------------------------ BurmaNet ------------------------ "Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies" ---------------------------------------------------------- The BurmaNet News: June 23, 1997 Issue #756 HEADLINES: ========== BKK POST: EU TO TAKE US STATE LAW ON BURMA TO WTO REUTER: G7 URGES ASEAN TO PRESS FOR DEMOCRACY THE NATION: TAIWAN STARTS BURMA ROUTE THE NATION: ENCOURAGING SLORC TO STAY IN POWER BKK POST: FISHING RIGHTS IN BURMESE WATERS TT: SLORC APPROVES IDEA OF TRANS-ASIAN HIGHWAY ILO STATEMENTS: FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION - BURMA ----------------------------------------------------------------- BKK POST: EU TO TAKE US STATE LAW ON BURMA BAN TO WTO June 22, 1997 Washington, AFP Barshefsky surprised and disappointed Setting the stage for another sanctions battle, the European Union has decided to take its complaint about a US state sanctions law aimed at Burma to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The decision follows a series of barbed exchanges and months of efforts to patch up US-European discord over the federal Helms-Burton law, which aims to stop international investment in Cuba. In delaying its WTO appeal on the Burma law in March, EU Trade Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan said in a June 19 letter to US Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky, "We expected tangible progress." "On this issue, it would not appear that progress has been made, and there are no indications that Massachusetts is considering amending this law, in spite of the efforts you have been making," he wrote. Europe "now considers that it has no option but to pursue this matter formally through the WTO," Brittan wrote. At issue is a 1996 Massachusetts law that bars state-owned entities from buying goods from companies doing business in military-ruled Burma. That has led to the black-listing of roughly 150 foreign companies. Barshefsky said in a statement she was "surprised and very disappointed" at the European move, given the shared US and European interest in improving the human rights situation in Burma. "The decision to take this matter to the WTO will not help the situation at all," she said, adding that USTR would continue consulting with Massachusetts and European officials to resolve the standoff. A USTR statement also noted testily that "at least one EC member state has encouraged similar measures by state governments" - apparently referring to Portugal's efforts to sanction Indonesia over East Timor. In January, the EU formally complained about the Massachusetts law, while Japan registered its objections more quietly. US-EU disagreement over the matter is a source of annoyance to the EU, which claims the law violates a WTO provision committing most states to open all government contracts to international competition. It is also a source of embarrassment to the United States, which would prefer to avoid another clash with its allies so soon after it calmed an outcry over the Helms-Burton law that tightens the US embargo against Cuba. But the matter is getting close attention here because of the precedent it may set and the bind in which it places the Clinton administration. Fighting the measure too hard could make the White House -fending off charges of coddling China look hostile to human rights. Not fighting it at all would enrage US trading partners and the powerful business lobby. And all the while, more states and towns are considering or passing laws to restrict trade with Burma, while activists in Massachusetts may win passage of another state law barring contracts with companies operating in Indonesia. Other, similar laws aimed at Nigeria and Tibet have also surfaced around the country. The EU "will be prepared to suspend proceedings in the WTO as soon as the US administration takes the appropriate steps to secure amendment of the Massachusetts law so that it conforms with US international obligations," Brittan wrote. "We would, of course, terminate the proceedings once the legislation is suitably amended." In the case of the Massachusetts bill aimed at Indonesia, legislators have amended the provision to avoid inciting Europe further. On May 29, a state legislative panel added two exemptions. Those cover state purchasing contracts worth more than $500,000 and construction contracts worth more than seven million dollars to sidestep possible violations of the WTO Government Procurement Act. ************************************************** REUTER: G7 URGES ASEAN TO PRESS FOR DEMOCRACY IN BURMA June 21, 1997 DENVER, June 21 (Reuter) - The world's leading industrial countries on Saturday urged southeast Asian nations which recently accepted Burma into the ASEAN economic group to pressure Rangoon's military rulers to restore democracy. A report by the Group of Seven foreign ministers, meeting here with Russia's foreign minister, also made a direct call to the military to start a ``meaningful, political dialogue'' with the democratic opposition. ``Concerned by the continuing violations of human rights by the regime (in Burma), we call on the SLORC (State Law and Order Restoration Council) to enter into a meaningful political dialogue with leaders of the democratic opposition and ethnic minorities aimed at national reconciliation and the restoration of democracy,'' the report said. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which groups Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, decided to admit Burma next month. ``We...hope that the members of ASEAN will use their influence to encourage an early return to democracy in Myanmar (Burma),'' the report said. The G7 also said the international community held the SLORC accountable for the safey of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who has spent much of the last eight years under house arrest. Suu Kyi has strongly opposed Burma's entry into ASEAN, saying if it went ahead it would give the SLORC a license to repress the opposition movement and suppress human rights. **************************************** THE NATION: TAIWAN STARTS BURMA ROUTE June 22, 1997 AP TAIPEI - A jetliner of China Airlines, Taiwan's largest airline, flew to Burma yesterday, inaugurating direct flights between the two countries. The 737-400 jet carried 131 passengers, mostly travel agents, to Rangoon to tap the market for Taiwanese tourists, the airline said. Burma, which has close relations with China, has refused to sign a regular air service agreement with Taiwan, but agreed to the twice-weekly chartered flights from Taipei, officials said. China, which considers Taiwan a renegade province, has opposed the island's signing air service agreements with countries that recognise Beijing. ********************************************** THE NATION: ENCOURAGING SLORC TO STAY IN POWER June 22, 1997 Khin Maung Win By allowing Burma to join Asean, the grouping's other members are hindering the democracy movement in the country, writes Khin Maung Win. Although individual members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) may have had different reasons for admitting Burma, it was important for all members to defend the State Law and Order Restoration Council (Slorc). Their reasons may range from the need to strengthen their own existing political systems to simple economic interests. Asean leaders such as Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohammad seem intent on elevating their status to that of regional leaders. Rejecting Western pressure to improve human rights in the region, Mahathir has argued that the concept of "Asian values" is eminently suitable for Asian society. As long as no alternative philosophy emerges in the region to challenge the assumptions underlying the Asian value doctrine, Asean leaders can continue to rule with impunity. Although Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is Asian, it is clear that her version of Asian values includes a respect for human rights and democracy - ideals that are often dismissed as Western concepts by Asean leaders. Welcoming Burma, which is currently ruled by an authoritarian/dictatorial regime, is likely to prevent the Western concepts of human rights and democracy from entering the region. Slorc has found a political prototype which parallels its own in Indonesia: maximising the military's role while minimising the impact of democratic principles on government. In the Indonesian constitutional model, the president serves both as a governmental head and national leader, and is elected by an electoral college, whose members are mostly presidential appointees. Slorc proposes a similar system in Burma if, and when, its undemocratic constitution comes into effect. Political repression and violence against parties opposed to those who hold power is exercised both in Indonesia and Burma. Indonesia's Golkar and Slorc's Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) are both government-sponsored organisations that also serve as de facto political bases for consolidating the regimes' power. Both attempt to eliminate any form of political opposition while controlling the people's aspirations for any change in government. Solidarity among Asean members is imperative to the maintenance of its political image in the region. It is that very need for continued solidarity that caused Burma to be so warmly welcomed by Indonesia. It has become increasingly obvious that the Thai government will not voice any significant criticism of Burma's military junta, even when Thailand's sovereignty has been threatened by SLORC troops. The fact that the government has strengthened its ties with SLORC became clear during the latter's military offensive against the Karen National Union (KNU) bases in the Tenasserim region across the border from Kanchanaburi. During that operation, SLORC received more support and cooperation from Army Division 9 than at any time during previous attacks. The government also plans to develop a transportation route connecting Thailand's major industrial zones with the Andaman Sea through Burmese territory, a move which could dramatically reduce transportation costs for its exports to Europe. The route will cross the Tenasserim region, previously controlled by the KNU and where the Yadana gas pipeline is under construction. Bangkok may also be betting that the unofficial Slorc policy to boycott Thai products will change after Burma takes its place in Asean. Thailand, which was the first advocate of a constructive engagement policy with Burma, warmly welcomed Burma due to economic interests. The theory advocated by some Asean leaders that "economic development ushers in the emergence of a middle class who will lead a movement towards democratisation" may not be feasible under Burma's military regime. Although it is true that foreign investment in Burma is high, such investment has neither improved the living standards nor employed many Burmese. That a million Burmese illegal immigrants are in Thailand while thousands more have fled to Japan, Malaysia and Korea to escape poverty proves this. Even the billion-dollar-plus gas pipeline project, a capital intensive investment, can employ only a few hundred local people. An undeveloped country like Burma needs labour-intensive investment projects that can employ more people. Burma cannot attract investment to support labour-intensive manufacturing because its infrastructure and education system is incapable of matching the needs of economic reform. Up to 50 per cent of the money for infrastructure and other domestic spending is simply being printed, according to some diplomatic sources. Inflation under Slorc is at its highest ever in Burma and now stands at 30 per cent. One former large export earner, rice, is no longer the money-earner it was. Rangoon-based foreign diplomats have warned that foreign reserves are at their lowest in years. The huge slowdown of Burma's economy due to massive expenditure on military and civilian coercion agencies in a country with the least-developed status in the region - has had a dramatically negative impact on the nation's people, and their capacity to cope. Since Asean's adoption of a "constructive engagement" policy towards Slorc, no political progress has been achieved. Now, by honouring Burma with membership, Asean has chosen to support a repressive regime and remain silent about Slorc's adamant refusal to transfer power to the people's fairly elected representative. Whatever reasons Asean gives for the admission, none are considered helpful for democratisation in Burma. Asean's hidden reasons played a major role in deciding whether or not to admit Burma while its given theory of democratisation through development seems unworkable. KHIN MAUNG WIN is a Central Executive Committee member of the All Burma Students' Democratic Front. *********************************************** BKK POST: FISHING RIGHTS IN BURMESE WATERS 'TO BE FINALISED SOON' June 22, 1997 Uamdao Noikorn Rangoon officials to be invited: Minister The Fisheries Department is to invite Burmese representatives to Thailand next month to finalise the issue of fishing rights in Burmese waters, Deputy Agriculture Minister Sampao Prachuabmoh announced. "We're confident Burma will open its waters this time. We've offered several measures to curb illegal fishing by Thai fishermen," said Mr Sampao, adding that the military government at first refused to open its waters until three years later. However, Burma's Livestock and Fisheries Minister Aung Tun finally agreed to review the issue as Burma was also seeking technology transfer and investment capital, Mr Sampao told a press conference after his Burma visit. Burma has granted Thailand fishing rights on and off since 1975. But the dependency of Thai fishermen on neighbouring countries' resources has increased significantly as its fish population has been depleted at a faster rate than it can recover. The supply shortage has led Thai fishermen to violate Burmese fishing rules including those of trespass, adding unregistered boats to registered ones, fishing in forbidden areas, and fishing during the mating season. Due to high taxes, operators tend to avoid registering their boats. The most popular, but illegal, method is to attach tugboats behind the registered boats. Despite the permanent withdrawal of fishing rights in 1995, arrests of illegal Thai fishing operators by Burmese authorities continue. Among the planned measures are the department's screening of operators to be allowed for registration. Another step is to require all crewmen to show their ID cards before boarding at a specified port. A fishermen's leader has called on the government to try harder to conserve marine resources in southern waters, as one of the ways of dealing with fishing disputes with other countries. Many of the conflicts between Thai fishermen and other countries have been caused by dwindling marine resources, prompting a number of fishermen to fish illegally in other waters, Niras Arwae said. Mr Niras is one of the local southern fishermen's leaders attending the Environment 95 Conference last weekend to address environmental problems that the fishermen have been facing in recent years. The recent fishing dispute with Malaysia in which two Thai fishermen were shot dead by Malaysian naval officials shows the government's incompetence in dealing with the decreasing number of marine resources in the country's waters, he said. ******************************************* THAILAND TIMES: SLORC APPROVES IDEA OF TRANS-ASIAN HI-WAY June 22, 1997 By Assawin Pinitwong TAK: The Burmese junta has agreed in principle to the construction of a highway linking Mae Sot to Rangoon which when completed will cut down the journey time between the two countries, the initiator of the Thai-Burmese Friendship Bridge said yesterday. U-dorn Tantisunthorn said the 38-kilometer-long road forms part of the Trans-Asian Highway which is hoped to eventually link up with the Middle East and Europe. He said the Thai-Burmese leg of the highway will begin at the Friendship Bridge and end in Rangoon, adding that financial support for a preliminary survey for he project will be provided by the UN. The former deputy interior minister, who recently discussed the terms and conditions of the project with Bur ma's senior military officials said both nations will benefit from the highway in terms of trade, investment and tourism. ****************************************** ILO STATEMENTS: FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION - BURMA June 21, 1997 From: David Arnott BURMA AT THE ILO JUNE 1997 FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION CONVENTION BELOW ARE DOCUMENTS FROM THE DISCUSSION IN THE COMMITTEE ON THE APPLICATION OF STANDARDS ON BURMA'S NON-OBSERVANCE OF ILO CONVENTION 87 CONCERNING FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION*. CONTENTS 1) TEXT OF THE SPECIAL PARAGRAPH ON MYANMAR 2) TEXT LISTING MYANMAR FOR CONTINUED FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT 3) PROVISIONAL RECORD OF THE DEBATE ON MYANMAR 12-13 JUNE 1997 IN THE COMMITTEE ON THE APPLICATION OF STANDARDS (OFFICIAL PRECIS OF A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS) On 12-13 June 1997 the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Organisation discussed Burma's non-implementation of the Convention concerning Freedom of Association - one of the ILO's core Conventions, which Burma ratified on 4 March 1955. After listening to statements by Worker, Employer and Government members as well as statements by the representative of the Government of Myanmar, the Committee issued a Special Paragraph on Myanmar. To mention a case in a special paragraph of the Committee's report is one of the strongest measures the ILO can take on a country. The Committee also listed Myanmar under a paragraph on continued failure to implement. ............... 1) TEXT OF THE SPECIAL PARAGRAPH 168. As regards the application by Myanmar of Convention No. 87, the Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative and of the wide discussion which took place. It recalled that this case has been discussed by the Committee on numerous occasions, in 1987, 1989, 1993, 1994 1995 and 1996. In 1995 the Committee put its conclusions in a special paragraph of its General Report and in 1996 it also mentioned this case in a section of its General Report highlighting the continued failure to implement, taking into account that, for many years and in spite of various appeals, serious discrepancies with the Convention continued to exist in legislation and practice. The Committee could not but deplore the fact that no government report was received by the Committee of Experts and expressed its profound regret that serious divergences between the national legislation and the Convention continued to exist. It also deplored the fact that the Government failed to cooperate. Being greatly concerned with the total absence of progress in the application of the Convention, the Committee once again urged the Government to adopt, as a priority, the measures and mechanisms necessary to guarantee, in legislation and practice, to all workers and employers, without any distinction or any previous authorization, the right to join organizations of their own choosing to protect their interests. The Committee insisted also on the need for those organizations to have the right to affiliate with federations and confederations and with the international organizations, without any interference from the public authorities. The Committee expressed a firm hope that substantial progress in the application of the Convention might be noted in the very near future and urged the Government to supply a detailed report to the Committee of Experts. .............. 2) TEXT OF PARAGRAPH ON CONTINUED FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT 173. The Committee recalls that its working methods provide for the listing of cases of continued failure over several years to eliminate serious deficiencies previously discussed, in the application of ratified Conventions. This year the Committee noted with great concern that there had been continued failure over several years to eliminate serious discrepancies in the application by Myanmar of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No.87); by Nigeria of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); and by Sudan of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). ................... 3) DEBATE ON MYANMAR UNDER CONVENTION 87 C. App/PV.15 12.06.97 Afternoon INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE 85th session, Geneva, June 1997 COMMITTEE ON THE APPLICATION OF STANDARDS 15th sitting, 12th June 1997, 3.15 p.m. Discussion of individual cases Convention No. 87: Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, 1948 [GOVERNMENT OF MYANMAR REPRESENTATIVE]** Myanmar (Ratification: 1955). A Government representative recalled that, in previous sessions of the International Labour Conference, information relating to the application of Convention No. 87 had been provided to the Conference Committee, regarding which some members of the Committee commented on the continued efforts of his Government to enact a new trade union law. He reaffirmed the interest of his Government in promoting and protecting the legitimate rights of all workers. A total of 17 labour-related laws were still in force in his country. Half of those laws had been enacted during the British colonial days, while the remaining half had been adopted after the attainment of independence nearly five decades ago. The Department of Labour under the Ministry of Labour was mainly responsible for reviewing and redrafting all laws to ensure that they were in conformity with changing circumstances. In the process of reviewing and redrafting laws, priority had been given to the Trade Union Law, the Workman's Compensation Law, the Factories Law, the Leave and Holiday Law, the Minimum Wages Law and the Employment and Training Law. Other labour laws were also scheduled to undergo the same process. Focusing on the draft trade unions law, he stated that the Department of Labour and the Office of the Attorney- General had approved the draft and submitted it to the Central Laws Scrutiny Body. After scrutinizing the draft, the Central Body had returned it to the Labour Ministry with remarks and recommendations for modifications and redrafting. One important recommendation by the Central Body was that, following the necessary drafting, the revised text should be tabled and subjected to extensive consultation with all the parties concerned, namely employers' organizations, such as the Union of Myanmar Chamber of Commerce and Industry, representatives of public and private enterprises and workers' welfare associations. Taking into consideration the recommendation of the Central Laws Scrutiny Body, which it was planned to implement within the year, it was hoped that it would be possible to submit the revised draft to the respective supervisory body at an appropriate time. [WORKER MEMBERS] The Worker members recalled that Myanmar was a persistent violator of the Convention and had therefore frequently come before the Committee. The case had been discussed in 1987, 1989, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996. For over 40 years, the ILO had been requesting the Government to respect the fundamental principles of freedom of association. The Committee had requested it to ensure the right of workers to freely establish and to join first-level unions, federations and confederations, without previous authorization, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, and to freely affiliate to international workers' organizations, in accordance with Articles 2, 5 and 6 of the Convention. Over the years, the Government had bluntly refused to cooperate with the Committee and had once again failed to supply the report requested, despite the inclusion of the case in a special paragraph last year. The case had been mentioned by the Committee in a special paragraph in 1993, 1995 and 1996 and deserved to be placed in a special paragraph once again this year. The message from the Government of Myanmar was clearly that it considered it more important to deny the workers in the country freedom of association than to live up to the obligations deriving from the Convention. This amounted to an insult to all ILO constituents and the Government rightfully deserved worldwide condemnation for its behaviour. In 1996, the Government representative had reaffirmed his Government's firm commitment to the principles of freedom of association and to a multi-party democratic system, a free market economy, justice and human rights for all. However, the Government's conception of what this implied appeared to differ enormously from that of the Worker members. The continued repression and violation of human rights, including the right to freedom of association and democracy, by a military regime showed that the Government had no intention whatsoever of complying with its obligations or the requests of the Committee. The Worker members recalled that a Commission of Inquiry had been set up to investigate a complaint under article 26 of the Constitution concerning the non-observance of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). Moreover, the Government representative had requested technical assistance from the ILO, but the ILO representative had been prevented by the authorities from undertaking the mission. For some years the Worker members had been raising the matter of seafarers in Myanmar and had been requesting the Government to confirm that they were no longer required to sign contracts obliging them not to contact international trade union organizations and that they were no longer intimidated if they exercised their rights in accordance with the Convention. Regrettably, the question had to be repeated once again this year. The Worker members expressed surprise that Myanmar had recently been admitted to become a future member of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). This constituted a setback for the democratic forces in Myanmar and had been criticized by the Nobel Prize winner, Aung San Suu Kyi. The Worker members were concerned that the Governments concerned might relax their demands concerning respect for freedom of association in the country and that, in reality, the ILO Constitution might be set aside. The Declaration of Philadelphia stated that all national and international policies and measures, in particular those of an economic and financial character, should be judged and accepted only if they promoted the fundamental principles of the Organization, including freedom of expression and association. The acceptance of Myanmar as a future member of ASEAN was not a good example of the application at the regional level of the ILO principles of objectivity, impartiality and transparency, which were actively advocated in the ILO by many of the Governments concerned. In conclusion, the Worker members urged the Government to immediately accept the right of workers to organize freely in trade unions without prior authorization and to affiliate freely with international trade union organizations. However, as no action had been taken by the Government, the Committee should express its dissatisfaction in the strongest possible terms and mention the case in a special paragraph for continued failure to implement the Convention. [EMPLOYER MEMBERS] The Employer members observed that the comments made by the Committee of Experts on the case of Myanmar were getting shorter. This was due to the fact that, after repeated examination of the case, there was almost nothing new to be said. The ILO supervisory bodies had been examining the continued non-existence of freedom of association in the country for decades. Since the early 1980s, the Conference Committee had been placing its conclusions on this case in a special paragraph of its report due to persistent violations of the Convention. When the case had been examined by the Conference Committee the previous year, the Government representative had nothing new to report and had merely repeated his statements from previous years. There had briefly been some hope that an ILO mission might be able to assist in addressing the problems related to application of the Convention. However, although the mission had been invited, it had not been received by the authorities in Myanmar and had not therefore been able to provide the necessary assistance. For the past 40 years it had been impossible to establish a trade union or an employers' organization without prior authorization from the national authorities and there were therefore no federations at higher levels. In effect, there was no freedom of association in the country. Although the Government had referred in general terms to certain draft Bills on a number of issues of labour law, there had been no clear indication that any of these would lead to the development of freedom of association. Moreover, once again the Government had not submitted the requested report to the Committee of Experts. This was a very clear indication of a lack of cooperation, and indeed non-cooperation on the part of the Government. The Conference Committee was therefore bound to repeat what it had stated last year and express its regret even more profoundly that, despite its observations, not the slightest progress had been made. Its conclusions should be included once again in a special paragraph of the Committee's report. ............ C. App/PV.16 13.06.97 Afternoon 16th sitting, 13 June 1997, 3.15 p.m. Convention No. 87: Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, 1948 [WORKER MEMBER OF JAPAN] Myanmar (Ratification: 1995) (cont.) The Worker member of Japan (Mr NAKAJIMA) pointed out that this was one of the oldest and most serious cases of violation of Convention No. 87 before this Committee. The Government had accepted to receive a direct contacts mission to the country. Its subsequent failure to do so showed a complete lack of respect for the supervisory machinery and the requirements of the Convention. He further pointed out that freedom of association could not exist without freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly all of which were absent in Myanmar. People who had participated in peaceful demonstrations were regularly arrested and detained, and more than 2,000 had been arrested in 1996. Students and fellow workers who participated in these demonstrations were unfortunately forced to seek asylum. He insisted that the Government bring, without delay, its legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention, and announce a scheduled time frame for doing so. He urged the Committee to have Myanmar placed in a special paragraph. [WORKER MEMBER OF PAKISTAN] The Worker member of Pakistan (Mr AHMED) regretted that the Government representative had not bothered to reply to the observation of the Committee of Experts concerning the prevalence of the denial of freedom of association in Myanmar. Basic human rights, including freedom of association, as incorporated in ILO core Conventions, were fundamental to all persons and if they were denied these rights, in any country, no social justice could exist. He, along with the Worker members, fully supported that freedom of association principles be immediately respected in Myanmar. [WORKER MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES] The Worker member of the United States (Mr FISHMAN) pointed out that this case had been examined by the Committee of Experts and this Committee on numerous occasions, for many reasons. The most obvious was the hope that, despite the long history of no progress, the unrelenting pressure of the ILO to ensure that the Government respects its obligation taken together with a growing international campaign to force the military regime to step down and allow civilian self- government, would one day begin to have an impact. Secondly, despite the fact that nothing of substance had been heard from the Government representative thus far, this was yet another opportunity to communicate directly to the representatives of the military regime, the condemnation of the international community. Finally, it provided the Committee with an opportunity to bring to the attention of the Committee of Experts even more information on the violations of freedom of association by the military regime. The speaker wished to ask the Government representative, given the vague statements that the latter had made earlier on, about the regime's respect for the rights of workers in Myanmar, why the Free Trade Unions of Burma (FTUB) was not allowed to function inside Myanmar. Moreover, he wondered why workers who were identified with the FTUB were under constant surveillance by the police and the military intelligence, and why they lived in permanent fear of arrest and torture. He strongly supported the view of both Employer end Worker members that this Committee had to find a way to express its extreme displeasure over the lack of progress and cooperation from the military regime in even stronger terms than the previous year. The Committee's conclusions should be contained, once again, in a special paragraph of its report as a case of continued failure to apply the Convention. [GOVERNMENT MEMBER OF DENMARK] The Government member of Denmark (Mr HESS), speaking on behalf of the Governments of Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, expressed his deep regret that the Committee, once again, had to examine the violations by Myanmar of the Convention. In addition to the fact that the Government had not sent a report to the Committee of Experts, it regrettably had not been possible for an ILO mission to visit the country, due to the lack of cooperation on the part of the Government. Although the Government representative had told the Committee, the previous year, that it was his Government's intention to apply the Convention, nothing had happened with regard to the rights for workers in Myanmar to establish and join independent trade unions. References also had to be made to Resolution 1997/64 of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, which had been adopted by consensus. The Government of Myanmar had been asked to "fulfil its obligations as a State party to the freedom of association Convention No. 87 of the ILO, and to cooperate more closely with the ILO". He firmly hoped, that it would be possible to agree on a date for a mission to Myanmar in the near future, that it would be undertaken before the next Conference and that the Government would take the necessary measures to ensure fully the right to organize and join independent trade unions. [GOVERNMENT MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES] The Government member of the United States (Mr SPRING) stated that the situation of the rights of workers in Myanmar was, quite simply, and very sadly, deplorable. There were no functioning trade unions. Workers continued to be unable to organize freely. Efforts by the ILO to offer technical assistance had proved fruitless and were at present suspended. In addition, seafarers from Myanmar who had attempted to receive fair treatment and wages for their services on international vessels, were intimidated and harassed when they returned home. Those who did speak of free trade unions, dared not return to their country for fear of imprisonment by the Government and were obliged to live in exile. Although Myanmar had freely ratified the Convention in 1955, the Committee of Experts and this Committee were obliged to conclude that it was not applied and that freedom of association just did not exist in Myanmar. There were no adequate explanations for this horrible situation. The only appropriate answer was swift and concrete action to fully restore trade union rights in Myanmar. In the meantime, he joined the overwhelming call in the Committee for the strongest possible conclusions in this case. [WORKER MEMBER OF GREECE] The Worker member of Greece (Mr DASSIS) invited the members of the Committee who were not familiar with this case to consult the reports adopted by this Committee during its 1994, 1995 and 1996 sessions. In those reports, the Committee had noted the commitment of the Government to bring its legislation and practice into conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Government representative had just made the same statement again this year. The Employer members were quite right when they stated that everything had been thoroughly discussed regarding this case. The Committee of Experts also noted the absence of any new element. The list of delegates for this Conference revealed an interesting aspect of the trade union situation: the Worker member appeared in that list in his capacity of controller of oil wells and sites in the petroleum company. Although Myanmar was a third world country, it had an abundance of resources. By forbidding workers and citizens to organize themselves, a minority was only trying to prevent the majority from organizing itself to defend its own interests. The means available to incite a change of attitude by the Government were unfortunately limited to the adoption of a special paragraph. As we move towards the twenty-first century, other means should be envisaged in dealing with such a serious case where a regime did not respect the most fundamental human rights. [REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MYANMAR] The Government representative indicated that an interesting dialogue had taken place in the Committee for improvement in the application of the Convention, both in law and in practice. He stressed that the present Government was building the country into a peaceful modern and developed nation, after having laid down clear-cut political, economic and social objectives, which reflected the aspirations of its citizens and the objective situation of the country. In this context, efforts for national reconsolidation and the emergence of an enduring new State constitution were being met with success as a result of the goodwill of the Government. It was to be recalled that Myanmar was a union of more than 100 ethnic groups, and that the Government through its goodwill had been successful in bringing 15 out of 16 armed groups back into the legal fold. This meant that peace reigned in the country after almost half a century of internal conflict that had held back development. He stressed that the other important task to which his Government was firmly committed to, was the establishment of a genuine multi-party democratic system and the enjoyment of the principles of justice, liberty and equality. At this juncture, although there were no trade union organizations in the actual sense of the term, workers' welfare associations in various industries were functioning on a tripartite basis. There were more than 2,000 associations of this kind. Workers' supervisory committees at the township level also looked after matters relating to industrial relations. There were clear indications that the Government never neglected the well-being and welfare of workers. The labour administration system was as strong as ever in terms of protecting the legislative rights of workers. There was no doubt that trade unions' rights would prevail within the framework of a new constitution. Stability and national reconsolidation were the prerequisites to reach this desired goal in the shortest possible time. His Government had learned from the painful events that had recently occurred in some countries that hasty changes lead to disorder and instability that resulted in suffering for the citizens. Therefore, it was making efforts at gradual and stable progress towards the goal of a genuine democratic society. [CONCLUSIONS OF THE COMMITTEE] The Committee took note of the statements made by the Government representative and of the wide discussion which took place. It recalled that this case has been discussed by the Committee on numerous occasions in 1987, 1989, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996. In 1995, the Committee put its conclusions in a special paragraph of its general report and, in 1996 it also mentioned this case in a section of its general report highlighting the continued failure to implement, taking into account that for many years and in spite of various appeals, serious discrepancies with the Convention continued to exist in legislation and practice. The Committee could not but deplore the fact that no Government report was received by the Committee of Experts and expressed its profound regret that serious divergences between the national legislation and the Convention continued to exist. It also deplored the fact that the Government failed to cooperate. Being greatly concerned with the total absence of progress in the application of the Convention, the Committee once again urged the Government to adopt, as a priority, the measures and mechanisms necessary to guarantee, in legislation and practice, to all workers and employers, without any distinction and any previous authorization, the right to join organizations of their own choosing to protect their interests. The Committee insisted also on the need for those organizations to have the right to affiliate with federations and confederations and with the international organizations, without any interference from the public authorities. The Committee expressed a firm hope that substantial progress in the application of the Convention might be noted in the very near future and urged the Government to supply a detailed report to the Committee of Experts. The Committee decided that its conclusions would figure in a special paragraph of its report and to mention this case among cases of continued failure to implement Convention No. 87. ........... * Text of the Convention posted separately **(Headings in square brackets added - ed) *************************************************