Testimony submitted by Phil Fishman

[FreeBurma@xxxxxxx]

Subject: Testimony submitted by Phil Fishman, AFL-CIO at the Senate Hearing

Attn: Burma Newsreaders
Re: Testimony submitted by Phil Fishman, AFL-CIO at the Senate Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
-----------------


                         Testimony of Phil Fishman                 95-26
                 Assistant Director, International Affairs
                     American Federation of Labor and
                   Congress of Industrial Organizations
                                  to the
                     Senate Appropriations Committee =

                    Sub-Committee on Foreign Operations


                               July 24, 1995


     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity to present t=
he
views of the
thirteen-and-a-half million member AFL-CIO on the current situation in Bu=
rma.
 I will confine my remarks to three areas.

     First, I would like to summarize for you what we know about the prac=
tice
of forced labor in Burma including the most recent information we have be=
en
able to obtain.

     Second, I would like to inform this sub-committee about the actions =
of
the International
Labor Organization (ILO) concerning the chronic violation of
intentionally-recognized worker rights by the Burmese military regime,
particularly its use of forced labor. =

     =

     Finally, I will make a few remarks about the AFL-CIO position on
sanctions.

     Mr. Chairman, while a ray of hope for democracy has certainly opened=
 in
Rangoon with
the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the continued widespread use of
civilians by the State Law and Order Council (SLORC) for forced labor on
infrastructure projects and forced portering of military supplies continu=
es
unabated.   =


     Based on interviews that the AFL-CIO and other observers have been a=
ble
to conduct in ethnic-controlled areas of Burma and in Thailand, it is cle=
ar
that SLORC administrative units and army troops continue to rely heavily =
on
forced labor to complete basic development projects, conduct military
campaigns against ethnic groups, and instill fear in villagers in order t=
o
prevent support for anti-SLORC groups.  These actions are as systematic a=
s
they are brutal, clearly indicating that the SLORC has an official policy=
 of
utilizing forced labor.  The recent testimony of a Karen woman in a refug=
ee
camp in Thailand on July 7 is indicative of the organized way in which SL=
ORC
requires forced labor from common villagers:   =


     "My family and I arrived here five nights ago.  We came with one oth=
er
family
     and spent 6 nights along the way...people must take turns going to w=
ork
for
     SLORC.  If one person doesn't go, he has to pay 500 Kyats per day.
 Those who
     go don't get any pay and food.  The village is divided into 7 sectio=
ns,
and 5 men
     from each section have to go each month to work for SLORC for the wh=
ole
     month.  At the end of the month, 5 new men must go.  Also, 5 more me=
n
for the
     section must work for them for 5 days at a time, and each 5 days a n=
ew
group of
     men must go."

     Indeed, the practice is so widespread that a paper trail has been pu=
t
together in a booklet of forced labor orders from SLORC commanders to vil=
lage
leaders.  =


     Such stories are common-place and yet so clearly show the SLORC's
complete disregard for the lives of the villagers who tell them.  Taken a=
s a
whole, they are numbing but in the telling of individual cases, the
horrifying details come out.  For instance, an elderly farmer from the
village of Ah Mae in the south was interviewed in a refugee camp after be=
ing
conscripted by the Burmese army and experiencing repeated beatings.  He
finally escaped to Thailand.  This is some of what he had to say.  =


     =93As soon as the fighting [with Mon troops] came to an end, the com=
mander
called
     and told me, =91you said there were no Mon troops around here, why d=
id
they shoot
     us?=92...He continued, =91are they Mon troops or Ah Mae villagers wh=
o
attacked
     us=92...After I refused to accept the accusation that it was Ah Mae
villagers
     encouraged by Mon troops, [the commander] gave the order to one of h=
is
     sergeants to beat me.  The sergeant severely beat by fists in my sto=
mach
several
     times and told me to admit to the attack of the Ah Mae villagers...M=
any
soldiers
     around me also beat me and the sergeant told me again and again to a=
gree
and
     admit to their accusation...I could not tolerate further torture and=
 I
admitted to
     their accusation by saying, =91yes, the Ah Mae villagers attacked yo=
u.=92=94
   =

 =

     The diversity of projects in which forced labor is performed, in
addition to its continuing
use by the military in its campaigns against the various ethnic peoples, =
is
stunning.  Whether it be the Ye-Tavoy railroad in southern Burma referred=
 to
by those in the area as the death railroad; the ancient palace moat in th=
e
city of Mandalay in the north; the Hai Gyi island naval base in the Irraw=
addy
delta; or a sports festival to be held in the town of Loikaw in Kayah sta=
te
in November, the evidence is overwhelming.

     Let me focus for a moment on two sectors where forced labor is emplo=
yed.

     =

     There is a growing body of evidence surfacing on the SLORC's showcas=
e $1
billion gas
pipeline paid for by the American corporation UNOCAL and its French
counterpart TOTAL. =

Interviews with villagers who have not only lost their lands but have bee=
n
forced to clear them to make way for the pipeline are growing.  Village a=
fter
village is being razed in this manner, voluntarily we are supposed to
believe, by those who have lived in them their whole lives. Tomorrow, Jul=
y
25th, a program is scheduled to air in Great Britain entitled =93Life on =
the
Line=94 which shows in vivid, horrifying detail the systematic destructio=
n of
villages and the use of forced labor by the SLORC in the construction of =
this
pipeline.  =


     Equally as insidious as the involvement of multinational corporation=
s,
either knowingly
or unknowingly, in the use of forced labor on the gas pipeline project, i=
s
the SLORC's use of forced labor to ready the country for "Visit Myanmar Y=
ear"
in 1996.  Aiming at convincing half a million tourists, the campaign is
designed to end years of isolation, revamp the regime's tarnished image, =
and,
obviously, attract considerable hard currency.  Forced labor is used all =
over
the country in this process, on roads, airports and possibly hotel
construction.  Last week, ABC Nightline aired a segment in which its repo=
rter
filmed forced labor on the way to a tourist site.  Foreign investors such=
 as
Novotel are reportedly involved in the tourism promotion campaign.

     Indeed, Mr. Chairman, there are new stories about forced labor in Bu=
rma
almost every
week.  The July issue of the National Geographic magazine, hardly a
publication with a
political ax to grind, which rather matter-of-factly talks about family
members being seized by the army to serve as porters never to be seen aga=
in.
 =93Such stories are, unfortunately, common,=94 the writer reports.   =


     Mr. Chairman, let me be clear.  What we are talking about is a vast
system of forced
labor which to one degree or another ensnares virtually every family in
Burma.  The SLORC calls this a voluntary system, a Burmese cultural
tradition, which those on the outside are unable to understand.  The UN
Commission on Human Rights, the ILO, and most important of all the thousa=
nds
of Burmese citizens who have found the courage to tell their terrible tal=
e,
strongly believe otherwise. =


     Let me move on to the International Labor Organization.  For many ye=
ars
now, the ILO
has been concerned with the systematic violation of basic worker rights b=
y
the Burmese
government, particularly the use of forced labor in violation of ILO
Convention #29 and the total absence of freedom of association in violati=
on
of Convention #87.  Since 1981, the ILO's Committee on the Application of=

Conventions and Recommendations, which is comprised of worker, employer a=
nd
government representatives, has taken up the case of Burma ten different
years, a record virtually unmatched during the same time period.  Special=

paragraphs, the most extreme form of sanction the tripartite committee ha=
s
available to urge in the strongest terms that a country respect basic wor=
ker
rights, has been given to Burma on five separate occasions.  Just this pa=
st
June the Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations
singled out Burma with special paragraphs on both Convention #29 - forced=

labor and Convention #87 - freedom of association.  =


     Finally, an Article 24 representation which is yet another form of
serious censure was
accepted by the ILO's Governing Body in 1993 on the widespread use of for=
ced
labor by military commanders through the forced recruitment and abuse of
porters. And I am confident that unless the situation inside the country
changes radically in the next few months, an Article 26 complaint of the
continued systematic use of forced labor by the SLORC will be received by=
 the
Governing Body and will initiate a comprehensive mission of inquiry into =
the
matter that could last up to two years.  This is a record of unparalleled=

abuse, Mr. Chairman, and places Burma together with such countries as Sud=
an
and Nigeria as the most flagrant violators of basic human and worker righ=
ts.
 =

     I recite the unenviable record of the SLORC, Mr. Chairman, not only =
to
dramatize the
extent of the problem, but also to emphasize to this committee the import=
ant
role the ILO plays bringing attention to such unacceptable behavior and i=
n
very concrete and effective ways applying international pressure for chan=
ge.
 Where else, Mr. Chairman, are representatives of the world's most brutal=

regimes interrogated, not only by governments but by private sector emplo=
yer
and worker representatives, forced to publicly defend their indefensible
actions, and sanctioned by tripartite consensus?

     Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate you on your
legislation imposing
trade sanctions against Burma which the AFL-CIO strongly supports in
solidarity with our trade union brothers and sisters in the exiled Free T=
rade
Unions of Burma.  Whether it be South Africa, Pinochet's Chile or the mor=
e
recent experience of Haiti, experience has shown that sanctions are an
effective, perhaps the most effective, means to force outlaw regimes to s=
tep
aside and accept the will of their people. As AFL-CIO President, Lane
Kirkland, wrote in a recent letter to Aung San Suu Kyi: =


     =93We believe, with you, that it is democracy and civil society -- n=
ot
economic
     opportunism -- which will ensure a better future for the citizens of=

Burma. =

     Therefore, until the rights of Burma=92s workers are respected, the
AFL-CIO will
     continue to support full international trade and investment sanction=
s.=94


     Thank you.        =


---------------------------------------------------end. (fb.072495.labor)=