[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]



[This report will be discussed by the ILO Governing Body in the  week 
beginning 19 March 2001. The likely outcome is that report and the record 
of the debate will be transmitted to the International Labour Conference in 

The report contains important information and documents, including the 
Observations from the Committee of Experts on the Application of 
Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR), Appendix 8
-- DA]

Some emphases are lost in the text version below.

The report is available as a 39-page pdf file on





Governing Body  280th Session

Geneva, March 2001


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


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.(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.(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 

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.

(1) GB.279/6/1 and the three addenda to that document.
(2) The text of the resolution is reproduced in Appendix 6.
(3) The recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry are reproduced in 
Appendix 7.

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.(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.
(4) Letters were sent to the following 59 organizations: United Nations, 
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, 
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.

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

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 

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 
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 
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 
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 
and on the import of products from Myanmar. Its affiliated national unions 
undertake a review to ensure that no Swedish companies or authorities were 
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 
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 
Employees supported any action the Government could take regarding the 
situation in
Myanmar, including representations to the Government of Myanmar via its 

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

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 
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 
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 

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 
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) 
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 
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 
activities benefited from or contributed to any form of forced labour, be 
it directly or

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 
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.