Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on: - the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) temporarily withdrawing access to generalized tariff preferences for industrial goods from the Union of Myanmar', and - the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) temporarily withdrawing access to generalized tariff preferences for agricultural goods from the Union of Myanmar'
Date: 1997-02-27
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Myanmar/Burma, agricultural product, generalised preferences, secondary sector, slavery













EUR-Lex - 51997AC0240 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51997AC0240

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on: - the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) temporarily withdrawing access to generalized tariff preferences for industrial goods from the Union of Myanmar', and - the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) temporarily withdrawing access to generalized tariff preferences for agricultural goods from the Union of Myanmar'  


Official Journal C 133 , 28/04/1997 P. 0047 





Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:- the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) temporarily withdrawing access to generalized tariff preferences for industrial goods from the Union of Myanmar (1) (1) Formerly known as the Union of Burma.`, and - the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) temporarily withdrawing access to generalized tariff preferences for agricultural goods from the Union of Myanmar` () (97/C 133/16) On 21 February 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposals.The Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr Etty as rapporteur-general for its opinion.At its 343rd Plenary Session (meeting of 27 February 1997) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion with a majority of 93 votes in favour, two against and two abstentions.1. The Committee, recalling its Opinion of 19-20 October 1994 on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) applying a three-year scheme of generalized tariff preferences (1995-1997) in respect of certain industrial products originating in developing countries, the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) extending into 1995 the application of Regulations (EEC) No 3833/90, (EEC) No 3835/90 and (EEC) No 3900/91 applying generalized tariff preferences in respect of certain agricultural products originating in developing countries (), its Opinion of 24-25 April 1996 on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) applying a multiannual scheme of generalized tariff preferences from 1 July 1996 to 30 June 1999 in respect of certain agricultural products originating in developing countries () and in particular its positive comments pertaining to the articles on total and partial temporary withdrawal of the scheme of generalized preferences, fully supports the Commission's proposal to withdraw from Myanmar the advantages of the generalized scheme of preferences established by Regulation (EC) No 3281/94 as long as forced labour practices in that country remain.2. The proposal sets a vital precedent. It seems a clear signal to the EU's trading partners that the EU is serious about its determination to use the GSP to meet the goals for which it was created, namely to improve the conditions of people in the developing countries through the provision of trading privileges and to prevent the abuse of the GSP through the encouragement of reports from countries which do not respect the basic human rights mentioned in the EU's relevant instruments.3. Due procedure, as laid down in Council Regulation No 3281/94 on the GSP, has been followed by the European Commission. Following the formal announcement of opening an inquiry, the Commission received evidence from a wide range of relevant interested parties, including the Government of Myanmar, the military junta SLORC. Strong support for the withdrawal of EU preferences was provided by representatives of the democratically elected government within Myanmar, including its leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, which has been kept out of office by the SLORC. The Committee wishes to stress the importance it attaches to the extremely careful handling of the case by the Commission. This has set a standard for future cases and must have convinced the EU trading partners of the fairness and transparency of the investigations practises.4. The Committee fully agrees with the Commission that forced labour is, indeed, a widespread practice in Myanmar. It is characterized by systematic coercion and violence imposed by the army, police and other security forces to use forced labour for, in particular, portering, military labour, large scale infrastructure projects, army owned commercial projects and tourism infrastructure building. The current situation is that the government of Myanmar, far from acting to end the practice of forced labour, is actively engaged in its promotion. It is today an endemic abuse affecting hundreds of thousands of people who are subjected to the most extreme forms of exploitation, which all too frequently leads to loss of life.5. The government of Myanmar has refused to allow a fact-finding mission of the EU to visit the country. The Commission deplores that decision. The Committee recommends that, if the situation in Myanmar does not change in the future, the Commission should repeat its request to the government every year.6. The government of Myanmar has argued that the alleged forced labour practices are in fact based on Buddhist traditions. The Committee notes with great interest that practising Buddhists in the hearings conducted by the Commission, have stated that this 'cultural argument` is false. In this connection, the Committee reiterates its view that human rights are universal values which cannot be interpreted by governments at will in a 'flexible` way, having recourse to such factors as the stage of development, cultural or religions traditions, and political options. The Committee recommends that the Commission in its relations with third countries pays sincere attention to such factors whenever they are raised in discussions about serious violations of fundamental human rights. At the same time, the Commission must remain aware of efforts to abuse these factors in order to escape from criticism for such violations.7. It is highly surprising to see that the government of Myanmar has also used in its defence references to exemptions contained in the text of ILO Convention 29 on forced labour. The ILO has, for many years, criticized and condemned Myanmar for grave violations of the Forced Labour Conventions. In 1995 and 1996 Myanmar was even cited for this in a special paragraph in the Report on The Applications of Ratified Conventions of the International Labour Conference. This is the strongest instrument in the regular system of supervision of the implementation of Ratified Conventions of the ILO. The effectiveness of this system should not be underestimated. However, the ILO cannot impose penalties having a direct financial impact.8. The Committee notes that the plaintiffs, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) have, on 2 January 1997, formally extended their complaint of 7 June 1995, which led to the Commission's decision to open an investigation, to also cover Myanmar's agricultural products exports to the EU and its Member States. They requested the EU to apply the withdrawal of Myanmar's GSP benefits also in the agricultural sector, further to Council Regulation No 1256/96 of 20 June 1996, extending the same GSP provisions to this sector. This should, in their view, not require a further inquiry as the Council's present proposal already clearly demonstrates that forced labour is systematically used in Myanmar. The Committee expresses its sympathy with the request of the plaintiffs and recommends Council to act accordingly.9. The Committee hopes that the exclusion of Myanmar from the EU GSP scheme, in combination with future results of the ILO supervisory system with respect ILO Convention 29, will send a clear message to the military junta ruling the country that they can only expect ever stronger international isolation as long as they continue to engage in practices which so clearly violate internationally agreed standards for fundamental human rights.10. Public opinion in the EU is increasingly aware of the abuse of human rights in Myanmar. Trade unions, non-governmental organizations including human rights groups and consumer organizations, have all expressed support for the taking of strong measures by the EU. In their campaigns, they have regularly drawn attention to the role of multinational companies, including some based in the EU, which could benefit at least indirectly from forced labour practices in Myanmar and which, by their investments, could throw a lifeline to the beleaguered military regime by providing it with badly needed foreign currency. The Committee requests the Commission to pay special attention to this in its future monitoring of the developments in Myanmar.11. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Commission to explore ways and means of addressing in an appropriate way human rights violations in future meetings with the ASEAN, of which Myanmar will shortly be a member. An appropriate way might be found in the framework of the 'constructive engagement` approach which was discussed recently in the EU-ASEAN ministerial meeting in Singapore.The Commission must ensure that the Union of Myanmar, once it is a member of ASEAN, will not be able to bypass withdrawals of generalized tariff preferences through regional cumulation of origin.12. The Committee finally notes that it thinks that a formal investigation must be initiated by the Commission into the situation in Pakistan, subject to a similar complaint lodged by the ICFTU and the ETUC in June 1995 at the same time as the complaint against Myanmar. Further action by the Commission is still lacking in this respect and several million people are engaged in forced labour in Pakistan, including children. Despite the adoption of a law against forced labour in March 1992, the government of Pakistan has taken no effective measures to achieve observance of the law. Pakistan has been continuously criticized by the ILO for its use of forced labour in the past ten years, without any positive results. As was called for by the resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 14 December 1995, an investigation should be opened into forced labour in Pakistan just as it was for Myanmar.Brussels, 27 February 1997.The President of the Economic and Social CommitteeTom JENKINS() OJ No C 35, 4. 2. 1997, p. 14.() OJ No C 397, 31. 12. 1994.() OJ No C 204, 15. 7. 1996.