RECOMMEND (234)

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PLUSONE

MORE

E-MAIL

PRINT

TEXT SIZE

It is just one of the many kinds of abuse that populations in insecure areas face. These are the most difficult areas to access, but this does not mean that we are unaware of the situation there, as plenty of credible information does get out.

The challenge is to find practical ways to have an impact on the situation, since documentation of the abuses and advocacy, while vital, have so far not been able to change the realities on the ground.

Q: Do Burma’s notorious prison labor camps and the practice of using prisoners as porters for the army fall under the purview of the ILO?

A: In most cases, prison labor falls outside the scope of the ILO’s Forced Labor Convention, and it is not something that I have been able to follow closely. But I suspect that some people in authority may have seen prisoners as an acceptable alternative to the use of villagers as porters for the army, and it is clear that many young male prisoners do end up as porters. I have always strongly made the point that this is not an alternative that the ILO or the international community could ever endorse.
 
Q: How would you answer critics who say the Burmese regime has no political will to address the problem of forced labor and that the February agreement was reached only as a result of the ILO’s threat of referring Burma to the International Court of Justice?

A: The important question should not be why the authorities decided to sign the agreement, but whether they have the political will to implement it, now that they have signed it. So far, the signs are positive, and a number of cases of forced labor lodged through the mechanism have been resolved and the officials responsible have had action taken against them—in some cases being sent to prison.

Q: How can the ILO hope to eradicate the practice of forced labor without the practical cooperation of the Burmese authorities?

A: It is certainly not possible to eradicate forced labor without the practical cooperation of the authorities. That is why it is so important to continue to find creative and practical ways to address the problem—and this applies not only to the ILO and forced labor, but to the full range of human rights and other concerns in Burma.

Q: How would you characterize the overall situation for labor rights, labor exploitation and freedom of association in Burma?

A: The ILO’s mandate in Burma is restricted to the issue of forced labor, so I have not been able to systematically follow the situation on other labor issues. Certainly there is no freedom of association, which has been a matter of ongoing concern for the ILO. On other labor issues, I think it would be fair to say that the situation is not very different from that in other developing countries at the same stage as Burma—which is to say, not very good.

Q: How have you dealt with the personal attacks and threats against you in the course of your work for the ILO in Burma?

A: At the time when these threats against me were being made, I received a number of personal expressions of support from members of the authorities, which I think demonstrates that the policy towards the ILO during that period [2005] was not universally endorsed. Thankfully, that situation is now in the past, and a very different and more positive approach is now being taken on the ILO issue.