In an agreement announced on Monday after months of stalled negotiations, Burma's ruling military junta said it will allow the United Nations-affiliated International Labor Organization free access to the country to vet all allegations of forced labor, a concession that came less than a month before the ILO was set to refer Burma to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague.
But will the deal lead to a genuine effort by the hardline regime to stamp out forced labor, which in recent years has complicated and compromised various foreign investments in the poor country?
Compared with the situation just over a year ago, the deal no doubt marks a degree of progress. In 2005, the junta had threatened to quit the ILO altogether after several run-ins with the organization's Rangoon-based representatives. After the ILO threatened to refer the generals to the ICJ last May, the regime, which is now actively courting foreign investment in its underdeveloped energy sector, apparently panicked.
First it released prominent labor activist Suu Suu Nway, quickly followed by another, Aye Myint. Both had been jailed for publicly supporting accusers of the regime over its alleged forced-labor practices. After their release, the government agreed with the ILO to cease prosecuting those who reported instances of forced labor, and soon afterward the prosecution of complainants quietly ceased.
Still, during negotiations last year in Geneva, Rangoon and the new capital Naypyidaw, the government refused to allow the ILO to receive any local allegations of forced labor anonymously, citing fears that if they were kept out of the loop the international body could be manipulated for "political purposes". The main sticking point was whether the ILO would be permitted to expand its now-limited in-country capacity to process and deal with forced-labor complaints.
The junta had earlier said that only the ILO's Rangoon-based representative Richard Horsey would be permitted to collect information on alleged forced-labor practices. Talks broke down just ahead of the ILO's tri-annual governing-body meeting in Geneva last November, prompting the body to prepare its unprecedented ICJ referral.
Negotiations resumed in January, in which the junta agreed to the ILO's main requests, even compromising over the 12-month trial period of the new arrangement. Most important, the regime agreed not to take retaliatory action against forced-labor complainants, a practice that had caused the ILO to stop receiving reports in May 2005.
Although the ILO has repeatedly called for widespread dissemination of the junta's own laws prohibiting forced labor, introduced in 1999 and 2000 under strong international pressure, the military government has so far resisted. News of this week's ILO agreement has notably not been published in the state-censored local media, raising questions about the junta's political commitment to the new deal.
Military personnel have long told people in ethnic areas, particularly war-torn Karen state, that the rules don't apply on the front line. The regime has historically used forced conscripts to build roads, to deliver army supplies and to prepare the ground for major infrastructure projects, including multinational-invested gas-pipeline projects. Forced labor was used in the 1990s to renovate Mandalay Palace, now one of the city's main international-tourist attractions. And reports of the use of forced labor continue to trickle in, international rights monitors say.
The sustained use of forced labor, even after major international sanctions, has scared new Western investments in Burma's underdeveloped energy sector.
International energy giants Total of France and Unocal, now owned by the United States' Chevron, have in recent years become embroiled in protracted and expensive legal battles over the regime's use of forced labor in their joint-venture energy
projects. Both oil giants maintain that they were unaware of any such abuses when they began construction in the 1990s on the Yadana gas pipeline, yet they settled out of court with plaintiffs in Burma in 2005. Total paid out US$6.12 million to settle; the Unocal figure was not disclosed, but news reports have suggested that settlement was for about $30 million.
Meanwhile, Britain's Premier Oil left the Yadana Consortium in
2002 while Unocal's and Total's legal proceedings were ongoing.
The US now has economic sanctions in place against the regime that ban the import of Burma-produced goods and prohibit US corporations from making new investments in the country. Unocal's still-substantial interests in Burma predate the sanctions, which are not applied retroactively. Considering the US recently tabled a resolution to put Burma's rights record on the UN Security Council's agenda, it seems unlikely the deal with the ILO will any time soon soften the US stance.
But that's not stopping other energy-hungry Asian countries from taking the plunge - even with the possible future legal liabilities surrounding forced-labor claims. Exploration off Burma's west coast involves joint ventures between the government and major energy investors in South Korea and India. Those activities have already been hit by new allegations of forced labor, as Burma's government allegedly forces locals to clear the way for a possible new foreign-financed pipeline, according to Thailand-based watchdog groups.
With improving bilateral and commercial relations with India, people in those same western areas of Myanmar have been increasingly forced to work on roads, military camps and other development projects, according to the Shwe Gas Movement, a collaboration of activists based in Thailand, India and Bangladesh. Those allegations echo a 2005 ILO report on the construction of Burma's new seat of government at Naypyidaw, where unpaid workers were allegedly used in building camps for three army battalions as well as an air-force battalion.
The problem is also widespread in conflict areas pitting ethnic insurgent groups against the national army, particularly around Karen state. The Free Burma Rangers, a cross-border relief group that works in those areas, has documented instances of forced labor on an almost daily basis as recently as December and January, in which the army has forced villagers to act as human minesweepers, as human shields against insurgent attacks, and as army porters, and for building and maintaining army camps.
While the ILO has hailed the agreement as a "very positive step", activist groups, including the Burma Campaign UK, are concerned that the regime has potentially been let off the hook. "This doesn't bring us any closer to an end to forced labor in [Myanmar]," said Mark Farmaner, the activist group's spokesman. "In fact, given that the reason for this 'understanding' is an attempt to head off an ICJ referral, [it] could even be counterproductive."
For its part, the government is still in denial, most recently during a December press conference launched to rebuff the US move to take it to the Security Council. It has admitted to using "labor contributions" between 1955 and 1990 to combat insurgent groups, while at the same time asserting that it has "never failed" to abide by its obligations as a signatory to the Forced Labor Convention. Since 1990, the government says, forced-labor practices have completely stopped - contrary to the overwhelming evidence collected by UN offices including the ILO, campaign groups, international human-rights organizations and global union organizations.
Considering the regime's rigid top-down organizational structure, the junta is ill-suited to reform rapidly what is by all accounts a well-entrenched policy, perpetuated by central command instructions that call on regional army divisions to be self-sufficient and where possible even generate income. With guns in hand, that has always made forced labor a convenient way for the military to get the job done when financial resources are scarce. And it's altogether unclear whether the recent ILO deal represents enough incentive to change those practices any time soon.