 Symposium home |
Programme (with links to each speaker's presentation) |
Report (PDF-274KB) |
Profile of speakers |
ILO and Japan (in Japanese) |
I believe the ILO is one of the best-known international organizations in Japan, however it is misunderstood in many ways. Some people think that the ILO would make judgments on the conflicts among workers in the Government and the public sector. One contributing factor to that misperception is the media coverage of the ILO, featuring the ILO activities related to such subjects.
As Mr. Tapiola pointed out in his speech, the ILO is equipped with a supervisory mechanism, which is very unique to an international organization. The more this mechanism becomes effectively functional, one party of the tripartite constituents will become all the more expectational, at the cost of disillusionment and embitterment of another. In this situation, the ILO might face the dilemma that social dialogue that the ILO would like to see may not always be successful. Recently, I have been noticing that there is a tendency not only in Japan but also throughout East Asia and Asia that the ILO is understood on the basis of such misperception.
The Asian region had achieved an outstanding economic development, however, major issues are yet to be addressed in the area of labour. As Mr. Tapiola and others mentioned, the ILO was founded on the supreme idea that "universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice," as is stated in the preamble of the ILO Constitution. Actual activities of the ILO cover a broad range and various fields, including stable employment, protection of working conditions, establishment of basic labour rights and promotion of social dialogue. The ILO sets international labour standards and extends technical cooperation as its means to further these goals. I think now, more than ever, the ILO is needed by the countries in Asia.
In the past 60 years Japan made a big progress, and Japan often received attention from rest of the world in addressing its labour issues. I think it would be most meaningful that Japan through the ILO would provide to other Asian countries or developing countries the successes and failures of the Japanese experience.
A short time of this afternoon is dedicated to a panel discussion entitled "Challenges and visions of the ILO in today's changing world." I look forward to the panelists view on what is expected of the ILO on the basis of a broader perspective of the Asia region, not only focusing on Japan. It would be difficult to reach a certain conclusion, but I hope this discussion will provide good ground for further discussion on later dates and lead to solving the misperception of the ILO which would then allow this international organization to be evaluated on rightful appreciation.