The debate surrounding the protection of worker rights in the global economy tends to focus on trade sanctions and often overlooks the use of alternative tools to promote the protection of worker rights overseas -- regularly dismissing the the International Labor Organization (ILO) as "toothless."
Yet, this week, the ILO took an historic step and imposed unprecedented penalties on Myanmar (Burma) for its persistent, widespread and blatant abuse of workers. In addition to cutting off technical assistance and refusing to invite representatives from Myanmar to meetings (steps that it took in 1999), the ILO will ask its member constituents (governments, unions and business representatives) to review their relationships with Myanmar and ensure that they are not perpetuating the use of forced labor in any way. The ILO will also inform other international organizations (such as the WTO) of Myanmar's persistent abuse of workers and ask them to reconsider any activities that they have with the country or its government. In effect, the ILO is publicly declaring Myanmar a "bad actor" and is laying the basis for governments and international institutions to impose sanctions or other measures on Myanmar.
While the United States and the European Union have already imposed some bilateral sanctions on Myanmar, this action by the ILO is significant for two reasons:
First, it highlights the growing assertiveness of the ILO and an increasing willingness on its part to "name and shame" countries with a poor record on worker rights. The evidence against Myanmar is strong: The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), which brought the initial complaint against Myanmar under the ILO, estimates that as many as one million Burmese are today subject to forced labor and that another 1.5 million were subject to forced labor before they fled the country. The ILO's own Commission of Inquiry noted: "There is abundant evidence ... showing the pervasive use of forced labor imposed on the civilian population throughout Myanmar by the authorities and the military for portering, the construction, maintenance and servicing of military camps, work on agriculture, logging and other production projects undertaken by the authorities or the military ... the construction and
maintenance of roads, railways and bridges, other infrastructure work and a range of other tasks...." In such a situation, one role of the ILO should be to compile evidence and disseminate information about the abuses to as wide an audience as possible. This "sunlight effect" will put pressure both on the government concerned, and on companies and international agencies dealing with the country, to take steps to improve the conditions for workers.
Second, the action by the ILO is genuinely multilateral. Representatives from 81 countries voted in favor of the resolution to impose the punitive measures against Myanmar, and approximately three-quarters of those were developing countries. Another twenty one countries split their vote (with some delegates voting for and some against). Only five countries -- Cambodia, Cuba, China, Sri Lanka and Vietnam -- joined Myanmar in fully opposing the measures and these are hardly bastions of support for worker rights. Hence, the ILO decision carries the extra weight and legitimacy of a truly multilateral decision and is more likely to be effective in isolating and putting pressure on the Myanmar authorities than bilateral action by individual countries.
Yet, this week's decision is really a first step. If the ILO is to play a central role in setting and enforcing basic worker rights in the global economy, it needs to build on this action and forge a clearer and stronger role for itself.
First, the ILO should amend its constitution to create a process for expelling members that persistently and egregiously violate its core principles. Under current rules, there is no procedure for expelling a member and this gap has limited the options available in the case of Myanmar. Previous attempts to amend the constitution in the 1960s failed as they could not garner sufficient ratifications from ILO members -- but the current debate surrounding worker rights in the global economy and the strong showing of support for taking action against Myanmar suggest that an amendment may be possible now.
Second, the ILO should enhance, streamline and modernize its information-dissemination and decision-making processes. The decision to take action against Myanmar came more than three years after the ICFTU first filed its complaint, despite thirty years of prior evidence against Myanmar. In addition, the documentation surrounding the case is complex and legalistic. Naming and shaming requires a simple and clear review process and widespread dissemination of the decisions as they are made.
Finally, the ILO should work with the WTO to consider the adoption of a forced labor clause in the WTO. Under current rules, WTO members can ban the importation of goods made with prison labor, but not those made with forced labor. The adoption of such a clause would enable WTO members to reinforce their actions under the ILO with sanctions imposed legally under the WTO. Trade policy would then be working to support, not undermine, the multilateral, rules-based system.
Supporters of a rules-based global economy should applaud the recent actions by the ILO. But we should not stop there. We need to strengthen and embolden the ILO so that it can take its place alongside the WTO and work in tandem to build a global economy that both expands trade and protects basic worker rights.
