October 27, 1977
Page 35567
THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT WITHDRAW FROM THE ILO
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, a decision will be made soon as to whether the United States will remain in, or withdraw from, the International Labor Organization.
I, along with a number of my colleagues, have been pressing for a decision to remain in the ILO. We firmly believe that it would be highly detrimental to the long term foreign policy interests of this Nation to abandon a vitally important international organization.
In my estimation, it is easy to attack an international organization such as the ILO, particularly when very little is known concerning its activities — most of which are highly positive and relevant to the needs of millions of laborers worldwide.
Some opponents attack the ILO for allegedly ignoring human rights violations by member nations even though a stated principle of the organization is to preserve and to protect these rights. Needless to say, at the very least this statement is misleading and at the very best it is self-serving. It is self-serving because the U.S. Senate has not given its advice and consent to ratification to even one human rights convention drawn up by the ILO. We have not even given our advice and consent to ratification of the Convention Prohibiting Forced Labor. In other words, while we might protest that the ILO has not lived up to its stated principles, and this is a somewhat dubious assertion, we have very little credibility on these issues because of our failure to ratify even one human rights convention. We have very little moral standing to demand more of others than we demand of ourselves.
As we pointed out in our letter of October 7 to the President:
ILO is an institution which has a workable mechanism that actually brings about legislative change at the national level in the field of human rights. This mechanism is tripartite (workers, employers and governments) in character and celebrated its 50th anniversary this year. In 1976, 45 different countries changed 80 pieces of national legislation as a result of ILO pressure and brought that legislation into line with ILO social and human rights standards. In 1975, 55 countries amended approximately 94 pieces of legislation. Over the past 14 years, approximately 1,100 national laws were changed because of the ILO. In 1969, ILO received the Nobel Peace Prize for its work in human rights. We should not give up such an effective forum as the ILO when it is, in fact, so efficiently performing the very tasks in the field of human rights which you are urging should be carried out.
I might add, it is because of this ILO human rights record that the Soviet Union is anxious for the United States to withdraw from the ILO. The ILO was designated as the only international organization to monitor and report on compliance with the human rights provisions of the Helsinki accords.
However, I do not want to belabor this point. We are concerned, and justifiably so, over politicization of international organizations. But, as I noted in my letter to the President of
October 17:
Politicization of International Organizations has not been a one way street. Our past policy had been one of affording the United Nations system a nominal role in our foreign policy decision making processes. The United Nations was a convenient tool of the United States foreign policy when it suited our interests — interests, I might add, which were predominantly political in nature. Oftentimes we ignored, or at best devoted lip service to, the economic and social concerns of the less developed nations which comprise a vast majority of the membership of the U.N. The frustrations of the developing nations over our narrow political concerns should be, therefore, understandable. And I believe we have paid a price for our narrow and parochial policies of the past. That is why I commend your initiatives in affording the United Nations a more prominent and broader role in our foreign policy considerations.
Our stakes in an atmosphere of global cooperation are tremendous and growing. With only six percent of the world's population, we now consume nearly 40 percent of the world's resources. By the year 2000 it is estimated that we will be import-reliant for 12 out of 13 critical minerals essential to the maintenance of the economic viability of any industrialized state. This situation does not lend itself to confrontation or withdrawal from the world community. Quite the contrary, it calls for a much more aggressive and creative policy which seeks to strengthen cooperation and which places the United States in a leadership role of negotiating a planetary bargain in which all nations of this fragile globe can share equitably in the fruits of the international economic system.
For all the frustrations we have experienced in recent years, the United Nations remains a remarkable achievement of mankind. The developing nations of the world, as do our allies, continue to look to us for the leadership which always seems to be momentarily sidetracked by other foreign policy concerns. The world has become a much more complex place in which to live than it was in the late 1940s and 1950s. The tremendous problems of uncontrolled population growth, hunger, illiteracy and disease with which we are all threatened will only be resolved in an atmosphere of cooperation and understanding. We must build upon the international institutions, rather than contribute to their dismantling. There is much at stake for future generations in our doing this.
In essence, what is required is not action which people might feel to be politically expedient at the moment. There are problems in the ILO. But these problems will not be resolved by our withdrawal from the institution. In addition, I am not one to give up any battle and I am not one to encourage our abandoning an international organization, thereby encouraging the control of such institutions by those whose political and value systems are so completely contrary to ours. I do not think it is in our tradition to walk away from a problem, if, indeed, the problem is as serious as alleged.
I also encourage my colleagues to study the "Critical Issues Review Paper" compiled by the Democratic Committee of the American Democrats Abroad in Switzerland. It is a truly educational piece which places the operations of the ILO in their proper perspective.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter of October 7 to the President, my letter of October 17 to the President, and the "Critical Issues Review Paper" be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,
Washington, D.C., October 7, 1977.
The PRESIDENT,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: We read with great interest your major foreign policy address at Notre Dame University last May 22. In that speech, you "reaffirmed America's commitment to human rights as a fundamental tenet of our foreign policy," said that "our policy must reach out to the developing nations to alleviate suffering and to reduce the chasm between the world's rich and poor," and further that "we can no longer expect that the other 150 nations will follow the dictates of the powerful, but we must continue — confidently — our efforts to inspire, and to persuade, and to lead."
We agree with all of these statements.
We also believe that a decision to withdraw the United States from the International Labor Organization would be contrary to your statements at Notre Dame, inimical to the long range foreign policy interests of the United States and its leadership position in the world and against the broad policy lines which you laid down in your speech to the United Nations on March 17.
On November, 1975, Secretary of State Kissinger wrote to the ILO saying, "This letter constitutes notice of the intention of the United States to withdraw from the International Labor Organization." Interestingly enough, the letter went on to say, "The United States does not desire to leave ILO. The United States does not expect to do so. We do intend to make every possible effort to promote the conditions which will facilitate our continued participation."
The ILO Constitution requires a member State to give two years notice of its intention to withdraw from the Organization. If you take no action to cancel the 1975 letter, the United States will cease to remain a member of the oldest Specialized Agency in the United Nations system, as of November 6 of this year.
Before making your final decision, we urge you to take the following matters into consideration:
1. Human Rights:
ILO is an institution which has a workable mechanism that actually brings about legislative change at the national level in the field of human rights. This mechanism is tripartite (workers, employers and governments) in character and celebrated its 50th anniversary this year. In 1976, 45 different countries changed 80 pieces of national legislation as a result of ILO pressure and brought that legislation into line with ILO social and human rights standards. In 1975, 55 countries amended 94 pieces of legislation. Over the past 14 years, approximately 1,100 national laws were changed because of the ILO. In 1969, ILO received the Nobel Peace Prize for its work in human rights. We should not give up such an effective forum as the ILO when it is, in fact, so efficiently performing the very tasks in the field of human rights which you are urging should be carried out.
2. Basic Needs:
On March 17, when you spoke at the United Nations, you said, "the United States will be advancing proposals aimed at meeting the basic human needs of the developing world and helping them to increase their productive capacity." ILO developed, over the past 8 years, a basic needs strategy designed to help the poor of the world. This strategy was unanimously adopted at the ILO's World Employment Conference in June of last year. Since then, this development thesis has been strongly supported by the Non-Aligned Conference, the UN General Assembly, the World Bank and at last month's OECD Ministerial Meeting. Both Governor Gilligan and Ambassador Young spoke at different UN meetings in Geneva recently and said the U.S. strongly supported the basic needs concept. In 1975, we in the Congress reshaped the U.S. bilateral aid program in order to direct that assistance to the poor of the world.
We have been pleased to see our idea pushed so aggressively and so successfully by ILO on a global basis. It would seem to us to be a mistake for the United States to abandon the Organization mainly responsible for this new development strategy.
3. Israel
There has been justified criticism of the action taken by the ILO Conference in 1974 when it adopted a resolution criticizing Israel's handling of the occupied territories without following ILO investigative procedures. As you are aware, however, ILO has held four world conferences in the past 14 months and not one of these conferences has adopted any resolution concerning Israel,or Zionism, or the Middle East. Israel has not given notice of its intent to withdraw from ILO nor has it taken a position in favor of U.S. withdrawal. In fact, in June 1975, an Israeli workers' representative was elected to the ILO Governing Body for a three-year term. In November 1976, Israel was elected to a seat on 5 of the ILO's 10 Industrial Committees which deal with such subjects as textiles, chemical industries, inland transport, etc.
4. U.S. Allies:
A Major U.S. objective in ILO over the past 12 months has been to ensure that its "natural allies" would stand together with the United States on political issues which might arise in ILO. This objective has been clearly achieved. Again and again, OECD countries have spoken out in support of United States positions and have voted in the same fashion. As recently as July 12, the foreign ministers of the EEC announced they would make a joint plea to the Secretary of State that the United States remain in ILO. (They believe that a U.S. withdrawal from ILO might lead ultimately to the destruction of the United Nations.) Certainly, if the United States leaves, many of our supporters and allies at ILO will feel as though they are being deserted.
5. Tripartism
The United States has been concerned about a weakening of tripartism. In fact, much progress has been made in this area. In 1976, the ILO Conference adopted an international convention on tripartite consultation, which called for the adoption of national consultative machinery by member States to strengthen the tripartite mechanism. The U.S. worker delegate to the Governing Body was elected Vice President of the 1977 Conference. A strong resolution on tripartism was adopted unanimously by that same Conference. The Canadian worker spokesman in the Governing Body was elected, on June 23, to be Chairman of the Governing Body, the first time in ILO history that someone other than a government representative has been so honored.
6. Structure
The word "structure" is shorthand for an attempt by the newer ILO members from the Third World to increase their power and influence in the decision making organs of the 58-year-old ILO. During this year's Conference, the United States Delegation urged an amendment to ILO's procedures which the Third World agreed to talk about on condition that their amendments were also discussed. The United States Delegation refused this request and, therefore, was not successful in achieving its immediate goal. The Conference did agree, however, to set up a special working party to discuss the entire "structure" problem and report back to the ILO Conference next June. The United States delegate, in plenary, stated that the United States "disassociated itself from the report," even though this meant that the Delegation, by this statement, isolated itself from all other member States.
In conclusion, Mr. President, we believe that the U.S. notice of withdrawal has certainly had a healthy impact on member States as well as on ILO itself. The situation which the United States complained about in the Kissinger letter has improved considerably. ILO is by no means perfect but much that is favorable to the U.S. position has been accomplished in the past 21 months.
We believe that a U.S. withdrawal would have a major negative impact on our foreign policy objectives, would be construed by many as a trend towards isolationism and would be considered to be inconsistent with your frequently stated objectives in the area of human rights. A U.S. departure would also seriously cripple ILO and gradually enable it to be dominated by forces unfriendly to the United States objectives.
For all these reasons, we do believe that the United States should remain in ILO, should fight there for its beliefs and should try to further strengthen the Organization, its aims and objectives, through an even more active and positive leadership role than we have played in the past.
Respectfully,
George McGovern, Charles H. Percy, Jacob K. Javits, Edward M. Kennedy, Edmund Muskie, Harrison Williams, Thomas Eagleton, Alan Cranston.
Hubert H. Humphrey, Gary Hart, Dick Clark, John C. Culver, Paul S. Sarbanes, Lee Metcalf, Mike Gravel.