuring compliance with the Convention in practice ..." (paragraph 7). The experts, who are internationally recognized independent persons, had made an objective assessment in moderate language which should be retained.

In response to several questions, the Chairman clarified that the phrase in the conclusions concerning Order No. 1/99 to which the Government representative referred, used different wording but did not modify the conclusions on the same subject in paragraph 7 of the Committee of Experts' observation, and was entirely compatible with the Experts' meaning. This clarification would figure in the report of the discussion in the Committee's report.

The Employer members proposed to insert a paragraph in the general part of the Committee's report to the Conference to indicate that the Committee had held a special sitting on the issue of forced labour in Myanmar. The proceedings of this sitting should be reproduced in a special Part Three of the report. The Worker members agreed with this proposal.

B. Observation of the Committee on the Application of Standardsa Convention No. 29: Forced Labour, 1930

Observation 2000

(Not reproduced)

C. Documents submitted to the Governing Body (GB.280/6, GB.280/6(Add.1) and GB.280/6(Add.2))

GB.280/6

SIXTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA

Developments concerning the question of the observance by the Government of Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)

Introduction

1. At its 279th Session (November 2000), the Governing Body had before it the report of the ILO technical cooperation mission which visited Myanmar from 20 to 26 October 2000 and subsequent documents provided by the Government. (Endnote 1) The Governing Body concluded that the conditions set out in paragraph 2 of the Conference resolution had not been met and that effect should accordingly be given to the provisions of paragraph 1 of the resolution adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 88th Session (June 2000). The measures mentioned in paragraph 1 of that resolution therefore came into effect on 30 November 2000. (Endnote 2) In the light of the discussion, it was however noted that the Director-General should continue to extend cooperation to the Government of Myanmar in order to promote full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. (Endnote 3)

2. In accordance with the Conference resolution, by letter of 8 December 2000, the Director-General brought subparagraph (b) of operative paragraph 1 of the resolution to the attention of governments of member States of the ILO, and requested that they inform him of any action taken or envisaged in this regard. The Director-General also requested that the recommendations contained in the resolution be brought to the attention of the employers' and workers' organizations in the country so that they might take relevant measures and inform him either directly or through their government. A copy of this letter was also sent to the relevant national organizations of employers and workers.

3. In addition, international employers' and workers' organizations and other non-governmental organizations having consultative status with the ILO were also informed of the Governing Body actions.

4. In accordance with the Conference resolution, by letter of 8 December 2000, the Director-General informed the international organizations referred to in article 12, paragraph 1, of the Constitution of Myanmar's failure to comply with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and called on the relevant bodies of these organizations to reconsider, within their terms of reference and in the light of the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry, any cooperation they might be engaged in with Myanmar and, if appropriate, to cease as soon as possible any activity that could have the effect of directly or indirectly abetting the practice of forced or compulsory labour. (Endnote 4) The Director-General also requested these organizations to inform him of any action taken in this regard by the competent bodies of the organization. In addition, the Director-General has been in close touch with Ambassador Razali Ismail, the UN Secretary-General's special envoy to Myanmar, in connection with his two recent visits to the country on 9-12 October 2000 and 5-9 January 2001. The Office has also discussed the matter with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Mr. Paulo Pinheiro.

5. With regard to subparagraph (d) of operative paragraph 1 of the Conference resolution, the Director-General has after close consultations with the United Nations secretariat set in motion the procedures necessary to have the question of Myanmar's failure to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry placed on the agenda of the July 2001 session of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), seeking the adoption of recommendations directed by ECOSOC or by the General Assembly, or by both, to governments and to other specialized agencies and including requests similar to those contained in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of the Conference resolution.

6. In addition to the information communicated pursuant to the Conference resolution, a substantial amount of information was also received from other sources. This was in large part due to the wide publicity attracted by the coming into effect of the measures contained in the Conference resolution. A number of NGOs and individuals volunteered information to the Office regarding measures taken and other action initiated in support of the Conference resolution, as well as information regarding the current practice of forced labour in Myanmar.

7. Information received on measures taken in regard to the Conference resolution will be set out in four parts: (i) developments as regards the Government of Myanmar; (ii) measures taken by the Organization's constituents; (iii) measures taken by international organizations; (iv) other relevant information received.

Developments as regards the Government of Myanmar

8. Due to early closure of the Governing Body's 279th Session, a letter from the Permanent Mission of Myanmar to the Chairperson of the Governing Body stating its position following the Governing Body's conclusions reached his office too late to be brought to the attention of the Governing Body. This statement is reproduced in Appendix 1 for information.

9. In a letter dated 6 December 2000 to the Chairman of the 279th Session of the Governing Body, the Permanent Representative of the Myanmar Mission reiterated the concerns raised in the letter referred to in the preceding paragraph. The letter also contained an annex entitled "Resumé of the concrete measures taken by the Myanmar Government", which included information on the Government's position prior to the Governing Body's conclusions. This document is reproduced in Appendix 2 for information.

10. In a letter dated 22 December 2000 to the Government of Myanmar, reproduced in Appendix 3, the Director-General informed the Government that he had notified ILO Members and international organizations of the decision of the Governing Body, as contemplated in the relevant paragraph of the resolution, but stressed that he continued to extend cooperation to the Government in order to promote the full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. He expressed the sincere hope that the measures currently in force would soon become unnecessary as a result of the Government's full application of these recommendations.

11. In reply to the Director-General's letter of 22 December 2000, the Government sent a letter dated 11 February 2000, reproduced in Appendix 4, in which it recalled that it had received two technical cooperation missions from the ILO in its efforts to make its domestic legislation fully in line with Convention No. 29. It had put into place a framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures to make forced labour illegal both in law and in practice. However, "... powerful forces in the ILO Governing Body totally ignored the concrete measures taken by Myanmar as well as its demonstrated desire to cooperate with ILO". The letter further stated that despite this, Myanmar was resolute in its endeavours to implement the framework of measures that it had put in place. The Committee for Implementation of Convention No. 29 was holding regular meetings to review the situation. The national monitoring mechanism which had been put in place was also functioning smoothly. There had been a few cases where the latest legislative order had been breached. These cases had been investigated and necessary legal action was taken against the perpetrators. The Government thanked the Director-General for his readiness to extend cooperation to Myanmar, and fully realized that its national efforts would receive better acceptance by its detractors if they involved the ILO. However, until such time that Myanmar received fair and equitable treatment, it would have to itself continue its efforts for the total elimination of the practice of forced labour in Myanmar. The Government gave its assurances that it would continue to take steps to ensure that forced labour was illegal in Myanmar and that the framework of measures put in place would be resolutely implemented.

12. The Director-General responded to this reply by letter dated 1 March 2001, reproduced in Appendix 5 The Director-General will inform the Governing Body of any future developments.

Measures taken by the Organization's constituents

Measures taken by member States

13. By 5 March 2001, responses had been received from 39 member States, as well as a number of national employers' and workers' organizations. A summary of these responses follows. Given the ongoing nature of some of the reported measures, the present report will be completed, as appropriate, with any further relevant information for the International Labour Conference as indicated in paragraph 67 below. As a result of member States forwarding information pursuant to the Conference resolution to national employers' and workers' organizations, a considerable amount of information was received separately from these organizations about actions they had taken in relation to the resolution.

14. In a letter dated 19 January 2001, the Government of the United States indicated that it had worked continuously and with bipartisan support to seek a return to democracy and improvements in human rights, including an end to forced labour, in Myanmar. In this regard, the Government had imposed a series of diplomatic and economic sanctions against Myanmar in recent years, including suspension of economic assistance, downgrading diplomatic representation to chargé level, an arms embargo, suspension of trade benefits under its GSP programme, opposition to support programmes from international financial institutions, restriction on visas for Myanmar individuals involved in the suppression of democracy and human rights, and a ban on US investment in Myanmar. The Government had also supported a number of actions taken by the ILO with regard to forced labour in Myanmar, including the November 2000 finding by the Governing Body that insufficient progress had been made to withhold the measures adopted by the Conference. At the same time, the Government noted that the Myanmar authorities and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi of the National League for Democracy had confirmed that they were engaged in dialogue. The Government hoped that this was a genuine effort to achieve national reconciliation, and that it brought concrete and timely progress towards ending forced labour and other human rights abuses in Myanmar. The Government hoped this process succeeded, but believed that in the absence of significant and measurable progress, ILO Members, including the United States, should be prepared to consider additional measures, including trade sanctions, in response to the article 33 decision of the Conference. The Government stressed that there was no evidence yet before the Governing Body or the Conference that suggested the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had been fully implemented. Finally, the Government expressed continued misgivings regarding an ILO presence in Myanmar.

15. In a letter dated 15 February 2001, the Government of Thailand stated that in order to take measures in compliance with the Conference resolution, on 10 January 2001 the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare had held a meeting of relevant government agencies, workers' and employers' organizations and others, and that the Government could therefore give assurances that no Thai investment in Myanmar contributed, directly or indirectly, to the exaction of any form of forced labour. Every possible effort would be made to discourage the practice of forced labour, should the Government become aware of its existence in any form. In order to resolve this issue effectively and strengthen cooperation with the ILO, agreement had been reached to set up a steering committee in order to monitor and follow up the case.

16. The Governments of Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden and United Kingdom indicated that the matter of how best to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Conference resolution had been discussed with employers' and workers' organizations, among EU Member States and with the European Commission. They shared the international concern at the practice of forced labour in Myanmar, a practice which they feared had not yet ended. The European Community suspended GSP trade privileges in 1997 as a result of this practice. The European Union had also taken a number of other measures over the last four years, set out in its Common Position, in response to the political situation in Myanmar. The Myanmar regime had taken certain steps aimed at ending the practice of forced labour, but it needed to be outlawed legally, ended in practice, and any continuing practitioners punished. The European Union was monitoring the situation closely and, should the authorities in Myanmar fail to take the necessary action in this respect, the European Union stood ready to take further measures. The European Union made clear its concerns regarding forced labour during the visit of its Troika mission to Myanmar in January 2001. It sincerely hoped that contacts would be renewed between the ILO and Myanmar and that an ILO presence might be established in the country in order to verify the definitive end to the practice of forced labour. The Government of Ireland added that it intended to write to any companies with trade or investment links with Myanmar to express its support for the ILO resolution. The Government of Denmark added that its Standing Committee for ILO matters had recommended that Danish enterprises consider their relations with Myanmar. The Government of France added that it had undertaken an exhaustive assessment of its cooperation with and assistance to Myanmar, currently limited to the humanitarian field, in order to ensure that these relations could not in any way perpetuate or extend the practice of forced labour in the country. A census of French companies working in Myanmar was also underway, in order to inform them of the ILO resolution. The Government of Italy added that it had instituted an in-depth review of bilateral relations with Myanmar to ensure that they could not be taken advantage of to perpetuate the system of forced labour in that country. Italian commercial relations with Myanmar had been reduced to a minimum following the deterioration in the political and human rights situation. Between January and October 2000, the most recent period for which figures were available, the total trade with Myanmar had been 32 million euros, and there was no Italian investment in Myanmar, nor was any currently planned. The number of Italian tourists visiting Myanmar between 1999 and 2000 was minor. The Government of the Netherlands added that its policy was neither to encourage Dutch companies to enter into activities in Myanmar nor to discourage them. Total trade amounted to around US$19 million annually. The Government of Sweden added that its relations with Myanmar were of limited extent. Its economic relations were negligible, with imports for the period January-October 2000 standing at around SEK20 million (mostly wooden and textile products) and exports for the same period standing at SEK1.2 million. It was ready to take measures to ensure that the country's trade with Myanmar did not support the system of forced labour. As one measure, it would officially inform Swedish importers of the Conference resolution and the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

17. In a communication dated 28 February 2001, the Government of Switzerland stated that due to lack of progress in democratization in Myanmar and due to systematic violation of human rights (including workers' rights), it had passed a law on 2 October 2000 instituting measures against Myanmar. This law, a copy of which was provided, imposed an arms embargo and prohibited the export to Myanmar of equipment that could be used for the purposes of internal repression. In addition, members of the Government of Myanmar and their families were subject to a freeze of their assets in Switzerland and were prohibited from entry into or transit through Switzerland. Consultations had established that relations between Switzerland and Myanmar were minor, with imports over the period January to November 2000 standing at Sw.frs.2.2 million and exports at Sw.frs.3.5 million. The number of Swiss tourists visiting Myanmar was also minor. In addition, the Government pointed out that the international "Clean Clothes" campaign had particularly targeted an underwear company based in Switzerland. The Swiss tripartite consultation commission, while welcoming recent legal measures taken by the Government of Myanmar, hoped that these would be translated into action. It further hoped that Myanmar would accept a permanent ILO presence, which would be able to verify the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, and in this way that a normalization of relations between Myanmar and the international community might be facilitated. Taking into account the fact that existing bilateral economic relations were minor, and given the initial steps taken by the Government of Myanmar towards a political opening, it was not envisaged for the moment that the Government would take additional measures against Myanmar.

18. In a communication dated 26 January 2001, the Government of Norway confirmed its continued support for the EU's Common Position on Myanmar. It did not provide humanitarian assistance to organizations or activities that contributed in any way to forced labour in Myanmar. Half of the Norwegian assistance related to Myanmar was applied to human rights and democracy measures. In 1998 the Government issued a call, which remained in effect, to Norwegian firms not to trade with Myanmar. Current trade with Myanmar was marginal. In December 2000 the Government had met with the Norwegian Federation of Trade Unions to discuss the question of a possible boycott.

19. In a communication dated 1 March 2001, the Government of Australia stated that it had conducted a review of relations with Myanmar, which had established that no Australian government-funded aid programmes or activities supported or perpetuated the practice of forced labour. The Government was unaware of any Australian firms engaging in activities in Myanmar which were linked with forced labour, but its embassy in the country had advised Australian companies known to be working or investing there of its review and recommended that they ensure their compliance with the Conference resolution. In addition, the Australian Government had taken constructive steps in other areas to encourage the Myanmar authorities to eliminate forced labour. It had funded a series of human rights training workshops in Yangon in 2000 for some 50 middle-level officials, one of which was an "international law overview" during which participants openly discussed sensitive issues including the issue of forced labour.

20. The Governments of Austria, Croatia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, Trinidad and Tobago and Ukraine stated that they had communicated the details of the Conference resolution to their employers' and workers' organizations, but did not have any further information to provide at this stage.

21. The Governments of Chile, Cuba, Czech Republic, Iceland, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mali, Morocco, Panama, Philippines, Romania, Singapore, Suriname and Togo stated that they had no relations with Myanmar that could be taken advantage of to perpetuate or extend the practice of forced or compulsory labour referred to by the Commission of Inquiry. The Government of Singapore also reiterated that the adoption of promotional measures rather than sanctions would be more appropriate and effective in addressing the issue of forced labour in Myanmar. The Government of the Czech Republic also stated that it had joined the EU Common Position on Myanmar, adopted in 1996 and subsequently extended. It had also joined the EU embargo on weapons, ammunition and military equipment export to Myanmar, had cancelled aid which was not of a clear humanitarian character as well as development aid programmes. Bilateral relations were also suspended, including those of social partners. The Government of Malaysia also stated that it would continue, along with other ASEAN members, to urge the Myanmar authorities to implement measures that would bring an end to all practices described as forced labour by the Commission of Inquiry. It looked forward to an amicable solution which would address the issue effectively.

Measures taken by national employers' and workers' organizations

22. The Confederation of Free Trade Unions of the Slovak Republic noted that the Slovak Republic followed the EU position on Myanmar. The Slovak Republic did not maintain any bilateral political relations with Myanmar, but did maintain trade contacts within the EU restrictions. There was not thought to be any investment in Myanmar by Slovak enterprises, but a review of the type of commodities imported from Myanmar to the Slovak Republic showed that the majority belonged to sectors which were subject to violation of fundamental labour rights. Attached to the letter was a list of Slovak enterprises exporting to and importing from Myanmar as well as a breakdown of this trade by sector and whether it was likely to involve forced labour.

23. In a communication dated 20 February 2001, the Confédération Générale du Travail Force Ouvrière indicated that it had requested the French Government to provide it with a list of French companies having relations with Myanmar as well as details and amount of business dealings with that country. In addition, the organization had written to a certain French company involved in hotels and tourism to request them to reconsider their activities in Myanmar. The Confederation was not satisfied with the company's response that its presence would have positive effects. Moreover, the Confederation had repeatedly pressed the French Government to become involved in the question of the presence in Myanmar of a certain French multinational company. The Confederation had also requested that a special session of the consultation commission for ILO matters be held, dedicated exclusively to the question of Myanmar.

24. Communications from Norwegian employers' and workers' organizations were forwarded by the Government of Norway. The Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions stated that together with other Norwegian voluntary organizations it had played an active part in trying to bring about a statutory Norwegian economic boycott of Myanmar. The Confederation of Vocational Unions indicated that it strongly urged the Government to implement such a boycott. The Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry welcomed the Government's requests for abstention from economic cooperation with Myanmar and would encourage member enterprises to comply with this request. In a separate communication, the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions provided translations of correspondence between itself and the Government of Norway regarding the Confederation's call for a Norwegian economic boycott of Myanmar.

25. The Swedish Trade Union Confederation indicated that it had requested the Swedish Government to take additional measures against Myanmar, including a ban on investments and on the import of products from Myanmar. Its affiliated national unions would undertake a review to ensure that no Swedish companies or authorities were economically active in Myanmar, including imports, exports, investment and trade. The organization also requested that Sweden, as holder of the EU presidency, should seek a decision by the EU Council of Ministers banning investments by all companies based in the European Union and banning imports of all products originating in Myanmar.

26. Information from German workers' organizations was forwarded by the Government of Germany. A report on the elimination of forced labour in Myanmar by the German Confederation of Trade Unions discussed the background to the case and noted that most forms of economic relations with Myanmar made at least some use of infrastructure built with forced labour. All German companies were advised to take a critical look at their economic ties to business partners in Myanmar. The works councils of enterprises that had economic relations with Myanmar should request management for detailed information about the nature of these ties, and urge management to cut any ties which could not be maintained without making use of infrastructure constructed using forced labour. Such requests were covered by paragraph 80 of the Works Constitution Act, since such an enterprise would be party to what the international community considered a grave violation of the law. A letter to the Government of Germany from the German Union of Salaried Employees supported any action the Government could take regarding the situation in Myanmar, including representations to the Government of Myanmar via its embassy.

27. The Union Syndicale Suisse provided information on the extent of trade relations between Myanmar and Switzerland, set out the details of the law passed by the Government of Switzerland against Myanmar on 2 October 2000, and noted that the Swiss-based textile company had been targeted by the "Clean Clothes" campaign. Similar information was provided by the Government of Switzerland and is set out in more detail in paragraph 17 above.

28. Information from the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) was forwarded by the Government of the United Kingdom. In a letter dated 8 February 2001 to the Government of the United Kingdom, the Confederation indicated that its member companies had had the Government's policy towards Myanmar brought to their attention. The CBI was one of the strongest proponents of tough action against Myanmar and would continue to support the ILO action.

29. The Government of Finland forwarded information from the Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers. The Confederation indicated that it did not have any relations with Myanmar or business organizations there. It supported the EU position and informed its membership (constituting 85 per cent of Finnish industry) on a regular basis about the ILO's recommendations. Finnish enterprises did not operate in Myanmar nor have industrial investments or networks there. Trade between Finland and Myanmar was minor, with exports over the period January-November 2000 standing at 248,000 euros and imports over the same period standing at 2 million euros (mostly clothing).

30. The Barbados Workers' Union and the National Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Romania indicated that they had no relations with Myanmar that could be taken advantage of to perpetuate or extend the practice of forced or compulsory labour referred to by the Commission of Inquiry.

31. The International Organisation of Employers informed all its member federations of the November Governing Body debate and highlighted the employers' position, clarified the meaning of the resolution and accompanying measures and informed them that one of the measures would be to ask constituents to review their relations with Myanmar. Employers have been involved in discussions with governments at national level on the country response to the resolution.

Measures taken by international organizations

32. By 5 March 2001, responses had been received from 20 international organizations. These came from the secretariats of these organizations, and no information was provided at this stage about any discussions in the relevant bodies of these organizations regarding the reconsidering of any cooperation they may be engaged in with the member concerned.

33. The United Nations Secretary-General indicated that the matter had been brought to the attention of all offices concerned in the United Nations. The United Nations and its programmes and funds could not be involved in any activities that might have the effect of directly or indirectly abetting the practice of forced or compulsory labour as this would be contrary to Article 1 of the United Nations Charter.

34. The European Commission stated that it strongly supported the significant position the ILO had taken on Myanmar, and had consequently engaged in discussions with the European Union Member States on the implementation of the terms of the Conference resolution. Action had already been taken in 1997 following an investigation into allegations by European trade union organizations of forced labour in Myanmar. As a result, Myanmar's access to the European Union's Generalised System of Preferences had been removed. The European Union had also taken a number of other measures over the last four years which were set out in its Common Position, first adopted in 1996 and strengthened on a number of occasions since. The Commission considered that the authorities of Myanmar needed to take rapid steps to ensure full compliance with ILO recommendations on the elimination of forced labour. The Commission, in common with the Member States of the European Union, was monitoring the situation closely and, should the authorities fail to take the necessary steps, the Commission would be ready to propose further measures to be decided by the Council, including possible measures in the field of trade and investment relations.

35. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) indicated that it had made an assessment of its activities in Myanmar and concluded that there were no activities which might be considered as directly or indirectly abetting the practice of forced labour. Attached to the communication was a "note on UNHCR's activities in Myanmar and compulsory labour", which described the nature of UNHCR's operations in Myanmar in relation to each of its six areas of intervention and discussed any impact this assistance might have on the practice of forced labour. This note is reproduced in Appendix 9.

36. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) indicated that its country office in Myanmar had recently carried out a thorough review of its project activities in Myanmar in the context of the Conference resolution and had confirmed that there were no UNDP-funded activities which directly or indirectly supported the practice of forced or compulsory labour. The UNDP would continue to monitor this situation very closely during the implementation of its project activities. Attached to the communication was a "note on UNDP's activities in Myanmar in the context of the ILO resolution", which gave details of UNDP's assistance to Myanmar and discussed any impact this assistance might have on the practice of forced labour. This note is reproduced in Appendix 10.

37. The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) indicated that it had evaluated the impact that its activities might have on forced labour and concluded that by design and practice its programme in Myanmar neither directly nor indirectly abetted the practice of forced labour. A new country programme had just taken effect and during development great care had been taken to avoid association with parties involved in the practice of forced labour. Community participation in its projects was strictly on a volunteer basis, and at all levels, all possible precautions were taken to prevent support of forced labour in the organization's operations.

38. UNAIDS indicated that with respect to its activities in Myanmar its co-sponsors had established close working relationships with the Ministry of Health as well as international, national and local non-government organizations. It had reviewed the modalities of its work in light of operative paragraph 1 of the Conference resolution and had no reason to believe that the Ministry of Health had violated this provision. It also noted that all UN agencies operating in Myanmar had their programmes examined by their respective Boards to ensure adherence to international conventions. Its partnerships with international NGOs had been consistently guided by protocols widely recognized in the humanitarian field. In addition, those organizations were signatories to a code of conduct that ensured a high level of ethical programming and operations.

39. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) indicated that although Myanmar was one of the priority countries under its resource allocation programme, it had not yet supported a full-scale country programme due largely to the prevailing political situation. It allocated less than $1 million annually for reproductive health activities. No UNPFA-funded activities benefited from or contributed to any form of forced labour, be it directly or indirectly.

40. The World Food Programme (WFP) stated that it operated exclusively in the Northern Rakhine State of Myanmar, which was a food deficit area. It had been working in the area, in coordination with UNHCR, since 1994 in such activities as relief, food for education, and food for community asset creation (FCAC). Workers received a daily food ration of 3.5 kg of rice for a family of five. FCAC activities were community based and voluntary, and mainly involved the building of irrigation dams, village access roads and the upgrading of township roads.

41. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) stated that it conducted technical cooperation activities in Myanmar which were for the safety and efficiency of civil aviation in the country and to facilitate safe movement of international civil aviation overflying the airspace of Myanmar. Its ongoing technical cooperation activities in this regard were related to the procurement of essential communication and navigation equipment and for the enhancement of capabilities with respect to the overseeing of flight safety. Technical assistance had also been offered to the Department of Civil Aviation of Myanmar to upgrade the capability of the Civil Aviation Training Centre and for the expansion of Hanthawadi International Airport at Yangon. The ICAO stressed that its technical cooperation activities in Myanmar did not, to its knowledge, directly or indirectly abet the practice of forced or compulsory labour.

42. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) indicated that Myanmar had been chosen to participate in four regional projects for Asia, which were still ongoing. These projects promoted ship inspections by port States, safety of non-convention ships, training for maritime instructors and examiners and port State control officers. In addition, some IMO courses and publications had been provided to Myanmar in 2000, following a needs assessment of the maritime training institutes in the country. Accordingly, the IMO's technical assistance in improving the competency and skills of maritime personnel did not have the effect of directly or indirectly abetting the practice of forced or compulsory labour in Myanmar.

43. The World Trade Organization (WTO) indicated that the matter would be followed up in the WTO with the Chairperson of the General Council. WTO rules did not afford the secretariat authority to adopt an independent line of action in matters such as these. WTO members had to decide on any course of action.

44. The Universal Postal Union (UPU) stated that it had looked into the matter and was not aware of any practice of forced or compulsory labour in the postal sector in Myanmar. If there were at all any such practice then it would most likely exist in remote rural areas. Myanmar was not a member of the UPU's elective bodies and the UPU had a rather limited cooperation with Myanmar at the official ministerial level. It was aware, however, that postal services were still under the direct supervision of the Myanmar Government, which meant that fundamental human rights were more likely to be fully observed in this sector. It therefore felt that there were no legal or other reasons for ceasing any official postal relations with Myanmar.

45. The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) stated that since Myanmar did not have a parliament, no contacts were maintained with the authorities in the country. The only dealings with Myanmar were in the context of the IPU's Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians which since 1991 had examined the cases of members of the Myanmar Parliament who were selected in 1990 and were to date prevented from exercising the mandate that was entrusted to them, in particular the cases of those who were in detention and could therefore be subject to forced labour. The IPU provided the text of its most recent resolution on Myanmar, adopted in October 2000, which "called again on its member parliaments to press for the respect of democratic principles in Myanmar and to show their solidarity with their elected colleagues from the Pyithu Hluttaw (Myanmar Parliament) by whatever means they deemed appropriate ...".

46. The African Development Bank Group, the International Telecommunication Union, the Nordic Council, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Pan American Health Organization, and the Arab Labour Organization stated that they had no relations with Myanmar that could be taken advantage of to perpetuate or extend the practice of forced or compulsory labour referred to by the Commission of Inquiry. The Asian Development Bank stated that it presently had no active operations in Myanmar and that the latest loan dated back to 1987 and the latest technical assistance to 1988.

Other relevant information received

Correspondence between the Government of Myanmar and the United Nations

47. The Office received from the United Nations copies of correspondence between the Government of Myanmar and the United Nations Secretary-General. In a communication dated 8 January 2001 the Government of Myanmar informed the Secretary-General of certain action that it had taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and stated that the decision of the Governing Body was "a grave injustice". The Government also considered that the measures contained in the Conference resolution calling on other international organizations to "impose sanctions" against Myanmar "clearly overstepp(ed) the constitutional mandate of the ILO". The Government called on the Secretary-General in his role as the Chief Executive of the entire UN system to use his good offices to prevent these measures being taken. The Government was greatly concerned that the outcome from such extreme measures would set a dangerous precedent for the entire UN system. The Secretary-General responded in a letter dated 24 January 2001, noting that the Conference resolution was a decision of an inter-governmental body and that the ILO Director-General was mandated to implement it. The Secretary-General also suggested that the Government might wish to consider writing to the ILO Director-General expressing its readiness to receive a mission to assess and verify the progress made on the forced labour issue before the next meeting of the Governing Body.

Communications from groups in Myanmar regarding the Governing Body conclusions

48. An "open letter regarding ILO decision on Myanmar" dated 29 November 2000 from "Workers of Myanmar" was received by the Director-General. The letter stated that it was from 18 million workers employed by public and private enterprises. The workers believed that the Governing Body's conclusions would have a direct and immediate negative impact on the workforce. The Government of Myanmar had passed strong penal laws to prohibit forced labour and the workers believed that the ILO had already succeeded in bringing better working conditions for the workers in Myanmar. The workers therefore petitioned the ILO to reconsider its actions and maintain a constructive partnership with Myanmar.

49. An open letter of the same title and same date was also received from the "International Business Community in Myanmar". The letter stated that the International Business Community was deeply disappointed by the Governing Body's conclusions. The wide range of businesses it represented employed a total of over half a million workers in Myanmar, and indirectly provided employment to many more. It suggested that the "sanctions" would only hurt the majority of Myanmar workers, rather than helping them. The ILO had secured the issuance by the Myanmar authorities of a number of orders making forced labour illegal and the ILO should remain constructively engaged with Myanmar to review compliance with these orders. It urged the ILO member States and workers' and employers' organizations to carefully reconsider their position, as it was concerned for the real welfare of workers in Myanmar. It also urged the Government of Myanmar to maintain a positive dialogue with the ILO.

Information on action taken in support of the Conference resolution

50. The Office received copies of letters from a number of national workers' organizations to their governments regarding the Conference resolution.

51. The National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers' Union of Canada (CAW) called on the Canadian Government to act upon the Conference resolution without delay, beginning with an immediate halt to the activities of all Canadian commercial and economic interests in Myanmar, including a ban on imports from that country, pending a comprehensive review. Such a review had to prove unequivocally that these activities did not benefit in any way, or encourage in any form, the practice of forced labour. The Confédération des syndicats nationaux requested information from the Canadian Government regarding the mechanisms set up by the Government to ensure that Myanmar implemented the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, and insisted that Canada took all means at its disposal to ensure the implementation of these recommendations. The Canadian Labour Congress communicated to the Canadian Government the text of a statement on Myanmar to be adopted by its Executive Committee and Council. The Congress would continue to monitor Canadian investment directly or indirectly connected to forced labour in Myanmar. The Congress was encouraging its members to boycott products imported from Myanmar. The Canadian Government should now take a number of concrete steps regarding Myanmar, including researching, monitoring and reporting on investments and imports, reviewing the Special Economic Measures Act to allow for concrete and specific measures to be taken, and convening a meeting, with the participation of the Congress, of the Government's Working Group on Corporate Social Responsibility to jointly develop steps to address the issue.

52. The Centrale des Syndicats des Travailleurs du Rwanda and the Bangladesh Jatio Sramik League urged their respective governments to take action with regard to the Conference resolution.

53. The Lanka Jathika Estate Workers' Union recommended that the Sri Lankan Government take up the matter of the Conference resolution with the Government of Myanmar and urge it to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, suggested that the leading government trade union, possibly with the assistance of the Labour Ministry, coordinate a joint representation of all unions to the Government of Myanmar, and noted that a similar protest and appeal by the Employers' Federation would be appropriate.

54. The Office also received information from two international workers' organizations regarding action taken in support of the Conference resolution.

55. In a communication dated 26 January 2001, Union Network International (UNI) transmitted the report of a joint mission to the Thai-Myanmar border that it had conducted with the ICFTU in January 2001. The mission had visited two sites on the border and met with numerous refugees and trade union activists operating in Mon State and Karen State. The persons met noted that the Conference resolution and resulting international pressure had been effective to a certain extent, but there was continuing use of forced labour or payments of money having to be made in lieu of force labour. There were numerous killings and destruction of paddy fields and villages causing thousands to be displaced, particularly in Karen State. The majority of those displaced were starving and suffering from disease. All persons that the mission met, including hundreds of refugees, supported the imposition of more comprehensive sanctions on Myanmar by the international community. While they accepted that ordinary people would suffer as a consequence of sanctions, they were of the strong opinion that it was necessary to force the Myanmar authorities to restore democracy and end the use of forced labour. The mission recommended that trade unions should continue to provide moral and financial support to the Federation of Trade Unions of Burma (FTUB), that UNI should work closely with all its affiliates in the finance sector to develop a coordinated strategy to discourage any investments or provision of financial services to business related to Myanmar, that UNI might consider working closely with its affiliates in other strategic sectors to put further economic pressure on the Myanmar authorities, that UNI would provide training and assistance to the FTUB and other unions, as well as humanitarian assistance for displaced civilians and refugees, and that the ICFTU/Global Unions Conference on Myanmar to be held in Tokyo from 28 February to 1 March 2001 would be a timely opportunity to express commitment to the struggle for the restoration of democracy and respect for human rights and trade union rights in Myanmar.

56. A communication dated 16 February 2001 from the ICFTU provided abundant information regarding the current practice of forced labour in Myanmar (dealt with in the following section of this document), as well as information on action taken by the ICFTU in support of the Conference resolution. As regards action taken, the ICFTU indicated that it had sought to review relations maintained with Myanmar by its constituents to determine which of these relations might have the effect of aiding Myanmar to perpetuate the system of forced labour. However, to the best of its knowledge neither the ICFTU, the international trade secretariats, their regional organizations, nor any of their affiliates maintained any relation with the Myanmar regime. Any relationship which they may have with Myanmar was limited exclusively to the promotion of workers' fundamental and other human rights. In January 2001, the ICFTU issued a circular to all its 221 affiliated national union centres in 148 countries, its regional organizations, all its executive board members and to the international trade secretariats, requesting them to take a number of steps with respect to the Conference resolution. These steps included requesting their respective governments and national employers' organizations to provide a complete list of enterprises based in their respective countries maintaining trade relations with Myanmar, and requesting their respective governments to provide comprehensive information about the total value of that country's trade with Myanmar, taking into account a list of products, provided by the ICFTU, production of which might involve forced labour. A briefing paper appended to the circular discussed far-reaching measures, including trade and investment bans, on the grounds that economic engagement with Myanmar supported the military regime.

57. The ICFTU communication also provided information on other steps taken by it and its affiliates. Prior to the departure of the recent EU delegation to Myanmar, the ICFTU had briefed one of the members of the delegation on its views. An ICFTU affiliate, LO-Sweden, had also briefed its own Government which, as holder of the rotating EU Presidency, led the delegation. In February 2001 the ICFTU had given its views to separate meetings of European NGOs and the Development Committee of the European Parliament. A number of ICFTU affiliates had reported taking various steps in support of the Conference resolution, including pressing their respective governments to strengthen their position against Myanmar (such as by the adoption of trade and investment bans), and calling for consumer boycotts of brands produced in Myanmar or made by companies having economic relations with Myanmar. A number of other initiatives were also taken at the regional or subregional level.

58. The ICFTU also noted in its communication that several EU governments remained reluctant to contemplate a strengthening of the EU Common Position when it is reviewed in April 2001, and that several governments seemed to be hoping for a notable improvement in the situation as a result of the "secret dialogue" between the Government of Myanmar and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. These governments seemed to ignore the fact that similar talks in the past had yielded no result and that opposition members, who should never have been arrested in the first place, were often released shortly prior to important diplomatic visits. Some analysts believed that the ILO measures had played an important role in bringing about a dialogue between the Government and the National League for Democracy, and thus any hesitation in implementing the measures at this time might well jeopardize the talks.

59. The ICFTU noted that a comprehensive union strategy on Myanmar would be discussed at a conference to be held in Tokyo at the end of February. The Office was represented at this conference, which brought together trade unionists and international trade secretariats from across the Asia-Pacific regions, as well as from Europe and the United States. The Federation of Trade Unions of Burma (FTUB) was also represented. The conference adopted a Declaration, as well as a Plan of Action which is reproduced in Appendix 11.

Information regarding the current practice of forced labour in Myanmar

60. A considerable amount of information was also received from a number of international workers' organizations and other non-governmental organizations regarding the current practice of forced labour in Myanmar. The information concerning actual practice since November 2000 is briefly summarized below. (Endnote 5)

61. In its communication dated 26 January 2001, Union Network International indicated that, according to persons met by its joint mission, the Conference resolution and resulting international pressure had been effective to a certain extent, for example in helping to bring about the dialogue between the Myanmar authorities and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. There was, however, continuing use of forced labour or payments of money having to be made in lieu of forced labour.

62. In its communication dated 16 February 2001, the ICFTU provided extensive information regarding the current practice of forced labour in Myanmar. The ICFTU noted that the military junta had not taken any action aimed at genuinely curbing, let alone eliminating, forced labour. Rather, military and administration officials at every level had taken action aimed at hiding the extent and nature of forced labour imposed on the civilian population, at weakening or nullifying the effects of any orders preventing forced labour that might have been issued by superior levels, and at preventing and countering, through propaganda, disinformation and deception, the measures foreseen by the Conference resolution. This action included a massive campaign of letter-writing and petition signing, by so-called "representative workers". Referring to the open letter discussed in paragraph 47 above, the ICFTU considered that this letter was part of a campaign by the Government to counter the Conference resolution.

63. Appended to the ICFTU communication were 21 documents providing over 300 pages of detailed information on the recent practice of forced labour in Myanmar. According to the ICFTU, this information showed that in practice forced labour had continued unabated. The information included detailed testimonies, reports and photographs of forced labour in various areas. On the basis of one of these reports alone, the ICFTU believed that at least 80,000 individuals, including women, children and elderly persons, from four districts of Karen State were forced to perform labour during the period November 2000 to January 2001. Two army officers were named in the report as having ordered and organised forced labour on road construction.

64. An essential part of the ICFTU submission consisted of translations, as well as many copies of originals, of orders demanding forced labour issued by the military or paramilitary groups under its control, as well as the local administration and the Myanmar Police Force. The submission contained over 500 such orders issued after May 1999, including many that had been issued since November 2000. These orders are similar in style, form and content to the orders already examined by the Commission of Inquiry and the regular ILO supervisory mechanisms and found to be authentic.

65. Details of a large number of specific instances of forced labour were contained in the ICFTU submission, relating to portering for regular patrols and military operations, the construction of roads, bridges and fences, the construction and servicing army camps, including the provision of building materials for these camps, the provision of transport for the military, the collection of firewood for use by army camps or in army-owned brick kilns, work in army-owned rice plantations, and work as unarmed sentries or messengers for the military. One order from an army battalion informed village heads that porters and bullock carts would only be requisitioned for use on military operations, and not for administrative purposes, but in general the pattern of forced labour demands appeared to be essentially unchanged from the practice reported by the Commission of Inquiry. The large number of different military units and other authorities issuing demands for forced labour suggested that the practice remained widespread.

66. A document prepared by the Federation of Trade Unions of Burma, and contained in the ICFTU submission, indicated that a number of means had been used by the authorities to cover up their use of forced labour. These included issuing orders for villagers to attend meetings at the army camp, where they were requisitioned for forced labour, rather than issuing explicit orders for forced labour; issuing undated, unsigned and unstamped orders; demanding that written orders were returned to the issuing army personnel; using civilian authorities to requisition labour on behalf of the military; and arbitrarily arresting young, healthy persons, who after a few days in prison would be sent to work as porters for the military, dressed in used army uniforms (but who could be recognized as porters as they were barefoot).

Concluding comments

67. In the light of the above, and in accordance with paragraph 1(a) of the Conference resolution, the question of the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations and of the application of Convention No. 29 by Myanmar will be discussed by the 89th Session of the International Labour Conference, at a sitting of the Committee on the Application of Standards specially set aside for the purpose. In this connection, the Governing Body may wish to request the Director-General to transmit to the Conference Committee the present report together with the record of its consideration, as well as any further information of relevance for its discussion. The Conference Committee will have before it the report of the CEACR together with any other relevant information.

Geneva, 9 March 2001.

Appendix 1

Statement by His Excellency U Mya Than, Leader of the Myanmar Observer Delegation at the Plenary of the 279th session of the ILO Governing Body after the adoption of the decision on the situation of Myanmar (Endnote 6) (Geneva, 16 November 2000)

Mr. Chairman,

Today is indeed a sad and solemn day for the ILO. It will go down in the history of the ILO as the most deplorable day for this Organization.

Today Myanmar is singled out for punitive action. Tomorrow it may be another developing country. As all of us are aware, judgement of observance or non-observance of labour standards are, more often than not, subjective and arbitrary and, in some instances, even politically-motivated.

In the case of Myanmar, the problem arose from the arbitrary judgement, based on misinformation. This misinformation emanates from elements, opposed to the Myanmar Government, insurgent groups and self-proclaimed workers' organizations which are more politically-motivated than dedicated to promoting the interests of workers. One such dubious workers' organization has only a handful of members, who represent no one but themselves.

Mr. Chairman,

It is the sadder and the more deplorable, because the proponents of the draft decision to apply sanctions to Myanmar completely ignore the concrete and positive measures, taken by the Myanmar Government.

They turn a blind eye to the comprehensive, concrete and solid framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures put in place in Myanmar and the offer by the Myanmar Government to receive an ILO representative, based in the ILO Regional Office in Bangkok or in Geneva, to assist the national supervisory mechanism in the implementation of the ILC's recommendation.

Notwithstanding the more prudent approach, advocated by many of its Member States, the Governing Body has chosen the path of confrontation and coercion by applying sanctions under Article 33. The ASEAN Member States, together with like-minded countries, have expressed reservations against the action taken by the Governing Body. Myanmar appreciates the principled stands, taken by those countries that Article 33 of the ILO Constitution should never be invoked and that, sanctions should not be applied to a Member State.

Mr. Chairman,

It is most regrettable that a drastic decision, contrary to what many members believe in and uphold, was taken by the Governing Body. It is obvious that this unwarranted and unjustified action by the Governing Body is aimed at exerting pressure on Myanmar.

The decision, just taken by the Governing Body, will no doubt place the credibility, the integrity and the reputation of the Governing Body and the ILO in question. It penalizes a Member State which has been voluntarily cooperating with the ILO and has put in place the comprehensive, concrete and solid framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures in accordance with the ILC's resolution.

This action by the Governing Body is most unfair, most unreasonable and most unjust.

This decision is totally unacceptable to my delegation.

For these reasons, my delegation totally and categorically rejects the decision and dissociates itself from it and any activities and effects connected with it.

As such, Myanmar will cease to cooperate with the International Labour Organization in relation to the ILO Convention 29 and any activity connected with it.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Appendix 2

Resumé of the concrete measures taken by the Myanmar Government (Endnote 7)

-- Since the 88th Session of the ILC which adopted the resolution on Myanmar, the following steps have been taken to put in place a framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures to comply with the ILC resolution.

-- Initially, intensive consultations were made among all departments and agencies concerned regarding the measures needed to fulfil the conclusions of the report of the Technical Cooperation Mission (TCM) and the ILC resolution.

-- An independent study group headed by Baron Walter von Marschall, former Ambassador of FRG to Myanmar was invited to have an independent opinion of what constitutes the satisfactory measures regarding the framework that the LC resolution referred to. The group visited Myanmar from 25 September to 6 October, 2000 and gave various options which in their opinion would satisfy the required measures mentioned in the ILC resolution.

-- In addition, at the invitation of the Government of Myanmar, a five-member Technical Cooperation Mission (TCM) visited Myanmar from 20 to 26 October, 2000. Based on the advices and suggestions of the TCM, a new legislative order was issued on 27 October 2000. The order made it clear that the requisition of forced labour or involuntary services is illegal and is an offence under the existing laws of the Union of Myanmar. It also spells out the consequences for the breach of the legislative order by explicitly spelling out that any one, including the members of the armed forces shall have action taken against him under Section 374 of the Penal Code or any other existing laws. In the words of the TCM, this order has general applicability.

-- This Order was supplemented by a directive from the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), the highest organ of state power in Myanmar. The SPDC is the legislative authority, and as the TCM has pointed out, the highest military authority and the highest civilian authority in the country. This document, TCM pointed out "provides confirmation that there is political will at the highest level to reach a solution".

-- Apart from this legislative measure, concrete and detailed framework of administrative and executive measures have been instituted.

-- This consists of the Ministerial Committee headed by the Minister of Labour and the Implementation Committee on Convention 29 as well as a national supervisory mechanism for monitoring compliance.

-- Myanmar has thus put in place a concrete, comprehensive and solid framework of legislative, administrative and executive measures to ensure that there is no forced labour both in law and in practice.

-- With regard to the ILO presence, Myanmar is also willing to accept an ILO representative, either based in the Regional Office in Bangkok or based in Geneva, to observe, assess or assist the national supervisory mechanism in the implementation of Convention 29. The representative of ILO will be given full cooperation to effectively carry out his responsibilities. The representative will enjoy, for these purposes and for the duration of his mission, the same legal protection and status accorded to officials of comparable rank in the United Nations. The representative, either based in the ILO Regional Office in Bangkok or in Geneva, may make frequent visits to Myanmar, as the need arises.

-- In view of this concrete, comprehensive and solid framework of legislative and executive measures and Myanmar's willingness to address the issue of the ILO presence, the actions envisaged by the ILC are no longer required and necessary. The Members of the Governing Body ought to take the necessary decision so that the measures envisaged by the ILC will not come into effect on 30 November 2000.

Appendix 3

Communication dated 22 December 2000 from the Director-General to the Minister for Labour of the Government of Myanmar

Dear Mr. Minister,

I write concerning the action taken by the Governing Body on 16 November, at its 278th Session, with respect to the effect given by the Government of Myanmar to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry concerning the application of Convention No. 29. The Governing Body had before it on this occasion the report of the second ILO technical cooperation mission to Myanmar, which visited your country from 20 to 26 October.

While some of the positive developments reflected in the report of the technical cooperation mission and in subsequent documents provided by the authorities were acknowledged, the Governing Body was, as you know, not satisfied, that the conditions for the non-implementation of the measures listed in paragraph 1 of the Conference resolution had been met. These measures are taking effect on 30 November, and I have notified ILO Members and international organizations concerned accordingly, as contemplated in the relevant paragraph of the resolution.

At the same time, the strong sense of the Governing Body was, as noted by the Chair, that the Director-General should continue to extend cooperation to the Government of Myanmar in order to promote the full implementation by that Government of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. This conclusion is indeed in line with the mandate I have received from the Conference itself.

The Governing Body debate underlined once more that the ILO's objective has always been, and remains, the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. It is thus my sincere hope that the measures now in force will soon become unnecessary as a result of your Government's full application of these recommendations.

In that connection, I have noted that, according to a statement issued shortly after the debate by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Myanmar intends to adhere to and implement the positive measures taken at the end of the technical cooperation mission visit. Let me assure you that, for its part, the Office stands ready to extend its cooperation for the purposes of ensuring the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in such a way that positive and credible developments could already be reported to the Governing Body at its next session.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Juan Somavia.

Appendix 4

Communication dated 11 February 2001 from the Government of Myanmar to the Director-General forwarded by the Permanent Mission of Myanmar

Excellency,

I received your letter of 22 December 2000 in which you were kind enough to inform that your office stands ready to extend cooperation to Myanmar.

Myanmar had received two Technical Cooperation Missions from ILO in our efforts to make our domestic legislation fully in line with Convention 29. With the assistance of the Technical Cooperation Mission which visited Myanmar from 20 to 26 October 2000, we had put in place a framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures to make forced labour illegal both in law and in practice. But powerful forces in the ILO Governing Body totally ignored the concrete measures taken by Myanmar as well as its demonstrated desire to cooperate with ILO. I regret to say that the way things were conducted at the 279th Session of the Governing Body was a grave travesty of the rules of procedure of the ILO. As a result, the proposal put forward by Malaysia on behalf of ASEAN countries, supported by India and China, to defer Implementation of the measures in ILC resolution on Myanmar was not put to a vote. The Governing Body's discussions on the matter, therefore, ended inconclusively. This has led to the entry into force of the measures envisaged in the ILC resolution. This is a great injustice on Myanmar, which had in good faith implemented its obligations under Convention 29.

However, we are resolute in our endeavours to implement the framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures which we have put in place. The Committee for implementation of Convention 29 is holding its regular meetings to review the situation. The national monitoring mechanism which we have put in place is also functioning smoothly. There had been a few cases where the latest legislative order was breached. These cases were investigated and necessary legal action was taken against the perpetrators.

I wish to thank you for your readiness to extend cooperation to Myanmar. I fully realize that our national efforts that involved ILO would receive better acceptance by our detractors.

However, under the present circumstances, until such time that Myanmar receives fair and equitable treatment that must necessarily be accorded to all members of the ILO, we must ourselves continue our national efforts for the total elimination of practice of force labour in Myanmar.

I wish to assure you that we will continue to take steps to ensure that forced labour is illegal in Myanmar both in law and in practice. I also wish to assure that we will resolutely implement the framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures we have put in place.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Major General Tin Ngwe,

Minister for Labour,

Union of Myanmar.

Appendix 5

Communication dated 1 March 2001 from the Director-General to the Minister for Labour of the Government of Myanmar

Dear Mr. Minister,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 11 February 2001 in reply to mine of 22 December 2000, and would like to offer the following comments.

As regards the second paragraph of your letter, I can assure you that your views, as well as the text of the statement which your Ambassador intended to make and which reached the Chairman's Office after the closure of the session, will be reflected appropriately in the documentation before the next session of the Governing Body.

I have taken note of your statement that Myanmar is "resolute in our endeavours to implement the framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures which we have put in place" with a view to the total elimination of the practice of forced labour in Myanmar, and in particular of the information that some action has already been taken against the perpetrators of such practices.

However it is clear that Myanmar cannot expect to receive credit for these endeavours in the absence of an objective assessment of their practical implementation and actual impact. The ILO alone is in a position to provide such an assessment with the authority necessary to carry legal, practical and political consequences at the international level. This is all the more relevant in the light of the continuing flow of information from various sources concerning the issues in question.

For these reasons I would like to reiterate that the Office stands ready to engage in discussions about the possible format and modalities such an objective assessment could take. In my view, it would be highly desirable that such discussions take place before the next session of the Governing Body. It should be recalled that the International Labour Conference will, in accordance with paragraph 1(a) of its resolution, review the situation at its next session in June, on the basis of all relevant information then available.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Juan Somavia.

Appendix 6

Resolution adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 88th Session (June 2000)

The International Labour Conference,

Meeting at its 88th Session in Geneva from 30 May to 15 June 2000,

Considering the proposals by the Governing Body which are before it, under the eighth item of its agenda (Provisional Record No. 4), with a view to the adoption, under article 33 of the ILO Constitution, of action to secure compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry established to examine the observance by Myanmar of its obligations in respect of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29),

Having taken note of the additional information contained in the report of the ILO technical cooperation mission sent to Yangon from 23 to 27 May 2000 (Provisional Record No. 8) and, in particular, of the letter dated 27 May 2000 from the Minister of Labour to the Director-General, which resulted from the mission,

Considering that, while this letter contains aspects which seem to reflect a welcome intention on the part of the Myanmar authorities to take measures to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, the factual situation on which the recommendations of the Governing Body were based has nevertheless remained unchanged to date,

Believing that the Conference cannot, without failing in its responsibilities to the workers subjected to various forms of forced or compulsory labour, abstain from the immediate application of the measures recommended by the Governing Body unless the Myanmar authorities promptly take concrete action to adopt the necessary framework for implementing the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations, thereby ensuring that the situation of the said workers will be remedied more expeditiously and under more satisfactory conditions for all concerned;

1. Approves in principle, subject to the conditions stated in paragraph 2 below, the actions recommended by the Governing Body, namely:

(a) to decide that the question of the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations and of the application of Convention No. 29 by Myanmar should be discussed at future sessions of the International Labour Conference, at a sitting of the Committee on the Application of Standards specially set aside for the purpose, so long as this Member has not been shown to have fulfilled its obligations;

(b) to recommend to the Organization's constituents as a whole - governments, employers and workers - that they: (i) review, in the light of the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry, the relations that they may have with the member State concerned and take appropriate measures to ensure that the said Member cannot take advantage of such relations to perpetuate or extend the system of forced or compulsory labour referred to by the Commission of Inquiry, and to contribute as far as possible to the implementation of its recommendations; and (ii) report back in due course and at appropriate intervals to the Governing Body;

(c) as regards international organizations, to invite the Director-General: (i) to inform the international organizations referred to in article 12, paragraph 1, of the Constitution of the Member's failure to comply; (ii) to call on the relevant bodies of these organizations to reconsider, within their terms of reference and in the light of the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry, any cooperation they may be engaged in with the Member concerned and, if appropriate, to cease as soon as possible any activity that could have the effect of directly or indirectly abetting the practice of forced or compulsory labour;

(d) regarding the United Nations specifically, to invite the Director-General to request the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to place an item on the agenda of its July 2001 session concerning the failure of Myanmar to implement the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission of Inquiry and seeking the adoption of recommendations directed by ECOSOC or by the General Assembly, or by both, to governments and to other specialized agencies and including requests similar to those proposed in paragraphs (b) and (c) above;

(e) to invite the Director-General to submit to the Governing Body, in the appropriate manner and at suitable intervals, a periodic report on the outcome of the measures set out in paragraphs (c) and (d) above, and to inform the international organizations concerned of any developments in the implementation by Myanmar of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry;

2. Decides that those measures will take effect on 30 November 2000 unless, before that date, the Governing Body is satisfied that the intentions expressed by the Minister of Labour of Myanmar in his letter dated 27 May have been translated into a framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures that are sufficiently concrete and detailed to demonstrate that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry have been fulfilled and therefore render the implementation of one or more of these measures inappropriate;

3. Authorizes the Director-General to respond positively to all requests by Myanmar that are made with the sole purpose of establishing, before the above deadline, the framework mentioned in the conclusions of the ILO technical cooperation mission (points (i), (ii) and (iii), page 8/11 of Provisional Record No. 8), supported by a sustained ILO presence on the spot if the Governing Body confirms that the conditions are met for such presence to be truly useful and effective.

Appendix 7

Recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry (extracts)

In paragraph 539 of its report, the Commission of Inquiry urged the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure:

(a) that the relevant legislative texts, in particular the Village Act and the Towns Act, be brought into line with the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) as already requested by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and promised by the Government for over 30 years, and again announced in the Government's observations on the complaint. This should be done without further delay and completed at the very latest by 1 May 1999;

(b) that in actual practice, no more forced or compulsory labour be imposed by the authorities, in particular the military. This is all the more important since the powers to impose compulsory labour appear to be taken for granted, without any reference to the Village Act or Towns Act. Thus, besides amending the legislation, concrete action needs to be taken immediately for each and every of the many fields of forced labour examined in Chapters 12 and 13 (of the Commission's report) to stop the present practice. This must not be done by secret directives, which are against the rule of law and have been ineffective, but through public acts of the Executive promulgated and made known to all levels of the military and to the whole population. Also, action must not be limited to the issue of wage payment; it must ensure that nobody is compelled to work against his or her will. Nonetheless, the budgeting of adequate means to hire free wage labour for the public activities which are today based on forced and unpaid labour is also required;

(c) that the penalties which may be imposed under section 374 of the Penal Code for the exaction of forced or compulsory labour be strictly enforced, in conformity with Article 25 of the Convention. This requires thorough investigation, prosecution and adequate punishment of those found guilty. As pointed out in 1994 by the Governing Body committee set up to consider the representation made by the ICFTU under article 24 of the ILO Constitution, alleging non-observance by Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the penal prosecution of those resorting to coercion appeared all the more important since the blurring of the borderline between compulsory and voluntary labour, recurrent throughout the Government's statements to the committee, was all the more likely to occur in actual recruitment by local or military officials. The power to impose compulsory labour will not cease to be taken for granted unless those used to exercising it are actually brought to face criminal responsibility. (Endnote 8)

Appendix 8

Observations from the CEACR (2001 Report)

Myanmar (ratification: 1955)

1. The Committee notes that the Government has not supplied a report on the application of the Convention. Following the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry established to examine the observance by Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the Committee has, however, taken note of the following information:

-- the information presented by the Government to the Director-General of the ILO in communications dated 21 January, 20 March, 27 May, 29 October (as supplemented subsequently), and 3, 15 and 17 November 2000;

-- the information submitted to, and the discussions held in, the Governing Body of the ILO at its 277th and 279th Sessions in March and November 2000;

-- the information and discussion at the International Labour Conference at its 88th Session (May-June 2000);

-- the resolution adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 88th Session concerning the measures recommended by the Governing Body under article 33 of the ILO Constitution on the subject of Myanmar to secure compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, and the entry into effect of those measures on 30 November 2000, following consideration of the matter by the Governing Body at its 279th Session (November 2000);

-- the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations at its 54th Session (17 December 1999) and by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights at its 56th Session (March-April 2000) on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (extracts in International Labour Conference, 88th Session, Geneva, 2000, Provisional Record No. 4, Annex III);

-- the second report of the Director-General of the ILO to the members of the Governing Body on measures taken by the Government of Myanmar, dated 25 February 2000;

-- the interim report prepared by judge Rajsoomer Lallah, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, dated 22 August 2000 ((UN document A/55/359); and the note by the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the same subject, dated 20 October 2000 (UN document A/55/509);

-- the reports of the ILO technical cooperation missions to Myanmar of May 2000 ((ILC, 88th Session, Geneva, 2000, Provisional Record No. 8) and October 2000 (GB.279/6/1 and Add.1);

-- a communication dated 15 November 2000 in which the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions submitted to the ILO voluminous documentation referring to the imposition of forced labour in Myanmar during the period June-November 2000, a copy of which was sent to the Government for such comments as it may wish to present;

-- a press release issued on 17 November 2000 by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Union of Myanmar in Yangon, and an information sheet issued by the Myanmar Information Committee in Yangon on a press conference held on 18 November 2000 by the Government on the decision of the ILO Governing Body to activate measures on the subject of Myanmar.

2. Information available on the observance of the Convention by the Government of Myanmar will be discussed in three parts, dealing with: (i) the amendment of legislation; (ii) any measures taken by the Government to stop the exaction in practice of forced or compulsory labour and information available on actual practice; (iii) the enforcement of penalties which may be imposed under the Penal Code for the exaction of forced or compulsory labour.

I. Amendment of legislation

3. In paragraph 470 of its report of 2 July 1998, the Commission of Inquiry noted:

... that section 11(d), read together with section 8(1)(g), (n) and (o) of the Village Act, as well as section 9(b) of the Towns Act provide for the exaction of work or services from any person residing in a village tract or in a town ward, that is, work or services for which the said person has not offered himself or herself voluntary, and that failure to comply with a requisition made under section 11(d) of the Village Act or section 9(b) of the Towns Act is punishable with penal sanctions under section 12 of the Village Act or section 9(a) of the Towns Act. Thus, these Acts provide for the exaction of "forced or compulsory labour" within the definition of Article 2(1) of the Convention.

The Commission of Inquiry further noted that the wide powers to requisition labour and services under these provisions do not come under any of the exceptions listed in Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention and are entirely incompatible with the Convention. Recalling that the amendment of these provisions had been promised by the Government for over 30 years, the Commission urged the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the Village Act and the Towns Act be brought into line with the Convention without further delay, and at the very latest by 1 May 1999 (paragraph 539(a) of the Commission's report).

4. In its previous observation, the Committee noted that by the end of November 1999, neither the Village Act nor the Towns Act had been amended, nor had any draft law proposed or under consideration for that purpose been brought to the knowledge of the Committee. However, an "Order Directing Not to Exercise Powers Under Certain Provisions of the Town Act, 1907 and the Village Act, 1907" (No. 1/99) was issued by the Government on 14 May 1999, which in fact still reserved the exercise of powers under the relevant provisions of the Village Act and the Towns Act which remain incompatible with the requirements of the Convention.

5. The Committee notes from the report of the October 2000 ILO technical cooperation mission to Myanmar (GB.279/6/1, paragraphs 9 and 10, Annexes 13 and 19) that a draft text providing for the amendment of the Village Act and the Towns Act through an amendment of Order No. 1/99 was not retained by the Government. However, the same report (in Annex 19) reproduces the English text of an "Order Supplementary Order No. 1/99" made by the Ministry of Home Affairs under the direction of the State Peace and Development Council on 27 October 2000 which modifies Order No. 1/99 so as to order "responsible persons including members of the local authorities, members of the armed forces" etc. "not to requisition work or service notwithstanding anything contained" in the relevant sections of the Towns and Village Acts, except in cases of emergency as defined in Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention (GB.279/6/1, Annex 19). The Burmese text of this Order of 27 October, which was to be published in the Myanmar Gazette, has not yet been supplied to the ILO.

6. The Committee observes that the amendment of the Village and Towns Acts sought by the Commission of Inquiry as well as the present Committee and promised by the Government for many years has not yet been made. It again expresses the hope that the Village Act and the Towns Act will at last be brought into conformity with the Convention.

7. The Committee nevertheless notes that Order No. 1/99 as supplemented by the Order of 27 October 2000 could provide a statutory basis for ensuring compliance with the Convention in practice, if given effect bona fide not only by the local authorities empowered to requisition labour under the Village and Towns Acts, but also by civilian and military officers entitled to call on the assistance of local authorities under the Acts. This, in the view of the Committee, calls for further measures to be undertaken, as indicated by the Commission of Inquiry in its recommendations in paragraph 539(b) of its report.

II. Measures to stop the exaction in practice of forced or compulsory labour and information available on actual practice

A. Measures to stop the exaction in practice of forced or compulsory labour

8. In its recommendations in paragraph 539(b) of its report of July 1998, the Commission of Inquiry indicated that steps to ensure that in actual practice no more forced or compulsory labour be imposed by the authorities, in particular the military, were:

... all the more important since the powers to impose compulsory labour appear to be taken for granted, without any reference to the Village Act or Towns Act. Thus, besides amending the legislation, concrete action needs to be taken immediately for each and every of the many fields of forced labour examined in Chapters 12 and 13 (of the Commission's report) to stop the present practice. This must not be done by secret directives, which are against the rule of law and have been ineffective, but through public acts of the Executive promulgated and made known to all levels of the military and to the whole population. Also, action must not be limited to the issue of wage payment; it must ensure that nobody is compelled to work against his or her will. Nonetheless, the budgeting of adequate means to hire free wage labour for the public activities which are today based on forced and unpaid labour is also required ... .

9. The Committee notes from the report of the October 2000 ILO technical cooperation mission to Myanmar, the suggestion made by the mission of a Supplementary Order or directive from the Office of the Chairman of the State Peace and Development Council concerning requisition of labour or services (GB.279/6/1, Annex 13). The suggested text was to order all state authorities, including military, police and civilian authorities and their officers, not to requisition persons to provide labour or services for any purpose, nor to order others to requisition such labour or services, regardless of whether or not payment is made for said labour or services, except in cases of emergency as defined in Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention. The suggested prohibition was to include but not be limited to the requisition of labour or services for the following purposes:

(a) portering for the military (or other military/paramilitary groups, for military campaigns or regular patrols);

(b) construction or repair of military camps/facilities;

(c) other support for camps (such as guides, messengers, cooks, cleaners, etc.);

(d) income generation by individuals or groups (including work in army-owned agricultural and industrial projects);

(e) national or local infrastructure projects (including roads, railways, dams, etc.);

(f) cleaning/beautification of rural or urban areas.

Similar prohibitions were to apply to the requisition of materials or provisions of any kind and to demands of money except where due to the State or to a municipal or town committee under relevant legislation. Furthermore, the suggested text was to provide that if any state authority or its officers requires labour, services, materials or provisions of any kind and for any purpose, they must make prior budgetary arrangements to obtain these by a public tender process or by providing market rates to persons wishing to supply these services, materials or provisions voluntarily, or wishing to offer their labour.

10. The Committee notes that the text suggested by the mission was not adopted, but that the English versions of several instructions dated 27 and 28 October 2000 and 1 November 2000 were forwarded to the ILO after the departure of the mission and reproduced in addenda to the mission's report (GB.279/6/1(Add.1)(Rev.1) and (Add.2)).

11. The instruction dated 27 October 2000 "Prohibiting Requisition of Forced Labour" is signed for the Director-General of the Police Force and addressed to all units of the police force. The instruction dated 28 October 2000 on the same subject is addressed by the Director-General of the General Administration Department of the Ministry of Home Affairs to all State/Divisional Commissioners and General Administration Departments and requires, inter alia, Order No. 1/99 and the order supplementing it to be displayed separately on noticeboards of all the levels of peace and development councils as well as the General Administration Departments.

12. The instruction dated 1 November 2000 "Prohibiting Requisition of Forced Labour" is signed at the highest level, by Secretary-1 of the State Peace and Development Council, and addressed to the Chairmen of all State and Divisional Peace and Development Councils. The latter instruction thus reaches beyond institutions that come under the authority of the Ministry of Home Affairs. It is, however, primarily directed to the enforcement of Order No. 1/99 and the Order of 27 October 2000 supplementing it, which are limited in scope to the requisition of forced labour under the Village Act and the Towns Act, i.e. not by civilian or military state officers but by local authorities, who may requisition labour under the Acts when called upon to provide assistance to civilian and military state officers. Nevertheless, the instruction dated 1 November interprets the Supplementing Order of 27 October 2000 as follows:

2. ... The Supplementing Order renders the requisition of forced labour illegal and stipulates that it is an offence under the existing laws of the Union of Myanmar. Responsible persons, including the local authorities, members of the armed forces, members of the police force and other public service personnel are also prohibited not to requisition forced labour and are instructed to supervise so that there shall be no forced labour.

It would appear to the Committee that a bona fide application of this prohibition should cover the typical case of members of the armed forces who order local authorities to provide labourers, even if the manner of complying with such order - through requisition or hiring of labourers or otherwise - is left to the local authorities.

13. The instruction dated 1 November 2000 continues as follows:

3. Therefore, it is hereby directed that the state and divisional peace and development councils shall issue necessary instructions to the relevant district and township peace and development councils to strictly abide by the prohibitions contained in Order No. 1/99 and the Supplementing Order of the Ministry of Home Affairs and also to effectively supervise to ensure that there shall be no forced labour within their respective jurisdictions.

4. Responsible persons, including members of the local authorities, members of the armed forces, members of the police force and other public service personnel who fail to abide by the said Order No. 1/99 and the Supplementing Order shall be prosecuted under section 374 of the Penal Code or any other existing laws.

It would appear to the Committee that again, as set out in paragraph 12 above, a bone fide application of the instruction would include, in the scope of point 4 of the instruction, members of the armed forces who order local authorities to supply labour.

14. It remains to be seen whether the "necessary instructions" yet to be issued by the state and divisional peace and development councils under point 3 of the instruction of 1 November will contain the kind of details necessary for a feasible implementation. Such details were set out by the Commission of Inquiry in paragraph 539(b) of its report and included by the October 2000 technical cooperation mission in its suggestion mentioned in paragraph 9 above.

15. The three instructions forwarded so far to the ILO do not yet contain any positive indication on the manner in which authorities that have been used to rely on forced and unpaid labour contributions of the population are hereafter to make realistic provision for the labour and services they may require.

16. Furthermore, the three instructions do not spell out the various forms of forced labour found by the Commission of Inquiry and this Committee to be mainly imposed in practice, as listed in paragraph 9 above. In this regard, the Committee recalls that most of the forms of forced labour or services requisitioned concerned the military. The Committee notes that "members of the armed forces" are specifically included among the responsible persons listed in point 4 of the instruction dated 1 November 2000 (quoted in paragraph 13 above). However, in point 3 of the same instruction, the order to issue the necessary further - and, hopefully, more detailed - instructions is addressed to the state and divisional peace and development councils (which in fact include officers of the armed forces), but not to the regional commanders of the armed forces in their military capacity.

17. In the absence of specific and concrete instructions to the civilian and military authorities containing a description of the various forms and manners of exaction of forced labour, the application of the provisions adopted so far turns upon the interpretation in practice of the notion of "forced labour". This cannot be taken for granted, as shown by the various Burmese terms used sometimes when labour was exacted from the population - including "loh ah pay", "voluntary" or "donated" labour. The need for clarity on the point is underscored by the Government's recurrent attempts to link the pervasive exaction of labour and services by mainly military authorities to merit which may be gained in the Buddhist religion from spontaneously offered help. The Commission of Inquiry recalled in paragraph 539(c) of its report that "the blurring of the borderline between compulsory and voluntary labour, recurrent throughout the Government's statements" was "all the more likely to occur in actual recruitment by local or military officials".

18. Thus, clear instructions are still required to indicate to all officials concerned, including officers at all levels of the armed forces, both the kinds of tasks for which the requisition of labour is prohibited, and the manner in which the same tasks are henceforth to be performed. The Committee hopes that the necessary detailed instructions will soon be issued, and that, in the words of paragraph 539(b) of the Commission of Inquiry's report, provision will also be made for "the budgeting of adequate means to hire free wage labour for the public activities which are today based on forced and unpaid labour".

B. Information available on actual practice

(a) The practice August 1998 to December 1999

19. In his reports dated 21 May 1999 and 25 February 2000 to the members of the Governing Body, the Director-General indicated that all information on actual practice that was received (from workers' and employers' organizations, intergovernmental organizations and governments of member States of the ILO) in reply to his requests, referred to continued widespread use of forced labour by the authorities, in particular by the military.

(b) Information on the practice up to November 2000

20. In its communication dated 15 November 2000, the ICFTU refers to the persistence of severe breaches of the Convention by the military authorities. Documentary appendices enclosed by the ICFTU represent over 1,000 pages drawn from over 20 different sources and include reports, interviews of victims; over 300 forced labour orders, photographs, video recordings and other material. A few events described therein took place in the first half of the year 2000; an overwhelmingly large proportion of the documents concerns the period June to November 2000.

21. An essential part of the ICFTU submission consists of hundreds of "forced labour orders", issued mainly by the army but also by armed groups under its control and elements of the local administration. As stated by the ICFTU, these are similar in kind, shape and contents to the orders already examined by the Commission of Inquiry and the regular ILO supervisory mechanisms and found by same to be authentic. Documentary materials submitted refer to the persistence on a large scale of forced portering, including by women, and the murder of forced porters no longer able to carry their burden. In addition to forced portering, all other forced labour practices identified previously by the Commission of Inquiry are referred to for the period June to November 2000. A great number of specific reported instances include forced labour for the building and maintenance of roads, bridges, railroads, water canals, dikes, dams and reservoirs, as well as for the building, repair, maintenance and servicing of army camps; and the requisition of labour as well as seeds, fertilizer, materials and equipment for army-held agricultural land, forests and installations.

22. As indicated above, copies of the ICFTU communication of 15 November 2000, including the voluminous documentation submitted, were sent to the Government for such comments as it may wish to present.

III. Enforcement

23. In paragraph 539(c) of its recommendations the Commission of Inquiry urged the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure:

... that the penalties which may be imposed under section 374 of the Penal Code for the exaction of forced labour or compulsory labour be strictly enforced, in conformity with Article 25 of the Convention. This requires thorough investigation, prosecution and adequate punishment of those found guilty.

24. In practice, no action whatsoever under section 374 of the Penal Code has so far been brought to the knowledge of the Committee.

25. The Committee notes that point 4 of the instruction dated 1 November 2000 from the State Peace and Development Council to All State and Divisional Peace and Development Councils, reproduced in paragraph 13, provides for the prosecution of "responsible persons" under section 374 of the Penal Code. Similar clauses are included in point 3 of the instruction dated 27 October, and point 6 of the instruction dated 28 October, referred to in paragraph 11 above. Moreover, under points 4 to 6 of the instruction dated 27 October 2000, addressed by the Director-General of the Police Force to all units of the police force:

4. If any affected person files a verbal or written complaint to the police station of having been forced to contribute labour, the latter shall record the complaint in Forms A and B of the police station and send the accused for prosecution under section 374 of the Penal Code.

5. It is hereby directed that the police stations and units concerned at various levels shall be further instructed to make sure their strict compliance with the said Order as well as to supervise so that there shall be no requisition of forced labour. A copy of the Order Supplementing Order No. 1/99 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 27 October 2000 is enclosed herewith.

6. It is instructed to acknowledge receipt of this directive and to report back actions taken on the matter.

26. With regard to point 4 of the latter instruction (dated 27 October 2000) the Committee hopes that prosecutions under section 374 of the Penal Code will be brought by the law enforcement agencies on their own initiative, without waiting for complaints by the victims, who may not consider it expedient to denounce the "responsible persons" to the police. The Committee hopes that in commenting on indications that the imposition of forced labour has continued beyond October 2000, the Government will also report on any concrete action taken under section 374 of the Penal Code.

27. The Committee has noted the assurance, in the Government's letter dated 29 October 2000 to the Director-General of the ILO, of the "political will to ensure that there is no forced labour in Myanmar, both in law and in practice". It also has taken due note of the Order Supplementing Order No. 1/99 and the three instructions issued between 27 October and 1 November 2000, and of the view of the Employer members of the Governing Body at its 279th Session (November 2000) that this was "too little too late". At a press conference held 18 November 2000 in Yangon on the decision of the Governing Body of the ILO to activate measures on the subject of Myanmar, the Government indicated that it would no longer cooperate with the ILO in relation to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), but that it would continue to take steps to prevent forced labour, as this was its policy. The Committee hopes that the Government will thus at last take the necessary measures to ensure the observance in law as well as in practice of the Convention, a basic human rights instrument freely ratified by Myanmar. It also hopes that the Government, which had failed to take part in the proceedings before the Commission of Inquiry, will avail itself of the opportunity to present its views and progress in reporting on the application of the Convention, in conformity with its obligations under article 22 of the ILO Constitution.

(The Government is asked to report in detail in 2001.)

Appendix 9

Note on UNHCR's activities in Myanmar and compulsory labour

UNHCR has been operational in two districts of Myanmar since 1994 in facilitating repatriation and reintegration of approximately 230,000 Muslim returnees from Bangladesh into Northern Rakhine State. The activities of UNHCR are geared towards reintegration and stabilization of some 800,000 Muslim population including returnees in Maungdaw and Buthiadaung districts. UNHCR and its implementing partners provide assistance activities under various key sectors with the aim to improve and stabilize the social and economic environment in Northern Rakhine State. UNCHR conducts field monitoring of a number of protection issues affecting the Muslim population including forced labour, and is promoting a more secure legal status for this population. As regards compulsory labour, UNHCR undertakes advocacy against its use, in particular through dialogue and engagement with officials at the local level.

Areas of intervention

Agriculture

Considering the chronic rice deficit in the area of operation, efforts to increase the production of rice are a given high priority. WFP's past assistance has helped to ease the shortage of rice. Dams and dykes will also be constructed to produce a second rice crop to targeted areas in three townships. At the same time, livestock and aquaculture projects, combined with training courses to enhance the capacity building of the local population are taking place. There is no recourse to compulsory labour in this field of activities and any labour needed for construction purpose is contracted out or paid for as appropriate.

Health

UNHCR recognizes that good health and physical well-being constitute an integral part of any economic and social stability. Compared to other parts of Myanmar, the area of UNHCR's operation is characterized by its remoteness, rough geographical terrain, dense population, and the low literacy rate. These factors contribute to the apparent non-accessibility and underutilization of existing services, which are manifested in the high infant and maternal morbidity and morality, and high prevalence of malnutrition, malaria, tuberculosis and diarrhoeal diseases. These health challenges are further complicated by the under-equipped and under-staffed health facilities.

UNHCR started its health assistance projects in 1995. It invested not only in upgrading government health facilities, but also in strengthening the conventional health delivery system by improving its planning and management functions, targeting an immediate impact at grass-roots community level to introduce changes in health service provision and utilization. This strategy allows focusing on advocating integrated participatory development initiatives, which link health to education, training, income generation, environmental sanitation and other related sectors.

Health activities make the population more productive in life. Poor health leads the population to poverty as they cannot be economically viable. In this sector, there is no resort to compulsory labour.

Education

UNHCR attempts, through a variety of educational undertakings, to strengthen the links between and among the returnee population, the local Muslim residents and other communities in Northern Rakhine State. This is based on the understanding that education helps returnees' awareness. Education activities help the illiterate population to be literate increasing their coping mechanism including their communication with the authorities as well as non-Muslim community. In general it helps them to be more viable in various functions of life. There is no use of compulsory labour in this sector of activities.

Income generation

Considering that majority of the poorest of the poor - returnees and locals alike - are landless, casual labourers, UNHCR endeavours to promote among them, income-earning activities. Positive effects have been frequently reported in terms of an increased level of self-sufficiency which also resulted in affected family sending more children to schools for education.

The objective of these activities is to help them settle and integrate in the area, attain self-sufficiency, and be able to find their niches within the local economy. To meet this objective, an extensive programme providing financial assistance, training and agriculture activities has been implemented since 1995. For example, the population in general have more money than before. In view of no taxation, villagers are expected to contribute to the development of Northern Rakhine State. In the past this was seen as a direct contribution of labour, so called compulsory or even forced labour. Now more villagers can afford paying a small amount of contribution in money so that if there is a need to fix a bridge the money they contribute could be used to hire casual labourers.

Rural infrastructure

Aside from the ongoing work of construction school jetties, health centres, ponds, wells, dams, etc., UNHCR, BAJ and the Government of the Union of Myanmar are working together to develop a permanent road link from Maungdaw township to the southernmost point of Maungdaw with the ultimate goal of a road link from Maungdaw to Sittwe. This important artery will accelerate the development of the area, creating new economic opportunities as well as providing immediate assistance in the form of training and cash for work as well as food for work (WFP) to the poorest villagers along the route. In undertaking construction activities, UNHCR and BAJ have ensured that all labour is appropriately compensated, including through food for work programmes.

Additionally, infrastructure activities have a direct effect. By building bridges and improving infrastructure in general, there is less demand for compulsory labour.

Community social services

It is estimated that up to 10 per cent of returnee population falls under the category of Extremely Vulnerable Individuals (EVIs). These are the female-headed households, widows, orphans, physically or mentally disabled or elderly. Some 7,213 EVIs have been identified and various agencies, including UNHCR, are actively targeting these groups for assistance recognizing that inadequate social services and opportunities for self-reliance exist. The ultimate goal is to identify and implement interventions that will help these individuals and their families attain self-sufficiency. Myanmar Red Cross Society (MRCS) is actively implementing training and assistance activities in this sector, as UNHCR's implementing partner.

Community Social Service helps EVIs who are not subject to compulsory labour any way to be self-reliant. It also encourages community participation including their obligation and responsibility to the community. In some instances, this transforms potentially "compulsory labour" into "voluntary community work". UNHCR encourages this trend as after all, villagers have to maintain what UNHCR built for the general development of the society.

On top of all the activities mentioned above which are interrelated, UNHCR is doing general advocacy, i.e. sensitizing the authorities not to impose compulsory labour. The important point is UNHCR has nothing to do with "abetting" the practice of compulsory labour, but on the contrary, it has been striving to reduce the frequency of forced labour and to promote payment for labour.

Conclusion

It is UNHCR's observation that, due in part to its advocacy efforts, there has been a decreasing trend in compulsory labour practices over the past years. There has been improvement to the situation in terms of the frequency of labour calls, the number of labourers required as well as the number of days of labour. There also appears to have been more attempts made to pay labourers for their work in money or in kind, although the amounts paid are usually far below market rate. Nonetheless, it is also observed that compulsory labour practices are continuing in areas where there is heavy military presence and where porterage is required by the military. UNHCR plans to maintain its presence and activities in the area to consolidate the progress made. Its humanitarian activities are intended to curtail practices such as forced labour.

21 December 2000.

Appendix 10

Note on UNDP's activities in Myanmar in the context of the ILO resolution

Background

Since 1993, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) assistance to Myanmar has been provided under the framework of the UNDP Governing Council's decision 93/21 of June 1993 which stipulates that "assistance from the United Nations Development Programme and related funds to Myanmar should be clearly targeted towards programmes having grass-roots level impact in a sustainable manner, particularly in the areas of primary health care, the environment, HIV/AIDS, training and education, and food security". Consequently, a set of individual projects known as the Human Development Initiative, or HDI, has been implemented since 1994.

In January 1996 and again in July 1998, the above mandate 93/21 was reaffirmed by the successor body to the Governing Council, the UNDP Executive Board, in its decision No. 96/01 and No. 98/14 respectively.

The HDI has three overarching objectives:

-- helping communities to meet their basic humanitarian needs;

-- involving local people in planning and implementing activities that will benefit them; and

-- building local capacities for self-help activities.

While the UNDP Country office and the HDI projects and their executing agencies continually seek to improve and refine the HDI's outreach and benefits, the Governing Council and Executive Board decisions continue to provide the parameters within which all HDI activities are planned, implemented and evaluated.

Today, 11 projects work in an integrated manner with each other and with grass-roots communities to meet basic needs and alleviate poverty in 23 townships with over 10,000 community groups and organizations in the Dry Zone, the Ayeyarwaddy Delta, and the Shan, Chin, Kachin and Rakhine States in Myanmar. An exception is the HIV/AIDS project, which covers areas with high prevalence of HIV across the country. The HDI is now in its third phase, which will end in 2001.

Project specific analysis

Three of the 11 HDI projects focus on agriculture and food security. They aim at helping poor farmers and the landless improve their production and increase their incomes from forestry, agriculture, aquaculture and livestock. They are implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in the Dry Zone, the Shan State and the Delta.

The primary health care project aims to help local people meet their own primary health care needs, and to improve their access to basic health services. It focuses on the major threats of malaria, leprosy, iodine deficiency and tuberculosis. It trains midwives and auxiliary workers, and promotes family planning. This project is executed by the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS).

The community water supply and sanitation project builds water-supply systems for villages that lack a supply of clean water and that often have no water at all in the dry season. It also improves sanitation, for example by promoting simple pit-latrines, and helps people build small bridges and other facilities that they themselves identify. This project is managed by the United Nations Center for Human Settlements (UNCHS).

The HIV/AIDS project, implemented by UNOPS, educates people to avoid infection by the deadly AIDS virus, and how to care for people who have the disease. It targets groups at greatest risk of infection: commercial sex workers and their clients, transport and mineworkers, fisher-folk and refugees.

The primary education project aims to improve the access to and the quality of primary education, for example by building and renovating schools in deprived areas, loaning textbooks to the neediest children, and by training teachers. The project also works to bring literacy through non-formal education activities to children and adults who cannot attend regular school classes. This project is executed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

The micro-finance project loans small amounts of money to villagers to help them build small businesses. The implementation of this project is subcontracted to non-governmental organizations (NGOs): Private Agencies Collaborating Together (PACT) in the Dry Zones, Groupe de Recherche et d'Echanges Technologiques (GRET) in the Shan State, and Grameen Trust in the Delta. This project is managed by the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS).

The remote townships project provides integrated community development services (encompassing social development, income generation and local capacity building in agriculture, health, education, water supplies and credit) in ten townships - in Rakhine, Kachin and Chin States. This project is executed by the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS).

The HDI Support project provides operational and technical support for the HDI projects. It also undertakes key activities including social mobilization and integrated development planning and management.

Finally, a preparatory assistance project is laying the groundwork for a Basic Needs Assistance Programme in Northern Rakhine State.

HDI project activities and compulsory labour

HDI projects, both by design and practice, are neither physical inputs-driven nor construction-oriented. Conceptually, HDI relies more on "software" improvements than hardware improvement of the local rural communities at the grass-roots level.

The limited physical improvements supported by the projects (e.g. renovation and construction of rudimentary village basic health care centres, small water-supply systems such as water ponds, hand-dug wells, rain-water collection tanks, community learning centres and primary schools, village access roads and small bamboo/wooden bridges, farm level soil conservation bunds, gulley-plugs, community woodlot nurseries, etc.) are invariably small in size, limited in scope, demonstrative in purpose and focused directly at serving a specific community only. HDI projects support and facilitate these activities as strategic entry points to initiate social mobilization of the rural communities concerned.

Both in theory and practice, the HDI approach is basically antithema to compulsion. HDI is strictly based on voluntary participation. All HDI activities by design are planned, implemented, monitored, operated and maintained by the beneficiary communities themselves. If there are any inputs, willing and able to be contributed by the beneficiaries, the type, quantity and nature of these are proposed and decided by consensus of the concerned community. HDI thus inculcates a more sustainable community development approach based on voluntarism as an alternative to non-voluntary administrative method of implementing development activities.

Thus, if and when HDI projects assist activities which could involve some construction and earth work where labour inputs might be called upon, the nature of the labour contribution (amount, timing, mode of remuneration, etc.) must be proposed, discussed, agreed upon and monitored by the concerned communities themselves, all strictly on voluntary basis. HDI projects never force (and the projects have no authority to force) the communities to contribute any inputs (including labour) in any of its activities.

In response to the EB mandate, HDI was designed to implement its project activities through UN Executing Agencies and not through or with the government line departments. Government institutions concerned, from central to the village level, are informed of what HDI is doing. Decision-making authority, however, is strictly with the project management which is not shared with the Government. HDI projects are implemented through their own separate, independent channels managed by their own project staff, down to the community beneficiaries level and not through any existing government bureaucracy.

As required by the successive EB mandates, regular assessments by independent missions have been made on HDI performance. The EB in its decision 98/14 requested the Administrator, to continue to provide the Board, on an annual basis, with a report on the progress and challenges in the implementation of HDI project activities. In compliance with this request, the latest independent assessment and evaluation mission was fielded during the period 27 May through 15 July of 2000. After reviewing the extensive documentation on each of the 11 HDI projects and visiting selected project villages, including extensive consultation with village beneficiaries in these project areas, the mission concluded that "the content and objectives of all HDI projects were in full conformity with the relevant provisions of the Governing Board and Executive Council decisions".

Conclusion

In light of the above analysis we firmly believe that the ongoing HDI project activities (the only UNDP-funded programme in the country) do not and could not have the effect of directly or indirectly abetting the practice of forced or compulsory labour in Myanmar.

Appendix 11

International ICFTU/ICFTU-APRO/ITS Conference

The global unions' Plan of Action on Burma (adopted in Tokyo on 1 March 2001)

1. Strengthen material support to the FTUB.

2. Strengthen implementation of the ILO Burma resolution of June 2000, including:

-- review of your government's bilateral relations with junta;

-- support holding of special Burma session during the International Labour Conference, 2001;

-- support inclusion of this issues at the next session of the United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Committee;

-- seek consultations on Burma measures with your government under the ILO Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144);

-- seek improved coordination of United Nations specialized agencies and programmes so that they do not in practice aid or abet forced labour.

3. Increase pressure on international financial institutions (IFTs) with the same purpose.

4. Lobby European Union presidency and Member States to further strengthen existing Burma sanctions, in cooperation with the ETUC.

5. Lobby ASEAN member States to help bring about an end to forced labour and the establishment of democracy.

6. Seek early discussions with companies maintaining business relations with Burma in order that they withdraw trade and investments in Burma, or alternatively face public exposure, union-driven consumer pressure and boycotts.

7. Expand and strengthen workers' shareholder action against companies trading with or operating in Burma.

8. Better inform rank-and-file membership, as well as the wider community, about the situation.

9. Organize an International Day of Union Action for Burma on 1 May 2001 and use the occasion, in cooperation with civic and religious group, NGOs and others to:

-- lobby governments;

-- pressure companies;

-- create public awareness;

-- target Burmese embassies;

-- link the Burma situation with the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

10. Keep the Burma Plan of Action on union agendas and inform your membership of progress.

GB.280/6 (Add.1)

SIXTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA

Developments concerning the question of the observance by the Government of Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)

Addendum

1. Since document GB.280/6 was finalized, the Office has received a number of additional communications from member States, national employers' and workers' organizations, an international organization, and a non-governmental organization. To enable the Governing Body to get as complete a picture as possible, these communications are summarized below.

2. The Government of Canada indicated that copies of the Conference resolution had been sent to Canadian provincial and territorial governments and to national workers' and employers' organizations. The Government had also sent a letter to major Canadian business associations informing them of the Conference resolution and Canadian policies with respect to Myanmar. In 1988 Canada suspended diplomatic and commercial relations with Myanmar, along with support for Canadian firms doing business in the country, including export programmes and commercial promotion. Support for multilateral assistance through international financial institutions was also withdrawn, and bilateral aid was suspended. In August 1997, the Canadian Government had announced selective economic measures against Myanmar, which remain in force. These include withdrawal of trade preferences and the introduction of export controls that effectively limit exports to those of a humanitarian nature. The Government also issued a statement urging the Canadian business community to refrain from entering into further investment agreements or commercial ventures in Myanmar until improvements were evident.

3. The Government of Japan communicated the following points via its Permanent Mission. The relationship between Japan and Myanmar did not contain any element that contributed directly or indirectly to forced labour in Myanmar, nor did any development assistance do so. Japan hoped that an early solution would be attained on the question of forced labour in Myanmar, and that a constructive dialogue towards that objective between the Government of Myanmar and the ILO would start soon.

4. The Government of New Zealand indicated that it had recently reviewed the country's bilateral relationship with Myanmar and no element of that relationship had been identified that would perpetuate or extend the system of forced labour in Myanmar. The Government intended to keep the relationship under review. It had forwarded copies of the Conference resolution to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and the New Zealand Employers' Federation.

5. The Government of Portugal indicated that its trade with Myanmar took place within the framework of the WTO and the EU. It was difficult within the framework of the WTO to take measures against another member State for violations of fundamental worker rights. The EU had suspended Myanmar from its system of trade preferences because of the forced labour situation. The EU continued to observe the situation in Myanmar with concern, and would discuss the question of forced labour in Myanmar and the Conference resolution at a meeting of the EU Council in March.

6. The Government of Belgium indicated that although its bilateral relations with Myanmar were extremely limited, it had invited ministers of departments having relations with the country to examine measures that could be taken in support of the ILO action and to prevent these relations being used to maintain the system of forced labour. The possibilities for economic sanctions were limited because bilateral trade was minor, and also because trade policy was mainly handled at the EU level. In July last year, the Government of Belgium had communicated to the president of an oil company its strong reservations regarding the policy followed by that company, which pursued its goals without taking account of the situation in Myanmar. For ethical reasons, the Government had ended a contract for the supply of fuel with the same company. It had also introduced an ethical clause preventing suppliers to the Belgian State from carrying out activities in countries that were guilty of certain human rights violations, although the introduction of this clause had yet to be approved by the European Commission. The Government gave its assurances that during its next term as president of the EU, later this year, the EU's position would be carefully examined in the light of the situation on the ground in Myanmar.

7. The Government of Kuwait stated that it had no direct or indirect cooperation with the Government of Myanmar, and indicated that it had communicated the Conference resolution to its employers' and workers' organizations. The Government of the Seychelles indicated that it was studying the situation and would revert in due course.

8. The Dutch trade union federation Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging (FNV) indicated that it had no relations with the regime in Myanmar. It had requested the Dutch Government to provide it with information on Dutch companies with trading interests in Myanmar, on the total value of trade between the two countries, as well as details of imports which may have been made with the use of forced labour. Further action would be taken on the basis of an analysis of this information, as soon as it is received. The federation had also requested the Dutch Government to develop concrete proposals for a review of its own and/or EU relations with Myanmar on the occasion of the next EU discussion round on these relations. It had asked the Dutch Government to inform it of such proposals, with whom it would discuss them if appropriate.

9. The Fiji Trades Union Congress indicated that it supported the ICFTU position, but did not have any further information to provide at this stage.

10. The All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions indicated that it had urged the Government of Pakistan to implement the spirit of the Conference resolution, and had circulated the resolution widely to the news media in order to inform public opinion about the situation in Myanmar.

11. The Swedish Employers' Confederation indicated that the content and implications of the Conference resolution had been discussed at a meeting of the South-East Asia advisory board of the International Council of Swedish Industry. The Confederation's full membership of 45,000 companies had been informed via its newsletter of its support for the Conference resolution, and companies that had any commercial relations with Myanmar were asked to review these relations. The International Council of Swedish Industry had communicated the content of the Conference resolution to relevant associations of companies.

12. The United Nations Industrial Development Organization indicated that in reference to its activities in Myanmar it was not aware of any non-compliance with the Conference resolution.

13. The non-governmental organization Images Asia, which had provided a representative to testify before the Commission of Inquiry at its formal hearing of witnesses and which had cooperated closely with the Commission's visit to the region in 1998, transmitted a report dated 3 March 2001 on forced labour in the Rakhine state of Myanmar. The report referred to the situation in northern Rakhine state in December 2000. The report indicated that orders to stop the use of forced labour had been transmitted by the Government of Myanmar to the civilian authorities in the state, and village leaders had been requested to organize mass public meetings to announce the change in policy. Such information had also been placed on official notice boards, and it had been declared that neither civilian nor military authorities were entitled to demand compulsory labour, and that in case of non-compliance complaints should be filed with the Court, which would take appropriate action. The report claimed, however, that the Myanmar military, especially local battalions, were showing no willingness to implement these instructions. The military was continuing to requisition labour under threat of "dire consequences". As a result, while there had been a temporary reduction in labour demands in some areas, this was only slight, and there were allegations that it had been accompanied by an increase in extortion and arbitrary taxation.

Geneva, 22 March 2001.

GB.280/6 (Add.2)

SIXTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA

Developments concerning the question of the observance by the Government of Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)

Addendum 2

Measures taken by the Organization's constituents

Measures taken by member States

1. In a letter dated 14 March 2001, the Government of Mexico stated that bilateral trade and political dialogue with the Government of Myanmar were minimal and that there were no bilateral mechanisms, legal instruments or cooperation projects under way or in the process of being negotiated between Mexico and Myanmar. The Government had communicated the recommendations contained in the Conference resolution to the country's most representative employers' and workers' organizations. Of these, the Confederation of Workers of Mexico had begun trade union action on this matter through its representative in the ILO Governing Body.

Geneva, 27 March 2001.

GB.280/PV

D. Provisional minutes of the discussion of this item

(Subject to approval by the Governing Body at its 282nd (November 2001) Session.)

Governing Body

Provisional minutes of the 280th Session

()

SECONG SITTING

Extract

Wednesday, 28 March 2001, morning

The sitting opened at 10.50 a.m., with Mr. Amorim in the Chair.

Sixth item on the agenda

DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING THE QUESTION OF THE OBSERVANCE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MYANMAR OF THE FORCED LABOUR CONVENTION, 1930 (NO. 29)

The Chairperson recalled that, at its 279th Session (November 2000), the Governing Body had concluded that the conditions set out in paragraph 2 of the Conference resolution of June 2000 concerning the Government of Myanmar's observance of Convention No. 29 had not been fulfilled and consequently the provisions of paragraph 1 of that resolution would come into effect on 30 November 2000. At the same time, it had decided that the channels of cooperation between the ILO and the Government of Myanmar should be kept open. The Director-General had subsequently taken the necessary steps to set these provisions in motion.

The Governing Body now had before it a report presenting the latest developments in this case as regards the Government of Myanmar, as well as measures taken by the ILO's constituents and by various international organizations. This document included 11 appendices setting out detailed elements and was accompanied by two additional papers which contained further information received since then from governments and employers' and workers' organizations.

In paragraph 67 of the main paper, the Governing Body was invited to request the Director-General to transmit the paper to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, which would consider this item in June 2001, together with the record of the Governing Body's own discussions and any other pertinent information.

The Director-General observed that the replies received from the ILO's constituents demonstrated that the request contained in the Conference resolution had led several governments to review very thoroughly their relations with Myanmar in consultation with employers' and workers' organizations, and in some cases this review had paid special attention to the situation of companies operating in Myanmar. However, while some governments had reported concrete measures and several trade unions had pressed for boycotts, the response to the Conference resolution generally reflected a wait-and-see attitude.

In accordance with the conclusions reached by the Governing Body in November 2000 and in line with the mandate conferred by the Conference, the Office had been authorized to extend its cooperation to the Government of Myanmar in order to promote the full implementation by the latter of the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations. In line with that mandate and despite the position of non-cooperation expressed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Myanmar, the speaker had written to the Minister of Labour on 22 December 2000. While the Minister's reply of 11 February 2001 had generally confirmed an attitude of non-cooperation, it had at the same time emphasized action taken to enforce the legislative, executive and administrative measures announced, including action against perpetrators of violations. In his letter of 1 March 2001, the speaker had pointed out that Myanmar could not expect any acknowledgement for these actions unless there was an objective assessment of their practical implementation and actual input which the ILO was alone in a position to provide. Following this letter, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Myanmar had requested a meeting with the Director-General.

On the clear understanding that this meeting was intended as a positive response to his letter of March, the speaker had received the Deputy Foreign Minister on 22 March and a very frank and direct discussion had ensued. His own objective had been to ascertain whether the Myanmar Government was prepared to have an objective assessment made by the ILO of the concrete impact that the measures announced had had on the actual situation of forced labour in the country. Regarding the actual modalities, he had stressed that they would have to be of such a nature as to guarantee the objectivity and relevance of the outcome. He had likewise emphasized the urgency of the matter in view of the discussions due to take place at the Conference in June 2001. On that basis, the Deputy Minister's visit had confirmed the authorities' willingness to engage in early discussions for an objective assessment of the various measures adopted by the authorities at the end of 2000.

The ultimate significance of this exchange would depend on whether, and how soon, agreement was reached on the modalities of the objective assessment and this would show whether one was moving in a positive direction or towards an impasse. He intended to keep the Officers of the Governing Body closely associated with the progress of those discussions or their termination, as the case might be.

Mr. Brett (Worker, United Kingdom; Worker Vice-Chairperson) thanked the Director-General for his full report. However, the wait-and-see attitude among the ILO's constituents should, as far as the Workers were concerned, more aptly be described as a mood of expectancy. The Workers expected that the unprecedented recourse to article 33 of the ILO Constitution would have induced the Burmese authorities to see the logic of cooperating with the ILO in the fulfilment of their obligations. Their second expectation was that, if the Burmese Government failed to do so, the international community would take appropriate action to bring about compliance. It had been made very clear at the time that article 33 was not a provision to be invoked lightly, nor was this an attempt to put in the dock a government which had persistently refused to comply with its obligations under Convention No. 29, but it was a serious indictment of a government which had failed to comply with its obligations over a long period of time. After a policy of consistent denial that any forced labour existed in Burma, the Minister of Labour's letter of 21 February 2001 in fact amounted to an admission that forced labour had existed and continued to be practised in the country. While the Government now admitted to a few isolated cases of breaches of the legislation and stated that action had been taken against perpetrators of such violations, it had supplied no precise information in this respect. Reports from NGOs and the international trade union indicated, on the contrary, that widespread use of forced labour continued in Burma. Against this background, it was highly disappointing that the Minister of Labour had brushed aside the offer of ILO assistance on the pretext that the Government was perfectly capable of taking he necessary measures without outside assistance. On the contrary, it was essential, in the interests both of the ILO and the Government of Burma, that any measures taken to eradicate forced labour be duly verified by an impartial outside body. Until this occurred, there was no way of ascertaining what progress, if any, was achieved towards this goal. The Director-General's statement in his letter of 1 March that the ILO alone was in a position to provide such an assessment "with the authority necessary to carry legal, practical and political consequences at the international level" constituted very sound advice which the Government of Burma should heed carefully.

As regards opinion within Burma, paragraphs 48 and 49 of the paper made reference to an "open letter regarding ILO decision on Myanmar in Myanmar" purported to emanate from 18 million workers employed by public and private enterprises and an open letter bearing the same title and date from the "International Business Community". These communications not only stretched the bounds of credibility, but also suggested a high degree of coercion in obtaining those signatures.

It was also disappointing that a number of member States had been extremely vague in their replies as to the efforts they might envisage. He stressed that the Conference resolution called upon member States to take appropriate action to ensure that the Burmese authorities did not take advantage of their relations with other States to perpetuate or extend the system of forced labour. No doubt some of this wait-and-see policy had been influenced by reports that the Burmese military junta had recently engaged in secret talks with the democratic opposition leader. However desirable a return to democracy might be, this was not the issue now before the Governing Body, which was a very simple one, i.e. to bring about an end to forced labour, which was a violation of a basic ILO Convention.

A number of trade unions had responded in a very concrete manner. In particular, the ICFTU - which represented some 200 million workers throughout the world - had at a meeting in Tokyo adopted a global plan of action on Burma which set out a number of concrete steps aimed at persuading governments, business circles and international bodies to take action steps towards the cessation of forced labour in Burma. In this connection, it was disappointing that the United Nations and other international organizations had not applied themselves seriously to this situation and had merely taken note of the ILO's communication. It was also not acceptable that governments which in the ILO had supported the enforcement of measures under article 33 failed to speak up on this issue in other international bodies. The Workers supported the Director-General's proposal to place the question on the agenda of ECOSOC at its July 2001 meeting. It was to be hoped that all this would help to create a climate in which the Government of Burma would see the need to act and to restore some measure of credibility by involving the ILO in validating the process. The Workers would in any case pursue their campaign until the Government of Burma complied with its obligations.

Mr. Thüsing (Employer, Germany; Employer Vice-Chairperson) considered that it would not be helpful to exacerbate the situation further by exaggerated statements or gestures. The Conference had decided in June 2000 that certain measures should be implemented in pursuance of article 33 of the ILO Constitution and in November 2000 the Governing Body had not been able to conclude that anything had occurred in the meanwhile that would warrant not implementing these measures. The Employers believed that this decision, while unfortunate, had been the right one in the circumstances. An existing situation could only change if new elements came into play, and in this case a new element could only arise when, on the basis of an objective assessment carried out by the Office, the Conference or Governing Body received a report that would enable them to conclude that the situation had changed in a positive direction. It was therefore necessary to wait for such a positive development and all parties concerned should work together with good will to achieve this objective.

Ms. Adler (Government, Denmark) took the floor on behalf of the governments of the European Union (EU), as well as the governments of Central and Eastern Europe associated with the EU. The associated countries Cyprus, Malta and Turkey as well as Croatia and Norway had also expressed the wish to align themselves with this statement.

The European Union had supported the ILC resolution adopted in June 2000 and had welcomed the entry into force of the measures recommended by that resolution on 30 November 2000 because it felt deep concern about the situation of forced labour in Burma, as reflected in the replies sent by EU Member States and the European Commission to the Director-General's letter of 22 December 2000.

In 1997 the ILO Commission of Inquiry had made clear recommendations to the Government of Burma, to the effect that: the national legislation be brought into line with ILO Convention No. 29; that no more forced or compulsory labour be imposed by the authorities in practice; and that persons who imposed forced labour should face penal sanctions. These recommendations were still valid and Burma needed to comply fully with them.

In November 2000, the Government of Burma had started to take some measures addressing the problem and had in particular adopted certain legislative measures, according to the ILO mission report. However, as regards implementation measures and their follow-up, developments were much less evident. The EU was concerned about continued reports of the use of forced labour in Burma.

Burma had since informed the Office that it would continue its own efforts towards the elimination of forced labour - which was in itself encouraging - but without ILO cooperation - which was regrettable. In order for the ILC to lift the measures it had decided on, it needed to be assured that forced labour was eliminated completely in Burma, and only the ILO could provide such information. The European Union therefore urged Burma to resume its cooperation with the ILO and to allow a full-time ILO presence in the country in order to assist the Government to put a definitive and verifiable end to the practice of forced labour. If Burma did make sufficient progress by the time of the ILO Conference in June 2001, Members might wish to consider what further steps might be taken.

Mr. Spring (Government, United States) noted that, in his letter of 22 December 2000, the Director-General had reiterated the ILO's readiness to help the Government of Burma implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. This was in keeping with the terms of the June 2000 Conference resolution and the discussion of the resolution by the Governing Body in November 2000. While it was disappointing that the Government of Burma had not accepted the ILO's offer of assistance, that offer still stood.

In his letter of 1 March 2001, the Director-General had stated that the ILO alone was in a position to provide an objective and authoritative assessment of the Government's implementation of the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations. While agreeing with that statement, the speaker cautioned that, in the absence of democratic reforms in Burma, the practical ability of an ILO presence there to assure that forced labour had been eliminated nationwide was problematic. Under these circumstances, such a presence might erode, rather that enhance, the credibility of the ILO.

The Office paper provided discouraging evidence that the practice of forced labour continued in Burma. Government and military officials at all levels were reported to have taken measures to conceal the practice, and to weaken or nullify the effects of the orders that the Government had submitted to the Governing Body in November 2000 as evidence of its determination to eliminate forced labour. Moreover, a campaign of propaganda and disinformation had been launched to try to counter the measures foreseen by the Conference resolution. Tens of thousands of people, including women, children and elderly persons, were reported to have been pressed into forced labour in the short period of time since November 2000. He fully endorsed the proposal in paragraph 67 that the Director-General transmit this document to the Conference for discussion in June 2001.

In January 2001, the international community had generally welcomed the announcement of the opening of dialogue between the Government of Burma and the democratic opposition. More than two months later, it was still waiting for signs that this represented a genuine effort at achieving national reconciliation and at making concrete progress towards ending human rights abuses. Forced labour was unlikely to end in Burma as long as democratic government was denied. The United States Government was in favour of giving this dialogue a chance to succeed. However, if no genuine progress was achieved, it was prepared to consider additional measures to respond to the Conference decision.

Mr. Haraguchi (Government, Japan) observed that, according to the ILO mission report submitted to the Governing Body in November 2000, the Government of Myanmar had unquestionably taken various legislative and administrative measures towards the eradication of forced labour. While it still remained to be seen how these measures would be implemented, it should be recognized that some progress had been made, and the Government of Myanmar should be given every encouragement to move forward rapidly in the desired direction. The speaker continued to believe that this was the valid approach in order to bring about the desired results in a smooth manner.

He commended the Office for its efforts to re-establish dialogue and cooperation with the Government of Myanmar. For its part, the Government of Japan had been in touch with the Government of Myanmar at various levels, both formally and informally, to impress upon the latter the need to cooperate with the ILO, and in particular to involve the ILO in the objective assessment of the measures introduced. His own Government would continue its efforts, and it hoped that it would be possible for all concerned to work together resolutely so that those efforts would be fully rewarded as early as possible.

Mr. Chung (Government, Republic of Korea) reported that his Government had transmitted the Conference resolution to the major employers' and workers' organizations in the Republic of Korea and had requested them to take appropriate measures to implement the recommendations and review their relations with Myanmar, if necessary. His Government would inform the ILO of any further developments in this connection. It hoped that an early solution to the problem would be obtained through a combination of technical assistance from the international community, including the ILO, and more active efforts on the part of the Government of Myanmar.

Mr. Mladlana (Government, South Africa) expressed appreciation for the manner in which the ILO's constituents had reacted to the decisions adopted by the Governing Body and expressed solidarity with the workers of Myanmar in their struggle against forced labour. His Government firmly supported the maintenance of these measures as long as Myanmar remained intransigent and unwilling to desist from the despicable behaviour which had prompted those measures. In the context of justice and respect for human rights, workers' rights should be upheld as an integral part of human rights. He called upon the ILO to sustain the measures imposed upon the Government of Myanmar while at the same time intensifying its efforts aimed at assisting that Government to adopt a course of action that would result in upholding the fundamental principles of natural justice.

Mr. Rimkunas (Government, Lithuania) fully endorsed the statement made on behalf of the governments of the European Union. At the same time, he welcomed the efforts undertaken by the Government of Myanmar to eliminate forced labour, which should be pursued in close cooperation with the ILO.

Mr. Hendrasmoro (Government, Indonesia) emphasized that his Government did not condone any practices in Myanmar that abetted or encouraged the practice of forced labour as described by the ILO's Commission of Inquiry. However, it also firmly believed that promotional measures and cooperation were far more preferable to sanctions in addressing this issue. Indeed, punitive measures had repeatedly proved ineffective in securing the observance of any ILO Convention or Recommendation and merely created divisions and conflicts within the Organization.

He therefore welcomed the fact that the channels of communication between the Director-General and the Government of Myanmar had been kept open. These exchanges denoted that the ILO and the Government of Myanmar both understood the importance of maintaining opportunities for dialogue and cooperation in addressing this problem. He commended the Director-General for his readiness to cooperate with the Government of Myanmar for the purposes of ensuring the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Government of Indonesia was encouraged by the assurances given by the Government of Myanmar that it would continue its efforts to eradicate forced labour and enact legislation making this practice illegal. He believed that if the framework of measures put in place by that Government were implemented, there would be a marked improvement in Myanmar's record on the issue of forced labour.

Mr. Vaish (Government, India) stressed that his Government had always been strongly opposed to the practice of forced labour and believed that countries voluntarily adhering to ILO Conventions should apply them. At the same time, it had consistently emphasized that the ILO's objectives could best be promoted through dialogue and technical cooperation and not through punitive measures or threat of their use. It had therefore advocated constructive dialogue and technical assistance between the ILO and the Government of Myanmar. Strongly believing in the virtues of dialogue and persuasion, the Government of India commended the Director-General for the recommencement of dialogue with the Government of Myanmar and wished him every success in these efforts.

The speaker noted from paragraph 4 of the Office paper that informed 59 international organizations, including the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, regarding the issue under consideration. It was his own understanding that this communication should have been sent only to those organizations with which the ILO had established relations under article 12(1) of the Constitution and with the approval of the Governing Body. He therefore requested the Office to explain the criteria used for selecting the organizations to which this information had been circulated. It was important that these criteria be entirely clear so that there could be no scope for any controversy or confusion on this point in the future.

The representative of the Director-General (Mr. Tapiola, Deputy Director-General) pointed out that article 12(1) of the Constitution, which provided that the ILO "shall cooperate within the terms of this Constitution with ... public international organizations having specialized responsibilities in related fields", did not limit such cooperation to organizations with which the ILO had concluded specific agreements. In the present case, the information had been sent to all the international organizations invited to the International Labour Conference and the ILO's regional conferences and meetings.

The Chairperson observed that the only action which the Governing Body was now called upon to take was to request the Director-General to transmit the Office report to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, as proposed in paragraph 67. No disagreement with that proposal had been expressed by anybody. During the debate, a good deal of emphasis had been placed in the question of assessment and verification and he encouraged the Director-General to pursue that line. This would probably be one of the crucial aspects to be examined at the Conference.

Mr. Brett (Worker, United Kingdom; Worker Vice-Chairperson) assumed that the report that would be transmitted to the Conference would be an updated version of the document taking into account any further developments taking place between now and the opening of the Conference.

The Workers had noted from the replies of some governments that the latter had merely transmitted the Director-General's communication to the national employers' and workers' organizations, expecting them to take the necessary action. This appeared to reflect a basic misunderstanding on their part. While it was of course desirable for the social partners to be involved in any collective or individual action taken on this issue, the Conference resolution placed the primary responsibility on governments for reviewing their relations with Myanmar and taking concrete measures. He would therefore welcome hearing from the governments concerned that they were themselves taking action and not merely presuming that action would be taken only by the employers' and workers' organizations.

The Governing Body took note of the report and addenda 1 and 2. It requested the Director-General to transmit to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards the report together with the record of its consideration, as well as any further information of relevance for its discussion. The Conference Committee would have before it the report of the CEACR together with any other relevant information.

C. App./D.7

E. Developments since the 280th Session of the Governing Body (March 2001): Arrangements for an objective assessment of the situation of forced labour following measures taken by the Myanmar Government

(Mission to Yangon, 17-19 May 2001)

Introduction

While considering that the conditions had not been met for the provisions contained in the Conference resolution of June 2000 to be rendered inappropriate, the Governing Body noted during its 279th Session in November 2000 that the Director-General should continue to extend cooperation to the Government of Myanmar in order to promote full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

During its 280th Session in March 2001, the Director-General informed the Governing Body, in opening the discussion on the report concerning the implementation of the measures decided by the Conference (GB.280/6), of the efforts which he had undertaken with the Myanmar authorities in order to fulfil the second aspect of his responsibilities. In his letter of 1 March 2001 to the Minister for Labour (Appendix 1), he had expressed the view that the Myanmar authorities could not expect to receive any recognition for the framework of measures and subsequent action which they said they had taken, in the absence of an objective assessment by the ILO of their practical implementation and actual impact on the forced labour situation. Following that letter, he had received a visit from the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Khin Maung Win, on 22 March 2001. During a very frank discussion, the Deputy Minister had indicated that the authorities were disposed to enter quickly into discussions on the modalities of an objective assessment.

That information was received with interest, and the Governing Body decided that any further developments should be reflected in the report to be submitted to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards at its meeting in 2001, in accordance with paragraph 1(a) of the resolution adopted in June 2000. The present report follows up that decision. Its purpose is to set out the developments that have taken place since the Governing Body's last session, and in particular to give an account of the origin and results of the mission which visited Yangon between 17 and 19 May 2001 in order to decide on the modalities for an objective assessment of the implementation and impact of the framework of measures put in place from October 2000 onwards.

Origin of the mission

During a meeting with the Director-General on 22 March 2001, Mr. Khin Maung Win had said that the Permanent Representative of Myanmar in Geneva, Ambassador U Mya Than, would be appointed to undertake discussions with the Office regarding the modalities of the objective assessment. During those preliminary discussions, it soon became clear that it was not realistic to expect the two successive stages of the implementation process (agreement on modalities and, in the case of such agreement being reached, the carrying out of the assessment itself) could be undertaken before the Conference, given the logistical constraints and the deadlines associated with the second stage. The parties therefore set a target of reaching a clear and firm commitment from the authorities regarding the modalities of such an assessment before the International Labour Conference, on the understanding that such a commitment would be followed up as soon as possible by the assessment itself, so that the Governing Body could be informed of the results during its November 2001 session. The letter of the Minister for Labour dated 26 April 2001 (Appendix 2) and the Director-General's reply of 10 May 2001 (Appendix 3) are the two principal reference points in the development of discussions on that subject.

It followed from the Director-General's letter of 10 May that, in order to finalize the modalities in question and obtain before the Conference a specific and definitive commitment based on parameters previously discussed with the Ambassador (concerning issues such as who would carry out the assessment, when it would begin and how long it would last, and what practical and legal guarantees would be provided for it), discussions would have to be held in Yangon with all the ministries concerned.

It was for this reason that a new mission visited Yangon between 17 and 19 May 2001. Its members were as follows:

-- Mr. Francis Maupain, representative of the Director-General;

-- Mr. Dominick Devlin, Legal Adviser;

-- Mr. Rueben Dudley, Deputy Director, ILO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific;

-- Mr. Richard Horsey, Secretary.

Progress and findings of the mission

The mission, like the previous ones, attracted a degree of interest among the diplomatic community in Yangon and among the United Nations agencies. In order to respond to that interest, and despite the limited time available, the mission was anxious to organize a number of information sessions, with the assistance of the United Nations Resident Coordinator. The mission's detailed programme is given in Appendix 4.

During the first working session following the mission's arrival in Yangon, the representatives of the various ministries concerned informed the mission that they had taken a number of measures since the adoption of the new framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures. To illustrate those efforts, the Secretary of the "Implementation Committee for Convention No. 29", U Soe Nyunt, drew attention to action which had been taken to publicize those measures as well as to the visits that had been organized to different parts of the country in order to examine the realities of the situation in the light of previous allegations.

The mission emphasized that the purpose of its present visit was quite different from that of the previous missions. The purpose was not to re-examine the substantive issues dealt with in the report of the Commission of Inquiry. Neither was it the purpose of the visit to set up a new Commission of Inquiry, although the Government was free to request such a step under article 34 of the ILO Constitution. As the Director-General had made clear in his letter of 1 March and in his presentation to the Governing Body in March, the purpose of the objective assessment now being considered was more specific: it was to assess the practical implementation of the legislative, executive and administrative framework that had been put in place and its actual impact on the forced labour situation in the country.

The mission drew attention to the fact that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations had discussed the framework of measures at its previous meeting in December 2000, and its observation in its report to the Conference provided some valuable indications as to the points to be considered when the objective assessment was undertaken. The Committee of Experts, while expressing regret that the views of the October 2000 Technical Cooperation Mission had not been fully taken into account, nevertheless noted that the legislative measures adopted "could provide a statutory basis for ensuring compliance with the Convention in practice, if given effect bona fide not only by the local authorities empowered to requisition labour under the Village and Towns Acts, but also by civilian and military officers entitled to call on the assistance of local authorities under the Acts". With that in mind, the Committee had given a number of indications regarding further measures that could be undertaken (Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III (Part 1A), 2001, page 149).

The object and scope of the assessment being thus delineated, the mission emphasized that the modalities were of necessity dictated by the nature of the task: they had to provide every possible guarantee that the assessment would be objective and credible. The members of the High-Level Team (HLT) responsible for the assessment would therefore have to be appointed by the Director-General solely on the basis of their recognized impartiality, experience and technical competence including knowledge of the region; the duration of the HLT's visit should be sufficient to allow it to form an opinion, while recognizing the possible constraints as regards the availability of the HLT's members; and finally, the HLT needed to be allowed complete discretion with regard to the organization of its programme of activities and meetings. The mission expressed the hope that those parameters could be translated into a specific text during the course of the visit.

Those basic considerations led to discussions during which the mission drew up an initial draft "Understanding". That in turn gave rise to numerous proposed amendments and counter amendments until quite late in the afternoon of Saturday, 19 May. Two main difficulties had to be faced. The first concerned the appointment by the Director-General of the members of the HLT, which the authorities wished to be subject to their prior approval. That demand was not accepted. It was, however, made clear that the expression "recognized qualifications" used in point I of the text implied that the qualifications required of members of the HLT would have to be recognized by all, including the Myanmar authorities; that interpretation was subsequently confirmed in writing, at the latter's request. The second difficulty related to the discretion of the HLT to determine the programme which it regarded as necessary for conducting the assessment. The solution that was adopted acknowledged that that discretion could be limited by considerations of security - including the security of members of the HLT itself - but stipulated that those considerations must be "valid"; it also provided for a mechanism to overcome any difficulties that might arise in that regard, namely, the possible assistance of an independent "facilitator" recognized as knowledgeable and fair by all parties concerned. On that basis, the full text of an "Understanding" was finally agreed.

Before leaving Yangon, the mission was received by the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Khin Maung Win, who had been kept regularly informed of the progress of the discussions and who welcomed the news that they had finally led to an "Understanding". He expressed the willingness of the Government to make the assessment process a success and asked the mission to communicate to the Director-General his Government's wish to assist the HLT as much as possible in achieving its objectives. If difficulties arose, they could be discussed openly. The Government was firmly committed to resolving the issue.

The final text, as initialled by both parties at the airport after final amendments, is reproduced in Appendix 5. Before leaving, the representative of the Director-General expressed the concern that the content of the Understanding and its implications should be communicated to the General Secretary of the National League for Democracy (NLD). Since it had been unable to do so directly, given the various constraints which it had had to face, the mission, on behalf of the Director-General, asked Mr. Léon de Riedmatten, former ICRC delegate and currently representative of the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, to do so instead.

The mission could not conclude its report without thanking Mr. Patrice Coeur-Bizot, the United Nations Resident Coordinator, and his assistant, Ms. Jeanne Lennkh, for their valuable support in the organization of meetings and in ensuring the smooth progress of the mission. It also wishes to thank Mr. Léon de Riedmatten for the very useful advice which he imparted to the mission on the basis of his particular experience and role. The mission was encouraged by the contacts which it had with the international organizations represented in Yangon and with the current ICRC delegate, Mr. Michel Ducraux. Overall, those organizations expressed a strong interest in contributing in a concrete way to the success of the present undertaking and in particular to promoting the development and implementation of the programme of the future high-level team as far as their knowledge and resources permit.

Geneva, 31 May 2001.

Appendix 1

Communication dated 1 March 2001 from the Director-General to the Minister for Labour of the Government of Myanmar

Dear Mr. Minister,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 11 February 2001 in reply to mine of 22 December 2000, and would like to offer the following comments.

As regards the second paragraph of your letter, I can assure you that your views, as well as the text of the statement which your Ambassador intended to make and which reached the Chairman's Office after the closure of the session, will be reflected appropriately in the documentation before the next session of the Governing Body.

I have taken note of your statement that Myanmar is "resolute in our endeavours to implement the framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures which we have put in place" with a view to the total elimination of the practice of forced labour in Myanmar, and in particular of the information that some action has already been taken against the perpetrators of such practices.

However it is clear that Myanmar cannot expect to receive credit for these endeavours in the absence of an objective assessment of their practical implementation and actual impact. The ILO alone is in a position to provide such an assessment with the authority necessary to carry legal, practical and political consequences at the international level. This is all the more relevant in the light of the continuing flow of information from various sources concerning the issues in question.

For these reasons I would like to reiterate that the Office stands ready to engage in discussions about the possible format and modalities such an objective assessment could take. In my view, it would be highly desirable that such discussions take place before the next session of the Governing Body. It should be recalled that the International Labour Conference will, in accordance with paragraph 1(a) of its resolution, review the situation at its next session in June, on the basis of all relevant information then available.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Juan Somavia.

Appendix 2

Communication dated 26 April 2001 from the Minister for Labour of the Government of Myanmar to the Director-General

Excellency,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 1 March 2001 which responded to my letter of 11 February 2001.

I note with satisfaction that, as assured by you in the letter under reference, the statement of my Ambassador as well as our views on the issue of forced labour in Myanmar had been reflected in the documentation submitted to the 280th Session of the Governing Body of the ILO held last month. I wish to express thanks to you for that.

I fully appreciate your Office's continued readiness to engage in discussions about the possible format or modalities for an objective assessment of the actual implementation of the legislative, executive and administrative measures that we have taken to eliminate forced labour in Myanmar. In this regard I would like to reiterate Myanmar's willingness to occasionally accept an ILO representative based in the Regional Office in Bangkok or Geneva and/or a mutually acceptable person. We are convinced that such a representative would be able to assess objectively the implementation of the abovementioned measures and their impact. For the assessment to be generally effective, in our view, it would require the involvement of an independent and unbiased entity.

I hope that continued discussions between you and our Permanent Representative Ambassador U Mya Than, who has been designated as our contact point in this matter, will lead to some significant progress before the 89th Session of the International Labour Conference (ILC) in our search for the effective format or modalities acceptable to both sides.

I can assure you that, regardless of any outcome in this joint effort, we will continue to take steps to ensure that forced labour does not exist in Myanmar both in law and in practice and to implement the framework we have put in place.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Major-General Tin Ngwe,

Minister for Labour,

Union of Myanmar.

Appendix 3

Communication dated 10 May 2001 from the Director-General to the Minister for Labour of the Government of Myanmar

Dear Mr. Minister,

Thank you for your letter of 26 April reacting to my letter of 1 March in the light of subsequent developments, including the discussions at the 280th Session of the Governing Body.

As envisaged in your letter, discussions have in the meantime continued with Ambassador Mya Than with a view to clarifying the process whereby the objective assessment mentioned in my letter could actually take place.

It now seems clear on both sides that this process would be in two stages. The first stage would be to reach a clear and firm commitment on the modalities of such an assessment on the basis of parameters which have been presented to the Ambassador. It is very urgent that this commitment be finalized so that, as envisaged on both sides, the outcome could be reported to the Conference in June. To reach this outcome as expeditiously as possible, my representatives - whose names have been communicated to the Ambassador - are ready to travel to Yangon as soon as the competent authorities confirm their interest, but no later than early next week.

If this first stage is successful, the second stage would be to undergo the objective assessment itself, in accordance with the abovementioned modalities. This assessment would have to take place not later than the end of the summer so that a report could be prepared for the Governing Body in November.

I hope the above clarification may help the authorities to quickly finalize their position on the matter.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Juan Somavia.

Appendix 4

List of meetings held

The mission held 16 meetings in Yangon over three days. It met with the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, senior officials from three ministries (Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs, and Labour), and from the Attorney-General's Office and the Office of Strategic Studies, representatives of 26 diplomatic missions, seven United Nations agencies, a representative of the Geneva-based Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, and a representative of the ICRC.

Thursday, 17 May 2001

9.40 a.m., Arrival in Yangon

10.30-11.00 a.m., Traders Hotel

Patrice Coeur-Bizot United Nations Resident Coordinator

Jeanne Lennkh Assistant to United Nations Resident

Coordinator

Léon de Riedmatten Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue

11.00 a.m.-1.00 p.m., Traders Hotel

Soe Nyunt Director-General, Department of Labour

Win Mya Director-General, International

Organizations and Economic Department,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Dr. Tun Shin Director-General,

Attorney-General's Office

Lt.-Col. Hla Min Deputy Head, Department of International

Affairs, Office of Strategic Studies

Aung Thein Director-General, Department of General

Administration, Ministry of Home Affairs

Zaw Win Chief of General Staff, Police Force

2.30-4.30 p.m., Traders Hotel

Soe Nyunt Director-General, Department of Labour

Win Mya Director-General, International

Organizations and Economic Department,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Dr. Tun Shin Director-General,

Attorney-General's Office

Lt.-Col. Hla Min Deputy Head, Department of International

Affairs, Office of Strategic Studies

Aung Thein Director-General, Department of General

Administration, Ministry of Home Affairs

Zaw Win Chief of General Staff, Police Force

5.00-6.00 p.m., Japanese Embassy

Shigeru Tsumori Japanese Ambassador

Kiyoshi Koinuma Deputy Chief of Mission

Head of Political Section

Naoki Ito Counsellor

Friday, 18 May 2001

8.00-9.00 a.m., Traders Hotel

Trevor Wilson Australian Ambassador

John Jenkins British Ambassador

Bernard Lelarge French Second Secretary

Hauke Kracht German Third Secretary

Francesco Fedeli Italian Chargé d'Affaires a.i.

Karl Wycoff United States Chargé d'Affaires a.i.

Patrice Coeur-Bizot United Nations Resident Coordinator

Jeanne Lennkh Assistant to United Nations Resident

Coordinator

10.00-10.30 a.m., Traders Hotel

Soe Nyunt Director-General, Department of Labour

Win Mya Director-General, International

Organizations and Economic Department,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Dr. Tun Shin Director-General,

Attorney-General's Office

Lt.-Col. Hla Min Deputy Head, Department of International

Affairs, Office of Strategic Studies

Aung Thein Director-General, Department of General

Administration, Ministry of Home Affairs

Zaw Win Chief of General Staff, Police Force

12.15-1.15 p.m., UNDP Office

Patrice Coeur-Bizot United Nations Resident Coordinator

Jeanne Lennkh Assistant to United Nations Resident

Coordinator

Members of the United Nations Country Team:

Francis Rinville FAO Representative

Guillaume Le Hegarat UNDCP Assistant Representative

Rajiv Kapur UNHCR Chief of Mission

Dr. Rosella Morelli UNICEF Officer in Charge

Jos Vandelear WHO Officer in Charge

Bradley Guerrant WFP Emergency Coordinator

Renata Dessallien UNDP Deputy Resident Representative

P 1.15-2.15 p.m., UNDP Office

Janeh Sukaimi Brunei First Secretary

In May Cambodian Counsellor

Nasaruddin

Mochtar Koro Indonesian Ambassador

Ly Bounkham Lao People's Democratic Republic Ambassador

Dato Mohammad

Bin Noh Malaysian Ambassador

Pablito Mendoza Philippine Third Secretary

Simon de Cruz Singapore Ambassador

Buskorn Prugsapongse Thai Counsellor

Nguyen Van Thanh Vietnamese Second Secretary

Wang Zongying Chinese First Secretary

Shyam Saran Indian Ambassador

Naoki Ito Japanese Counsellor

Chung Jung-Gum Republic of Korea Ambassador

Patrice Coeur-Bizot United Nations Resident Coordinator

2.30-4.00 p.m., Traders Hotel

Soe Nyunt Director-General, Department of Labour

Win Mya Director-General, International

Organizations and Economic Department,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Dr. Tun Shin Director-General,

Attorney-General's Office

Lt.-Col. Hla Min Deputy Head, Department of International

Affairs, Office of Strategic Studies

Aung Thein Director-General, Department of General

Administration, Ministry of Home Affairs

Zaw Win Chief of General Staff, Police Force

6.00-8.00 p.m., Traders Hotel

Soe Nyunt Director-General, Department of Labour

Win Mya Director-General, International

Organizations and Economic Department,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Dr. Tun Shin Director-General,

Attorney-General's Office

Lt.-Col. Hla Min Deputy Head, Department of International

Affairs, Office of Strategic Studies

Aung Thein Director-General, Department of General

Administration, Ministry of Home Affairs

Zaw Win Chief of General Staff, Police Force

Saturday, 19 May 2001

8.00-9.00 a.m., UNDP Office

Mahfuzur Rahman Bangladesh First Secretary

Harishchandra Ghimire Nepalese Chargé d'Affaires a.i.

Yusuf Shah Pakistan Ambassador

Ubayasekara Mapa Sri Lankan Ambassador

Dr. Farouk Riad

Hassan Mabrouk Egyptian Ambassador

Dimitry Darchenkov Russian Second Secretary

Vladimir Stamenovic Yugoslav Attaché

Shigeru Tsumori Japanese Ambassador

Jeanne Lennkh Assistant to United Nations Resident

Coordinator

(Apologies: Israeli Ambassador)

10.45 a.m.-1.30 p.m., Traders Hotel

Soe Nyunt Director-General, Department of Labour

Win Mya Director-General, International

Organizations and Economic Department,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Dr. Tun Shin Director-General,

Attorney-General's Office

Lt.-Col. Hla Min Deputy Head, Department of International

Affairs, Office of Strategic Studies

Aung Thein Director-General, Department of General

Administration, Ministry of Home Affairs

Zaw Win Chief of General Staff, Police Force

4.15-5.15 p.m., Traders Hotel

Soe Nyunt Director-General, Department of Labour

Win Mya Director-General, International

Organizations and Economic Department,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Dr. Tun Shin Director-General,

Attorney-General's Office

Lt.-Col. Hla Min Deputy Head, Department of International

Affairs, Office of Strategic Studies

Aung Thein Director-General, Department of General

Administration, Ministry of Home Affairs

Zaw Win Chief of General Staff, Police Force

5.30-5.45 p.m., Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Khin Maung Win Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs

Officials from the Ministry

6.00-6.30 p.m., Traders Hotel

Michel Ducraux ICRC Head of Delegation

Jeanne Lennkh Assistant to United Nations Resident

Coordinator

7.00-7.30 p.m., Yangon Airport (initialling of the "Understanding")

Soe Nyunt Director-General, Department of Labour

Win Mya Director-General, International

Organizations and Economic Department,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Dr. Tun Shin Director-General,

Attorney-General's Office

Jeanne Lennkh Assistant to United Nations Resident

Coordinator

Appendix 5

Understanding on an ILO objective assessment

Recalling previous discussions which were reported to the Governing Body at its March 2001 session relating to the possibility of an objective assessment being carried out by the ILO with respect to the practical implementation and actual impact of the framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures reported by the Government, within the overall objective of the complete elimination of forced labour in law and in practice;

Recognizing now the desirability of such an assessment being carried out as soon as practicable;

Noting the importance in this connection of the observation made by the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in its 2001 report;

Aware of the need to respect the sovereign right of the country as well as the independence of the Organization in the discharge of its functions;

The Government of Myanmar agrees to receive a high-level team (HLT) to carry out an objective assessment under the following conditions designed to ensure its credibility:

1. The team will be composed of high-level persons appointed by the ILO Director-General on the basis of their recognized qualifications, impartiality and knowledge of the region.

2. Taking into consideration seasonal weather conditions, the assessment shall be carried out in September 2001. The time needed to carry out the assessment in Myanmar could involve up to three weeks.

3. The members of the HLT shall enjoy, for the purpose and duration of the mission, the same protection and status accorded to officials of comparable ranks in the United Nations.

4. The HLT shall have complete discretion to establish and implement its program of work, meetings and visits, taking into account the indications provided, inter alia, in the aforementioned observation of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, and subject only to valid considerations of security. For this purpose, the HLT shall be accorded full cooperation from the relevant Myanmar authorities. During the establishment and implementation of the HLT's programme, the HLT and the Government may call upon the assistance of a facilitator recognized by all parties concerned as being a knowledgeable and fair intermediary.

5. Based on the results of the assessment, the HLT may provide such advice and comments as it deems appropriate.

6. The report of the HLT will promptly be made available to the Director-General and the Government and transmitted to the Governing Body for consideration at its November 2001 session.

19 May 2001.

(Initialled) U Soe Nyunt,

Chairman of the Myanmar Negotiating Team.

Francis Maupain.

Endnote 1

GB.279/6/1 and the three addenda to that document.

Endnote 2

The text of the resolution is reproduced in Appendix 6.

Endnote 3

The recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry are reproduced in Appendix 7.

Endnote 4

Letters were sent to the following 59 organizations: United Nations, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNDP, UNFPA, OHCHR, UNCTAD, WFP, UNEP, UNODCCP, UNRWA, UNAIDS, Economic Commission for Africa, ECE, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, FAO, WHO, UNESCO, UNIDO, IAEA, WIPO, ICAO, UPU, IMO, WMO, ITU, IFAD, PAHO, IMF, World Bank, WTO, OECD, European Commission, Council of Europe, African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Caribbean Development Bank, League of Arab States, Organization of African Unity, CARICOM, Organization of American States, ASEAN, SAARC, Andean Community, SELA, LAIA, Nordic Council, OIC, CERN, ECOWAS, Arab Labour Organization, World Tourism Organization, IOM, Asian Productivity Organization and the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

Endnote 5

Information on the practice of forced labour up to November 2000 is contained in the 2001 report of the CEACR. The individual observation concerning the observance of Convention No. 29 by Myanmar is reproduced in Appendix 8.

Endnote 6

This statement could not be given to the 279th Session of the Governing Body and is reproduced here for information.

Endnote 7

Appended to the letter of 6 December 2000 from the Permanent Representative of the Myanmar Mission

Endnote 8

Paragraph 539 of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry appointed under article 26 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization to examine the observance by Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). ILO Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXXI, 1998, Series B, Special Supplement. The full text of the report is also available on the ILO website at the following address: (http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/gb/docs/gb273/myanm ar.html).

The Committee held a special sitting on the application by Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), further to the resolution adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 88th Session, concerning the application of article 33 of the Constitution. It noted the oral and written information submitted by the Government, and the discussion which followed. It recalled that this case had been discussed repeatedly in the Committee before the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry under article 26 of the Constitution, and deplored the lack of progress towards the elimination of forced and compulsory labour. The Committee noted the results of the Director-General's appeals to the ILO constituents, including employers' and workers' organizations as well as governments, and other international organizations, to review their relations with the Government of Myanmar in order to ensure that the Government of Myanmar could not take advantage of relations with them to perpetuate or extend the system of forced or compulsory labour referred to by the Commission of Inquiry. It also noted that, according to information submitted to the Governing Body in March 2001 and to the Committee, forced and compulsory labour was still being imposed on the citizens of the country. The Committee recalled that the Commission of Inquiry had called upon the Government to halt all use of forced or compulsory labour, to amend its legislation to render the practice illegal, and to punish all those who imposed forced labour. The Committee noted that Order No. 1/99 as supplemented by the Order of 27 October 2000 was a relevant but insufficient basis for improving legislation. The conditions spelled out by the Committee of Experts should be applied in good faith, and further measures would be needed to ensure that this was in fact done. The Committee welcomed the Government's decision to resume cooperation with the ILO. In this regard, it noted with interest that a recent mission by representatives of the Director-General (17-19 May 2001) had concluded an understanding for an objective assessment of the situation of forced labour following measures announced by the Government of Myanmar, and that the results of this objective assessment were to be brought before the Governing Body at its November 2001 session. It was pointed out that this was only a beginning, and the Committee called upon the Government once again to take all possible measures with the greatest urgency to eliminate forced and compulsory labour in all its forms, in following the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry; to punish those responsible for imposing forced labour; and to give full cooperation to the High-Level Team which was to carry out the objective assessment referred to above. The Committee emphasized that, taking into account the discussion in the Committee, the High-Level Team should: (1) have sufficient authority to programme its activities; (2) have an appropriate composition which will allow the work to be distributed among its members; (3) be selected within the sole discretion of the Director-General; (4) be able to carry out its investigation in all the places in the country which it considered necessary to visit; and (5) have unrestricted access to all necessary sources of information. Those people who provided information to the Team must enjoy full protection. It was also noted that the United Nations Economic and Social Council had been asked to discuss the situation at its July 2001 session. The Committee requested the Governing Body to assess the report of the High-Level Team at its November 2001 session in order to consider what further steps were necessary to be taken at that time by the Government or by the ILO, and recalled that the Government should provide a detailed report to the Committee of Experts at its next session on all measures taken to ensure observance of the Convention in law and in practice.

The Government representative of Myanmar asked that the closing remarks of the President reflect the positive comments regarding the agreement reached by the Government and the ILO on the modalities for the objective assessment which had been made by delegates, including a number of Workers' delegates. This would introduce better balance into the text. He suggested therefore that the sentence in the conclusions beginning with "In this regard, it noted with interest ..." read "In this regard, it noted with appreciation ...". He also suggested that the phrase concerning Order No. 1/99 reflect the original wording of the Committee of Experts which read that the Order "... could provide a statutory basis for ensuring compliance with the Convention in practice ..." (paragraph 7). The experts, who are internationally recognized independent persons, had made an objective assessment in moderate language which should be retained.

In response to several questions, the Chairman clarified that the phrase in the conclusions concerning Order No. 1/99 to which the Government representative referred, used different wording but did not modify the conclusions on the same subject in paragraph 7 of the Committee of Experts' observation, and was entirely compatible with the Experts' meaning. This clarification would figure in the report of the discussion in the Committee's report.

The Employer members proposed to insert a paragraph in the general part of the Committee's report to the Conference to indicate that the Committee had held a special sitting on the issue of forced labour in Myanmar. The proceedings of this sitting should be reproduced in a special Part Three of the report. The Worker members agreed with this proposal.

B. Observation of the Committee on the Application of Standardsa Convention No. 29: Forced Labour, 1930

Observation 2000

(Not reproduced)

C. Documents submitted to the Governing Body (GB.280/6, GB.280/6(Add.1) and GB.280/6(Add.2))

GB.280/6

SIXTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA

Developments concerning the question of the observance by the Government of Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)

Introduction

1. At its 279th Session (November 2000), the Governing Body had before it the report of the ILO technical cooperation mission which visited Myanmar from 20 to 26 October 2000 and subsequent documents provided by the Government. (Endnote 1) The Governing Body concluded that the conditions set out in paragraph 2 of the Conference resolution had not been met and that effect should accordingly be given to the provisions of paragraph 1 of the resolution adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 88th Session (June 2000). The measures mentioned in paragraph 1 of that resolution therefore came into effect on 30 November 2000. (Endnote 2) In the light of the discussion, it was however noted that the Director-General should continue to extend cooperation to the Government of Myanmar in order to promote full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. (Endnote 3)

2. In accordance with the Conference resolution, by letter of 8 December 2000, the Director-General brought subparagraph (b) of operative paragraph 1 of the resolution to the attention of governments of member States of the ILO, and requested that they inform him of any action taken or envisaged in this regard. The Director-General also requested that the recommendations contained in the resolution be brought to the attention of the employers' and workers' organizations in the country so that they might take relevant measures and inform him either directly or through their government. A copy of this letter was also sent to the relevant national organizations of employers and workers.

3. In addition, international employers' and workers' organizations and other non-governmental organizations having consultative status with the ILO were also informed of the Governing Body actions.

4. In accordance with the Conference resolution, by letter of 8 December 2000, the Director-General informed the international organizations referred to in article 12, paragraph 1, of the Constitution of Myanmar's failure to comply with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and called on the relevant bodies of these organizations to reconsider, within their terms of reference and in the light of the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry, any cooperation they might be engaged in with Myanmar and, if appropriate, to cease as soon as possible any activity that could have the effect of directly or indirectly abetting the practice of forced or compulsory labour. (Endnote 4) The Director-General also requested these organizations to inform him of any action taken in this regard by the competent bodies of the organization. In addition, the Director-General has been in close touch with Ambassador Razali Ismail, the UN Secretary-General's special envoy to Myanmar, in connection with his two recent visits to the country on 9-12 October 2000 and 5-9 January 2001. The Office has also discussed the matter with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Mr. Paulo Pinheiro.

5. With regard to subparagraph (d) of operative paragraph 1 of the Conference resolution, the Director-General has after close consultations with the United Nations secretariat set in motion the procedures necessary to have the question of Myanmar's failure to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry placed on the agenda of the July 2001 session of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), seeking the adoption of recommendations directed by ECOSOC or by the General Assembly, or by both, to governments and to other specialized agencies and including requests similar to those contained in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of the Conference resolution.

6. In addition to the information communicated pursuant to the Conference resolution, a substantial amount of information was also received from other sources. This was in large part due to the wide publicity attracted by the coming into effect of the measures contained in the Conference resolution. A number of NGOs and individuals volunteered information to the Office regarding measures taken and other action initiated in support of the Conference resolution, as well as information regarding the current practice of forced labour in Myanmar.

7. Information received on measures taken in regard to the Conference resolution will be set out in four parts: (i) developments as regards the Government of Myanmar; (ii) measures taken by the Organization's constituents; (iii) measures taken by international organizations; (iv) other relevant information received.

Developments as regards the Government of Myanmar

8. Due to early closure of the Governing Body's 279th Session, a letter from the Permanent Mission of Myanmar to the Chairperson of the Governing Body stating its position following the Governing Body's conclusions reached his office too late to be brought to the attention of the Governing Body. This statement is reproduced in Appendix 1 for information.

9. In a letter dated 6 December 2000 to the Chairman of the 279th Session of the Governing Body, the Permanent Representative of the Myanmar Mission reiterated the concerns raised in the letter referred to in the preceding paragraph. The letter also contained an annex entitled "Resumé of the concrete measures taken by the Myanmar Government", which included information on the Government's position prior to the Governing Body's conclusions. This document is reproduced in Appendix 2 for information.

10. In a letter dated 22 December 2000 to the Government of Myanmar, reproduced in Appendix 3, the Director-General informed the Government that he had notified ILO Members and international organizations of the decision of the Governing Body, as contemplated in the relevant paragraph of the resolution, but stressed that he continued to extend cooperation to the Government in order to promote the full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. He expressed the sincere hope that the measures currently in force would soon become unnecessary as a result of the Government's full application of these recommendations.

11. In reply to the Director-General's letter of 22 December 2000, the Government sent a letter dated 11 February 2000, reproduced in Appendix 4, in which it recalled that it had received two technical cooperation missions from the ILO in its efforts to make its domestic legislation fully in line with Convention No. 29. It had put into place a framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures to make forced labour illegal both in law and in practice. However, "... powerful forces in the ILO Governing Body totally ignored the concrete measures taken by Myanmar as well as its demonstrated desire to cooperate with ILO". The letter further stated that despite this, Myanmar was resolute in its endeavours to implement the framework of measures that it had put in place. The Committee for Implementation of Convention No. 29 was holding regular meetings to review the situation. The national monitoring mechanism which had been put in place was also functioning smoothly. There had been a few cases where the latest legislative order had been breached. These cases had been investigated and necessary legal action was taken against the perpetrators. The Government thanked the Director-General for his readiness to extend cooperation to Myanmar, and fully realized that its national efforts would receive better acceptance by its detractors if they involved the ILO. However, until such time that Myanmar received fair and equitable treatment, it would have to itself continue its efforts for the total elimination of the practice of forced labour in Myanmar. The Government gave its assurances that it would continue to take steps to ensure that forced labour was illegal in Myanmar and that the framework of measures put in place would be resolutely implemented.

12. The Director-General responded to this reply by letter dated 1 March 2001, reproduced in Appendix 5 The Director-General will inform the Governing Body of any future developments.

Measures taken by the Organization's constituents

Measures taken by member States

13. By 5 March 2001, responses had been received from 39 member States, as well as a number of national employers' and workers' organizations. A summary of these responses follows. Given the ongoing nature of some of the reported measures, the present report will be completed, as appropriate, with any further relevant information for the International Labour Conference as indicated in paragraph 67 below. As a result of member States forwarding information pursuant to the Conference resolution to national employers' and workers' organizations, a considerable amount of information was received separately from these organizations about actions they had taken in relation to the resolution.

14. In a letter dated 19 January 2001, the Government of the United States indicated that it had worked continuously and with bipartisan support to seek a return to democracy and improvements in human rights, including an end to forced labour, in Myanmar. In this regard, the Government had imposed a series of diplomatic and economic sanctions against Myanmar in recent years, including suspension of economic assistance, downgrading diplomatic representation to chargé level, an arms embargo, suspension of trade benefits under its GSP programme, opposition to support programmes from international financial institutions, restriction on visas for Myanmar individuals involved in the suppression of democracy and human rights, and a ban on US investment in Myanmar. The Government had also supported a number of actions taken by the ILO with regard to forced labour in Myanmar, including the November 2000 finding by the Governing Body that insufficient progress had been made to withhold the measures adopted by the Conference. At the same time, the Government noted that the Myanmar authorities and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi of the National League for Democracy had confirmed that they were engaged in dialogue. The Government hoped that this was a genuine effort to achieve national reconciliation, and that it brought concrete and timely progress towards ending forced labour and other human rights abuses in Myanmar. The Government hoped this process succeeded, but believed that in the absence of significant and measurable progress, ILO Members, including the United States, should be prepared to consider additional measures, including trade sanctions, in response to the article 33 decision of the Conference. The Government stressed that there was no evidence yet before the Governing Body or the Conference that suggested the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had been fully implemented. Finally, the Government expressed continued misgivings regarding an ILO presence in Myanmar.

15. In a letter dated 15 February 2001, the Government of Thailand stated that in order to take measures in compliance with the Conference resolution, on 10 January 2001 the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare had held a meeting of relevant government agencies, workers' and employers' organizations and others, and that the Government could therefore give assurances that no Thai investment in Myanmar contributed, directly or indirectly, to the exaction of any form of forced labour. Every possible effort would be made to discourage the practice of forced labour, should the Government become aware of its existence in any form. In order to resolve this issue effectively and strengthen cooperation with the ILO, agreement had been reached to set up a steering committee in order to monitor and follow up the case.

16. The Governments of Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden and United Kingdom indicated that the matter of how best to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Conference resolution had been discussed with employers' and workers' organizations, among EU Member States and with the European Commission. They shared the international concern at the practice of forced labour in Myanmar, a practice which they feared had not yet ended. The European Community suspended GSP trade privileges in 1997 as a result of this practice. The European Union had also taken a number of other measures over the last four years, set out in its Common Position, in response to the political situation in Myanmar. The Myanmar regime had taken certain steps aimed at ending the practice of forced labour, but it needed to be outlawed legally, ended in practice, and any continuing practitioners punished. The European Union was monitoring the situation closely and, should the authorities in Myanmar fail to take the necessary action in this respect, the European Union stood ready to take further measures. The European Union made clear its concerns regarding forced labour during the visit of its Troika mission to Myanmar in January 2001. It sincerely hoped that contacts would be renewed between the ILO and Myanmar and that an ILO presence might be established in the country in order to verify the definitive end to the practice of forced labour. The Government of Ireland added that it intended to write to any companies with trade or investment links with Myanmar to express its support for the ILO resolution. The Government of Denmark added that its Standing Committee for ILO matters had recommended that Danish enterprises consider their relations with Myanmar. The Government of France added that it had undertaken an exhaustive assessment of its cooperation with and assistance to Myanmar, currently limited to the humanitarian field, in order to ensure that these relations could not in any way perpetuate or extend the practice of forced labour in the country. A census of French companies working in Myanmar was also underway, in order to inform them of the ILO resolution. The Government of Italy added that it had instituted an in-depth review of bilateral relations with Myanmar to ensure that they could not be taken advantage of to perpetuate the system of forced labour in that country. Italian commercial relations with Myanmar had been reduced to a minimum following the deterioration in the political and human rights situation. Between January and October 2000, the most recent period for which figures were available, the total trade with Myanmar had been 32 million euros, and there was no Italian investment in Myanmar, nor was any currently planned. The number of Italian tourists visiting Myanmar between 1999 and 2000 was minor. The Government of the Netherlands added that its policy was neither to encourage Dutch companies to enter into activities in Myanmar nor to discourage them. Total trade amounted to around US$19 million annually. The Government of Sweden added that its relations with Myanmar were of limited extent. Its economic relations were negligible, with imports for the period January-October 2000 standing at around SEK20 million (mostly wooden and textile products) and exports for the same period standing at SEK1.2 million. It was ready to take measures to ensure that the country's trade with Myanmar did not support the system of forced labour. As one measure, it would officially inform Swedish importers of the Conference resolution and the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

17. In a communication dated 28 February 2001, the Government of Switzerland stated that due to lack of progress in democratization in Myanmar and due to systematic violation of human rights (including workers' rights), it had passed a law on 2 October 2000 instituting measures against Myanmar. This law, a copy of which was provided, imposed an arms embargo and prohibited the export to Myanmar of equipment that could be used for the purposes of internal repression. In addition, members of the Government of Myanmar and their families were subject to a freeze of their assets in Switzerland and were prohibited from entry into or transit through Switzerland. Consultations had established that relations between Switzerland and Myanmar were minor, with imports over the period January to November 2000 standing at Sw.frs.2.2 million and exports at Sw.frs.3.5 million. The number of Swiss tourists visiting Myanmar was also minor. In addition, the Government pointed out that the international "Clean Clothes" campaign had particularly targeted an underwear company based in Switzerland. The Swiss tripartite consultation commission, while welcoming recent legal measures taken by the Government of Myanmar, hoped that these would be translated into action. It further hoped that Myanmar would accept a permanent ILO presence, which would be able to verify the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, and in this way that a normalization of relations between Myanmar and the international community might be facilitated. Taking into account the fact that existing bilateral economic relations were minor, and given the initial steps taken by the Government of Myanmar towards a political opening, it was not envisaged for the moment that the Government would take additional measures against Myanmar.

18. In a communication dated 26 January 2001, the Government of Norway confirmed its continued support for the EU's Common Position on Myanmar. It did not provide humanitarian assistance to organizations or activities that contributed in any way to forced labour in Myanmar. Half of the Norwegian assistance related to Myanmar was applied to human rights and democracy measures. In 1998 the Government issued a call, which remained in effect, to Norwegian firms not to trade with Myanmar. Current trade with Myanmar was marginal. In December 2000 the Government had met with the Norwegian Federation of Trade Unions to discuss the question of a possible boycott.

19. In a communication dated 1 March 2001, the Government of Australia stated that it had conducted a review of relations with Myanmar, which had established that no Australian government-funded aid programmes or activities supported or perpetuated the practice of forced labour. The Government was unaware of any Australian firms engaging in activities in Myanmar which were linked with forced labour, but its embassy in the country had advised Australian companies known to be working or investing there of its review and recommended that they ensure their compliance with the Conference resolution. In addition, the Australian Government had taken constructive steps in other areas to encourage the Myanmar authorities to eliminate forced labour. It had funded a series of human rights training workshops in Yangon in 2000 for some 50 middle-level officials, one of which was an "international law overview" during which participants openly discussed sensitive issues including the issue of forced labour.

20. The Governments of Austria, Croatia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, Trinidad and Tobago and Ukraine stated that they had communicated the details of the Conference resolution to their employers' and workers' organizations, but did not have any further information to provide at this stage.

21. The Governments of Chile, Cuba, Czech Republic, Iceland, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mali, Morocco, Panama, Philippines, Romania, Singapore, Suriname and Togo stated that they had no relations with Myanmar that could be taken advantage of to perpetuate or extend the practice of forced or compulsory labour referred to by the Commission of Inquiry. The Government of Singapore also reiterated that the adoption of promotional measures rather than sanctions would be more appropriate and effective in addressing the issue of forced labour in Myanmar. The Government of the Czech Republic also stated that it had joined the EU Common Position on Myanmar, adopted in 1996 and subsequently extended. It had also joined the EU embargo on weapons, ammunition and military equipment export to Myanmar, had cancelled aid which was not of a clear humanitarian character as well as development aid programmes. Bilateral relations were also suspended, including those of social partners. The Government of Malaysia also stated that it would continue, along with other ASEAN members, to urge the Myanmar authorities to implement measures that would bring an end to all practices described as forced labour by the Commission of Inquiry. It looked forward to an amicable solution which would address the issue effectively.

Measures taken by national employers' and workers' organizations

22. The Confederation of Free Trade Unions of the Slovak Republic noted that the Slovak Republic followed the EU position on Myanmar. The Slovak Republic did not maintain any bilateral political relations with Myanmar, but did maintain trade contacts within the EU restrictions. There was not thought to be any investment in Myanmar by Slovak enterprises, but a review of the type of commodities imported from Myanmar to the Slovak Republic showed that the majority belonged to sectors which were subject to violation of fundamental labour rights. Attached to the letter was a list of Slovak enterprises exporting to and importing from Myanmar as well as a breakdown of this trade by sector and whether it was likely to involve forced labour.

23. In a communication dated 20 February 2001, the Confédération Générale du Travail Force Ouvrière indicated that it had requested the French Government to provide it with a list of French companies having relations with Myanmar as well as details and amount of business dealings with that country. In addition, the organization had written to a certain French company involved in hotels and tourism to request them to reconsider their activities in Myanmar. The Confederation was not satisfied with the company's response that its presence would have positive effects. Moreover, the Confederation had repeatedly pressed the French Government to become involved in the question of the presence in Myanmar of a certain French multinational company. The Confederation had also requested that a special session of the consultation commission for ILO matters be held, dedicated exclusively to the question of Myanmar.

24. Communications from Norwegian employers' and workers' organizations were forwarded by the Government of Norway. The Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions stated that together with other Norwegian voluntary organizations it had played an active part in trying to bring about a statutory Norwegian economic boycott of Myanmar. The Confederation of Vocational Unions indicated that it strongly urged the Government to implement such a boycott. The Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry welcomed the Government's requests for abstention from economic cooperation with Myanmar and would encourage member enterprises to comply with this request. In a separate communication, the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions provided translations of correspondence between itself and the Government of Norway regarding the Confederation's call for a Norwegian economic boycott of Myanmar.

25. The Swedish Trade Union Confederation indicated that it had requested the Swedish Government to take additional measures against Myanmar, including a ban on investments and on the import of products from Myanmar. Its affiliated national unions would undertake a review to ensure that no Swedish companies or authorities were economically active in Myanmar, including imports, exports, investment and trade. The organization also requested that Sweden, as holder of the EU presidency, should seek a decision by the EU Council of Ministers banning investments by all companies based in the European Union and banning imports of all products originating in Myanmar.

26. Information from German workers' organizations was forwarded by the Government of Germany. A report on the elimination of forced labour in Myanmar by the German Confederation of Trade Unions discussed the background to the case and noted that most forms of economic relations with Myanmar made at least some use of infrastructure built with forced labour. All German companies were advised to take a critical look at their economic ties to business partners in Myanmar. The works councils of enterprises that had economic relations with Myanmar should request management for detailed information about the nature of these ties, and urge management to cut any ties which could not be maintained without making use of infrastructure constructed using forced labour. Such requests were covered by paragraph 80 of the Works Constitution Act, since such an enterprise would be party to what the international community considered a grave violation of the law. A letter to the Government of Germany from the German Union of Salaried Employees supported any action the Government could take regarding the situation in Myanmar, including representations to the Government of Myanmar via its embassy.

27. The Union Syndicale Suisse provided information on the extent of trade relations between Myanmar and Switzerland, set out the details of the law passed by the Government of Switzerland against Myanmar on 2 October 2000, and noted that the Swiss-based textile company had been targeted by the "Clean Clothes" campaign. Similar information was provided by the Government of Switzerland and is set out in more detail in paragraph 17 above.

28. Information from the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) was forwarded by the Government of the United Kingdom. In a letter dated 8 February 2001 to the Government of the United Kingdom, the Confederation indicated that its member companies had had the Government's policy towards Myanmar brought to their attention. The CBI was one of the strongest proponents of tough action against Myanmar and would continue to support the ILO action.

29. The Government of Finland forwarded information from the Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers. The Confederation indicated that it did not have any relations with Myanmar or business organizations there. It supported the EU position and informed its membership (constituting 85 per cent of Finnish industry) on a regular basis about the ILO's recommendations. Finnish enterprises did not operate in Myanmar nor have industrial investments or networks there. Trade between Finland and Myanmar was minor, with exports over the period January-November 2000 standing at 248,000 euros and imports over the same period standing at 2 million euros (mostly clothing).

30. The Barbados Workers' Union and the National Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Romania indicated that they had no relations with Myanmar that could be taken advantage of to perpetuate or extend the practice of forced or compulsory labour referred to by the Commission of Inquiry.

31. The International Organisation of Employers informed all its member federations of the November Governing Body debate and highlighted the employers' position, clarified the meaning of the resolution and accompanying measures and informed them that one of the measures would be to ask constituents to review their relations with Myanmar. Employers have been involved in discussions with governments at national level on the country response to the resolution.

Measures taken by international organizations

32. By 5 March 2001, responses had been received from 20 international organizations. These came from the secretariats of these organizations, and no information was provided at this stage about any discussions in the relevant bodies of these organizations regarding the reconsidering of any cooperation they may be engaged in with the member concerned.

33. The United Nations Secretary-General indicated that the matter had been brought to the attention of all offices concerned in the United Nations. The United Nations and its programmes and funds could not be involved in any activities that might have the effect of directly or indirectly abetting the practice of forced or compulsory labour as this would be contrary to Article 1 of the United Nations Charter.

34. The European Commission stated that it strongly supported the significant position the ILO had taken on Myanmar, and had consequently engaged in discussions with the European Union Member States on the implementation of the terms of the Conference resolution. Action had already been taken in 1997 following an investigation into allegations by European trade union organizations of forced labour in Myanmar. As a result, Myanmar's access to the European Union's Generalised System of Preferences had been removed. The European Union had also taken a number of other measures over the last four years which were set out in its Common Position, first adopted in 1996 and strengthened on a number of occasions since. The Commission considered that the authorities of Myanmar needed to take rapid steps to ensure full compliance with ILO recommendations on the elimination of forced labour. The Commission, in common with the Member States of the European Union, was monitoring the situation closely and, should the authorities fail to take the necessary steps, the Commission would be ready to propose further measures to be decided by the Council, including possible measures in the field of trade and investment relations.

35. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) indicated that it had made an assessment of its activities in Myanmar and concluded that there were no activities which might be considered as directly or indirectly abetting the practice of forced labour. Attached to the communication was a "note on UNHCR's activities in Myanmar and compulsory labour", which described the nature of UNHCR's operations in Myanmar in relation to each of its six areas of intervention and discussed any impact this assistance might have on the practice of forced labour. This note is reproduced in Appendix 9.

36. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) indicated that its country office in Myanmar had recently carried out a thorough review of its project activities in Myanmar in the context of the Conference resolution and had confirmed that there were no UNDP-funded activities which directly or indirectly supported the practice of forced or compulsory labour. The UNDP would continue to monitor this situation very closely during the implementation of its project activities. Attached to the communication was a "note on UNDP's activities in Myanmar in the context of the ILO resolution", which gave details of UNDP's assistance to Myanmar and discussed any impact this assistance might have on the practice of forced labour. This note is reproduced in Appendix 10.

37. The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) indicated that it had evaluated the impact that its activities might have on forced labour and concluded that by design and practice its programme in Myanmar neither directly nor indirectly abetted the practice of forced labour. A new country programme had just taken effect and during development great care had been taken to avoid association with parties involved in the practice of forced labour. Community participation in its projects was strictly on a volunteer basis, and at all levels, all possible precautions were taken to prevent support of forced labour in the organization's operations.

38. UNAIDS indicated that with respect to its activities in Myanmar its co-sponsors had established close working relationships with the Ministry of Health as well as international, national and local non-government organizations. It had reviewed the modalities of its work in light of operative paragraph 1 of the Conference resolution and had no reason to believe that the Ministry of Health had violated this provision. It also noted that all UN agencies operating in Myanmar had their programmes examined by their respective Boards to ensure adherence to international conventions. Its partnerships with international NGOs had been consistently guided by protocols widely recognized in the humanitarian field. In addition, those organizations were signatories to a code of conduct that ensured a high level of ethical programming and operations.

39. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) indicated that although Myanmar was one of the priority countries under its resource allocation programme, it had not yet supported a full-scale country programme due largely to the prevailing political situation. It allocated less than $1 million annually for reproductive health activities. No UNPFA-funded activities benefited from or contributed to any form of forced labour, be it directly or indirectly.

40. The World Food Programme (WFP) stated that it operated exclusively in the Northern Rakhine State of Myanmar, which was a food deficit area. It had been working in the area, in coordination with UNHCR, since 1994 in such activities as relief, food for education, and food for community asset creation (FCAC). Workers received a daily food ration of 3.5 kg of rice for a family of five. FCAC activities were community based and voluntary, and mainly involved the building of irrigation dams, village access roads and the upgrading of township roads.

41. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) stated that it conducted technical cooperation activities in Myanmar which were for the safety and efficiency of civil aviation in the country and to facilitate safe movement of international civil aviation overflying the airspace of Myanmar. Its ongoing technical cooperation activities in this regard were related to the procurement of essential communication and navigation equipment and for the enhancement of capabilities with respect to the overseeing of flight safety. Technical assistance had also been offered to the Department of Civil Aviation of Myanmar to upgrade the capability of the Civil Aviation Training Centre and for the expansion of Hanthawadi International Airport at Yangon. The ICAO stressed that its technical cooperation activities in Myanmar did not, to its knowledge, directly or indirectly abet the practice of forced or compulsory labour.

42. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) indicated that Myanmar had been chosen to participate in four regional projects for Asia, which were still ongoing. These projects promoted ship inspections by port States, safety of non-convention ships, training for maritime instructors and examiners and port State control officers. In addition, some IMO courses and publications had been provided to Myanmar in 2000, following a needs assessment of the maritime training institutes in the country. Accordingly, the IMO's technical assistance in improving the competency and skills of maritime personnel did not have the effect of directly or indirectly abetting the practice of forced or compulsory labour in Myanmar.

43. The World Trade Organization (WTO) indicated that the matter would be followed up in the WTO with the Chairperson of the General Council. WTO rules did not afford the secretariat authority to adopt an independent line of action in matters such as these. WTO members had to decide on any course of action.

44. The Universal Postal Union (UPU) stated that it had looked into the matter and was not aware of any practice of forced or compulsory labour in the postal sector in Myanmar. If there were at all any such practice then it would most likely exist in remote rural areas. Myanmar was not a member of the UPU's elective bodies and the UPU had a rather limited cooperation with Myanmar at the official ministerial level. It was aware, however, that postal services were still under the direct supervision of the Myanmar Government, which meant that fundamental human rights were more likely to be fully observed in this sector. It therefore felt that there were no legal or other reasons for ceasing any official postal relations with Myanmar.

45. The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) stated that since Myanmar did not have a parliament, no contacts were maintained with the authorities in the country. The only dealings with Myanmar were in the context of the IPU's Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians which since 1991 had examined the cases of members of the Myanmar Parliament who were selected in 1990 and were to date prevented from exercising the mandate that was entrusted to them, in particular the cases of those who were in detention and could therefore be subject to forced labour. The IPU provided the text of its most recent resolution on Myanmar, adopted in October 2000, which "called again on its member parliaments to press for the respect of democratic principles in Myanmar and to show their solidarity with their elected colleagues from the Pyithu Hluttaw (Myanmar Parliament) by whatever means they deemed appropriate ...".

46. The African Development Bank Group, the International Telecommunication Union, the Nordic Council, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Pan American Health Organization, and the Arab Labour Organization stated that they had no relations with Myanmar that could be taken advantage of to perpetuate or extend the practice of forced or compulsory labour referred to by the Commission of Inquiry. The Asian Development Bank stated that it presently had no active operations in Myanmar and that the latest loan dated back to 1987 and the latest technical assistance to 1988.

Other relevant information received

Correspondence between the Government of Myanmar and the United Nations

47. The Office received from the United Nations copies of correspondence between the Government of Myanmar and the United Nations Secretary-General. In a communication dated 8 January 2001 the Government of Myanmar informed the Secretary-General of certain action that it had taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and stated that the decision of the Governing Body was "a grave injustice". The Government also considered that the measures contained in the Conference resolution calling on other international organizations to "impose sanctions" against Myanmar "clearly overstepp(ed) the constitutional mandate of the ILO". The Government called on the Secretary-General in his role as the Chief Executive of the entire UN system to use his good offices to prevent these measures being taken. The Government was greatly concerned that the outcome from such extreme measures would set a dangerous precedent for the entire UN system. The Secretary-General responded in a letter dated 24 January 2001, noting that the Conference resolution was a decision of an inter-governmental body and that the ILO Director-General was mandated to implement it. The Secretary-General also suggested that the Government might wish to consider writing to the ILO Director-General expressing its readiness to receive a mission to assess and verify the progress made on the forced labour issue before the next meeting of the Governing Body.

Communications from groups in Myanmar regarding the Governing Body conclusions

48. An "open letter regarding ILO decision on Myanmar" dated 29 November 2000 from "Workers of Myanmar" was received by the Director-General. The letter stated that it was from 18 million workers employed by public and private enterprises. The workers believed that the Governing Body's conclusions would have a direct and immediate negative impact on the workforce. The Government of Myanmar had passed strong penal laws to prohibit forced labour and the workers believed that the ILO had already succeeded in bringing better working conditions for the workers in Myanmar. The workers therefore petitioned the ILO to reconsider its actions and maintain a constructive partnership with Myanmar.

49. An open letter of the same title and same date was also received from the "International Business Community in Myanmar". The letter stated that the International Business Community was deeply disappointed by the Governing Body's conclusions. The wide range of businesses it represented employed a total of over half a million workers in Myanmar, and indirectly provided employment to many more. It suggested that the "sanctions" would only hurt the majority of Myanmar workers, rather than helping them. The ILO had secured the issuance by the Myanmar authorities of a number of orders making forced labour illegal and the ILO should remain constructively engaged with Myanmar to review compliance with these orders. It urged the ILO member States and workers' and employers' organizations to carefully reconsider their position, as it was concerned for the real welfare of workers in Myanmar. It also urged the Government of Myanmar to maintain a positive dialogue with the ILO.

Information on action taken in support of the Conference resolution

50. The Office received copies of letters from a number of national workers' organizations to their governments regarding the Conference resolution.

51. The National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers' Union of Canada (CAW) called on the Canadian Government to act upon the Conference resolution without delay, beginning with an immediate halt to the activities of all Canadian commercial and economic interests in Myanmar, including a ban on imports from that country, pending a comprehensive review. Such a review had to prove unequivocally that these activities did not benefit in any way, or encourage in any form, the practice of forced labour. The Confédération des syndicats nationaux requested information from the Canadian Government regarding the mechanisms set up by the Government to ensure that Myanmar implemented the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, and insisted that Canada took all means at its disposal to ensure the implementation of these recommendations. The Canadian Labour Congress communicated to the Canadian Government the text of a statement on Myanmar to be adopted by its Executive Committee and Council. The Congress would continue to monitor Canadian investment directly or indirectly connected to forced labour in Myanmar. The Congress was encouraging its members to boycott products imported from Myanmar. The Canadian Government should now take a number of concrete steps regarding Myanmar, including researching, monitoring and reporting on investments and imports, reviewing the Special Economic Measures Act to allow for concrete and specific measures to be taken, and convening a meeting, with the participation of the Congress, of the Government's Working Group on Corporate Social Responsibility to jointly develop steps to address the issue.

52. The Centrale des Syndicats des Travailleurs du Rwanda and the Bangladesh Jatio Sramik League urged their respective governments to take action with regard to the Conference resolution.

53. The Lanka Jathika Estate Workers' Union recommended that the Sri Lankan Government take up the matter of the Conference resolution with the Government of Myanmar and urge it to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, suggested that the leading government trade union, possibly with the assistance of the Labour Ministry, coordinate a joint representation of all unions to the Government of Myanmar, and noted that a similar protest and appeal by the Employers' Federation would be appropriate.

54. The Office also received information from two international workers' organizations regarding action taken in support of the Conference resolution.

55. In a communication dated 26 January 2001, Union Network International (UNI) transmitted the report of a joint mission to the Thai-Myanmar border that it had conducted with the ICFTU in January 2001. The mission had visited two sites on the border and met with numerous refugees and trade union activists operating in Mon State and Karen State. The persons met noted that the Conference resolution and resulting international pressure had been effective to a certain extent, but there was continuing use of forced labour or payments of money having to be made in lieu of force labour. There were numerous killings and destruction of paddy fields and villages causing thousands to be displaced, particularly in Karen State. The majority of those displaced were starving and suffering from disease. All persons that the mission met, including hundreds of refugees, supported the imposition of more comprehensive sanctions on Myanmar by the international community. While they accepted that ordinary people would suffer as a consequence of sanctions, they were of the strong opinion that it was necessary to force the Myanmar authorities to restore democracy and end the use of forced labour. The mission recommended that trade unions should continue to provide moral and financial support to the Federation of Trade Unions of Burma (FTUB), that UNI should work closely with all its affiliates in the finance sector to develop a coordinated strategy to discourage any investments or provision of financial services to business related to Myanmar, that UNI might consider working closely with its affiliates in other strategic sectors to put further economic pressure on the Myanmar authorities, that UNI would provide training and assistance to the FTUB and other unions, as well as humanitarian assistance for displaced civilians and refugees, and that the ICFTU/Global Unions Conference on Myanmar to be held in Tokyo from 28 February to 1 March 2001 would be a timely opportunity to express commitment to the struggle for the restoration of democracy and respect for human rights and trade union rights in Myanmar.

56. A communication dated 16 February 2001 from the ICFTU provided abundant information regarding the current practice of forced labour in Myanmar (dealt with in the following section of this document), as well as information on action taken by the ICFTU in support of the Conference resolution. As regards action taken, the ICFTU indicated that it had sought to review relations maintained with Myanmar by its constituents to determine which of these relations might have the effect of aiding Myanmar to perpetuate the system of forced labour. However, to the best of its knowledge neither the ICFTU, the international trade secretariats, their regional organizations, nor any of their affiliates maintained any relation with the Myanmar regime. Any relationship which they may have with Myanmar was limited exclusively to the promotion of workers' fundamental and other human rights. In January 2001, the ICFTU issued a circular to all its 221 affiliated national union centres in 148 countries, its regional organizations, all its executive board members and to the international trade secretariats, requesting them to take a number of steps with respect to the Conference resolution. These steps included requesting their respective governments and national employers' organizations to provide a complete list of enterprises based in their respective countries maintaining trade relations with Myanmar, and requesting their respective governments to provide comprehensive information about the total value of that country's trade with Myanmar, taking into account a list of products, provided by the ICFTU, production of which might involve forced labour. A briefing paper appended to the circular discussed far-reaching measures, including trade and investment bans, on the grounds that economic engagement with Myanmar supported the military regime.

57. The ICFTU communication also provided information on other steps taken by it and its affiliates. Prior to the departure of the recent EU delegation to Myanmar, the ICFTU had briefed one of the members of the delegation on its views. An ICFTU affiliate, LO-Sweden, had also briefed its own Government which, as holder of the rotating EU Presidency, led the delegation. In February 2001 the ICFTU had given its views to separate meetings of European NGOs and the Development Committee of the European Parliament. A number of ICFTU affiliates had reported taking various steps in support of the Conference resolution, including pressing their respective governments to strengthen their position against Myanmar (such as by the adoption of trade and investment bans), and calling for consumer boycotts of brands produced in Myanmar or made by companies having economic relations with Myanmar. A number of other initiatives were also taken at the regional or subregional level.

58. The ICFTU also noted in its communication that several EU governments remained reluctant to contemplate a strengthening of the EU Common Position when it is reviewed in April 2001, and that several governments seemed to be hoping for a notable improvement in the situation as a result of the "secret dialogue" between the Government of Myanmar and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. These governments seemed to ignore the fact that similar talks in the past had yielded no result and that opposition members, who should never have been arrested in the first place, were often released shortly prior to important diplomatic visits. Some analysts believed that the ILO measures had played an important role in bringing about a dialogue between the Government and the National League for Democracy, and thus any hesitation in implementing the measures at this time might well jeopardize the talks.

59. The ICFTU noted that a comprehensive union strategy on Myanmar would be discussed at a conference to be held in Tokyo at the end of February. The Office was represented at this conference, which brought together trade unionists and international trade secretariats from across the Asia-Pacific regions, as well as from Europe and the United States. The Federation of Trade Unions of Burma (FTUB) was also represented. The conference adopted a Declaration, as well as a Plan of Action which is reproduced in Appendix 11.

Information regarding the current practice of forced labour in Myanmar

60. A considerable amount of information was also received from a number of international workers' organizations and other non-governmental organizations regarding the current practice of forced labour in Myanmar. The information concerning actual practice since November 2000 is briefly summarized below. (Endnote 5)

61. In its communication dated 26 January 2001, Union Network International indicated that, according to persons met by its joint mission, the Conference resolution and resulting international pressure had been effective to a certain extent, for example in helping to bring about the dialogue between the Myanmar authorities and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. There was, however, continuing use of forced labour or payments of money having to be made in lieu of forced labour.

62. In its communication dated 16 February 2001, the ICFTU provided extensive information regarding the current practice of forced labour in Myanmar. The ICFTU noted that the military junta had not taken any action aimed at genuinely curbing, let alone eliminating, forced labour. Rather, military and administration officials at every level had taken action aimed at hiding the extent and nature of forced labour imposed on the civilian population, at weakening or nullifying the effects of any orders preventing forced labour that might have been issued by superior levels, and at preventing and countering, through propaganda, disinformation and deception, the measures foreseen by the Conference resolution. This action included a massive campaign of letter-writing and petition signing, by so-called "representative workers". Referring to the open letter discussed in paragraph 47 above, the ICFTU considered that this letter was part of a campaign by the Government to counter the Conference resolution.

63. Appended to the ICFTU communication were 21 documents providing over 300 pages of detailed information on the recent practice of forced labour in Myanmar. According to the ICFTU, this information showed that in practice forced labour had continued unabated. The information included detailed testimonies, reports and photographs of forced labour in various areas. On the basis of one of these reports alone, the ICFTU believed that at least 80,000 individuals, including women, children and elderly persons, from four districts of Karen State were forced to perform labour during the period November 2000 to January 2001. Two army officers were named in the report as having ordered and organised forced labour on road construction.

64. An essential part of the ICFTU submission consisted of translations, as well as many copies of originals, of orders demanding forced labour issued by the military or paramilitary groups under its control, as well as the local administration and the Myanmar Police Force. The submission contained over 500 such orders issued after May 1999, including many that had been issued since November 2000. These orders are similar in style, form and content to the orders already examined by the Commission of Inquiry and the regular ILO supervisory mechanisms and found to be authentic.

65. Details of a large number of specific instances of forced labour were contained in the ICFTU submission, relating to portering for regular patrols and military operations, the construction of roads, bridges and fences, the construction and servicing army camps, including the provision of building materials for these camps, the provision of transport for the military, the collection of firewood for use by army camps or in army-owned brick kilns, work in army-owned rice plantations, and work as unarmed sentries or messengers for the military. One order from an army battalion informed village heads that porters and bullock carts would only be requisitioned for use on military operations, and not for administrative purposes, but in general the pattern of forced labour demands appeared to be essentially unchanged from the practice reported by the Commission of Inquiry. The large number of different military units and other authorities issuing demands for forced labour suggested that the practice remained widespread.

66. A document prepared by the Federation of Trade Unions of Burma, and contained in the ICFTU submission, indicated that a number of means had been used by the authorities to cover up their use of forced labour. These included issuing orders for villagers to attend meetings at the army camp, where they were requisitioned for forced labour, rather than issuing explicit orders for forced labour; issuing undated, unsigned and unstamped orders; demanding that written orders were returned to the issuing army personnel; using civilian authorities to requisition labour on behalf of the military; and arbitrarily arresting young, healthy persons, who after a few days in prison would be sent to work as porters for the military, dressed in used army uniforms (but who could be recognized as porters as they were barefoot).

Concluding comments

67. In the light of the above, and in accordance with paragraph 1(a) of the Conference resolution, the question of the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations and of the application of Convention No. 29 by Myanmar will be discussed by the 89th Session of the International Labour Conference, at a sitting of the Committee on the Application of Standards specially set aside for the purpose. In this connection, the Governing Body may wish to request the Director-General to transmit to the Conference Committee the present report together with the record of its consideration, as well as any further information of relevance for its discussion. The Conference Committee will have before it the report of the CEACR together with any other relevant information.

Geneva, 9 March 2001.

Appendix 1

Statement by His Excellency U Mya Than, Leader of the Myanmar Observer Delegation at the Plenary of the 279th session of the ILO Governing Body after the adoption of the decision on the situation of Myanmar (Endnote 6) (Geneva, 16 November 2000)

Mr. Chairman,

Today is indeed a sad and solemn day for the ILO. It will go down in the history of the ILO as the most deplorable day for this Organization.

Today Myanmar is singled out for punitive action. Tomorrow it may be another developing country. As all of us are aware, judgement of observance or non-observance of labour standards are, more often than not, subjective and arbitrary and, in some instances, even politically-motivated.

In the case of Myanmar, the problem arose from the arbitrary judgement, based on misinformation. This misinformation emanates from elements, opposed to the Myanmar Government, insurgent groups and self-proclaimed workers' organizations which are more politically-motivated than dedicated to promoting the interests of workers. One such dubious workers' organization has only a handful of members, who represent no one but themselves.

Mr. Chairman,

It is the sadder and the more deplorable, because the proponents of the draft decision to apply sanctions to Myanmar completely ignore the concrete and positive measures, taken by the Myanmar Government.

They turn a blind eye to the comprehensive, concrete and solid framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures put in place in Myanmar and the offer by the Myanmar Government to receive an ILO representative, based in the ILO Regional Office in Bangkok or in Geneva, to assist the national supervisory mechanism in the implementation of the ILC's recommendation.

Notwithstanding the more prudent approach, advocated by many of its Member States, the Governing Body has chosen the path of confrontation and coercion by applying sanctions under Article 33. The ASEAN Member States, together with like-minded countries, have expressed reservations against the action taken by the Governing Body. Myanmar appreciates the principled stands, taken by those countries that Article 33 of the ILO Constitution should never be invoked and that, sanctions should not be applied to a Member State.

Mr. Chairman,

It is most regrettable that a drastic decision, contrary to what many members believe in and uphold, was taken by the Governing Body. It is obvious that this unwarranted and unjustified action by the Governing Body is aimed at exerting pressure on Myanmar.

The decision, just taken by the Governing Body, will no doubt place the credibility, the integrity and the reputation of the Governing Body and the ILO in question. It penalizes a Member State which has been voluntarily cooperating with the ILO and has put in place the comprehensive, concrete and solid framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures in accordance with the ILC's resolution.

This action by the Governing Body is most unfair, most unreasonable and most unjust.

This decision is totally unacceptable to my delegation.

For these reasons, my delegation totally and categorically rejects the decision and dissociates itself from it and any activities and effects connected with it.

As such, Myanmar will cease to cooperate with the International Labour Organization in relation to the ILO Convention 29 and any activity connected with it.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Appendix 2

Resumé of the concrete measures taken by the Myanmar Government (Endnote 7)

-- Since the 88th Session of the ILC which adopted the resolution on Myanmar, the following steps have been taken to put in place a framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures to comply with the ILC resolution.

-- Initially, intensive consultations were made among all departments and agencies concerned regarding the measures needed to fulfil the conclusions of the report of the Technical Cooperation Mission (TCM) and the ILC resolution.

-- An independent study group headed by Baron Walter von Marschall, former Ambassador of FRG to Myanmar was invited to have an independent opinion of what constitutes the satisfactory measures regarding the framework that the LC resolution referred to. The group visited Myanmar from 25 September to 6 October, 2000 and gave various options which in their opinion would satisfy the required measures mentioned in the ILC resolution.

-- In addition, at the invitation of the Government of Myanmar, a five-member Technical Cooperation Mission (TCM) visited Myanmar from 20 to 26 October, 2000. Based on the advices and suggestions of the TCM, a new legislative order was issued on 27 October 2000. The order made it clear that the requisition of forced labour or involuntary services is illegal and is an offence under the existing laws of the Union of Myanmar. It also spells out the consequences for the breach of the legislative order by explicitly spelling out that any one, including the members of the armed forces shall have action taken against him under Section 374 of the Penal Code or any other existing laws. In the words of the TCM, this order has general applicability.

-- This Order was supplemented by a directive from the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), the highest organ of state power in Myanmar. The SPDC is the legislative authority, and as the TCM has pointed out, the highest military authority and the highest civilian authority in the country. This document, TCM pointed out "provides confirmation that there is political will at the highest level to reach a solution".

-- Apart from this legislative measure, concrete and detailed framework of administrative and executive measures have been instituted.

-- This consists of the Ministerial Committee headed by the Minister of Labour and the Implementation Committee on Convention 29 as well as a national supervisory mechanism for monitoring compliance.

-- Myanmar has thus put in place a concrete, comprehensive and solid framework of legislative, administrative and executive measures to ensure that there is no forced labour both in law and in practice.

-- With regard to the ILO presence, Myanmar is also willing to accept an ILO representative, either based in the Regional Office in Bangkok or based in Geneva, to observe, assess or assist the national supervisory mechanism in the implementation of Convention 29. The representative of ILO will be given full cooperation to effectively carry out his responsibilities. The representative will enjoy, for these purposes and for the duration of his mission, the same legal protection and status accorded to officials of comparable rank in the United Nations. The representative, either based in the ILO Regional Office in Bangkok or in Geneva, may make frequent visits to Myanmar, as the need arises.

-- In view of this concrete, comprehensive and solid framework of legislative and executive measures and Myanmar's willingness to address the issue of the ILO presence, the actions envisaged by the ILC are no longer required and necessary. The Members of the Governing Body ought to take the necessary decision so that the measures envisaged by the ILC will not come into effect on 30 November 2000.

Appendix 3

Communication dated 22 December 2000 from the Director-General to the Minister for Labour of the Government of Myanmar

Dear Mr. Minister,

I write concerning the action taken by the Governing Body on 16 November, at its 278th Session, with respect to the effect given by the Government of Myanmar to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry concerning the application of Convention No. 29. The Governing Body had before it on this occasion the report of the second ILO technical cooperation mission to Myanmar, which visited your country from 20 to 26 October.

While some of the positive developments reflected in the report of the technical cooperation mission and in subsequent documents provided by the authorities were acknowledged, the Governing Body was, as you know, not satisfied, that the conditions for the non-implementation of the measures listed in paragraph 1 of the Conference resolution had been met. These measures are taking effect on 30 November, and I have notified ILO Members and international organizations concerned accordingly, as contemplated in the relevant paragraph of the resolution.

At the same time, the strong sense of the Governing Body was, as noted by the Chair, that the Director-General should continue to extend cooperation to the Government of Myanmar in order to promote the full implementation by that Government of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. This conclusion is indeed in line with the mandate I have received from the Conference itself.

The Governing Body debate underlined once more that the ILO's objective has always been, and remains, the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. It is thus my sincere hope that the measures now in force will soon become unnecessary as a result of your Government's full application of these recommendations.

In that connection, I have noted that, according to a statement issued shortly after the debate by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Myanmar intends to adhere to and implement the positive measures taken at the end of the technical cooperation mission visit. Let me assure you that, for its part, the Office stands ready to extend its cooperation for the purposes of ensuring the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in such a way that positive and credible developments could already be reported to the Governing Body at its next session.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Juan Somavia.

Appendix 4

Communication dated 11 February 2001 from the Government of Myanmar to the Director-General forwarded by the Permanent Mission of Myanmar

Excellency,

I received your letter of 22 December 2000 in which you were kind enough to inform that your office stands ready to extend cooperation to Myanmar.

Myanmar had received two Technical Cooperation Missions from ILO in our efforts to make our domestic legislation fully in line with Convention 29. With the assistance of the Technical Cooperation Mission which visited Myanmar from 20 to 26 October 2000, we had put in place a framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures to make forced labour illegal both in law and in practice. But powerful forces in the ILO Governing Body totally ignored the concrete measures taken by Myanmar as well as its demonstrated desire to cooperate with ILO. I regret to say that the way things were conducted at the 279th Session of the Governing Body was a grave travesty of the rules of procedure of the ILO. As a result, the proposal put forward by Malaysia on behalf of ASEAN countries, supported by India and China, to defer Implementation of the measures in ILC resolution on Myanmar was not put to a vote. The Governing Body's discussions on the matter, therefore, ended inconclusively. This has led to the entry into force of the measures envisaged in the ILC resolution. This is a great injustice on Myanmar, which had in good faith implemented its obligations under Convention 29.

However, we are resolute in our endeavours to implement the framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures which we have put in place. The Committee for implementation of Convention 29 is holding its regular meetings to review the situation. The national monitoring mechanism which we have put in place is also functioning smoothly. There had been a few cases where the latest legislative order was breached. These cases were investigated and necessary legal action was taken against the perpetrators.

I wish to thank you for your readiness to extend cooperation to Myanmar. I fully realize that our national efforts that involved ILO would receive better acceptance by our detractors.

However, under the present circumstances, until such time that Myanmar receives fair and equitable treatment that must necessarily be accorded to all members of the ILO, we must ourselves continue our national efforts for the total elimination of practice of force labour in Myanmar.

I wish to assure you that we will continue to take steps to ensure that forced labour is illegal in Myanmar both in law and in practice. I also wish to assure that we will resolutely implement the framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures we have put in place.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Major General Tin Ngwe,

Minister for Labour,

Union of Myanmar.

Appendix 5

Communication dated 1 March 2001 from the Director-General to the Minister for Labour of the Government of Myanmar

Dear Mr. Minister,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 11 February 2001 in reply to mine of 22 December 2000, and would like to offer the following comments.

As regards the second paragraph of your letter, I can assure you that your views, as well as the text of the statement which your Ambassador intended to make and which reached the Chairman's Office after the closure of the session, will be reflected appropriately in the documentation before the next session of the Governing Body.

I have taken note of your statement that Myanmar is "resolute in our endeavours to implement the framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures which we have put in place" with a view to the total elimination of the practice of forced labour in Myanmar, and in particular of the information that some action has already been taken against the perpetrators of such practices.

However it is clear that Myanmar cannot expect to receive credit for these endeavours in the absence of an objective assessment of their practical implementation and actual impact. The ILO alone is in a position to provide such an assessment with the authority necessary to carry legal, practical and political consequences at the international level. This is all the more relevant in the light of the continuing flow of information from various sources concerning the issues in question.

For these reasons I would like to reiterate that the Office stands ready to engage in discussions about the possible format and modalities such an objective assessment could take. In my view, it would be highly desirable that such discussions take place before the next session of the Governing Body. It should be recalled that the International Labour Conference will, in accordance with paragraph 1(a) of its resolution, review the situation at its next session in June, on the basis of all relevant information then available.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Juan Somavia.

Appendix 6

Resolution adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 88th Session (June 2000)

The International Labour Conference,

Meeting at its 88th Session in Geneva from 30 May to 15 June 2000,

Considering the proposals by the Governing Body which are before it, under the eighth item of its agenda (Provisional Record No. 4), with a view to the adoption, under article 33 of the ILO Constitution, of action to secure compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry established to examine the observance by Myanmar of its obligations in respect of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29),

Having taken note of the additional information contained in the report of the ILO technical cooperation mission sent to Yangon from 23 to 27 May 2000 (Provisional Record No. 8) and, in particular, of the letter dated 27 May 2000 from the Minister of Labour to the Director-General, which resulted from the mission,

Considering that, while this letter contains aspects which seem to reflect a welcome intention on the part of the Myanmar authorities to take measures to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, the factual situation on which the recommendations of the Governing Body were based has nevertheless remained unchanged to date,

Believing that the Conference cannot, without failing in its responsibilities to the workers subjected to various forms of forced or compulsory labour, abstain from the immediate application of the measures recommended by the Governing Body unless the Myanmar authorities promptly take concrete action to adopt the necessary framework for implementing the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations, thereby ensuring that the situation of the said workers will be remedied more expeditiously and under more satisfactory conditions for all concerned;

1. Approves in principle, subject to the conditions stated in paragraph 2 below, the actions recommended by the Governing Body, namely:

(a) to decide that the question of the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations and of the application of Convention No. 29 by Myanmar should be discussed at future sessions of the International Labour Conference, at a sitting of the Committee on the Application of Standards specially set aside for the purpose, so long as this Member has not been shown to have fulfilled its obligations;

(b) to recommend to the Organization's constituents as a whole - governments, employers and workers - that they: (i) review, in the light of the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry, the relations that they may have with the member State concerned and take appropriate measures to ensure that the said Member cannot take advantage of such relations to perpetuate or extend the system of forced or compulsory labour referred to by the Commission of Inquiry, and to contribute as far as possible to the implementation of its recommendations; and (ii) report back in due course and at appropriate intervals to the Governing Body;

(c) as regards international organizations, to invite the Director-General: (i) to inform the international organizations referred to in article 12, paragraph 1, of the Constitution of the Member's failure to comply; (ii) to call on the relevant bodies of these organizations to reconsider, within their terms of reference and in the light of the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry, any cooperation they may be engaged in with the Member concerned and, if appropriate, to cease as soon as possible any activity that could have the effect of directly or indirectly abetting the practice of forced or compulsory labour;

(d) regarding the United Nations specifically, to invite the Director-General to request the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to place an item on the agenda of its July 2001 session concerning the failure of Myanmar to implement the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission of Inquiry and seeking the adoption of recommendations directed by ECOSOC or by the General Assembly, or by both, to governments and to other specialized agencies and including requests similar to those proposed in paragraphs (b) and (c) above;

(e) to invite the Director-General to submit to the Governing Body, in the appropriate manner and at suitable intervals, a periodic report on the outcome of the measures set out in paragraphs (c) and (d) above, and to inform the international organizations concerned of any developments in the implementation by Myanmar of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry;

2. Decides that those measures will take effect on 30 November 2000 unless, before that date, the Governing Body is satisfied that the intentions expressed by the Minister of Labour of Myanmar in his letter dated 27 May have been translated into a framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures that are sufficiently concrete and detailed to demonstrate that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry have been fulfilled and therefore render the implementation of one or more of these measures inappropriate;

3. Authorizes the Director-General to respond positively to all requests by Myanmar that are made with the sole purpose of establishing, before the above deadline, the framework mentioned in the conclusions of the ILO technical cooperation mission (points (i), (ii) and (iii), page 8/11 of Provisional Record No. 8), supported by a sustained ILO presence on the spot if the Governing Body confirms that the conditions are met for such presence to be truly useful and effective.

Appendix 7

Recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry (extracts)

In paragraph 539 of its report, the Commission of Inquiry urged the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure:

(a) that the relevant legislative texts, in particular the Village Act and the Towns Act, be brought into line with the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) as already requested by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and promised by the Government for over 30 years, and again announced in the Government's observations on the complaint. This should be done without further delay and completed at the very latest by 1 May 1999;

(b) that in actual practice, no more forced or compulsory labour be imposed by the authorities, in particular the military. This is all the more important since the powers to impose compulsory labour appear to be taken for granted, without any reference to the Village Act or Towns Act. Thus, besides amending the legislation, concrete action needs to be taken immediately for each and every of the many fields of forced labour examined in Chapters 12 and 13 (of the Commission's report) to stop the present practice. This must not be done by secret directives, which are against the rule of law and have been ineffective, but through public acts of the Executive promulgated and made known to all levels of the military and to the whole population. Also, action must not be limited to the issue of wage payment; it must ensure that nobody is compelled to work against his or her will. Nonetheless, the budgeting of adequate means to hire free wage labour for the public activities which are today based on forced and unpaid labour is also required;

(c) that the penalties which may be imposed under section 374 of the Penal Code for the exaction of forced or compulsory labour be strictly enforced, in conformity with Article 25 of the Convention. This requires thorough investigation, prosecution and adequate punishment of those found guilty. As pointed out in 1994 by the Governing Body committee set up to consider the representation made by the ICFTU under article 24 of the ILO Constitution, alleging non-observance by Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the penal prosecution of those resorting to coercion appeared all the more important since the blurring of the borderline between compulsory and voluntary labour, recurrent throughout the Government's statements to the committee, was all the more likely to occur in actual recruitment by local or military officials. The power to impose compulsory labour will not cease to be taken for granted unless those used to exercising it are actually brought to face criminal responsibility. (Endnote 8)

Appendix 8

Observations from the CEACR (2001 Report)

Myanmar (ratification: 1955)

1. The Committee notes that the Government has not supplied a report on the application of the Convention. Following the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry established to examine the observance by Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the Committee has, however, taken note of the following information:

-- the information presented by the Government to the Director-General of the ILO in communications dated 21 January, 20 March, 27 May, 29 October (as supplemented subsequently), and 3, 15 and 17 November 2000;

-- the information submitted to, and the discussions held in, the Governing Body of the ILO at its 277th and 279th Sessions in March and November 2000;

-- the information and discussion at the International Labour Conference at its 88th Session (May-June 2000);

-- the resolution adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 88th Session concerning the measures recommended by the Governing Body under article 33 of the ILO Constitution on the subject of Myanmar to secure compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, and the entry into effect of those measures on 30 November 2000, following consideration of the matter by the Governing Body at its 279th Session (November 2000);

-- the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations at its 54th Session (17 December 1999) and by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights at its 56th Session (March-April 2000) on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (extracts in International Labour Conference, 88th Session, Geneva, 2000, Provisional Record No. 4, Annex III);

-- the second report of the Director-General of the ILO to the members of the Governing Body on measures taken by the Government of Myanmar, dated 25 February 2000;

-- the interim report prepared by judge Rajsoomer Lallah, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, dated 22 August 2000 ((UN document A/55/359); and the note by the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the same subject, dated 20 October 2000 (UN document A/55/509);

-- the reports of the ILO technical cooperation missions to Myanmar of May 2000 ((ILC, 88th Session, Geneva, 2000, Provisional Record No. 8) and October 2000 (GB.279/6/1 and Add.1);

-- a communication dated 15 November 2000 in which the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions submitted to the ILO voluminous documentation referring to the imposition of forced labour in Myanmar during the period June-November 2000, a copy of which was sent to the Government for such comments as it may wish to present;

-- a press release issued on 17 November 2000 by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Union of Myanmar in Yangon, and an information sheet issued by the Myanmar Information Committee in Yangon on a press conference held on 18 November 2000 by the Government on the decision of the ILO Governing Body to activate measures on the subject of Myanmar.

2. Information available on the observance of the Convention by the Government of Myanmar will be discussed in three parts, dealing with: (i) the amendment of legislation; (ii) any measures taken by the Government to stop the exaction in practice of forced or compulsory labour and information available on actual practice; (iii) the enforcement of penalties which may be imposed under the Penal Code for the exaction of forced or compulsory labour.

I. Amendment of legislation

3. In paragraph 470 of its report of 2 July 1998, the Commission of Inquiry noted:

... that section 11(d), read together with section 8(1)(g), (n) and (o) of the Village Act, as well as section 9(b) of the Towns Act provide for the exaction of work or services from any person residing in a village tract or in a town ward, that is, work or services for which the said person has not offered himself or herself voluntary, and that failure to comply with a requisition made under section 11(d) of the Village Act or section 9(b) of the Towns Act is punishable with penal sanctions under section 12 of the Village Act or section 9(a) of the Towns Act. Thus, these Acts provide for the exaction of "forced or compulsory labour" within the definition of Article 2(1) of the Convention.

The Commission of Inquiry further noted that the wide powers to requisition labour and services under these provisions do not come under any of the exceptions listed in Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention and are entirely incompatible with the Convention. Recalling that the amendment of these provisions had been promised by the Government for over 30 years, the Commission urged the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the Village Act and the Towns Act be brought into line with the Convention without further delay, and at the very latest by 1 May 1999 (paragraph 539(a) of the Commission's report).

4. In its previous observation, the Committee noted that by the end of November 1999, neither the Village Act nor the Towns Act had been amended, nor had any draft law proposed or under consideration for that purpose been brought to the knowledge of the Committee. However, an "Order Directing Not to Exercise Powers Under Certain Provisions of the Town Act, 1907 and the Village Act, 1907" (No. 1/99) was issued by the Government on 14 May 1999, which in fact still reserved the exercise of powers under the relevant provisions of the Village Act and the Towns Act which remain incompatible with the requirements of the Convention.

5. The Committee notes from the report of the October 2000 ILO technical cooperation mission to Myanmar (GB.279/6/1, paragraphs 9 and 10, Annexes 13 and 19) that a draft text providing for the amendment of the Village Act and the Towns Act through an amendment of Order No. 1/99 was not retained by the Government. However, the same report (in Annex 19) reproduces the English text of an "Order Supplementary Order No. 1/99" made by the Ministry of Home Affairs under the direction of the State Peace and Development Council on 27 October 2000 which modifies Order No. 1/99 so as to order "responsible persons including members of the local authorities, members of the armed forces" etc. "not to requisition work or service notwithstanding anything contained" in the relevant sections of the Towns and Village Acts, except in cases of emergency as defined in Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention (GB.279/6/1, Annex 19). The Burmese text of this Order of 27 October, which was to be published in the Myanmar Gazette, has not yet been supplied to the ILO.

6. The Committee observes that the amendment of the Village and Towns Acts sought by the Commission of Inquiry as well as the present Committee and promised by the Government for many years has not yet been made. It again expresses the hope that the Village Act and the Towns Act will at last be brought into conformity with the Convention.

7. The Committee nevertheless notes that Order No. 1/99 as supplemented by the Order of 27 October 2000 could provide a statutory basis for ensuring compliance with the Convention in practice, if given effect bona fide not only by the local authorities empowered to requisition labour under the Village and Towns Acts, but also by civilian and military officers entitled to call on the assistance of local authorities under the Acts. This, in the view of the Committee, calls for further measures to be undertaken, as indicated by the Commission of Inquiry in its recommendations in paragraph 539(b) of its report.

II. Measures to stop the exaction in practice of forced or compulsory labour and information available on actual practice

A. Measures to stop the exaction in practice of forced or compulsory labour

8. In its recommendations in paragraph 539(b) of its report of July 1998, the Commission of Inquiry indicated that steps to ensure that in actual practice no more forced or compulsory labour be imposed by the authorities, in particular the military, were:

... all the more important since the powers to impose compulsory labour appear to be taken for granted, without any reference to the Village Act or Towns Act. Thus, besides amending the legislation, concrete action needs to be taken immediately for each and every of the many fields of forced labour examined in Chapters 12 and 13 (of the Commission's report) to stop the present practice. This must not be done by secret directives, which are against the rule of law and have been ineffective, but through public acts of the Executive promulgated and made known to all levels of the military and to the whole population. Also, action must not be limited to the issue of wage payment; it must ensure that nobody is compelled to work against his or her will. Nonetheless, the budgeting of adequate means to hire free wage labour for the public activities which are today based on forced and unpaid labour is also required ... .

9. The Committee notes from the report of the October 2000 ILO technical cooperation mission to Myanmar, the suggestion made by the mission of a Supplementary Order or directive from the Office of the Chairman of the State Peace and Development Council concerning requisition of labour or services (GB.279/6/1, Annex 13). The suggested text was to order all state authorities, including military, police and civilian authorities and their officers, not to requisition persons to provide labour or services for any purpose, nor to order others to requisition such labour or services, regardless of whether or not payment is made for said labour or services, except in cases of emergency as defined in Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention. The suggested prohibition was to include but not be limited to the requisition of labour or services for the following purposes:

(a) portering for the military (or other military/paramilitary groups, for military campaigns or regular patrols);

(b) construction or repair of military camps/facilities;

(c) other support for camps (such as guides, messengers, cooks, cleaners, etc.);

(d) income generation by individuals or groups (including work in army-owned agricultural and industrial projects);

(e) national or local infrastructure projects (including roads, railways, dams, etc.);

(f) cleaning/beautification of rural or urban areas.

Similar prohibitions were to apply to the requisition of materials or provisions of any kind and to demands of money except where due to the State or to a municipal or town committee under relevant legislation. Furthermore, the suggested text was to provide that if any state authority or its officers requires labour, services, materials or provisions of any kind and for any purpose, they must make prior budgetary arrangements to obtain these by a public tender process or by providing market rates to persons wishing to supply these services, materials or provisions voluntarily, or wishing to offer their labour.

10. The Committee notes that the text suggested by the mission was not adopted, but that the English versions of several instructions dated 27 and 28 October 2000 and 1 November 2000 were forwarded to the ILO after the departure of the mission and reproduced in addenda to the mission's report (GB.279/6/1(Add.1)(Rev.1) and (Add.2)).

11. The instruction dated 27 October 2000 "Prohibiting Requisition of Forced Labour" is signed for the Director-General of the Police Force and addressed to all units of the police force. The instruction dated 28 October 2000 on the same subject is addressed by the Director-General of the General Administration Department of the Ministry of Home Affairs to all State/Divisional Commissioners and General Administration Departments and requires, inter alia, Order No. 1/99 and the order supplementing it to be displayed separately on noticeboards of all the levels of peace and development councils as well as the General Administration Departments.

12. The instruction dated 1 November 2000 "Prohibiting Requisition of Forced Labour" is signed at the highest level, by Secretary-1 of the State Peace and Development Council, and addressed to the Chairmen of all State and Divisional Peace and Development Councils. The latter instruction thus reaches beyond institutions that come under the authority of the Ministry of Home Affairs. It is, however, primarily directed to the enforcement of Order No. 1/99 and the Order of 27 October 2000 supplementing it, which are limited in scope to the requisition of forced labour under the Village Act and the Towns Act, i.e. not by civilian or military state officers but by local authorities, who may requisition labour under the Acts when called upon to provide assistance to civilian and military state officers. Nevertheless, the instruction dated 1 November interprets the Supplementing Order of 27 October 2000 as follows:

2. ... The Supplementing Order renders the requisition of forced labour illegal and stipulates that it is an offence under the existing laws of the Union of Myanmar. Responsible persons, including the local authorities, members of the armed forces, members of the police force and other public service personnel are also prohibited not to requisition forced labour and are instructed to supervise so that there shall be no forced labour.

It would appear to the Committee that a bona fide application of this prohibition should cover the typical case of members of the armed forces who order local authorities to provide labourers, even if the manner of complying with such order - through requisition or hiring of labourers or otherwise - is left to the local authorities.

13. The instruction dated 1 November 2000 continues as follows:

3. Therefore, it is hereby directed that the state and divisional peace and development councils shall issue necessary instructions to the relevant district and township peace and development councils to strictly abide by the prohibitions contained in Order No. 1/99 and the Supplementing Order of the Ministry of Home Affairs and also to effectively supervise to ensure that there shall be no forced labour within their respective jurisdictions.

4. Responsible persons, including members of the local authorities, members of the armed forces, members of the police force and other public service personnel who fail to abide by the said Order No. 1/99 and the Supplementing Order shall be prosecuted under section 374 of the Penal Code or any other existing laws.

It would appear to the Committee that again, as set out in paragraph 12 above, a bone fide application of the instruction would include, in the scope of point 4 of the instruction, members of the armed forces who order local authorities to supply labour.

14. It remains to be seen whether the "necessary instructions" yet to be issued by the state and divisional peace and development councils under point 3 of the instruction of 1 November will contain the kind of details necessary for a feasible implementation. Such details were set out by the Commission of Inquiry in paragraph 539(b) of its report and included by the October 2000 technical cooperation mission in its suggestion mentioned in paragraph 9 above.

15. The three instructions forwarded so far to the ILO do not yet contain any positive indication on the manner in which authorities that have been used to rely on forced and unpaid labour contributions of the population are hereafter to make realistic provision for the labour and services they may require.

16. Furthermore, the three instructions do not spell out the various forms of forced labour found by the Commission of Inquiry and this Committee to be mainly imposed in practice, as listed in paragraph 9 above. In this regard, the Committee recalls that most of the forms of forced labour or services requisitioned concerned the military. The Committee notes that "members of the armed forces" are specifically included among the responsible persons listed in point 4 of the instruction dated 1 November 2000 (quoted in paragraph 13 above). However, in point 3 of the same instruction, the order to issue the necessary further - and, hopefully, more detailed - instructions is addressed to the state and divisional peace and development councils (which in fact include officers of the armed forces), but not to the regional commanders of the armed forces in their military capacity.

17. In the absence of specific and concrete instructions to the civilian and military authorities containing a description of the various forms and manners of exaction of forced labour, the application of the provisions adopted so far turns upon the interpretation in practice of the notion of "forced labour". This cannot be taken for granted, as shown by the various Burmese terms used sometimes when labour was exacted from the population - including "loh ah pay", "voluntary" or "donated" labour. The need for clarity on the point is underscored by the Government's recurrent attempts to link the pervasive exaction of labour and services by mainly military authorities to merit which may be gained in the Buddhist religion from spontaneously offered help. The Commission of Inquiry recalled in paragraph 539(c) of its report that "the blurring of the borderline between compulsory and voluntary labour, recurrent throughout the Government's statements" was "all the more likely to occur in actual recruitment by local or military officials".

18. Thus, clear instructions are still required to indicate to all officials concerned, including officers at all levels of the armed forces, both the kinds of tasks for which the requisition of labour is prohibited, and the manner in which the same tasks are henceforth to be performed. The Committee hopes that the necessary detailed instructions will soon be issued, and that, in the words of paragraph 539(b) of the Commission of Inquiry's report, provision will also be made for "the budgeting of adequate means to hire free wage labour for the public activities which are today based on forced and unpaid labour".

B. Information available on actual practice

(a) The practice August 1998 to December 1999

19. In his reports dated 21 May 1999 and 25 February 2000 to the members of the Governing Body, the Director-General indicated that all information on actual practice that was received (from workers' and employers' organizations, intergovernmental organizations and governments of member States of the ILO) in reply to his requests, referred to continued widespread use of forced labour by the authorities, in particular by the military.

(b) Information on the practice up to November 2000

20. In its communication dated 15 November 2000, the ICFTU refers to the persistence of severe breaches of the Convention by the military authorities. Documentary appendices enclosed by the ICFTU represent over 1,000 pages drawn from over 20 different sources and include reports, interviews of victims; over 300 forced labour orders, photographs, video recordings and other material. A few events described therein took place in the first half of the year 2000; an overwhelmingly large proportion of the documents concerns the period June to November 2000.

21. An essential part of the ICFTU submission consists of hundreds of "forced labour orders", issued mainly by the army but also by armed groups under its control and elements of the local administration. As stated by the ICFTU, these are similar in kind, shape and contents to the orders already examined by the Commission of Inquiry and the regular ILO supervisory mechanisms and found by same to be authentic. Documentary materials submitted refer to the persistence on a large scale of forced portering, including by women, and the murder of forced porters no longer able to carry their burden. In addition to forced portering, all other forced labour practices identified previously by the Commission of Inquiry are referred to for the period June to November 2000. A great number of specific reported instances include forced labour for the building and maintenance of roads, bridges, railroads, water canals, dikes, dams and reservoirs, as well as for the building, repair, maintenance and servicing of army camps; and the requisition of labour as well as seeds, fertilizer, materials and equipment for army-held agricultural land, forests and installations.

22. As indicated above, copies of the ICFTU communication of 15 November 2000, including the voluminous documentation submitted, were sent to the Government for such comments as it may wish to present.

III. Enforcement

23. In paragraph 539(c) of its recommendations the Commission of Inquiry urged the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure:

... that the penalties which may be imposed under section 374 of the Penal Code for the exaction of forced labour or compulsory labour be strictly enforced, in conformity with Article 25 of the Convention. This requires thorough investigation, prosecution and adequate punishment of those found guilty.

24. In practice, no action whatsoever under section 374 of the Penal Code has so far been brought to the knowledge of the Committee.

25. The Committee notes that point 4 of the instruction dated 1 November 2000 from the State Peace and Development Council to All State and Divisional Peace and Development Councils, reproduced in paragraph 13, provides for the prosecution of "responsible persons" under section 374 of the Penal Code. Similar clauses are included in point 3 of the instruction dated 27 October, and point 6 of the instruction dated 28 October, referred to in paragraph 11 above. Moreover, under points 4 to 6 of the instruction dated 27 October 2000, addressed by the Director-General of the Police Force to all units of the police force:

4. If any affected person files a verbal or written complaint to the police station of having been forced to contribute labour, the latter shall record the complaint in Forms A and B of the police station and send the accused for prosecution under section 374 of the Penal Code.

5. It is hereby directed that the police stations and units concerned at various levels shall be further instructed to make sure their strict compliance with the said Order as well as to supervise so that there shall be no requisition of forced labour. A copy of the Order Supplementing Order No. 1/99 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 27 October 2000 is enclosed herewith.

6. It is instructed to acknowledge receipt of this directive and to report back actions taken on the matter.

26. With regard to point 4 of the latter instruction (dated 27 October 2000) the Committee hopes that prosecutions under section 374 of the Penal Code will be brought by the law enforcement agencies on their own initiative, without waiting for complaints by the victims, who may not consider it expedient to denounce the "responsible persons" to the police. The Committee hopes that in commenting on indications that the imposition of forced labour has continued beyond October 2000, the Government will also report on any concrete action taken under section 374 of the Penal Code.

27. The Committee has noted the assurance, in the Government's letter dated 29 October 2000 to the Director-General of the ILO, of the "political will to ensure that there is no forced labour in Myanmar, both in law and in practice". It also has taken due note of the Order Supplementing Order No. 1/99 and the three instructions issued between 27 October and 1 November 2000, and of the view of the Employer members of the Governing Body at its 279th Session (November 2000) that this was "too little too late". At a press conference held 18 November 2000 in Yangon on the decision of the Governing Body of the ILO to activate measures on the subject of Myanmar, the Government indicated that it would no longer cooperate with the ILO in relation to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), but that it would continue to take steps to prevent forced labour, as this was its policy. The Committee hopes that the Government will thus at last take the necessary measures to ensure the observance in law as well as in practice of the Convention, a basic human rights instrument freely ratified by Myanmar. It also hopes that the Government, which had failed to take part in the proceedings before the Commission of Inquiry, will avail itself of the opportunity to present its views and progress in reporting on the application of the Convention, in conformity with its obligations under article 22 of the ILO Constitution.

(The Government is asked to report in detail in 2001.)

Appendix 9

Note on UNHCR's activities in Myanmar and compulsory labour

UNHCR has been operational in two districts of Myanmar since 1994 in facilitating repatriation and reintegration of approximately 230,000 Muslim returnees from Bangladesh into Northern Rakhine State. The activities of UNHCR are geared towards reintegration and stabilization of some 800,000 Muslim population including returnees in Maungdaw and Buthiadaung districts. UNHCR and its implementing partners provide assistance activities under various key sectors with the aim to improve and stabilize the social and economic environment in Northern Rakhine State. UNCHR conducts field monitoring of a number of protection issues affecting the Muslim population including forced labour, and is promoting a more secure legal status for this population. As regards compulsory labour, UNHCR undertakes advocacy against its use, in particular through dialogue and engagement with officials at the local level.

Areas of intervention

Agriculture

Considering the chronic rice deficit in the area of operation, efforts to increase the production of rice are a given high priority. WFP's past assistance has helped to ease the shortage of rice. Dams and dykes will also be constructed to produce a second rice crop to targeted areas in three townships. At the same time, livestock and aquaculture projects, combined with training courses to enhance the capacity building of the local population are taking place. There is no recourse to compulsory labour in this field of activities and any labour needed for construction purpose is contracted out or paid for as appropriate.

Health

UNHCR recognizes that good health and physical well-being constitute an integral part of any economic and social stability. Compared to other parts of Myanmar, the area of UNHCR's operation is characterized by its remoteness, rough geographical terrain, dense population, and the low literacy rate. These factors contribute to the apparent non-accessibility and underutilization of existing services, which are manifested in the high infant and maternal morbidity and morality, and high prevalence of malnutrition, malaria, tuberculosis and diarrhoeal diseases. These health challenges are further complicated by the under-equipped and under-staffed health facilities.

UNHCR started its health assistance projects in 1995. It invested not only in upgrading government health facilities, but also in strengthening the conventional health delivery system by improving its planning and management functions, targeting an immediate impact at grass-roots community level to introduce changes in health service provision and utilization. This strategy allows focusing on advocating integrated participatory development initiatives, which link health to education, training, income generation, environmental sanitation and other related sectors.

Health activities make the population more productive in life. Poor health leads the population to poverty as they cannot be economically viable. In this sector, there is no resort to compulsory labour.

Education

UNHCR attempts, through a variety of educational undertakings, to strengthen the links between and among the returnee population, the local Muslim residents and other communities in Northern Rakhine State. This is based on the understanding that education helps returnees' awareness. Education activities help the illiterate population to be literate increasing their coping mechanism including their communication with the authorities as well as non-Muslim community. In general it helps them to be more viable in various functions of life. There is no use of compulsory labour in this sector of activities.

Income generation

Considering that majority of the poorest of the poor - returnees and locals alike - are landless, casual labourers, UNHCR endeavours to promote among them, income-earning activities. Positive effects have been frequently reported in terms of an increased level of self-sufficiency which also resulted in affected family sending more children to schools for education.

The objective of these activities is to help them settle and integrate in the area, attain self-sufficiency, and be able to find their niches within the local economy. To meet this objective, an extensive programme providing financial assistance, training and agriculture activities has been implemented since 1995. For example, the population in general have more money than before. In view of no taxation, villagers are expected to contribute to the development of Northern Rakhine State. In the past this was seen as a direct contribution of labour, so called compulsory or even forced labour. Now more villagers can afford paying a small amount of contribution in money so that if there is a need to fix a bridge the money they contribute could be used to hire casual labourers.

Rural infrastructure

Aside from the ongoing work of construction school jetties, health centres, ponds, wells, dams, etc., UNHCR, BAJ and the Government of the Union of Myanmar are working together to develop a permanent road link from Maungdaw township to the southernmost point of Maungdaw with the ultimate goal of a road link from Maungdaw to Sittwe. This important artery will accelerate the development of the area, creating new economic opportunities as well as providing immediate assistance in the form of training and cash for work as well as food for work (WFP) to the poorest villagers along the route. In undertaking construction activities, UNHCR and BAJ have ensured that all labour is appropriately compensated, including through food for work programmes.

Additionally, infrastructure activities have a direct effect. By building bridges and improving infrastructure in general, there is less demand for compulsory labour.

Community social services

It is estimated that up to 10 per cent of returnee population falls under the category of Extremely Vulnerable Individuals (EVIs). These are the female-headed households, widows, orphans, physically or mentally disabled or elderly. Some 7,213 EVIs have been identified and various agencies, including UNHCR, are actively targeting these groups for assistance recognizing that inadequate social services and opportunities for self-reliance exist. The ultimate goal is to identify and implement interventions that will help these individuals and their families attain self-sufficiency. Myanmar Red Cross Society (MRCS) is actively implementing training and assistance activities in this sector, as UNHCR's implementing partner.

Community Social Service helps EVIs who are not subject to compulsory labour any way to be self-reliant. It also encourages community participation including their obligation and responsibility to the community. In some instances, this transforms potentially "compulsory labour" into "voluntary community work". UNHCR encourages this trend as after all, villagers have to maintain what UNHCR built for the general development of the society.

On top of all the activities mentioned above which are interrelated, UNHCR is doing general advocacy, i.e. sensitizing the authorities not to impose compulsory labour. The important point is UNHCR has nothing to do with "abetting" the practice of compulsory labour, but on the contrary, it has been striving to reduce the frequency of forced labour and to promote payment for labour.

Conclusion

It is UNHCR's observation that, due in part to its advocacy efforts, there has been a decreasing trend in compulsory labour practices over the past years. There has been improvement to the situation in terms of the frequency of labour calls, the number of labourers required as well as the number of days of labour. There also appears to have been more attempts made to pay labourers for their work in money or in kind, although the amounts paid are usually far below market rate. Nonetheless, it is also observed that compulsory labour practices are continuing in areas where there is heavy military presence and where porterage is required by the military. UNHCR plans to maintain its presence and activities in the area to consolidate the progress made. Its humanitarian activities are intended to curtail practices such as forced labour.

21 December 2000.

Appendix 10

Note on UNDP's activities in Myanmar in the context of the ILO resolution

Background

Since 1993, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) assistance to Myanmar has been provided under the framework of the UNDP Governing Council's decision 93/21 of June 1993 which stipulates that "assistance from the United Nations Development Programme and related funds to Myanmar should be clearly targeted towards programmes having grass-roots level impact in a sustainable manner, particularly in the areas of primary health care, the environment, HIV/AIDS, training and education, and food security". Consequently, a set of individual projects known as the Human Development Initiative, or HDI, has been implemented since 1994.

In January 1996 and again in July 1998, the above mandate 93/21 was reaffirmed by the successor body to the Governing Council, the UNDP Executive Board, in its decision No. 96/01 and No. 98/14 respectively.

The HDI has three overarching objectives:

-- helping communities to meet their basic humanitarian needs;

-- involving local people in planning and implementing activities that will benefit them; and

-- building local capacities for self-help activities.

While the UNDP Country office and the HDI projects and their executing agencies continually seek to improve and refine the HDI's outreach and benefits, the Governing Council and Executive Board decisions continue to provide the parameters within which all HDI activities are planned, implemented and evaluated.

Today, 11 projects work in an integrated manner with each other and with grass-roots communities to meet basic needs and alleviate poverty in 23 townships with over 10,000 community groups and organizations in the Dry Zone, the Ayeyarwaddy Delta, and the Shan, Chin, Kachin and Rakhine States in Myanmar. An exception is the HIV/AIDS project, which covers areas with high prevalence of HIV across the country. The HDI is now in its third phase, which will end in 2001.

Project specific analysis

Three of the 11 HDI projects focus on agriculture and food security. They aim at helping poor farmers and the landless improve their production and increase their incomes from forestry, agriculture, aquaculture and livestock. They are implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in the Dry Zone, the Shan State and the Delta.

The primary health care project aims to help local people meet their own primary health care needs, and to improve their access to basic health services. It focuses on the major threats of malaria, leprosy, iodine deficiency and tuberculosis. It trains midwives and auxiliary workers, and promotes family planning. This project is executed by the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS).

The community water supply and sanitation project builds water-supply systems for villages that lack a supply of clean water and that often have no water at all in the dry season. It also improves sanitation, for example by promoting simple pit-latrines, and helps people build small bridges and other facilities that they themselves identify. This project is managed by the United Nations Center for Human Settlements (UNCHS).

The HIV/AIDS project, implemented by UNOPS, educates people to avoid infection by the deadly AIDS virus, and how to care for people who have the disease. It targets groups at greatest risk of infection: commercial sex workers and their clients, transport and mineworkers, fisher-folk and refugees.

The primary education project aims to improve the access to and the quality of primary education, for example by building and renovating schools in deprived areas, loaning textbooks to the neediest children, and by training teachers. The project also works to bring literacy through non-formal education activities to children and adults who cannot attend regular school classes. This project is executed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

The micro-finance project loans small amounts of money to villagers to help them build small businesses. The implementation of this project is subcontracted to non-governmental organizations (NGOs): Private Agencies Collaborating Together (PACT) in the Dry Zones, Groupe de Recherche et d'Echanges Technologiques (GRET) in the Shan State, and Grameen Trust in the Delta. This project is managed by the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS).

The remote townships project provides integrated community development services (encompassing social development, income generation and local capacity building in agriculture, health, education, water supplies and credit) in ten townships - in Rakhine, Kachin and Chin States. This project is executed by the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS).

The HDI Support project provides operational and technical support for the HDI projects. It also undertakes key activities including social mobilization and integrated development planning and management.

Finally, a preparatory assistance project is laying the groundwork for a Basic Needs Assistance Programme in Northern Rakhine State.

HDI project activities and compulsory labour

HDI projects, both by design and practice, are neither physical inputs-driven nor construction-oriented. Conceptually, HDI relies more on "software" improvements than hardware improvement of the local rural communities at the grass-roots level.

The limited physical improvements supported by the projects (e.g. renovation and construction of rudimentary village basic health care centres, small water-supply systems such as water ponds, hand-dug wells, rain-water collection tanks, community learning centres and primary schools, village access roads and small bamboo/wooden bridges, farm level soil conservation bunds, gulley-plugs, community woodlot nurseries, etc.) are invariably small in size, limited in scope, demonstrative in purpose and focused directly at serving a specific community only. HDI projects support and facilitate these activities as strategic entry points to initiate social mobilization of the rural communities concerned.

Both in theory and practice, the HDI approach is basically antithema to compulsion. HDI is strictly based on voluntary participation. All HDI activities by design are planned, implemented, monitored, operated and maintained by the beneficiary communities themselves. If there are any inputs, willing and able to be contributed by the beneficiaries, the type, quantity and nature of these are proposed and decided by consensus of the concerned community. HDI thus inculcates a more sustainable community development approach based on voluntarism as an alternative to non-voluntary administrative method of implementing development activities.

Thus, if and when HDI projects assist activities which could involve some construction and earth work where labour inputs might be called upon, the nature of the labour contribution (amount, timing, mode of remuneration, etc.) must be proposed, discussed, agreed upon and monitored by the concerned communities themselves, all strictly on voluntary basis. HDI projects never force (and the projects have no authority to force) the communities to contribute any inputs (including labour) in any of its activities.

In response to the EB mandate, HDI was designed to implement its project activities through UN Executing Agencies and not through or with the government line departments. Government institutions concerned, from central to the village level, are informed of what HDI is doing. Decision-making authority, however, is strictly with the project management which is not shared with the Government. HDI projects are implemented through their own separate, independent channels managed by their own project staff, down to the community beneficiaries level and not through any existing government bureaucracy.

As required by the successive EB mandates, regular assessments by independent missions have been made on HDI performance. The EB in its decision 98/14 requested the Administrator, to continue to provide the Board, on an annual basis, with a report on the progress and challenges in the implementation of HDI project activities. In compliance with this request, the latest independent assessment and evaluation mission was fielded during the period 27 May through 15 July of 2000. After reviewing the extensive documentation on each of the 11 HDI projects and visiting selected project villages, including extensive consultation with village beneficiaries in these project areas, the mission concluded that "the content and objectives of all HDI projects were in full conformity with the relevant provisions of the Governing Board and Executive Council decisions".

Conclusion

In light of the above analysis we firmly believe that the ongoing HDI project activities (the only UNDP-funded programme in the country) do not and could not have the effect of directly or indirectly abetting the practice of forced or compulsory labour in Myanmar.

Appendix 11

International ICFTU/ICFTU-APRO/ITS Conference

The global unions' Plan of Action on Burma (adopted in Tokyo on 1 March 2001)

1. Strengthen material support to the FTUB.

2. Strengthen implementation of the ILO Burma resolution of June 2000, including:

-- review of your government's bilateral relations with junta;

-- support holding of special Burma session during the International Labour Conference, 2001;

-- support inclusion of this issues at the next session of the United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Committee;

-- seek consultations on Burma measures with your government under the ILO Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144);

-- seek improved coordination of United Nations specialized agencies and programmes so that they do not in practice aid or abet forced labour.

3. Increase pressure on international financial institutions (IFTs) with the same purpose.

4. Lobby European Union presidency and Member States to further strengthen existing Burma sanctions, in cooperation with the ETUC.

5. Lobby ASEAN member States to help bring about an end to forced labour and the establishment of democracy.

6. Seek early discussions with companies maintaining business relations with Burma in order that they withdraw trade and investments in Burma, or alternatively face public exposure, union-driven consumer pressure and boycotts.

7. Expand and strengthen workers' shareholder action against companies trading with or operating in Burma.

8. Better inform rank-and-file membership, as well as the wider community, about the situation.

9. Organize an International Day of Union Action for Burma on 1 May 2001 and use the occasion, in cooperation with civic and religious group, NGOs and others to:

-- lobby governments;

-- pressure companies;

-- create public awareness;

-- target Burmese embassies;

-- link the Burma situation with the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

10. Keep the Burma Plan of Action on union agendas and inform your membership of progress.

GB.280/6 (Add.1)

SIXTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA

Developments concerning the question of the observance by the Government of Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)

Addendum

1. Since document GB.280/6 was finalized, the Office has received a number of additional communications from member States, national employers' and workers' organizations, an international organization, and a non-governmental organization. To enable the Governing Body to get as complete a picture as possible, these communications are summarized below.

2. The Government of Canada indicated that copies of the Conference resolution had been sent to Canadian provincial and territorial governments and to national workers' and employers' organizations. The Government had also sent a letter to major Canadian business associations informing them of the Conference resolution and Canadian policies with respect to Myanmar. In 1988 Canada suspended diplomatic and commercial relations with Myanmar, along with support for Canadian firms doing business in the country, including export programmes and commercial promotion. Support for multilateral assistance through international financial institutions was also withdrawn, and bilateral aid was suspended. In August 1997, the Canadian Government had announced selective economic measures against Myanmar, which remain in force. These include withdrawal of trade preferences and the introduction of export controls that effectively limit exports to those of a humanitarian nature. The Government also issued a statement urging the Canadian business community to refrain from entering into further investment agreements or commercial ventures in Myanmar until improvements were evident.

3. The Government of Japan communicated the following points via its Permanent Mission. The relationship between Japan and Myanmar did not contain any element that contributed directly or indirectly to forced labour in Myanmar, nor did any development assistance do so. Japan hoped that an early solution would be attained on the question of forced labour in Myanmar, and that a constructive dialogue towards that objective between the Government of Myanmar and the ILO would start soon.

4. The Government of New Zealand indicated that it had recently reviewed the country's bilateral relationship with Myanmar and no element of that relationship had been identified that would perpetuate or extend the system of forced labour in Myanmar. The Government intended to keep the relationship under review. It had forwarded copies of the Conference resolution to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and the New Zealand Employers' Federation.

5. The Government of Portugal indicated that its trade with Myanmar took place within the framework of the WTO and the EU. It was difficult within the framework of the WTO to take measures against another member State for violations of fundamental worker rights. The EU had suspended Myanmar from its system of trade preferences because of the forced labour situation. The EU continued to observe the situation in Myanmar with concern, and would discuss the question of forced labour in Myanmar and the Conference resolution at a meeting of the EU Council in March.

6. The Government of Belgium indicated that although its bilateral relations with Myanmar were extremely limited, it had invited ministers of departments having relations with the country to examine measures that could be taken in support of the ILO action and to prevent these relations being used to maintain the system of forced labour. The possibilities for economic sanctions were limited because bilateral trade was minor, and also because trade policy was mainly handled at the EU level. In July last year, the Government of Belgium had communicated to the president of an oil company its strong reservations regarding the policy followed by that company, which pursued its goals without taking account of the situation in Myanmar. For ethical reasons, the Government had ended a contract for the supply of fuel with the same company. It had also introduced an ethical clause preventing suppliers to the Belgian State from carrying out activities in countries that were guilty of certain human rights violations, although the introduction of this clause had yet to be approved by the European Commission. The Government gave its assurances that during its next term as president of the EU, later this year, the EU's position would be carefully examined in the light of the situation on the ground in Myanmar.

7. The Government of Kuwait stated that it had no direct or indirect cooperation with the Government of Myanmar, and indicated that it had communicated the Conference resolution to its employers' and workers' organizations. The Government of the Seychelles indicated that it was studying the situation and would revert in due course.

8. The Dutch trade union federation Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging (FNV) indicated that it had no relations with the regime in Myanmar. It had requested the Dutch Government to provide it with information on Dutch companies with trading interests in Myanmar, on the total value of trade between the two countries, as well as details of imports which may have been made with the use of forced labour. Further action would be taken on the basis of an analysis of this information, as soon as it is received. The federation had also requested the Dutch Government to develop concrete proposals for a review of its own and/or EU relations with Myanmar on the occasion of the next EU discussion round on these relations. It had asked the Dutch Government to inform it of such proposals, with whom it would discuss them if appropriate.

9. The Fiji Trades Union Congress indicated that it supported the ICFTU position, but did not have any further information to provide at this stage.

10. The All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions indicated that it had urged the Government of Pakistan to implement the spirit of the Conference resolution, and had circulated the resolution widely to the news media in order to inform public opinion about the situation in Myanmar.

11. The Swedish Employers' Confederation indicated that the content and implications of the Conference resolution had been discussed at a meeting of the South-East Asia advisory board of the International Council of Swedish Industry. The Confederation's full membership of 45,000 companies had been informed via its newsletter of its support for the Conference resolution, and companies that had any commercial relations with Myanmar were asked to review these relations. The International Council of Swedish Industry had communicated the content of the Conference resolution to relevant associations of companies.

12. The United Nations Industrial Development Organization indicated that in reference to its activities in Myanmar it was not aware of any non-compliance with the Conference resolution.

13. The non-governmental organization Images Asia, which had provided a representative to testify before the Commission of Inquiry at its formal hearing of witnesses and which had cooperated closely with the Commission's visit to the region in 1998, transmitted a report dated 3 March 2001 on forced labour in the Rakhine state of Myanmar. The report referred to the situation in northern Rakhine state in December 2000. The report indicated that orders to stop the use of forced labour had been transmitted by the Government of Myanmar to the civilian authorities in the state, and village leaders had been requested to organize mass public meetings to announce the change in policy. Such information had also been placed on official notice boards, and it had been declared that neither civilian nor military authorities were entitled to demand compulsory labour, and that in case of non-compliance complaints should be filed with the Court, which would take appropriate action. The report claimed, however, that the Myanmar military, especially local battalions, were showing no willingness to implement these instructions. The military was continuing to requisition labour under threat of "dire consequences". As a result, while there had been a temporary reduction in labour demands in some areas, this was only slight, and there were allegations that it had been accompanied by an increase in extortion and arbitrary taxation.

Geneva, 22 March 2001.

GB.280/6 (Add.2)

SIXTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA

Developments concerning the question of the observance by the Government of Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)

Addendum 2

Measures taken by the Organization's constituents

Measures taken by member States

1. In a letter dated 14 March 2001, the Government of Mexico stated that bilateral trade and political dialogue with the Government of Myanmar were minimal and that there were no bilateral mechanisms, legal instruments or cooperation projects under way or in the process of being negotiated between Mexico and Myanmar. The Government had communicated the recommendations contained in the Conference resolution to the country's most representative employers' and workers' organizations. Of these, the Confederation of Workers of Mexico had begun trade union action on this matter through its representative in the ILO Governing Body.

Geneva, 27 March 2001.

GB.280/PV

D. Provisional minutes of the discussion of this item

(Subject to approval by the Governing Body at its 282nd (November 2001) Session.)

Governing Body

Provisional minutes of the 280th Session

()

SECONG SITTING

Extract

Wednesday, 28 March 2001, morning

The sitting opened at 10.50 a.m., with Mr. Amorim in the Chair.

Sixth item on the agenda

DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING THE QUESTION OF THE OBSERVANCE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MYANMAR OF THE FORCED LABOUR CONVENTION, 1930 (NO. 29)

The Chairperson recalled that, at its 279th Session (November 2000), the Governing Body had concluded that the conditions set out in paragraph 2 of the Conference resolution of June 2000 concerning the Government of Myanmar's observance of Convention No. 29 had not been fulfilled and consequently the provisions of paragraph 1 of that resolution would come into effect on 30 November 2000. At the same time, it had decided that the channels of cooperation between the ILO and the Government of Myanmar should be kept open. The Director-General had subsequently taken the necessary steps to set these provisions in motion.

The Governing Body now had before it a report presenting the latest developments in this case as regards the Government of Myanmar, as well as measures taken by the ILO's constituents and by various international organizations. This document included 11 appendices setting out detailed elements and was accompanied by two additional papers which contained further information received since then from governments and employers' and workers' organizations.

In paragraph 67 of the main paper, the Governing Body was invited to request the Director-General to transmit the paper to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, which would consider this item in June 2001, together with the record of the Governing Body's own discussions and any other pertinent information.

The Director-General observed that the replies received from the ILO's constituents demonstrated that the request contained in the Conference resolution had led several governments to review very thoroughly their relations with Myanmar in consultation with employers' and workers' organizations, and in some cases this review had paid special attention to the situation of companies operating in Myanmar. However, while some governments had reported concrete measures and several trade unions had pressed for boycotts, the response to the Conference resolution generally reflected a wait-and-see attitude.

In accordance with the conclusions reached by the Governing Body in November 2000 and in line with the mandate conferred by the Conference, the Office had been authorized to extend its cooperation to the Government of Myanmar in order to promote the full implementation by the latter of the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations. In line with that mandate and despite the position of non-cooperation expressed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Myanmar, the speaker had written to the Minister of Labour on 22 December 2000. While the Minister's reply of 11 February 2001 had generally confirmed an attitude of non-cooperation, it had at the same time emphasized action taken to enforce the legislative, executive and administrative measures announced, including action against perpetrators of violations. In his letter of 1 March 2001, the speaker had pointed out that Myanmar could not expect any acknowledgement for these actions unless there was an objective assessment of their practical implementation and actual input which the ILO was alone in a position to provide. Following this letter, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Myanmar had requested a meeting with the Director-General.

On the clear understanding that this meeting was intended as a positive response to his letter of March, the speaker had received the Deputy Foreign Minister on 22 March and a very frank and direct discussion had ensued. His own objective had been to ascertain whether the Myanmar Government was prepared to have an objective assessment made by the ILO of the concrete impact that the measures announced had had on the actual situation of forced labour in the country. Regarding the actual modalities, he had stressed that they would have to be of such a nature as to guarantee the objectivity and relevance of the outcome. He had likewise emphasized the urgency of the matter in view of the discussions due to take place at the Conference in June 2001. On that basis, the Deputy Minister's visit had confirmed the authorities' willingness to engage in early discussions for an objective assessment of the various measures adopted by the authorities at the end of 2000.

The ultimate significance of this exchange would depend on whether, and how soon, agreement was reached on the modalities of the objective assessment and this would show whether one was moving in a positive direction or towards an impasse. He intended to keep the Officers of the Governing Body closely associated with the progress of those discussions or their termination, as the case might be.

Mr. Brett (Worker, United Kingdom; Worker Vice-Chairperson) thanked the Director-General for his full report. However, the wait-and-see attitude among the ILO's constituents should, as far as the Workers were concerned, more aptly be described as a mood of expectancy. The Workers expected that the unprecedented recourse to article 33 of the ILO Constitution would have induced the Burmese authorities to see the logic of cooperating with the ILO in the fulfilment of their obligations. Their second expectation was that, if the Burmese Government failed to do so, the international community would take appropriate action to bring about compliance. It had been made very clear at the time that article 33 was not a provision to be invoked lightly, nor was this an attempt to put in the dock a government which had persistently refused to comply with its obligations under Convention No. 29, but it was a serious indictment of a government which had failed to comply with its obligations over a long period of time. After a policy of consistent denial that any forced labour existed in Burma, the Minister of Labour's letter of 21 February 2001 in fact amounted to an admission that forced labour had existed and continued to be practised in the country. While the Government now admitted to a few isolated cases of breaches of the legislation and stated that action had been taken against perpetrators of such violations, it had supplied no precise information in this respect. Reports from NGOs and the international trade union indicated, on the contrary, that widespread use of forced labour continued in Burma. Against this background, it was highly disappointing that the Minister of Labour had brushed aside the offer of ILO assistance on the pretext that the Government was perfectly capable of taking he necessary measures without outside assistance. On the contrary, it was essential, in the interests both of the ILO and the Government of Burma, that any measures taken to eradicate forced labour be duly verified by an impartial outside body. Until this occurred, there was no way of ascertaining what progress, if any, was achieved towards this goal. The Director-General's statement in his letter of 1 March that the ILO alone was in a position to provide such an assessment "with the authority necessary to carry legal, practical and political consequences at the international level" constituted very sound advice which the Government of Burma should heed carefully.

As regards opinion within Burma, paragraphs 48 and 49 of the paper made reference to an "open letter regarding ILO decision on Myanmar in Myanmar" purported to emanate from 18 million workers employed by public and private enterprises and an open letter bearing the same title and date from the "International Business Community". These communications not only stretched the bounds of credibility, but also suggested a high degree of coercion in obtaining those signatures.

It was also disappointing that a number of member States had been extremely vague in their replies as to the efforts they might envisage. He stressed that the Conference resolution called upon member States to take appropriate action to ensure that the Burmese authorities did not take advantage of their relations with other States to perpetuate or extend the system of forced labour. No doubt some of this wait-and-see policy had been influenced by reports that the Burmese military junta had recently engaged in secret talks with the democratic opposition leader. However desirable a return to democracy might be, this was not the issue now before the Governing Body, which was a very simple one, i.e. to bring about an end to forced labour, which was a violation of a basic ILO Convention.

A number of trade unions had responded in a very concrete manner. In particular, the ICFTU - which represented some 200 million workers throughout the world - had at a meeting in Tokyo adopted a global plan of action on Burma which set out a number of concrete steps aimed at persuading governments, business circles and international bodies to take action steps towards the cessation of forced labour in Burma. In this connection, it was disappointing that the United Nations and other international organizations had not applied themselves seriously to this situation and had merely taken note of the ILO's communication. It was also not acceptable that governments which in the ILO had supported the enforcement of measures under article 33 failed to speak up on this issue in other international bodies. The Workers supported the Director-General's proposal to place the question on the agenda of ECOSOC at its July 2001 meeting. It was to be hoped that all this would help to create a climate in which the Government of Burma would see the need to act and to restore some measure of credibility by involving the ILO in validating the process. The Workers would in any case pursue their campaign until the Government of Burma complied with its obligations.

Mr. Thüsing (Employer, Germany; Employer Vice-Chairperson) considered that it would not be helpful to exacerbate the situation further by exaggerated statements or gestures. The Conference had decided in June 2000 that certain measures should be implemented in pursuance of article 33 of the ILO Constitution and in November 2000 the Governing Body had not been able to conclude that anything had occurred in the meanwhile that would warrant not implementing these measures. The Employers believed that this decision, while unfortunate, had been the right one in the circumstances. An existing situation could only change if new elements came into play, and in this case a new element could only arise when, on the basis of an objective assessment carried out by the Office, the Conference or Governing Body received a report that would enable them to conclude that the situation had changed in a positive direction. It was therefore necessary to wait for such a positive development and all parties concerned should work together with good will to achieve this objective.

Ms. Adler (Government, Denmark) took the floor on behalf of the governments of the European Union (EU), as well as the governments of Central and Eastern Europe associated with the EU. The associated countries Cyprus, Malta and Turkey as well as Croatia and Norway had also expressed the wish to align themselves with this statement.

The European Union had supported the ILC resolution adopted in June 2000 and had welcomed the entry into force of the measures recommended by that resolution on 30 November 2000 because it felt deep concern about the situation of forced labour in Burma, as reflected in the replies sent by EU Member States and the European Commission to the Director-General's letter of 22 December 2000.

In 1997 the ILO Commission of Inquiry had made clear recommendations to the Government of Burma, to the effect that: the national legislation be brought into line with ILO Convention No. 29; that no more forced or compulsory labour be imposed by the authorities in practice; and that persons who imposed forced labour should face penal sanctions. These recommendations were still valid and Burma needed to comply fully with them.

In November 2000, the Government of Burma had started to take some measures addressing the problem and had in particular adopted certain legislative measures, according to the ILO mission report. However, as regards implementation measures and their follow-up, developments were much less evident. The EU was concerned about continued reports of the use of forced labour in Burma.

Burma had since informed the Office that it would continue its own efforts towards the elimination of forced labour - which was in itself encouraging - but without ILO cooperation - which was regrettable. In order for the ILC to lift the measures it had decided on, it needed to be assured that forced labour was eliminated completely in Burma, and only the ILO could provide such information. The European Union therefore urged Burma to resume its cooperation with the ILO and to allow a full-time ILO presence in the country in order to assist the Government to put a definitive and verifiable end to the practice of forced labour. If Burma did make sufficient progress by the time of the ILO Conference in June 2001, Members might wish to consider what further steps might be taken.

Mr. Spring (Government, United States) noted that, in his letter of 22 December 2000, the Director-General had reiterated the ILO's readiness to help the Government of Burma implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. This was in keeping with the terms of the June 2000 Conference resolution and the discussion of the resolution by the Governing Body in November 2000. While it was disappointing that the Government of Burma had not accepted the ILO's offer of assistance, that offer still stood.

In his letter of 1 March 2001, the Director-General had stated that the ILO alone was in a position to provide an objective and authoritative assessment of the Government's implementation of the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations. While agreeing with that statement, the speaker cautioned that, in the absence of democratic reforms in Burma, the practical ability of an ILO presence there to assure that forced labour had been eliminated nationwide was problematic. Under these circumstances, such a presence might erode, rather that enhance, the credibility of the ILO.

The Office paper provided discouraging evidence that the practice of forced labour continued in Burma. Government and military officials at all levels were reported to have taken measures to conceal the practice, and to weaken or nullify the effects of the orders that the Government had submitted to the Governing Body in November 2000 as evidence of its determination to eliminate forced labour. Moreover, a campaign of propaganda and disinformation had been launched to try to counter the measures foreseen by the Conference resolution. Tens of thousands of people, including women, children and elderly persons, were reported to have been pressed into forced labour in the short period of time since November 2000. He fully endorsed the proposal in paragraph 67 that the Director-General transmit this document to the Conference for discussion in June 2001.

In January 2001, the international community had generally welcomed the announcement of the opening of dialogue between the Government of Burma and the democratic opposition. More than two months later, it was still waiting for signs that this represented a genuine effort at achieving national reconciliation and at making concrete progress towards ending human rights abuses. Forced labour was unlikely to end in Burma as long as democratic government was denied. The United States Government was in favour of giving this dialogue a chance to succeed. However, if no genuine progress was achieved, it was prepared to consider additional measures to respond to the Conference decision.

Mr. Haraguchi (Government, Japan) observed that, according to the ILO mission report submitted to the Governing Body in November 2000, the Government of Myanmar had unquestionably taken various legislative and administrative measures towards the eradication of forced labour. While it still remained to be seen how these measures would be implemented, it should be recognized that some progress had been made, and the Government of Myanmar should be given every encouragement to move forward rapidly in the desired direction. The speaker continued to believe that this was the valid approach in order to bring about the desired results in a smooth manner.

He commended the Office for its efforts to re-establish dialogue and cooperation with the Government of Myanmar. For its part, the Government of Japan had been in touch with the Government of Myanmar at various levels, both formally and informally, to impress upon the latter the need to cooperate with the ILO, and in particular to involve the ILO in the objective assessment of the measures introduced. His own Government would continue its efforts, and it hoped that it would be possible for all concerned to work together resolutely so that those efforts would be fully rewarded as early as possible.

Mr. Chung (Government, Republic of Korea) reported that his Government had transmitted the Conference resolution to the major employers' and workers' organizations in the Republic of Korea and had requested them to take appropriate measures to implement the recommendations and review their relations with Myanmar, if necessary. His Government would inform the ILO of any further developments in this connection. It hoped that an early solution to the problem would be obtained through a combination of technical assistance from the international community, including the ILO, and more active efforts on the part of the Government of Myanmar.

Mr. Mladlana (Government, South Africa) expressed appreciation for the manner in which the ILO's constituents had reacted to the decisions adopted by the Governing Body and expressed solidarity with the workers of Myanmar in their struggle against forced labour. His Government firmly supported the maintenance of these measures as long as Myanmar remained intransigent and unwilling to desist from the despicable behaviour which had prompted those measures. In the context of justice and respect for human rights, workers' rights should be upheld as an integral part of human rights. He called upon the ILO to sustain the measures imposed upon the Government of Myanmar while at the same time intensifying its efforts aimed at assisting that Government to adopt a course of action that would result in upholding the fundamental principles of natural justice.

Mr. Rimkunas (Government, Lithuania) fully endorsed the statement made on behalf of the governments of the European Union. At the same time, he welcomed the efforts undertaken by the Government of Myanmar to eliminate forced labour, which should be pursued in close cooperation with the ILO.

Mr. Hendrasmoro (Government, Indonesia) emphasized that his Government did not condone any practices in Myanmar that abetted or encouraged the practice of forced labour as described by the ILO's Commission of Inquiry. However, it also firmly believed that promotional measures and cooperation were far more preferable to sanctions in addressing this issue. Indeed, punitive measures had repeatedly proved ineffective in securing the observance of any ILO Convention or Recommendation and merely created divisions and conflicts within the Organization.

He therefore welcomed the fact that the channels of communication between the Director-General and the Government of Myanmar had been kept open. These exchanges denoted that the ILO and the Government of Myanmar both understood the importance of maintaining opportunities for dialogue and cooperation in addressing this problem. He commended the Director-General for his readiness to cooperate with the Government of Myanmar for the purposes of ensuring the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Government of Indonesia was encouraged by the assurances given by the Government of Myanmar that it would continue its efforts to eradicate forced labour and enact legislation making this practice illegal. He believed that if the framework of measures put in place by that Government were implemented, there would be a marked improvement in Myanmar's record on the issue of forced labour.

Mr. Vaish (Government, India) stressed that his Government had always been strongly opposed to the practice of forced labour and believed that countries voluntarily adhering to ILO Conventions should apply them. At the same time, it had consistently emphasized that the ILO's objectives could best be promoted through dialogue and technical cooperation and not through punitive measures or threat of their use. It had therefore advocated constructive dialogue and technical assistance between the ILO and the Government of Myanmar. Strongly believing in the virtues of dialogue and persuasion, the Government of India commended the Director-General for the recommencement of dialogue with the Government of Myanmar and wished him every success in these efforts.

The speaker noted from paragraph 4 of the Office paper that informed 59 international organizations, including the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, regarding the issue under consideration. It was his own understanding that this communication should have been sent only to those organizations with which the ILO had established relations under article 12(1) of the Constitution and with the approval of the Governing Body. He therefore requested the Office to explain the criteria used for selecting the organizations to which this information had been circulated. It was important that these criteria be entirely clear so that there could be no scope for any controversy or confusion on this point in the future.

The representative of the Director-General (Mr. Tapiola, Deputy Director-General) pointed out that article 12(1) of the Constitution, which provided that the ILO "shall cooperate within the terms of this Constitution with ... public international organizations having specialized responsibilities in related fields", did not limit such cooperation to organizations with which the ILO had concluded specific agreements. In the present case, the information had been sent to all the international organizations invited to the International Labour Conference and the ILO's regional conferences and meetings.

The Chairperson observed that the only action which the Governing Body was now called upon to take was to request the Director-General to transmit the Office report to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, as proposed in paragraph 67. No disagreement with that proposal had been expressed by anybody. During the debate, a good deal of emphasis had been placed in the question of assessment and verification and he encouraged the Director-General to pursue that line. This would probably be one of the crucial aspects to be examined at the Conference.

Mr. Brett (Worker, United Kingdom; Worker Vice-Chairperson) assumed that the report that would be transmitted to the Conference would be an updated version of the document taking into account any further developments taking place between now and the opening of the Conference.

The Workers had noted from the replies of some governments that the latter had merely transmitted the Director-General's communication to the national employers' and workers' organizations, expecting them to take the necessary action. This appeared to reflect a basic misunderstanding on their part. While it was of course desirable for the social partners to be involved in any collective or individual action taken on this issue, the Conference resolution placed the primary responsibility on governments for reviewing their relations with Myanmar and taking concrete measures. He would therefore welcome hearing from the governments concerned that they were themselves taking action and not merely presuming that action would be taken only by the employers' and workers' organizations.

The Governing Body took note of the report and addenda 1 and 2. It requested the Director-General to transmit to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards the report together with the record of its consideration, as well as any further information of relevance for its discussion. The Conference Committee would have before it the report of the CEACR together with any other relevant information.

C. App./D.7

E. Developments since the 280th Session of the Governing Body (March 2001): Arrangements for an objective assessment of the situation of forced labour following measures taken by the Myanmar Government

(Mission to Yangon, 17-19 May 2001)

Introduction

While considering that the conditions had not been met for the provisions contained in the Conference resolution of June 2000 to be rendered inappropriate, the Governing Body noted during its 279th Session in November 2000 that the Director-General should continue to extend cooperation to the Government of Myanmar in order to promote full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

During its 280th Session in March 2001, the Director-General informed the Governing Body, in opening the discussion on the report concerning the implementation of the measures decided by the Conference (GB.280/6), of the efforts which he had undertaken with the Myanmar authorities in order to fulfil the second aspect of his responsibilities. In his letter of 1 March 2001 to the Minister for Labour (Appendix 1), he had expressed the view that the Myanmar authorities could not expect to receive any recognition for the framework of measures and subsequent action which they said they had taken, in the absence of an objective assessment by the ILO of their practical implementation and actual impact on the forced labour situation. Following that letter, he had received a visit from the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Khin Maung Win, on 22 March 2001. During a very frank discussion, the Deputy Minister had indicated that the authorities were disposed to enter quickly into discussions on the modalities of an objective assessment.

That information was received with interest, and the Governing Body decided that any further developments should be reflected in the report to be submitted to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards at its meeting in 2001, in accordance with paragraph 1(a) of the resolution adopted in June 2000. The present report follows up that decision. Its purpose is to set out the developments that have taken place since the Governing Body's last session, and in particular to give an account of the origin and results of the mission which visited Yangon between 17 and 19 May 2001 in order to decide on the modalities for an objective assessment of the implementation and impact of the framework of measures put in place from October 2000 onwards.

Origin of the mission

During a meeting with the Director-General on 22 March 2001, Mr. Khin Maung Win had said that the Permanent Representative of Myanmar in Geneva, Ambassador U Mya Than, would be appointed to undertake discussions with the Office regarding the modalities of the objective assessment. During those preliminary discussions, it soon became clear that it was not realistic to expect the two successive stages of the implementation process (agreement on modalities and, in the case of such agreement being reached, the carrying out of the assessment itself) could be undertaken before the Conference, given the logistical constraints and the deadlines associated with the second stage. The parties therefore set a target of reaching a clear and firm commitment from the authorities regarding the modalities of such an assessment before the International Labour Conference, on the understanding that such a commitment would be followed up as soon as possible by the assessment itself, so that the Governing Body could be informed of the results during its November 2001 session. The letter of the Minister for Labour dated 26 April 2001 (Appendix 2) and the Director-General's reply of 10 May 2001 (Appendix 3) are the two principal reference points in the development of discussions on that subject.

It followed from the Director-General's letter of 10 May that, in order to finalize the modalities in question and obtain before the Conference a specific and definitive commitment based on parameters previously discussed with the Ambassador (concerning issues such as who would carry out the assessment, when it would begin and how long it would last, and what practical and legal guarantees would be provided for it), discussions would have to be held in Yangon with all the ministries concerned.

It was for this reason that a new mission visited Yangon between 17 and 19 May 2001. Its members were as follows:

-- Mr. Francis Maupain, representative of the Director-General;

-- Mr. Dominick Devlin, Legal Adviser;

-- Mr. Rueben Dudley, Deputy Director, ILO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific;

-- Mr. Richard Horsey, Secretary.

Progress and findings of the mission

The mission, like the previous ones, attracted a degree of interest among the diplomatic community in Yangon and among the United Nations agencies. In order to respond to that interest, and despite the limited time available, the mission was anxious to organize a number of information sessions, with the assistance of the United Nations Resident Coordinator. The mission's detailed programme is given in Appendix 4.

During the first working session following the mission's arrival in Yangon, the representatives of the various ministries concerned informed the mission that they had taken a number of measures since the adoption of the new framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures. To illustrate those efforts, the Secretary of the "Implementation Committee for Convention No. 29", U Soe Nyunt, drew attention to action which had been taken to publicize those measures as well as to the visits that had been organized to different parts of the country in order to examine the realities of the situation in the light of previous allegations.

The mission emphasized that the purpose of its present visit was quite different from that of the previous missions. The purpose was not to re-examine the substantive issues dealt with in the report of the Commission of Inquiry. Neither was it the purpose of the visit to set up a new Commission of Inquiry, although the Government was free to request such a step under article 34 of the ILO Constitution. As the Director-General had made clear in his letter of 1 March and in his presentation to the Governing Body in March, the purpose of the objective assessment now being considered was more specific: it was to assess the practical implementation of the legislative, executive and administrative framework that had been put in place and its actual impact on the forced labour situation in the country.

The mission drew attention to the fact that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations had discussed the framework of measures at its previous meeting in December 2000, and its observation in its report to the Conference provided some valuable indications as to the points to be considered when the objective assessment was undertaken. The Committee of Experts, while expressing regret that the views of the October 2000 Technical Cooperation Mission had not been fully taken into account, nevertheless noted that the legislative measures adopted "could provide a statutory basis for ensuring compliance with the Convention in practice, if given effect bona fide not only by the local authorities empowered to requisition labour under the Village and Towns Acts, but also by civilian and military officers entitled to call on the assistance of local authorities under the Acts". With that in mind, the Committee had given a number of indications regarding further measures that could be undertaken (Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III (Part 1A), 2001, page 149).

The object and scope of the assessment being thus delineated, the mission emphasized that the modalities were of necessity dictated by the nature of the task: they had to provide every possible guarantee that the assessment would be objective and credible. The members of the High-Level Team (HLT) responsible for the assessment would therefore have to be appointed by the Director-General solely on the basis of their recognized impartiality, experience and technical competence including knowledge of the region; the duration of the HLT's visit should be sufficient to allow it to form an opinion, while recognizing the possible constraints as regards the availability of the HLT's members; and finally, the HLT needed to be allowed complete discretion with regard to the organization of its programme of activities and meetings. The mission expressed the hope that those parameters could be translated into a specific text during the course of the visit.

Those basic considerations led to discussions during which the mission drew up an initial draft "Understanding". That in turn gave rise to numerous proposed amendments and counter amendments until quite late in the afternoon of Saturday, 19 May. Two main difficulties had to be faced. The first concerned the appointment by the Director-General of the members of the HLT, which the authorities wished to be subject to their prior approval. That demand was not accepted. It was, however, made clear that the expression "recognized qualifications" used in point I of the text implied that the qualifications required of members of the HLT would have to be recognized by all, including the Myanmar authorities; that interpretation was subsequently confirmed in writing, at the latter's request. The second difficulty related to the discretion of the HLT to determine the programme which it regarded as necessary for conducting the assessment. The solution that was adopted acknowledged that that discretion could be limited by considerations of security - including the security of members of the HLT itself - but stipulated that those considerations must be "valid"; it also provided for a mechanism to overcome any difficulties that might arise in that regard, namely, the possible assistance of an independent "facilitator" recognized as knowledgeable and fair by all parties concerned. On that basis, the full text of an "Understanding" was finally agreed.

Before leaving Yangon, the mission was received by the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Khin Maung Win, who had been kept regularly informed of the progress of the discussions and who welcomed the news that they had finally led to an "Understanding". He expressed the willingness of the Government to make the assessment process a success and asked the mission to communicate to the Director-General his Government's wish to assist the HLT as much as possible in achieving its objectives. If difficulties arose, they could be discussed openly. The Government was firmly committed to resolving the issue.

The final text, as initialled by both parties at the airport after final amendments, is reproduced in Appendix 5. Before leaving, the representative of the Director-General expressed the concern that the content of the Understanding and its implications should be communicated to the General Secretary of the National League for Democracy (NLD). Since it had been unable to do so directly, given the various constraints which it had had to face, the mission, on behalf of the Director-General, asked Mr. Léon de Riedmatten, former ICRC delegate and currently representative of the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, to do so instead.

The mission could not conclude its report without thanking Mr. Patrice Coeur-Bizot, the United Nations Resident Coordinator, and his assistant, Ms. Jeanne Lennkh, for their valuable support in the organization of meetings and in ensuring the smooth progress of the mission. It also wishes to thank Mr. Léon de Riedmatten for the very useful advice which he imparted to the mission on the basis of his particular experience and role. The mission was encouraged by the contacts which it had with the international organizations represented in Yangon and with the current ICRC delegate, Mr. Michel Ducraux. Overall, those organizations expressed a strong interest in contributing in a concrete way to the success of the present undertaking and in particular to promoting the development and implementation of the programme of the future high-level team as far as their knowledge and resources permit.

Geneva, 31 May 2001.

Appendix 1

Communication dated 1 March 2001 from the Director-General to the Minister for Labour of the Government of Myanmar

Dear Mr. Minister,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 11 February 2001 in reply to mine of 22 December 2000, and would like to offer the following comments.

As regards the second paragraph of your letter, I can assure you that your views, as well as the text of the statement which your Ambassador intended to make and which reached the Chairman's Office after the closure of the session, will be reflected appropriately in the documentation before the next session of the Governing Body.

I have taken note of your statement that Myanmar is "resolute in our endeavours to implement the framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures which we have put in place" with a view to the total elimination of the practice of forced labour in Myanmar, and in particular of the information that some action has already been taken against the perpetrators of such practices.

However it is clear that Myanmar cannot expect to receive credit for these endeavours in the absence of an objective assessment of their practical implementation and actual impact. The ILO alone is in a position to provide such an assessment with the authority necessary to carry legal, practical and political consequences at the international level. This is all the more relevant in the light of the continuing flow of information from various sources concerning the issues in question.

For these reasons I would like to reiterate that the Office stands ready to engage in discussions about the possible format and modalities such an objective assessment could take. In my view, it would be highly desirable that such discussions take place before the next session of the Governing Body. It should be recalled that the International Labour Conference will, in accordance with paragraph 1(a) of its resolution, review the situation at its next session in June, on the basis of all relevant information then available.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Juan Somavia.

Appendix 2

Communication dated 26 April 2001 from the Minister for Labour of the Government of Myanmar to the Director-General

Excellency,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 1 March 2001 which responded to my letter of 11 February 2001.

I note with satisfaction that, as assured by you in the letter under reference, the statement of my Ambassador as well as our views on the issue of forced labour in Myanmar had been reflected in the documentation submitted to the 280th Session of the Governing Body of the ILO held last month. I wish to express thanks to you for that.

I fully appreciate your Office's continued readiness to engage in discussions about the possible format or modalities for an objective assessment of the actual implementation of the legislative, executive and administrative measures that we have taken to eliminate forced labour in Myanmar. In this regard I would like to reiterate Myanmar's willingness to occasionally accept an ILO representative based in the Regional Office in Bangkok or Geneva and/or a mutually acceptable person. We are convinced that such a representative would be able to assess objectively the implementation of the abovementioned measures and their impact. For the assessment to be generally effective, in our view, it would require the involvement of an independent and unbiased entity.

I hope that continued discussions between you and our Permanent Representative Ambassador U Mya Than, who has been designated as our contact point in this matter, will lead to some significant progress before the 89th Session of the International Labour Conference (ILC) in our search for the effective format or modalities acceptable to both sides.

I can assure you that, regardless of any outcome in this joint effort, we will continue to take steps to ensure that forced labour does not exist in Myanmar both in law and in practice and to implement the framework we have put in place.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Major-General Tin Ngwe,

Minister for Labour,

Union of Myanmar.

Appendix 3

Communication dated 10 May 2001 from the Director-General to the Minister for Labour of the Government of Myanmar

Dear Mr. Minister,

Thank you for your letter of 26 April reacting to my letter of 1 March in the light of subsequent developments, including the discussions at the 280th Session of the Governing Body.

As envisaged in your letter, discussions have in the meantime continued with Ambassador Mya Than with a view to clarifying the process whereby the objective assessment mentioned in my letter could actually take place.

It now seems clear on both sides that this process would be in two stages. The first stage would be to reach a clear and firm commitment on the modalities of such an assessment on the basis of parameters which have been presented to the Ambassador. It is very urgent that this commitment be finalized so that, as envisaged on both sides, the outcome could be reported to the Conference in June. To reach this outcome as expeditiously as possible, my representatives - whose names have been communicated to the Ambassador - are ready to travel to Yangon as soon as the competent authorities confirm their interest, but no later than early next week.

If this first stage is successful, the second stage would be to undergo the objective assessment itself, in accordance with the abovementioned modalities. This assessment would have to take place not later than the end of the summer so that a report could be prepared for the Governing Body in November.

I hope the above clarification may help the authorities to quickly finalize their position on the matter.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Juan Somavia.

Appendix 4

List of meetings held

The mission held 16 meetings in Yangon over three days. It met with the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, senior officials from three ministries (Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs, and Labour), and from the Attorney-General's Office and the Office of Strategic Studies, representatives of 26 diplomatic missions, seven United Nations agencies, a representative of the Geneva-based Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, and a representative of the ICRC.

Thursday, 17 May 2001

9.40 a.m., Arrival in Yangon

10.30-11.00 a.m., Traders Hotel

Patrice Coeur-Bizot United Nations Resident Coordinator

Jeanne Lennkh Assistant to United Nations Resident

Coordinator

Léon de Riedmatten Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue

11.00 a.m.-1.00 p.m., Traders Hotel

Soe Nyunt Director-General, Department of Labour

Win Mya Director-General, International

Organizations and Economic Department,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Dr. Tun Shin Director-General,

Attorney-General's Office

Lt.-Col. Hla Min Deputy Head, Department of International

Affairs, Office of Strategic Studies

Aung Thein Director-General, Department of General

Administration, Ministry of Home Affairs

Zaw Win Chief of General Staff, Police Force

2.30-4.30 p.m., Traders Hotel

Soe Nyunt Director-General, Department of Labour

Win Mya Director-General, International

Organizations and Economic Department,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Dr. Tun Shin Director-General,

Attorney-General's Office

Lt.-Col. Hla Min Deputy Head, Department of International

Affairs, Office of Strategic Studies

Aung Thein Director-General, Department of General

Administration, Ministry of Home Affairs

Zaw Win Chief of General Staff, Police Force

5.00-6.00 p.m., Japanese Embassy

Shigeru Tsumori Japanese Ambassador

Kiyoshi Koinuma Deputy Chief of Mission

Head of Political Section

Naoki Ito Counsellor

Friday, 18 May 2001

8.00-9.00 a.m., Traders Hotel

Trevor Wilson Australian Ambassador

John Jenkins British Ambassador

Bernard Lelarge French Second Secretary

Hauke Kracht German Third Secretary

Francesco Fedeli Italian Chargé d'Affaires a.i.

Karl Wycoff United States Chargé d'Affaires a.i.

Patrice Coeur-Bizot United Nations Resident Coordinator

Jeanne Lennkh Assistant to United Nations Resident

Coordinator

10.00-10.30 a.m., Traders Hotel

Soe Nyunt Director-General, Department of Labour

Win Mya Director-General, International

Organizations and Economic Department,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Dr. Tun Shin Director-General,

Attorney-General's Office

Lt.-Col. Hla Min Deputy Head, Department of International

Affairs, Office of Strategic Studies

Aung Thein Director-General, Department of General

Administration, Ministry of Home Affairs

Zaw Win Chief of General Staff, Police Force

12.15-1.15 p.m., UNDP Office

Patrice Coeur-Bizot United Nations Resident Coordinator

Jeanne Lennkh Assistant to United Nations Resident

Coordinator

Members of the United Nations Country Team:

Francis Rinville FAO Representative

Guillaume Le Hegarat UNDCP Assistant Representative

Rajiv Kapur UNHCR Chief of Mission

Dr. Rosella Morelli UNICEF Officer in Charge

Jos Vandelear WHO Officer in Charge

Bradley Guerrant WFP Emergency Coordinator

Renata Dessallien UNDP Deputy Resident Representative

P 1.15-2.15 p.m., UNDP Office

Janeh Sukaimi Brunei First Secretary

In May Cambodian Counsellor

Nasaruddin

Mochtar Koro Indonesian Ambassador

Ly Bounkham Lao People's Democratic Republic Ambassador

Dato Mohammad

Bin Noh Malaysian Ambassador

Pablito Mendoza Philippine Third Secretary

Simon de Cruz Singapore Ambassador

Buskorn Prugsapongse Thai Counsellor

Nguyen Van Thanh Vietnamese Second Secretary

Wang Zongying Chinese First Secretary

Shyam Saran Indian Ambassador

Naoki Ito Japanese Counsellor

Chung Jung-Gum Republic of Korea Ambassador

Patrice Coeur-Bizot United Nations Resident Coordinator

2.30-4.00 p.m., Traders Hotel

Soe Nyunt Director-General, Department of Labour

Win Mya Director-General, International

Organizations and Economic Department,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Dr. Tun Shin Director-General,

Attorney-General's Office

Lt.-Col. Hla Min Deputy Head, Department of International

Affairs, Office of Strategic Studies

Aung Thein Director-General, Department of General

Administration, Ministry of Home Affairs

Zaw Win Chief of General Staff, Police Force

6.00-8.00 p.m., Traders Hotel

Soe Nyunt Director-General, Department of Labour

Win Mya Director-General, International

Organizations and Economic Department,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Dr. Tun Shin Director-General,

Attorney-General's Office

Lt.-Col. Hla Min Deputy Head, Department of International

Affairs, Office of Strategic Studies

Aung Thein Director-General, Department of General

Administration, Ministry of Home Affairs

Zaw Win Chief of General Staff, Police Force

Saturday, 19 May 2001

8.00-9.00 a.m., UNDP Office

Mahfuzur Rahman Bangladesh First Secretary

Harishchandra Ghimire Nepalese Chargé d'Affaires a.i.

Yusuf Shah Pakistan Ambassador

Ubayasekara Mapa Sri Lankan Ambassador

Dr. Farouk Riad

Hassan Mabrouk Egyptian Ambassador

Dimitry Darchenkov Russian Second Secretary

Vladimir Stamenovic Yugoslav Attaché

Shigeru Tsumori Japanese Ambassador

Jeanne Lennkh Assistant to United Nations Resident

Coordinator

(Apologies: Israeli Ambassador)

10.45 a.m.-1.30 p.m., Traders Hotel

Soe Nyunt Director-General, Department of Labour

Win Mya Director-General, International

Organizations and Economic Department,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Dr. Tun Shin Director-General,

Attorney-General's Office

Lt.-Col. Hla Min Deputy Head, Department of International

Affairs, Office of Strategic Studies

Aung Thein Director-General, Department of General

Administration, Ministry of Home Affairs

Zaw Win Chief of General Staff, Police Force

4.15-5.15 p.m., Traders Hotel

Soe Nyunt Director-General, Department of Labour

Win Mya Director-General, International

Organizations and Economic Department,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Dr. Tun Shin Director-General,

Attorney-General's Office

Lt.-Col. Hla Min Deputy Head, Department of International

Affairs, Office of Strategic Studies

Aung Thein Director-General, Department of General

Administration, Ministry of Home Affairs

Zaw Win Chief of General Staff, Police Force

5.30-5.45 p.m., Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Khin Maung Win Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs

Officials from the Ministry

6.00-6.30 p.m., Traders Hotel

Michel Ducraux ICRC Head of Delegation

Jeanne Lennkh Assistant to United Nations Resident

Coordinator

7.00-7.30 p.m., Yangon Airport (initialling of the "Understanding")

Soe Nyunt Director-General, Department of Labour

Win Mya Director-General, International

Organizations and Economic Department,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Dr. Tun Shin Director-General,

Attorney-General's Office

Jeanne Lennkh Assistant to United Nations Resident

Coordinator

Appendix 5

Understanding on an ILO objective assessment

Recalling previous discussions which were reported to the Governing Body at its March 2001 session relating to the possibility of an objective assessment being carried out by the ILO with respect to the practical implementation and actual impact of the framework of legislative, executive and administrative measures reported by the Government, within the overall objective of the complete elimination of forced labour in law and in practice;

Recognizing now the desirability of such an assessment being carried out as soon as practicable;

Noting the importance in this connection of the observation made by the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in its 2001 report;

Aware of the need to respect the sovereign right of the country as well as the independence of the Organization in the discharge of its functions;

The Government of Myanmar agrees to receive a high-level team (HLT) to carry out an objective assessment under the following conditions designed to ensure its credibility:

1. The team will be composed of high-level persons appointed by the ILO Director-General on the basis of their recognized qualifications, impartiality and knowledge of the region.

2. Taking into consideration seasonal weather conditions, the assessment shall be carried out in September 2001. The time needed to carry out the assessment in Myanmar could involve up to three weeks.

3. The members of the HLT shall enjoy, for the purpose and duration of the mission, the same protection and status accorded to officials of comparable ranks in the United Nations.

4. The HLT shall have complete discretion to establish and implement its program of work, meetings and visits, taking into account the indications provided, inter alia, in the aforementioned observation of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, and subject only to valid considerations of security. For this purpose, the HLT shall be accorded full cooperation from the relevant Myanmar authorities. During the establishment and implementation of the HLT's programme, the HLT and the Government may call upon the assistance of a facilitator recognized by all parties concerned as being a knowledgeable and fair intermediary.

5. Based on the results of the assessment, the HLT may provide such advice and comments as it deems appropriate.

6. The report of the HLT will promptly be made available to the Director-General and the Government and transmitted to the Governing Body for consideration at its November 2001 session.

19 May 2001.

(Initialled) U Soe Nyunt,

Chairman of the Myanmar Negotiating Team.

Francis Maupain.

Endnote 1

GB.279/6/1 and the three addenda to that document.

Endnote 2

The text of the resolution is reproduced in Appendix 6.

Endnote 3

The recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry are reproduced in Appendix 7.

Endnote 4

Letters were sent to the following 59 organizations: United Nations, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNDP, UNFPA, OHCHR, UNCTAD, WFP, UNEP, UNODCCP, UNRWA, UNAIDS, Economic Commission for Africa, ECE, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, FAO, WHO, UNESCO, UNIDO, IAEA, WIPO, ICAO, UPU, IMO, WMO, ITU, IFAD, PAHO, IMF, World Bank, WTO, OECD, European Commission, Council of Europe, African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Caribbean Development Bank, League of Arab States, Organization of African Unity, CARICOM, Organization of American States, ASEAN, SAARC, Andean Community, SELA, LAIA, Nordic Council, OIC, CERN, ECOWAS, Arab Labour Organization, World Tourism Organization, IOM, Asian Productivity Organization and the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

Endnote 5

Information on the practice of forced labour up to November 2000 is contained in the 2001 report of the CEACR. The individual observation concerning the observance of Convention No. 29 by Myanmar is reproduced in Appendix 8.

Endnote 6

This statement could not be given to the 279th Session of the Governing Body and is reproduced here for information.

Endnote 7

Appended to the letter of 6 December 2000 from the Permanent Representative of the Myanmar Mission

Endnote 8

Paragraph 539 of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry appointed under article 26 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization to examine the observance by Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). ILO Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXXI, 1998, Series B, Special Supplement. The full text of the report is also available on the ILO website at the following address: (http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/gb/docs/gb273/myanm ar.html).