Although the Burmese labour minister told Francis Maupain, the special adviser to the ILO's director-general, early last week that Burma intended to leave the International Labour Organisation, no formal notification has yet been sent. ''From the ILO viewpoint, the decision of any Member to withdraw is always to be regretted, irrespective of circumstances. However, it has to be remembered that such a decision only becomes irreversible when the two-year notice period expires, assuming the authorities do not change their mind in the meantime,'' Mr Maupain told the Bangkok Post.
''During that period the Country remains a Member with all their rights and obligations. This is why the most recent Mission to Rangoon expressed the hope that cooperation could be maintained in an appropriate way during the notice period, if the authorities remained committed, as they claim and have always claimed, to the eradication of forced labour,'' he said.
This notice period though only starts from the moment Director-General Juan Somavia receives the letter, according to an ILO spokesman.
The government has prepared the letter, but is waiting to send it, the ILO reportedly was told.
Until this happens the ILO is in limbo. But it does put the future of the ILO presence in Burma in doubt.
Mr. Somavia has often insisted that the ILO had no intentions of closing its office in Rangoon. In fact the ILO has frequently made it clear that it wanted to increase its presence in the country.
Even key Burmese trade union leaders like Maung Maung of the Free Trade Union on Bunion (FTUB) are keen to see the ILO open more offices in Burma, especially in the southern port city of Moulmein.
But the current severe restrictions on the ILO's operations in Burma seriously threatens its future viability.
''Much may now depend on whether the Burmese regime decides to leave the door open to resolving the problems between the regime and the ILO during the two-year notice period,'' according to an ILO official.
ILO insiders point to the example of Poland which gave notice that it intended to leave the organisation in 1984, but continued to cooperate with the body. After extending the notice period by another year, Warsaw eventually withdrew its notice to leave. Top ILO officials hope Burma may follow this path.
But Burma's military rulers have been past masters at sending mixed messages, especially before key ILO meetings in Geneva, when Burma is on the agenda. The fact that the ILO's senior trouble shooter, Mr Maupain, was allowed to visit Rangoon last week, was originally seen as a good sign in the face of the persistent attacks on the ILO and the travel restrictions on the ILO representative in Rangoon.
The mission was seeking a concrete commitment from Burma's military leaders that they would continue to cooperate with the ILO to stamp out forced labour.
They also wanted assurances that the ILO representative in Rangoon would be allowed to travel freely in the country.
But instead the mission was told the government was prepared to withdraw from the organisation rather than concede to the ILO demands.
No real concessions were put on the table during two long meetings with the labour minister. The ILO mission only met the labour minister during the two-day visit.
Tensions between the ILO and the regime have heightened during the year. For months there has been an active public campaign throughout the country to throw the ILO out. The pro-government mass organisation _ Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) _ has held mass rallies condemning the ILO and urging the authorities to kick the ILO out.
In recent months the ILO representative in Rangoon received scores of lurid death threats, according to western diplomats. Some even threatened to behead him and poison him.
These threats have since ceased, but no action has been taken by the authorities to investigate who was responsible.
The ILO representative effectively became a persona non grata in Rangoon. They were not invited to attend the Martyr Day's memorial celebrations on July 19 to honour the assassinated founder of modern Burma, General Aung San.
They have also been omitted from other major meetings between the government and the heads of the UN agencies in Rangoon.
When the UN Secretary General's special envoy Ali Alatas met the country's top generals in Rangoon more than two months ago, he raised the matter of the campaign against the ILO.
''Public anger inspired the rallies,'' the army chief, General Maung Aye responded.
No one is under any illusion that this campaign was inspired and orchestrated by the country's military rulers. In March this year, before the last major ILO meeting, ministries were all ordered to prepare papers on the financial and political consequences of withdrawing from the ILO, according to Burmese government officials.
The letter of notification of the government's intention to withdraw from the ILO was prepared sometime ago and is waiting to be handed to the ILO in Geneva, according to military sources.
The delay in sending the letter may be because the regime is not anxious to have a showdown with the organisation before the UN rules on the proposal to bring Burma before the Security Council.
In recent weeks the junta has been preoccupied with the campaign to raise the issue of Burma at the UN Security Council, following the publication of the report by the former Czech president Vaclav Havel and South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Rangoon has been desperately trying to muster support within Asia to oppose the move at the UN. Instead, they have been told categorically that they cannot campaign on their behalf unless Rangoon makes some concessions.
China, Japan and most of Asean will not be happy with Rangoon's decision to withdraw from the ILO. They have all been privately advising Burma's leaders to work with the labour body. Beijing in particular has been keen to see Rangoon cooperate with the ILO.
''In the past China has supported Burma at the ILO, but in recent times we have told them to collaborate with them,'' a senior Chinese government labour official recently told the Bangkok Post.
Now that Burma's decision is on the record, they can either continue to cooperate with the ILO during the two-year notice period, and possibly withdraw their notice later if the current problems are resolved.
Or, as is more likely, Burma could decide to immediately stop all cooperation with the ILO and close down the Rangoon office.
Whichever option Burma decides to opt for, the ILO governing body when it meets next month is likely to press for increased international sanctions.
Although the International Labour Organisation as such cannot implement sanctions, nor insist that its members follow that course of action, the resolution adopted in 2000 called for its members to review their relations with Rangoon to eliminate forced labour.
This would also mean that international bodies, like the other UN agencies, the Asian Development Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank would have to review their activities in Burma and stop anything that might involve the use of forced labour. It would almost certainly increase Rangoon's isolation.
The workers group at the ILO are certain to push for concerted action against Rangoon, including sanctions.
One of the key measures being considered is a ban on the loading and unloading of Burmese cargoes by the shipping unions, which would severely hit the country's already crippled exports and make imports even more difficult.
In recent months the regime has stepped up its crackdown on workers, especially those who have had contact with the ILO.
Earlier this year the labour minister said it was illegal for villagers and workers to report cases of forced labour to the ILO.
Ten workers were arrested in June near Pegu, more than 100 kilometres north of Rangoon. Several were detained because they sent evidence of forced labour, on the Mae Sot-Rangoon Asian Highway around 150 kilometres from Rangoon, to the ILO, according to an activist with the FTUB, Ko Ko Naing.
They were sentenced to several years in jail earlier this month by a special court in Rangoon's notorious Insein prison.
A few days later a young National League for Democracy leader, Su Su Nway, was sentenced by a court in Insein prison to 18 months for allegedly swearing and threatening the local authorities.
Earlier this year, Su Su Nway successfully sued the local authorities for using forced labour. They were given prison sentences.
But the authorities counter-sued the activist.
''Su Su Nway did not receive a fair trial, and was unjustly sentenced,'' according to the secretary of the Burmese Association for Political Prisoners, Ko Tate Naing.
''The authorities clearly intended to punish Su Su Nway for her bravery, and in doing so intimidate other villagers into not speaking out against the practice of forced labour," he added.
In this growing atmosphere of intimidation and harassment, many labour activists in Burma believe the presence of the ILO in Rangoon is essential if they are to have any measure of protection.
''There are already hundreds of labour activists and workers wrongfully locked up in the military's prisons,'' a young labour activist, Ko Ko Naing, said.