[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Int'l Trade Unions'support for Burm (r)



15-SEP-1998     	ICFTU CISL	32 2 2015915	



ICFTU 	INTERNATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF FREE TRADE 		UNIONS

ETUC		EUROPEAN TRADE UNION CONFEDERATION


Sir Leon Brittan
Vice-President
Commission of the European
Communities
200 rue de la Loi
1049 Bruxelles


14 September1 1998 
Burma


Dear Sir Leon,

Further to our exchange of correspondence last year over the European
Commission's actions with regard to the legislation of the US state of
Massachusetts, forbidding that state from signing contracts with companies
doing business with or in Burma, the ETUC and the ICFTU must now write to
you once more in the light of the Commission's decision to take a case
against the USA to a disputes panel at the World Trade Organisation(WTO).

We have noted the arguments given in your reply of 10 June 19971 which
emphasised the need for the US government to ensure that states and cities
within the US abided by the commitments entered into under the terms of the
WTO Agreement on Government Procurement. But the case of Burma is an
entirety inappropriate one to take to the WTO on such grounds. Burma has
been the subject of condemnation and sanctions worldwide, not least by the
European Union, on the grounds of its egregious violations of basic human
rights. One sign of this was the UK government's appeal, on 9 September,
for EU countries to consider fresh measures to achieve the discouragement
of trade, investment and tourism and new visa restrictions for Burmese
citizens.  Just last month, the International Labour Organisation (ILO)
released a new report which condemned in categorical terms the use of
forced labour in Burma. The European Union's actions therefore run contrary
to the current tide of world opinion, at a time when rather than weakening
the international community's common stance on Burma, the EU should be
seeking ways and means of strengthening and reinforcing the worldwide
isolation of the murderous and abhorrent Burmese dictatorship.

The European Union's present action is particularity badly timed in view of
the current crackdown against dissidents in Burma which has drawn
widespread condemnation from across the international community. The
European Union will now risk appearing, in the eyes of world opinion, to be
condoning the current repression of basic human rights in Burma in order to
promote the interests of certain European multinational companies.

It is all the more regrettable that the EU is taking these measures because
it would appear that the legislation of Massachusetts is achieving some
effect on the actions on multinational companies, and not just those from
the European Union. In particular, the US computer group Apple has cited
the Massachusetts law as one reason for withdrawing from Burma. Such
actions by multinational companies reducing private investment in Burma can
only reinforce the effectiveness of the EU's own policy towards Burma as
evidenced by the EU's decision of March 1997 to withhold GSP benefits due
to Burma's practice of forced labour.

Put frankly, if the actions of the state of Massachusetts in putting the
human rights of the Burmese people above the interests of a few
multinational companies are at variance with the rules of the WTO, then it
is the rules of the WTO that need changing and not the actions of
Massachusetts. In the long run, of course, such changes to WTO statutes to
introduce the notion of respect for core labour standards are just what the
European and international trade union movement have been advocating for
many  years. The case of Burma and Massachusetts may at least have the
effect of making it even more clear to world opinion that it has become
imperative to modify world trading rules in that way.

In conclusion, we must reiterate that, rather than seek to prevent others
from subjecting the Burmese regime to further economic pressure, the EU
should welcome such measures as indicating the breadth of support for the
EU's policy towards Burma throughout the world. The ETUC and the ICFTU must
therefore call on the European Union to withdraw its present action or, at
the very least, to suspend it for the time being and until such time as
human rights are fully respected in Burma.

We look forward to hearing from you on this question. In view of the link
with the EU's policy towards Asia, we are also writing to Commission Vice
President Manuel Marin on this matter.


				Yours sincerely,

Bill Jordan							Emillo Gabglio
General Secretary						General Secretary
ICFTU								ETUC