THE UNITED STATES AND THE ILO
1. On 5 November 1975 the United States Government gave formal notice to the International Labour Organisation of its intention to withdraw from membership in two years' time (the period of notice required by the Constitution).
2. Although sparked off by the admission to the 1975 International Labour Conference of observers from the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, this action reflected a discontent with developments in the ILO increasingly voiced in recent years by the US Administration and Congress, but especially by Mr George Meany and the AFL-CIO.
3. In Dr Kissinger's letter of notice, four matters of fundamental concern were noted. The first was "the Erosion of Tripartite Representation" - ie. the increasing extent to which employers' and workers' organisations in Third World countries are being controlled by governments. (This has long been the case with Communist bloc countries). Dr Kissinger's letter also listed three other areas of concern - "Selective Concern for Human Rights", "Disregard of Due Process" and the Increasing Politicisation of the Organisation". These relate mainly to proceedings of the International Labour Conference rather than to the structure of the Organisation.
4. It had been hoped that this year's International Labour Conference, which concluded on 23 June, would provide a basis for persuading the American Administration to withdraw its notice but in the event its results, on balance, were disappointing to the United States. Specifically the Americans were looking for certain positive outcomes on three major items at the Conference the 1974 Israeli Resolution; the amendment of Article 17 of the Conference Standing Orders, and problems relating to the structure of the ILO. It was an objective of US policy to "close the file" on the 1974 Israeli Resolution. This has not been entirely achieved and the Director- General has made it clear that he is obliged under normal procedures to keep in touch with action under all resolutions passed by the Conference over a period of five years. In addition, the report of the Committee on Application of Conventions and Recommendations was lost due to massive abstentions by developing countries and the Eastern bloc so that the quorum necessary for its adoption was not obtained. This arose out of a dispute over the propriety of the Government of Israel reporting on the conditions of employment in the occupied territories.
5.
On Article 17, where the United States were pressing for a filtering procedure to reject resolutions of a political nature which did not observe the due process of ILO rules of procedure, no decision one way or the other was taken. It has therefore been subsumed in the continuing question of structure.
16
1:
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.