Jun 22, 1998
LABOUR: CONFERENCE ADOPTS DECLARATION, FOLLOW-UP
Geneva, 19 Jun (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- The International Labour Conference, Thursday, adopted a 'Declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work and its follow-up', committing the 174 member States to respect the principles inherent in the seven so-called core labour standards and promote their universal application. The standards are those in seven conventions: Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize (No. 87, 1948) and Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining (No 98, 1949); the Forced Labour Convention (No. 29, 1930) and the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention (No 105, 1957); Equal Remuneration (No 100, 1951) and Discrimination - Empooyment and Occupation (No 111, 1958); the Minimum Age Convention (No. 138, 1973).
However, the Declaration could only be adopted on a vote of 273 in favour, zero against and 43 abstentions -- just nine affirmative votes more than the required quorum of 264.
At the committee stage, the declaration had been carried by 26800 in favour, 315 against and 2520 abstentions.
Voting in the ILO and its bodies is weighted, and reflect its tripartite structure and the membership of the body, and the number of participants and attendance.
The discussions and statements,, many of them nuanced, in the marathon debates in the committee and in plenary, showed a North- South divide, with developing countries clearly concerned that, despite many statements to the contrary, the declaration and its content would still be used by the powerful industrial countries to hit imports from the developing world.
Several of the developing country governments that voted affirmatively in the plenary explained that they had done so in order not to give a handle to the United States and a few others to bring up the issue of trade and labour standards at the World Trade Organization.
But at the end of the day, it appeared that it was not at all certain that the WTO would not take up this issue. It seemed probable that, after the four-year cycle of the follow-up mechanism on each of the core principles and standards, these would be used to justify import restrictions, with the importing countries avowing that it was not for 'protectionist' purposes, but upholding and enhancing workers rights.
The ILO Director-General Michel Hansenne told the Conference that the decision to adopt the Declaration was a "watershed point in the struggle to achieve social justice in the globalizing economy".
And much was heard in the debate about liberalization and globalization, and need to ensure that workers have a share in the rising incomes of countries.
However, the central issue, namely, the neo-liberal economics and trade theories, and the 'globalization' of capital, including financial capital, that is at the core of the marginalisation and immiserisation of the workers and their living standards, was not addressed.
The organized international workers groups do not seem ready to take this on.
Since the early 1980s, when neo-liberal economics and the tilting of the state in favour of big capital and against workers and their unions began under Thatcher and Reagan, and pushed on the South through adjustment policies at the IMF and the World Bank, the ILO has been avoiding taking on these institutions.
But after Hansenne, the former Belgian labour minister, took over at the ILO, and only after Marrakesh, when the US and France became vocal about trade-linked workers rights, the ILO has stepped into the field, but even then has been unwilling to directly challenge the basic neo-liberal economic policies.
But without that, it is not all clear how efforts to ensure that a rising share of the benefits of trade and globalization would go to the workers, rather than, as now, only to the financial asset holders, could succeed.
As one of the non-governmental representative, Ms. McNally of the North-South XXI (described as a 'waterfront women's group) told the plenary on 16 June: "Notwithstanding the importance of core labour Conventions, human rights at work obviously presupposes the imperative pre-condition of the right to work. Such a vital social right has been rendered increasingly precarious by the globalization of capital... Unless the globalization of capital is curbed and reversed, the ILO's priority of justice, through the promotion of employment and the reduction of poverty, may well become a hollow refrain."
Much of the lobbying to get the Declaration through had centered on the argument that without this, the US unilateralism and drive for linking trade and labour standards could not be thwarted.
The declaration, in its final operative paragraph, says:
"Stresses that labour standards should not be used for protectionist trade purposes, and that nothing in this Declaration and its follow-up shall be invoked or otherwise used for such purposes; in addition, the comparative advantage of any country should in no way be called into question by this Declaration and its follow-up".
[The ILO press office on Tuesday, had erroneously briefed the media that on Monday night, in the vote, this operative paragraph had been made into a preambular one, as the workers and some of the industrial countries like the US had sought.]
In the committee discussions, the US government, as also some other industrial country governments, and the workers group, had wanted the elimination of this paragraph, arguing that the ILO had no jurisdiction on trade matters, and could not pronounce itself on this. Alternatively they had wanted it to be moved into the preambular part.
But the developing countries insisted on the retention of the formulation as an operative paragraph and made clear that without this they would not accept the Declaration.
But the US, and the workers, succeeded in qualifying the prohibition against use of the Declaration for trade purposes, by the use of the words 'protectionist trade purposes' -- thus leaving the issue open.
The calling of a 'vote' in the plenary, and the divisions shown up both in the votes of the 'abstainees' as well as in several of the explanatory statements including from those who voted yes, suggested a failure on the part of the ILO head and the key officials, who had been pushing for and hoping to get a consensus declaration.
The ILO officials had been confident on Thursday that the Declaration would be adopted by consensus. However, the government of Egypt called for a vote on the Declaration at the Conference.
The recorded vote showed that the abstentions were cast among others by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Indonesia, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Quatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam.
A number of developing countries, and in particular several Asian governments, who voted in favour, explained later that they had voted in order to prevent the issue being taken up at the WTO.
While an ILO press release described it as the adoption, by an "overwhelming vote", of the solemn declaration, and the ILO head, Michael Hansene in his speech at the plenary Thursday night had stressed that there were no negative votes, under the ILO's weighted voting system, a recorded abstention is effectively a negative vote.
In fact the report of the conference committee that considered the Declaration, shows that on a number of amendments where votes were taken, they were declared not carried (despite the lack of any negative vote) on the basis of the abstentions and the quorum set by them.
The ILO's Legal Advisor, in a statement at the Committee stage, incorporated in the report of the Committee to the Conference, made clear that the Declaration was a 'political statement of a non- binding nature' and would not impose any new obligations on member- States with regard to the Conventions they had not ratified, and that the 'obligations' were only those inherent in the membership of the ILO. Other statements by ILO officials said the Declaration would focus on promotional efforts and providing technical and other help to members to join and comply with the conventions.
However, ILO officials privately said Friday that the office was all set to launch the followup process, and that in the followup reports, covering each year the four areas of fundamental principles and rights in the Declaration, there would be some finger-pointing, as several countries have feared.
While such 'finger-pointing' in gross cases of violation could help create peer-pressure for compliance, it could also provide a handle for trade restrictions.
The Declaration envisages the ILO encouraging "other international organizations," with which it has established relations under Art. 12 of its constitution, to support the efforts to promote observance of the core principles in the declaration.
At the committee discussions, in response to developing countries who expressed concern that this could mean the ILO encouraging the WTO to act in cases of countries not observing the core labour standards, the ILO legal advisor explained that the ILO had no such Art. 12 relations with the WTO, IMF or World Bank.
But Hansenne, who is due to lay down office next year, told a press conference on Friday that he would come up with an initiative for establishing relationships between the ILO and the WTO (which would enable the ILO to 'encourage' WTO to act on these matters). At an earlier stage, soon after Marrakesh agreement, Hansenne had envisaged a process by which the ILO would pronounce itself on who was observing labour standards and who was not, and invoking the WTO processes to promote observance of workers rights.
Several developing countries also expressed some concern that far from the ILO focusing on promoting and raising social standards in all countries, keeping in mind the economic possibilities of countries at different stages of development, and promoting increasing adherence to conventions as well as for policies to favour employment and poverty eradication, the Declaration could be a red herring.
As one developing country diplomat said later, the entire exercise unfortunately became focused on how to satisfy the US delegation, and by raising the fear that without this, the US would lose interest in the ILO and the Declaration was the only way the US administration could be helped to block restrictive trade measures being promoted in Congress and by organized labour.
The Declaration reaffirrms commitment of the ILO members to "respect, to promote and to realize in good faith" the right of workers and employers to freedom of association and effective right to collective bargaining, and to work towards the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour, the effective abolition of child labour and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
It also recognizes the obligation of the ILO to assist its members, in response to their established and expressed needs in order to attain these objectives" by making full use of its resources, including mobilization of external resources and support, and encouraging the support of other international organizations with which the ILO has established relations.
Hansenne told the conference that "it was high time for the ILO to give itself the means to address the social consequences of the globalization of the economy... I believe we can all be proud of the Declaration that has been adopted... the ILO can now proceed on the basis of a truly global set of common social values."
The declaration calls for a followup, of a strictly promotional nature, to encourage efforts of members to promote the fundamental principles and rights of the ILO constitution and the Philadelphia declaration, reaffirmed by the Declaration.
The followup is to allow the identification of areas in which the ILO assistance through technical cooperation activities may be useful to help member-states to implement the principles and rights. It is not to be a substitute for the established supervisory mechanisms, nor impede their functioning, and the follow is precluded "from examining or re-examining" specific situations within the purview of the supervisory mechanism.
There is to be an annual followup concerning non-ratified fundamental conventions. This will provide an opportunity to review each year, by means of simplified procedures to replace the four- year review introduced in 1995 by the Governing Body, efforts made in accordance with the Declaration by Members which have not yet ratified the conventions. Each year, the followup will cover the four areas of the principles and rights specified in the Declaration.
It will be based on reports requested from Members who have not yet ratified the conventions, on any changes in their law and practice that had taken place. The help of a group of experts to be appointed by the Governing Body could be used. There is also to be an annual 'global report', covering each year one of the four categories of fundamental principles and rights, and provide a 'dynamic global picture' relating to each category of the fundamental principles and rights noted during the preceding four years. This is to provide a basis for assessing the effectiveness of the assistance provided by the ILO, and for determining priorities for the following period, in the form of action plans for technical cooperation, in particular to mobilize the internal and external resources necessary.
This report will be drawn up under the responsibility of the ILO head on basis of official information, or information gathered and assessed in accordance with established procedures.
[At the Conference committee which discussed the Declaration the ILO's legal advisor said that information from NGOs was precluded from this category.]
In the case of States that have not ratified the fundamental conventions the information will be based on the findings of the annual followup, and for States that have ratified them, it would be based on reports dealt with under Art. 22 of the ILO constitution.
The global report is to be submitted to the Conference for tripartite discussions as a report of the D.G. and thereafter the Governing Body is to draw appropriate conclusions.
A considerable amount of discussion in the conference committee on the declaration centered on the issue of the language of the declaration to preclude its use for trade purposes or deny comparative advantage of the low-income countries.
The Asia-Pacific group of countries, the African countries and the Latin American and Caribbean countries, with some nuances, insisted on a paragraph in the declaration to preclude trade restrictions based on the workers rights issue or on comparative advantage based on low wages.
While the US, and some other industrial countries, and Argentina, as well as the workers and the employers did not favour any reference in the declaration to this, on the ground that 'trade' was not within ILO competence, most of the developing countries (of Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean) who spoke, and some industrial countries, said that this subject of trade and labour relations had been discussed in the Governing Body, and whether other organizations addressed this issue or not the ILO should.
Several of them also wanted formualtion that would prevent use or misuse of the declaration for trade purposes or measures (and not merely protectionist trade measures). Several argued that it was impossible to identify nor was it clear who could do so as to whether a trade instrument was protctionist or not. As Mexico put it, an unequivocal provision was necessary in order to "close the door" on using the Declaration or followup as an exception under Art. XX of the GATT -- a safeguard that could not be achieved by shifting it to the preamble (as the US and a few others, the employers group and the workers wanted).
In supporting the need for a formulation in the operative paragraphs, the New Zealand government noted that his own country had suffered from restrictionist trade measures and hence sympathised with the concern of the majority of the members whose comparative advantage was found in low labour costs. Standards set for excellent reasons in the fields, such as health and food standards, had been misused (in the GATT) in ways that were damaging to trade and people producing the traded, the New Zealand government delegate said.
At one stage in the discussions, Mexican government delegate said his key concern was that adoption of the Declaration's follow-up could be motivated by either the desire to promote principles of labour rights, or by a desire on the part of some to use the document as a pretext or justification for trade or ptoectionist measures and measures calling into question the comparative advantage of a country.
The Egyptian delegate said the issue was wider than the concept of protectionist trade measures. The Declaration should not be used as a pretext for any new conditionalities by countries or regional or international organizations, which could limit the efforts of developing countries towards economic and social development.