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

ILO vote. How did the French vote??



Subject: ILO vote. How did the French vote????

Does anyone know how the French voted on this?


TIN KYI wrote:
> 
> Editorial & Opinion
> The Nation June 25, 1999.
> ILO vote kills Supachai's chances
> 
> LAST week the International Labour Organisation (ILO) passed an
> unprecedented resolution which virtually expels Burma from the body.
> Thailand unexpectedly joined other Asean members in voting against its
> passage. The Nation's Regional News Editor Yindee Lertcharoenchok looks at
> the Thai stance and its implications.
> 
> Deputy Prime Minister Supachai Panitchpakdi must have been unaware of his
> imminent loss in the up-hill struggle for the World Trade Organisation's top
> job when his Democrat-led government last week joined a minority bloc to
> vote against the passage of a crucial international resolution condemning
> Burma's use of forced labour.
> 
> The Thai decision not only shocked many of its Asian and Western allies,
> particularly Japan, which had lobbied to the last minute to water down the
> ILO document before its eventual passing, but also infuriated many Thai
> government officials, especially those who had advised Thailand to vote
> otherwise.
> 
> On June 17, the ILO annual assembly in Geneva overwhelmingly adopted an
> unprecedented resolution which constitutes a de facto expulsion of Burma and
> a refusal of all ILO technical assistance to the Southeast Asian country
> because of the systematic use of forced labour by the Burmese junta.
> 
> Although the ILO has no mechanism to officially expel its members, the
> resolution, which was approved by a large majority of government, employers
> and workers delegates from 174 ILO member states, virtually bans Burma's
> representatives from attending meetings, symposia and seminars organised by
> the ILO. The precedence of the document, which received 333 votes for, 27
> against, and 47 abstentions, could force other United Nations agencies to
> consider and adopt similar exclusive measures against the Burmese regime.
> (Each of the 174 country members have four votes -- two for the government,
> one each for the employers and the workers.)
> 

> The ILO decision followed joint action and complaints by trade union and
> employer organisations within the ILO and the conclusion of the ILO
> Commission of Inquiry that the ruling Burmese regime continued ''to inflict
> the practice of forced labour, nothing but a contemporary form of slavery,
> on the people of Burma''.
> 
> Despite Rangoon's denial of such practices and refusal of entry into Burma,
> the ILO Commission, based on eye-witnesses' accounts, produced more than
> 6,000 pages of documents which concluded that ''the obligation to suppress
> the use of forced or compulsory labour is violated in Burma in national law
> as well as in actual practice in a widespread and systematic manner, with
> total disregard for the human dignity, safety and health and the basic needs
> of the people.''
> 
> The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, which represents 213
> trade union organisations in 145 countries, had also provided fresh evidence
> of forced labour and estimated that ''more than 800,000 Burmese are
> subjected to forced labour''.
> 
> Apart from Brunei which is not an ILO member, and Laos which was not present
> at the meeting, the other eight Asean members, including Burma, all voted
> against the resolution. In total, delegates of only 11 countries --
> representing government, employers or workers -- were against the ILO
> document. Interestingly, both the Thai employers and trade workers delegates
> voted in support of the document.
> 
> The Thai government's stance on the ILO resolution is a clear departure from
> the position adopted late last year when the Foreign Ministry decided that
> Thailand would give a supporting voice if the UN General Assembly in New
> York was to call for a vote on its resolution on Burma. The annual UN
> resolution has been adopted by consensus for the past 10 years. It remains
> unclear why the Foreign Ministry took a different approach at the ILO,
> despite the fact that there had been strong internal recommendations that
> Thailand should vote in support of the ILO document. At most, it should have
> abstained from voting.
> 
> Talking to reporters in Bangkok after the historic voting, Foreign Minister
> Surin Pitsuwan gave away very little of his view, saying only that he hoped
> the ILO resolution will not result in Burma's further isolation from the
> international community. Foreign Ministry spokesman Don Pramudwinai was more
> outspoken and openly attacked the world labour body.
> 
> He said Thailand and other Asean members denounced the ILO decision and
> warned of adverse effects from Burma's isolation. Surin is said to have been
> on an overseas trip when the final Thai stance was taken at the ministry and
> delivered to its mission in Geneva.
> 
> Officials at several Thai government agencies, including the Prime
> Minister's Office, expressed surprise when asked about the passage of the
> ILO resolution and its implications. Many subsequently voiced strong
> disapproval over the Thai position and the lack of inter-agency
> consultations before such a crucial decision was taken.
> 

> As one high-ranking Thai official put it, the Thai stance at the ILO
> reflected ''a seriously wrong judgement'' on the part of the Foreign
> Ministry's top leadership which seems to have adopted ''short-sighted and
> narrow views'' of Thai diplomacy and its relations with Burma. They also
> seem unable to read and differentiate short-term versus long-term interests
> and national versus Asean interests. At serious stake is Thai credibility in
> the eyes of the world community, particularly Major western trade
> partners -- the United States and the European Union -- which have been
> strong critics of poor Thai labour standard and practices.
> 
> ''We [Thailand] have committed a wrong policy. If we believe that Burma will
> feel grateful and pay us back for voting against the resolution, they
> (Burma) have never done so,'' noted another upset senior Government House
> official, who heavily criticised the Foreign Ministry for failure to consult
> other key agencies before committing the country to such an important
> international matter.
> 
> As it turns out, Thailand stands to lose badly from its poor ILO decision.
> Records have shown time and again that Thailand's apologetic defence of the
> Burmese junta's political repression and human rights violations has
> regularly put the country in the firing line both at home and abroad. Its
> unequivocal association with the dictatorial and unrepentant Burmese regime
> has jeopardised not only the Thai international standing and credibility but
> also Thai national interests.
> 
> By refusing to bless the ILO resolution, Thailand virtually anoints itself
> as a permanent sanctuary for an estimated one million Burmese illegal
> immigrants and refugees who fled to Thailand because of political and
> military suppression and all forms of human rights abuses -- forced labour
> and relocation. The Burmese ruling generals have never accepted the presence
> of these Burmese living in exile and thus refuse to cooperate in their
> repatriation.
> 
> Moreover, Thailand's highly-publicised policy of ''flexible engagement''
> with Burma in which the country reserves the rights to defend the national
> interests over the solidarity and interests of Asean grouping proves to be a
> mere lip service and a laughing stock among Asean countries, most of whom
> have openly been opposed to its adoption from the very beginning.
> 
> As Thailand chose to side with the ILO minority opponents, most of whom have
> had damaged labour and human rights records, it only confirms Western
> criticism of the Kingdom's poor labour rights standard and practices which
> include the exploitation of child and cheap alien labour.
> 
> Deputy Prime Minister Supachai must be forgiven if he loses in the WTO bid
> because of internal sabotage by his political colleagues and civil servants
> who played wittingly or innocently into the hands of those countries which
> oppose his WTO candidacy on the grounds of bad labour policy in Thailand.
> 
> The Nation