Is it Time for the tiger to finally bare its teeth?
By Santipap
Since Burma was first reprimanded by the
International Labour Organization (ILO)
in 1999 for its widespread use of forced labour, the country’s junta and the ILO have continued to engage in a parasitic relationship. The junta continues to use the ILO to stave off international action and punishment for their horrendous use of forced labour throughout Burma, while the ILO receives flak over Burma’s blatant disregard for labour conventions and their inability to make the junta compliant. However, could it possibly be true that the ILO is finally losing patience with the junta?
Following the International Labour Conference in Geneva in June, in order to stave off calls to send Burma’s case to The Hauge, the junta agreed to a number of criteria aimed at improving the country’s mechanism for dealing with forced labour complaints. The two-pronged approached requires the junta to suspend prosecuting forced labour complainants for six months and the release of Aye Myint, a prominent labour rights activist, both by the end of July. The second prong is the establishment of a credible mechanism to deal with forced labour complaints by the next International Labour Conference in November. Allegedly the junta has proposed establishing a two-member panel consisting of an SPDC official and Richard Horsey, the ILO’s representative to Burma.
Surprisingly, the first deadline has passed and the junta kept their side of the agreement. However, the larger task of setting up a credible complaints mechanism still lies before them.
The issue of force labour in Burma is not new, and it origins have been attributed to the British, during their colonial rule. The British passed two pieces of legislation, the Village Act (1908) and the Town Act (1907), which empowered local authorities to use citizens for unpaid community work. When Burma became independent in 1948 the legislation remained and subsequent governments have resisted calls to repeal the laws. This voluntary contribution of labour has given rise to the idea that being forced to donate labour for community projects is a cultural norm, and that it is an honour to participate in Lo-ah-pay (the Burmese term for “voluntary” contribution labour)1.
As a member state of the ILO, Burma is accountable to this international body for their actions regarding human and labour rights. The ILO has a mechanisms aimed at supervising the enforcement of Conventions and Recommendations. This involves governments’ submitting reports on the implementation of ratified and fundamental conventions that all members are bound to, within a pre-established reporting period. This report, and additional information submitted, is examined by an independent Committee of Experts. The committee holds discussions with the country’s government about the application of the conventions, and then submits a new report to the International Labour Conference (ILC)2.
At the ILC, reports from the Committee of Experts are discussed by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (CCAS). The reports are considered in general and then specific, individual problems or issues cited in the report are discussed. When problems are being examined representatives from the government concerned are invited to attend. This gives an opportunity for the CCAS to learn why a country is not implementing a convention, and also allows it to push for future compliance3.
The complaints mechanisms enable national or international workers’ or employers’ organisations and ILC delegates to call attention to a problem. In a complaint launched by an ILC delegate, known as an Article 26 complaint, the procedure that follows the grievance closely approximates a judicial process, resulting in published recommendations that are binding to the State concerned. The recommendations can be appealed by the State to the International Court of Justice, as a final measure. Compliance is monitored and the ILO can take measures to enforce the recommendations/judgments, such as suspending the state’s membership from the ILO (including privileges) and calling for sanctions4. So far such measures have only been used once in the history of the ILO, and the State in question was Burma (See Box).
While the junta continues to deny the systematic use of forced labour, the evidence speaks for itself. Numerous reports document in detail the systematic use of forced labour. Men, women and children are required to perform tasks for the military without financial compensation. Some tasks include maintaining military bases, cooking and cleaning for soldiers, road construction work, agricultural projects, acting as guides, portering and many more.
The impact of forced labour on communities and individuals is devastating. Forced labour directly contributes to food scarcity, loss of income, loss of opportunities to go to school and consequently poverty. As most people rely on agricultural work to survive, time spent away from their own work results in less food for their families. When villagers are forced to work for the SPDC for extended periods of time, their ability to survive is severely undermined.
Furthermore, while performing these acts of forced labour villagers are also subjected to additional human rights abuses, such as torture, extra judicial executions, rape and gender based violence. The physical impacts from forced labour can be seen in the injuries the people bare but the psychological or “invisible” scars are often deeper and manifest in depression and sometimes violent behaviour5.
Some villagers choose to flee into the jungle and become internally displaced or travel to Thailand to seek refugee status rather than remain in their homes and be subjected to force labour demands from the military.
In addition to the use of villagers as forced labour, the junta also makes prisoners carry out Lo-ah-pay activities (compulsory labour). In large scale military operations thousands of prisoners are used as military porters and human minesweeps. The prisoners are taken from their jails and assigned to battalions where they are literally slaves for the soldiers. There have been many documented cases where prisoners were forced to carry over 40 kilograms of equipment, while receiving very little water, food and rest. Prison porters are often worked to the point of exhaustion where they are murdered, or injured and left to die.
Unlike most other UN agencies that are merely toothless tigers, the ILO has power, as explained above. It is time that the ILO got serious. Time and time again the SPDC has been allowed to lie its way out of being accountable for its actions, offering empty promises that they has seen the error of their way and is going to reform. The saying “once fooled shame on them, twice fooled shame on me” is relevant. The junta has fooled the ILO hundreds of times – shame on the ILO.
The recent bid to get the SPDC to comply with international standards either needs to be met by the junta on every aspect, or the ILO needs to take a strong stance. It is time for the ILO to remind the junta and the world, that it is not willing to be ignored, nor is it going to allow any country to walk all over the international labour laws. I say to the ILO: plant your feet firmly in the ground, arch your back, bare you teeth and growl like the tiger you are. It is the least that is owed it to all the people of Burma who have been exploited time and time again.
Endnotes:
“Forced labour clause “dropped””, DPA wire, May 17, 1999:
ILO Website, www.ilo.org, August 2006
Ibid
Ibid
“From Prison to Frontline”, Burma Issues, January 2005
Article 26: the Burma Case Study
In 1996 the ILC launched an Article 26 complaint against the Burmese military government, alleging that the junta had failed to observe the 1930 Forced Labour Convention, which Burma ratified in 1955. A three-member Commission of Inquiry was established to investigate the complaint. The commissions report state that the junta was not only using forced labour, but it’s use was systematic, widespread and increasing.
Following the report the ILC passed two resolutions. In June 1999 Burma was suspended from receiving technical assistance from the ILO and from participating in ILO meetings. One year later the ILO passed it’s second resolution, calling on ILO member states and other international organizations to “re-examine their relations” with Burma to ensure that they did not “contribute directly or indirectly” to the practice of forced labour.
“Canada’s Voice in Global Governance: A civil society handbook”, http://www.foecanada.org/int/ILO.htm, August 2005
To go to the other articles published in the August 2006 BI Newsletter click on the links below:
