ILO sets stage for Burma showdown

source : The nation

BY YINDEE LERTCHAROENCHOK

DESPITE Burma's "tough fight to the very last minute", the International Labour Organization (ILO) on Wednesday passed unprecedented punitive measures that are tantamount to the imposition of global sanctions on the Burmese junta for its practice of forced and compulsory labour.

Although the regime is given a grace period of five months, its Western critics and international labour unions are determined not to let it off the hook when the ILO governing body meets on November 30 to review the matter.

Predictably, the Burmese delegation to the ILO categorically rejected the punitive resolution, which was passed by a 257-41 vote with 31 abstentions. It called the action "most unfair, most unreasonable and most unjust". Each of the 174 ILO country members has four votes, two for the government and one each for employers and workers.

The measures adopted include a call on all ILO constituents - governments, employers and workers - to review their relations with Burma and for international organisations, including other UN agencies, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, to cease all activities which could abet the practice of forced labour.

The resolution also calls on the UN's Economic and Social Council or the General Assembly to adopt recommendations directing international agencies and UN member states to ensure that their involvement with the Burmese junta does not include the practice of forced labour.

The voting on Wednesday was the culmination of a series of complaints and ILO investigation in the late 1990s into the allegations of "widespread and systematic" use of forced or compulsory labour in Burma. An ILO technical team, which visited Burma on May 23-27, confirmed the ILO Commission of Inquiry's 1998 findings that the factual situation of forced or compulsory labour in Burma had nevertheless remained unchanged.

The resolution had been fiercely opposed by not only Burma but also its Asian allies - Japan and Asean countries - and other developing countries, which feared the precedent of such punishment against their own labour standards and practices. Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam went as far as proposing a counter-draft calling for action to be deferred. The Asean document was subsequently shot down.

As it turned out, Japan, China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka joined Asean members and some Latin American countries - Venezuela and Uruguay - and Zambia in Africa in voting against the resolution. Surprisingly, Thailand abstained in the ballot.

Although international labour and human-rights activists viewed the Thai stance as a split within the Asean grouping and a signal of Thailand's growing discontent with its western neighbour, Laxanachantorn Laohaphan, director-general of the Foreign Ministry's International Organisation Affairs Department, told The Nation that the Thai vote should not be taken out of context.

Asean, she said, has no tradition of bloc voting in any international or UN forums, and Thailand has separated the two issues - Thai-Burmese relations and allegations of forced labour in Burma. As the next-door neighbour, the matter of forced labour is of Thailand's concern as it could suffer from an influx of Burmese migrants, she added.

"Each Asean member has different interests. Our voting is based on our national interest. Asean, like the G-77 or NAM [Non-Alignment Movement] does not have a bloc of voting that all members have to conform to," said Laxanachantorn.

The senior Thai official believed Rangoon fully understood Thailand, which was against tough sanctions against Burma and believed Burma should be given more time to comply with ILO recommendations.

It remains to be seen how the Burmese generals in Rangoon will take the tough punishment, which constitutes nothing other than a global boycott of Burma.

According to one Asian diplomat in Geneva, the Burmese delegation had informed Asean countries before the voting that Burma would consider withdrawing from the ILO if it received sanctions despite its stated commitment to cooperate with the ILO.

Japan in particular was very concerned with the Burmese threat and the negative consequences as a result of Burma's further isolation. In his statement after the voting, Japanese United Nations Ambassador Koichi Haraguchi told the ILO conference that his government "frankly was not happy with the resolution."

He asked Burma not to take "offence from the resolution" and urged the regime to continue to cooperate with the ILO. Tokyo will provide "good offices and other assistance" to help resolve the issue, said the Japanese envoy.

Although exiled Burmese dissidents and Burma campaign activists are satisfied with the ILO's further sanctions on the Burmese junta, the Asian diplomat cautioned that Burma had in fact garnered more friends in the vote.

"The analysis of the voting results shows that Burma was not so isolated as previously thought," he said. Compared with last year's voting on a similar resolution, this year the votes against Burma decreased by 76 while the votes opposing the resolution increased by 14.

"Burma should be pleased that its support has expanded from last year. It's not just Asean and China but the Asia-Pacific region," the diplomat said.

But Western labour unions and Western countries, especially the United States, which have harshly criticised the regime's bad human-rights and labour records at various forums, including the ILO conference, are convinced that by the end of the year some of the penalties would be enacted.

Diplomatic battles for the real showdown in November have just begun, and it will be a fierce fight by both opponents and proponents of Burma sanctions.
BY YINDEE LERTCHAROENCHOK