WHEN some developing countries succeeded in having an invitation to the International Labour Organisation's secretary general to address the World Trade Organisation conference in Singapore withdrawn, it proved something of a pyrrhic victory. In the event 130 of the 138 delegates who addressed the WTO conference on the vexed issue of labour standards supported the ILO's right to monitor those standards.
Support for the ILO was not, of course, disinterested. Moral outrage at the exploitation of 250 million children in sweat shops, mines, plantations and sites across the developing world was matched by concern about the economic implications having to compete with cheap labour.
At Singapore the developed world agreed to soften its stance on labour regulation in order to ensure the opening of international markets to its high tech products. In effect, it handed, over the baton of social protection to the ILO.
As the WTO delegates dispersed, the ILO secretary general, Mr Michel Hansenne, met the director general of the WTO, Mr Renato Ruggiero, to discuss the implications of the paragraph on labour standards eventually incorporated into the new WTO agreement. This acknowledges that the ILO "is the competent body to set and deal with standards".
But it also "rejects the use, of labour standards for protectionist purposes". The "comparative advantage of countries, particularly low wage countries, must in no way be put in question".
Before the ILO can hope to address this conundrum, it must set its own house in order. The split at the WTO reflects in large measure a similar split within the ILO, which has equal government, trade union and employer representation.
Next March the governing body of the ILO meets in Geneva to preview the implications of the WTO agreement for its own agenda. There will also be a meeting of an ILO working group which is seeking international legislation to control the growing amount of contract labour. By June the organisation hopes to have either a recommendation or a full ILO Convention adopted on the issue.
Employer bodies are likely to, resist any moves to restrict contractors or bring the working conditions of contract workers in line with those enjoyed by other employees. Last year a convention on home working was pushed through against the wishes of employer representatives - and some governments. The necessary two thirds majority was achieved when employers abstained en bloc in protest at the proposals.
That confrontation has seriously shaken the tradition of consensus in the organisation. Next year the ILO will have to work hard to restore it, especially if it wants to make progress on eradicating practices such as child labour.
One option being mooted is to review all existing ILO conventions, weeding out the irrelevant and the impractical. This would enable the ILO to concentrate resources on crucial areas and might be a way of bringing employer organisations fully back on board.
If this can be done, it might then be possible for the organisation to develop the united front it needs to tackle the lack of protection that children, and even adult workers, suffer in some developing countries. The aim, as far as adult workers are concerned, will be to ensure that core values such as freedom of association and the right to choose a union are upheld.
For children the emphasis will be on ensuring their access to education. Most children must work to supplement the income of their families. Yet working for a living denies them the education that could help them and their families out of the poverty trap. Without education today's child workers will, in turn, have to send their own children out to work.
The ILO will try to convince countries such as India, Pakistan, Malaysia and Egypt that the social cost of such work practices outweighs the competitive advantages they are determined to protect.