DOCUMENT ESUME 02248 - A1452436] Need for U.S. Objectires in the International Labor Organization. ID-77-12; B-168767. ay 16, 1977. 54 pp. Repo.t to Sen. Abraham Ribicoff, Chairman, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; by Elmer B. Staats, Comptroller General. Issue Area: International Economic and Military Programs: U.S. Participation in Activities of International Organizations (609). Contact: International Div. Budget Function: International Affairs: Conduct of Foreign Affairs (152); Commerce and Transportation (400); Education, Manpower, and Social Services: Other Labor Services (505). Organization Concerned: Department of Commerce; Department of Labor; Department of State; American Federation of Labor ani Congress of International Organizations; International Labor Organization. Congressional elevance: Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. GAO has issued several reports since 1970 on U.S. involvement in the I:iternational Labor Organization (ILO) and has made recommendations to the Secretary of State with which he has agreed, but has done nothing about. The ILO, established in 1919 to set standards which improve working conditions, generate employment, and promote human rights, is a tripartite organization, whose U.S. delegation is selected by the Department of Commerce and the AFL-CIO. Findings/Conclusions: U.S. relations with the ILO have deteriorated to such an extent that in November 1975, the United States gave notice that it intends to withdraw unless ILO can resolve its problems. The Departments of Commerce, Labor, and State have objectives for U.S. participation, bt there is little coordination of these objectives. U.S. agencies have taken steps to improve participation only since the notice of intent to withdraw. The Labor Department has begun to attempt to obtain additional budget data, has increased analysis staff, and has recognized the need for effective evaluation of ILO projects. The Labor Department steps should e coordinated with the other concerned agencies and groups. A statement of long-term objectives of the agencies would help them formulate a recommendation to the President as to whether or not to withdraw. Recommendations: Overall objectives for U.S. participation should be developed and coordinated among the interested groups, especially employer and worker groups. A strategy for achieving the objectives should be developed, and a high level of interest should be encouraged so that recent U.S. initiative could be further developed. (Author/SS) co REPORT TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS - S o BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED S1ATES Need For U.S. Objectives In The International Labor Organization Departments of State, Labor, and Commerce This report (1) discusses the U.S. notice of the International intent to withdraw from questions Labor Organization, (2) the U.S. Government's commitment to effective parti- mem- cipation, (3) analyzes the constraints tobudget, bers influencing the Organization's (4) points out the need to improve evaluation of its programs, and (5) recommends the de- and implementation velopment, coordination, U.S. of overall objectives for participation in the Organization. 10.7-12 nMAY 16, 1977 OMPTROLLMR NIKRAL OF TM UNIED IATI 'AI4NTONT . 0O UI B-168767 The Honorable Abraham Riticoff Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate Dear Mr. Chairman: This is our report on the International Labor Organiza- tion in response to your request of July 30, 1976. Your request advised us of the Committee's examination of United States involvement in international organizations and asked that our previous work in this area be updated. We share your concern that U.S. participation in inter- national organizations receive adequate priority within the U.S. Government. U.S. participation in the International Labor Organization has been one of crisis management alternated with periods of low interest levels. Thus, if the United States does remain a member of the Organization, U.S. participation easily could revert to the low levels of interest demonstrated in the past. This report centers on the U.S. notice of intent tc withdraw from the Organization. In order to expedite the report, we did not follow our usual practice of obtaining written comments on the draft report from the agencies affected. We did, however, discuss the draft report with key officials of those agencies and considered their views in finalizing the report. This report contains several recommendations to the Departments of State, Labor, and Commerce concerning objec- tives for U.S. participation in the Organization. As you know, section 236 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 requires the head of a Federal agency to submit a written statement on actions taken on our recommendations to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Operations within 60 days and to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations with the agency's first request for appropriation made more than 60 days after the date of the report. B-168767 As agreed with your Office, we plan to distrbute this roport to the agencies involved and other appropriate con- gressional committees. If we can be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincer y yours, Comptroller General of the United States 2 COMPTROLLER GENERALe b NEED FOR U.S. OBJECTIVES REPORT TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE IN THE INTERNATIONAL LABOR ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS ORGANIZATION Departments of State, Labcr, and Commerce DIGEST In its report on the International Labor Organ- ization, in 1970, GAO told the Congress that the United States lacks definitive and measur- able objectives for participation in the Organization and recommended to the Secretary of State that the Government develop such objectives and a plan for achieving them. GAO also recommended to the Secretary that the Government obtain better budget, program, and operational data; and make more effective analyses and evaluations of the Organization's projects and programs. The Department of State generally agreed with these recommendations. GAO repeated these recommendations in a follow-up report issued in 1974. The Chairman, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, asked GAO to update its previous reviews of U.S. participation in the International Labor Organization and other international organizations. On the basis of this review GAO concludes that, despite the agreements by State, there has been virtually no action based on GAO's recommendations after 7 years. In the 2-year period 1976-77, the U.S. contri- bution to the Organization budget was $40.1 million of its total of $160.6 million. U.S. contributions for calendar years 1946-1977 will total $157.6 million, with more than half of this amount assessed since calendar year 1971. GAO reported in 1970 that U.S. policy objectives relating to both political and technical assis- tance considerations were defined broadly and were not measurable. U.S. relations with the Organization have deteriorated to such an extent since then that in November 1975 the United States gave notice that it intends to ID-77-12 ID-77-12 mt. r Upon removal, the rport cover dit*should be noted hereon. withdraw from thr Organization unless its prob- lems can be resolved. At the same time the Uiited States promised to give high priority -o promoting conditions which will facilitate its continued participation. Today, more than 1 year into a 2-year waiting period before withdrawal becomes final, and having stated the United States will do all it can to resolve its problems with the Organization, the Federal agencies responsible for U.S. participation have not developed an overall statement of U.S. objectives for the Organization. The Organization was established in 1919 to set standards which improve work 4 ng conditions, generate employment, and promote human rights. In recent years, it has undertaken a program of technical assistance to developing countries. The International Labor Organization is a tri- partite organization. That is, each member sends a delegation representing overnment, employers, and workers of that country. The U.S. employer and worker representatives are chosen by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO. The De- partments of State, Labor, and Commerce share responsibility for U.S. Government participation. (See ch. 1.) Each of the three agencies has, in varying de- grees, objectives for this participation reflect- ing that agency's interest. They developed their objectives largely independently. Generally, there has been no consultation among these agencies, the U.S. Mission in Geneva, or with employer and worker groups. The three Federal agencies should continue to formulate their own objectives in pursuing their interests with the Organization, but there should be coordination among them to make sure that agencies' objectives are in harmony with overall U.S. objectives. To attain maximum benefit from U.S. participation in the Organization, objectives should be coordinated by the three agencies, with the U.S. Mission, and with employer and worker representatives. (See ch. 3.) ii U.S. participation in the Organization has been one of crisis management alternated with periods of low interest levels. As each crisis with te Organization subsided, U.S. attention subsided. Thus, if the United States does remain a member, U.S. participation easily could revert to the low levels of interest demonstrated in the past. (See ch. 2.) U.S. agencies have taken steps to improve U.S. participation in the Organization only since the notice of intent to withdraw. However, no long- term commitment has been demonstrated. (See ch. 4.) In its report of 1970, GAO found U.S. offi- cials did not have sufficient information on the Organization's programs and recommended they obtain from it more complete and informative budget and program proposals and make a thorough analysis of the data. However, the Organizz- tion's planning and budgeting documents today are still too general to permit meaning- ful analysis. The Labor Departmient has begun to take some steps to obtain information in addition to that contained in the budget documents and has increased the staff in the section responsible for the analysis. These initiatives are being implemented and could prove effective. (See ch. 5.) GAO also recommended in 1970 that the U.S. agencies make more effective evaluations of the Organization's projects. However, they have shown little initiative in this regard. Basically, their efforts have been limited to the preparation of position papers on Organization meeting agenda items. The Labor Department recognizes this need for more effective evaluation and plans to improve its evaluation capability. (See ch. 6.) GAO believes that the above initiatives by the Department of Lab are important initial steps and that, as ir case of the preparation of objectives, efforts be coordinated with the Departments State and Commerce as well as with the employer and worker groups. The U.S. agencies should clearly state their Tur Sheet iii in long-term objectives for U.S. participation Such statement will enable the Organizatifn. the agencies to help formulate a recommendation to the President whether or not to withdraw from the Organization, because the decision will be based, in part, on what the United States will gain by continuing its membership. GAO therefore recommends that before November 1977, the Departments of State, Labor, and Commerce: -- Develop overall objectives for U.S. par- ticipation in the Organization. -- Coordinate these cojectives with other interested aroups, namely, the employer and worker representatives. -- Develop a strategy for achieving the objectives, making sure that, if the United States remains a member, it main-- tains a high level of interest so that recent initiatives by U.S. agencies can be further developed and carried out. procedure Although SAO did not follow its usual the draft of obtaining formal agency comments, officials of the report was discussed with key These officials stated they agencies concerned. believe that the development and implementation of program objectives would give the impression remain that the United States had decided to Organization. The basic objective of in the U.S. agencies in the short term is to reverse Organi- the trend toward politicization of the zation. GAO believes that the continued lack of long-range U.S. program ooectives raises U.S. auestions about the seriousness of the of stated commitment to improve the quality U.S. participation. Agencies officials agreed with GAO's conclusio- interest that without continued hiqh-level U.S. U.S. participation would deteriorate. iv Contents Page DIGEST CHAPTER 1 ORGANIZATION OF AND U.S. REPRESENTATION XN THE INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION 1 Description of the ILO 2 ILO budget and U.S. contributions 2 U.S. representation to the ILO 5 Scope of review 5 2 U.S. INTENTION TO WITHDRAW FROM ILO 7 Long-term dissatisfaction 7 Study of U.S. participation 8 Effect of withdrawal notice-- cautious optimism 9 Conclusion 11 3 U.S. POLICY OBJECTIVES NOT CLEARLY DEVELOPED 12 ILO priorities 12 State Department objectives are political 12 Labor Department objectives are being redefined 13 Commerce objectives are not specific 15 U.S. Mission is nct aware of agency objectives 16 Conclusion 17 4 U.S. PARTICIPATION' IN' ILO 18 Coordinatirg committee established 18 btate Department's commitment is uncertain 19 Labor Department's new initiatives 21 Commerce's role is limited 22 ILO meetings and conferences 23 Conclusion 24 5 ILO PLAN', PROGRAM AND BUDGET CONSTRAINTS ON ANALYSIS 25 Planning and budgeting process 25 Constraints on member influence 28 Conclusion 30 CHAPTER 6 EVALUATION OF ILO PROGRAMS STILL INADEQUATE 31 ILO, .N. evaluation efforts-- some progress noted 31 U.S. evaluation efforts are limited 34 Conclusion 36 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 38 Conclusions 38 Recommendations 39 Agencies comments 40 APPENDIX I Letter dated July 30, 1976, from the Senate Committee on Government Operations 41 II U.S. Delegation to the 61st Session of the International Labor Conference, June 1976 42 III Notice of U.S. intent to wJthdraw from the International Labor Organization dated November 5 1975 48 IV Officials primarily responsible for managing U.S. participation in the International Labor Organization 53 ABBREVIATIONS AFL-CIO American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations GAO General Accounting Office ILO International Labor Organization UNDP United Nations Development Program CHAPTER 1 ORGANIZATION OF AND U.S. REPRESENTATION IN THE INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION with the Inter- The United States has been involved its (ILO) since founding in 1919 national Labor Organization of the Organization in Washington, D.C., and became a member 1975 that "American in 1934. The Secretary of State said in deeper, than relations with the ILO are older, and perhaps In July 1976, with any other international organization."(formerly the the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Committee on Government Operations) asked us to update our U.S. participation in ILO and two previous reviews 1/ of other organizations. (See app. I.) agencies The ILO is the oldest of the major specialized has a tri- It is unique in that it in the United Nations. of member nations must include partite structure. Delegations that is, nongovernmental and governmental representation, spokesmen. In employers and workers as well as government delegates are not theory, at least, the employer and worker independently. controlled by their government and can vote before Both employers and workers must be represented either can vote. to This tripartite structure, while contributing been the under- ILO's durability and usefulness, has also the lying factor in the majority of frictions within the basic Organization. U.S. officials believe that question of tripartism is complicated by universality, systems. It is almost the inclusion of all governmental to the impossible to have truly tripartite delegations of membership. This is most ILO, which has universality such as apparent in monolithic governmental structures, nations. problem with ocher the Soviet Union. It is also a countries have not For example, some of the less developed erosion of not yet settled on forms of government. The concern tripartite representation has led to increasing regarding U.S. participation in the ILO. Organiza- 1/ "U.S. Participation in the International Labor tion Not Effctively Managed," Dec. 22, 1970, B-168767, U.S. and 'Numerous Improvements Still Needed in Managing July 18, Participation in International Organizations," 1974, B-168767. DESCRIPTION O THE ILO The Organization was established to set international generate labor standards which improve working conditions, years, it employment, and promote human rights. In recent to has also undertaken a program of technical assistance developing countries. ILO is composed As shown in the following diagram, the Governing Conference, the Body, of the International Labor Labor Office (Sectetariat). The and the InternationalConference mees annually and drafts International Labor conven- and adopts international standards, in the form of have tions or recommendations. When ratified, conventions the force of international treaties. The recommendations are guidelines to recommended courses of action and are The Conference also approves not subject to ratification. to serve on the ILO program and budget and elects members the Governing Body. The Governing Body acts as a board cf directors,guidance,elects the Director General and gives him instructions and Labor and provides general supervision of the International 56 members--28 repre- Office. The governing body comprises of employees, and 14 repre- senting governments, 14 representing of "Chief senting workers. Of the 28 governments, 10 are States which has, Industrial Importan'e," including the United 18 are elected for 3-year a nonelectivo seat. The remaining terms at the annual conference. The International Labor Office has a total staff of headquarters 3,200 which is divided about evenly between its in Geneva, Switzerland, and the field offices. ILO BUDGET AND U.S. CONTRIBUTIONS Programs in the ILO regular budget are totally financed from by member contributions. Other programs are funded one moneys received from other organizations, the major being the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), which A comparison of the are not included in the regular budget. is shown last four biennium budgets and U.S. contributions on the following page. 2 1P a-. 3udget U. contribution - --------- ----- (millions) 1970-71 $ 59.7 $ 14.9 1972-73 69.7 17.4 1974-75 93.6 22.6 1976-77 a/160.6 40.1 a/Includes a $16.6 million supplement approved infor1976. $144 mil- The original budget adopted in June 1975, was lion. ILO officials told us the large increase between the last two budgets was mainly due to the (1) effect of inflation,to (2) currency fluctuations of the Swiss franc in relation the dollar, and (3) cost of occupying the new building. In 1976 there were 134 member states and each member's contribution was at least 0.03 percent of the total annual regular budget. The United States contributes at the maximum rate of 25 percent. 1/ Although the U.S. contribution rate has remaired constant since 1970; other contributors' rankings and rates have changed, as shown below for the 13 largest contributors. Assessment Percent Peracent Ran in 1976 1970 i .00 25.00 1 United States 2 Soviet Union (note a) 12.11 10.00 6.73 4.9b 5 Germany 8 Japan 6.25 2.64 France 6.07 6.07 4 United Kingdom 5.82 9.14 3 4.84 2.80 7 Peoples Republic of China (note b) Italy 3.43 2.35 10 3.36 3.36 6 Canada Ukraine 1.69 1.35 c/13 Soviet a/Byelorussia and the Ukraine, 2 of 16 republics which make up the Union, are themselves dues paying menbers of the ILO. The combined as- sessment for the Soviet Union and the two republics was 14.27 percent of the regular ILO budget in 1976. b/The Peoples Republic of China has never paid its assessed dues. c/The Ukraine ranked 13th in 1970, and India ranked 9th? India dropped to 13th place in 1976. 1/Public Law 92-544 limits U.S. contributions to 25 percent. 3 INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION EACH MEMBER OVERNMENT sends 4 Deleptesr: 2 Geverment 1 Employer 1 Worker to the annali INTERNATIONAL LABOR CONFERENCE which exales scal problems and adepts Cenventions and Recommendatons for submisslon to Govormonts Electoral Colles f the C rece elect the GOVERNING BODY 28 Governments 14 Employers 14 Workers whLch supervises the werk of the Illt~ltlr tll Technical Co-petion ulicatn INTERNATIONAL CENTER INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED TECHNIiCAL FOR LABOR STUDIES AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING GENEVA TURIN _ 4 U.S. REPRESENTATION TO THE ILO U.S. Government delegates to the International Labor Conference are appointed by the Secretary of State. The two delegates are the Special Assistant for International Labor Affairs to the Secretary of State and the Special Assistant for ILO Affairs to the Secretary of Labor. The latter delegate is also appointed by the President as the U.S. representative to the Governing Body. An alternate delegate is from the Department of Commerce. Employer and worker delegates to the Governing Body and the Conference are also appointed by the Secretary of State but are chosen for appointment by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). At the time of our review, the employer delegate was the Chairmen of the Board of IFCO Industries, Inc., Cle land, Ohio. The worker delegate was the International L.presentative of the AFL-CIO. There has been a complete turnover in U.S. delegates to the annual ILO conference since our 1970 report. Delegates are assisted by advisors selected by the Secretary of State, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFL-CIO, respectively. App. II lists the U.S. delegation to the June 1976 International Labor Conference.) Further assistance to delegates is provided by the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, and staffs of U.S. agencies. The Department of State has responsibility for the political aspects of the ILO and also reviews the ILO budget because the U.S. contribution is financed from its appropriation. The Department of Labor and, to a lesser extent, the Department of Commerce have responsibility for the technical aspects of ILO affairs. The U.S. Mission in Geneva has a full-time Labor Attache for ILO affairs who provides the day-to-day contact with the Organization. SCOPE OF REVIEW Our review was made at the Departments of State, Labor, and Commerce in Washington, D.C., and at the U.S. Mission to International Organizations in Geneva, Switzerland. We talked with representatives of the U.S. Government, as well as with the employer and worker delegates to the Interna- tional Labor Conference and with officials at the AFL-CIO 5 and the Chamber of Commerce. The U.S. Mission in Geneve also arranged for us to meet with a number of ILO officials. We also visited a developing country receiving ILO techni- cal assistance. Our work was directed primarily at the manner in which these agencies responsible for U.S. Government participation in ILO were carrying out their responsibilities. We did not evaluate the manner in which ILO carries out its activities although we did study its planning, budgeting, and evalu- ation processes as they related to member country partipa- tion. 6 CHAPTER 2 U.S. INTENTION TO WITHDRAW FROM ILO On November 5, 1975, the Secretary of State notified the ILO Director General of the U.S. intention to withdraw from the ILO. (See app. III.) The notification was agreed to by both Government ad non-Government participants. The United States maintained that it does not desire to leave the ILO and does not expect to do so, but intends "to make every possible effort to promote the conditions which will facilitate our continued participation." However, failing this, the United States is, in fact, prepared to depart. LONG-TERM DISSATISFACTION The idea of the United States leaving the ILO is not new; however, the latest serious consideration of with- drawal began after the June 1975 International Labor Ccnference. According to U.S. officials. dissatisfaction with ILO had been increasing sirce the early 1950s, when the Soviet Union rejoined. The officials believe that Communist and some other members, lacking a truly tri- partite representation, skewed ILO activity toward government domination, and that the Organization has become a forum for political confrontation. At the June 1975 Conference, the Palestine Liberation Organization was granted observer status. This prompted a walkout by the U.S. delegation, although Government and employer delegates subsequently returrned and participated in the Conference. U.S. officials we talked to said the Palestine Liberation Organization issue is commonly looked upon as the last straw but is actually only the tip of the iceberg. The U.S. withdrawal is based more broadly on the belief that ILO has drifted away from its original purposes and is increasingly unable to deal objectively with issues basic to its charter. An informal U.S. Government study con- cluded that serious, longstanding problems in the LO are primarily political and have diverted the ILO from its basic objectives, principles, and methods of operation. The ILO Conference and, to a lesser but increasing extent, the Governing Body, have also been diverted from substantive work. Despite the emphasis in the U.S. withdrawal notice on the increasing politicization of the ILO, it is important to note that the ILO has always been a very political 7 organization. We understand that one of the unstated reasons for establishing the ILO was to comaat radicalism in labor unions. Today, the United States is criticizing the increasing number of unfriendly political actions being taken by the ILO. Some U.S. officials believe that U.S. participation in ILO has been given such a low priority that te situa- tion simply cannot continue. The Congress withheld the U.S. contribution in 1970 when a Russian was appointed Assistant Director-General. This had some shock effect in 1970 and resulted in some short-term improvements. On the recommendation of the AFL-CIO, the Congress again withheld the U.S. contribution in 1975 when the Palestine Liberation Organization was granted observer status at the annual Conference. However, it was thought the tactic would not be effective a second time. STUDY OF U.S. PARTICIPATION After the 1975 annual Conference, the Departments of State, Labor, and Commerce undertook an informal study of U.S. participation in the ILO to identify U.S. interests, trends in the ILO, issues involved with remaining in or withdrawing from the ILO, and alternative courses of action in either event. The draft study, which was never formally approved, was to serve as a basis for tentatively deciding whether the United States should serve notice of intention to withdraw from the ILO. It was to be followed by a fuller study in cooperation with the workers and employers through the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce with regard to continued U.S. participation. The draft study noted that ILO political problems in the past had reflected primarily Eest-Weat conflicts, but that North-South (developed vs. developing world) issues had also recently become politicized. Seven problem areas were listed in the draft study. 1. The increasing politicization of ILO. 2. The double standard in the application of ILO conventions. 3. Disregard of ILO rules and due process procedures. 4. Efforts to radically charge the structure of and power relationships within ILO. 5. Toleration of irrelevant political attacks on members in the Conference. 8 6. The growing tendency to inject U.N. politi- cal resolutions into the deliberations of ILO. 7. The weakness of Western European and other Western-oriented member states on East-West issues. The draft study recommended that a notice of intent to withdraw be issued. This was also the position of the worker and employer groups. The letter of intent to withdraw, issued in November 1975, thus had full U.S. tripartite support. It presented four matters of fundamental concern to the United States--(l) the erosion of tripartite representation, (2) selective concern for human rights, (3) disregard of due process, and (4) the increasing politicization of ILO. Basically, these covered the same problem areas identified in the U.S. Government draft study. We were told that reaction to the letter ranged from belief that the United States had irrevocably decided to leave ILO and there was nothing anyone could do, to the belief that this was just art of a diplomatic game, and the United States wasn't rLally serious about withdrawing. The misinterpretation of the actual intent was of great concern to United States officials. Success in resolving U.S. problems with ILO was viewed as depending in large measure on the cooperation of other members. In January 1976, the President appointed a personal representative to under- take a special mission to capitals of major industrial nations. He was to convey the message that the United States was serious about trying to correct the problems but that it would indeed withdraw if this failed. EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL NOTICE-- CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM Many officials with whom we talked believe that, as promised in the withdrawal notice, the United States has put forth greater effort in working with ILO. The three Government agencies most concerned with ILO matters-- State, Labor, and Commerce--have taken steps to improve their respective participation. Also, the President established a cabinet-level committee in November 1975 to coordinate the formulation and implementation of U.S. policy toward ILO. Various officials we talked with expressed the belief that, in a sense, implicit in the tripartite agreement to 9 give notice of intent to withdraw from the ILO was that the United States must also get its house in order. The 1975 draft study acknowledged that this country had not been exerting much effort in ILO matters and must share responsi- bility for the drift in the Organization. Our review also shows that U.S. participation has been one of cric&s management alternated with periods of neglect. Generally, the improved U.S. participatiun since the withdrawal letter was submitted is due to the appearance of a high-level interest and commitment. However, the durability of this interest and, thus, the effectiveness of these improvements have not yet been proven. During 1976, the Unite& es has worked toward developing a consultation pro. _ with like-minded ILO members, and U.S. officials are encouraged by the results. There have been consultations between these members prior to ILO meetings at which positions have been discussed and areas of agreement identi!ied. This process has re- sulted in these members standing tog2ther on ILO issues of common interests to a remarkable extent--a solidarity perhaps not possible without the submission of the U.S. notice of intent to withdraw. Encouraged by the resuts of visits to European and other capitals in early 1976 the cabinet-level committee recommended the visits be extended to other members. Late in 1976, a U.S. Government delegate to the Governing Body visited several Asian member nations in an effort to identify areas of common interest. A similar visit to African capitals was completed in January 1977 and one to Latin America is planned for later in the year. No Communist member was elected president of a major ILO conference during 1976--an important part of U.S. concern about the erosion of tripartism. To the United States, such an election would be accepting a representative in a leading role from a country where the workers' nd employers' groups are under the domination of governments. This domina- tion is inconsistent with ILO principles. The Palestine Liberation Organization was gran'ed observer statue t the World Employment Conference. However, disruptive political matters played a lesser part in 1976 ILO meetings, partly because of such unusual cir- cumstances as the World Employment Conference meeting con- 10 currently with the annual Conference and an agreement not to introduce new resolutions at the annual Conference. Some officials we talked with noted a possible new responsiveness by the Secretariat to U.S. interests, thus somewhat balancing the influence of pressure groups that had come to dominate ILO proceedings. The ILO Secretariat has been receptive both to U.S. efforts to learn more about the programing process and specific U.S. program interests and has decided to adopt the Agency for International Development's project evaluation system. (See ch. 6.) U.S. officials stress that a final decision on U.S. with- drawal, which will depend in part on where ILO is headed, will probably not be made until the end of the 2-year waiting period in November 1977. The letter of intent to withdraw was a tripartite effort, and the final decision to act must be agreed on by government, worker, and employer groups. Officials pointed out that there is no list of items which ILO must agree to and that any such specification would signal whether the United States will actually pull out, thus negating any leverage that the notice has provided. Most of the people we talked to expressed opt imism over the developments that have taken place but cautioned that some things may have been motivated by a desire to placate the United States. They are well aware that, if the United States decides to retain, things could rapidly deteriorate to the conditions of 1975. CONCLUSIONt The executive branch made studies of U.S. participation in ILO in 1956 and 1971. The third, and most recent, an informal study made prior to issuing the letter of intent to withdraw, noted: "If it is decided to continue US. participation, a greater commitment to supporting that decision will be necessary to avoid a fourth repeti- tion of this exercise." (..e., a fourth study of U.S. participation in and possible withdrawal from the ILO.) We believe the United States must also evaluate its own participation and make a judgment as to whether it is finally committed to a serious and continuing effort in ILO. 11 CHAPTER 3 U.S. POLICY OBJECTIVES NOT CLEARLY DEVELOPED We reported in 1970 that U.S. political and develop- mental assistance policy objectives for IO were broadly defined and difficult to measure. We recommended that the Departments of State, Labor, and Commerce frame de- finitive and measurable objectives and develop and im- plement a firm policy and a workable plan for achieving such objectives. Since then, U.S. relations with ILO have deteriorated to such an extent that the United States in 1975 gave no- tice that it intends to withdraw from the organization unless certain problems can be resolved. Today, less than a year before U.S. withdrawal becomes final, no overall statement of U.S. objectives for ILO has been developed. ILO PRIORITIES The ILO has stated that its ultimate goal is to give effective service to all its members both large and small. Its aim is to constantly improve the lot nd enhance the dignity of workers everywhere. Accordingly, it has concentrated its main emphasis on five major themes: 1. Mass poverty, employment, and training. 2. Working conditions and environment. 3, Tripartism, industrial relations, and participation. 4. Planning, performance, and evaluation of social security. 5. Fundamental human rights. STATE DEPARTMENT OBJECTIVES ARE POLITICAL State officials told us that the Department's objective for ILO is to work toward alleviating the conditions noted in the U.S. lett¢ of intent to withdraw--the erosion of tripartism, selective concern for human rights, disregard for due process, and increasing politicization of ILO. 12 In a sense, State's objectives are short term and are decide tied to November 1977, when the United States must point whether to actually withdraw from ILO. Officials out, however, that even if sufficient improvements take place in the four areas of the withdrawal letter and the will United States remains a member, these areas of concern con- never completely disappear. That is, these political siderations will always be an element in ILO. Indeed, a 1975 rU.S. Government draft study concluded that U.S. interests in ILO have been and remain primarily in the areas of foreign policy and politics. From our discussions with various officials, it appeared that the link between State's ILO role and U.S. foreign policy is a matter of some question. The employer represen- tative told us his impression was that a basic tenet of U.S. foreign policy was to work out international problems through U.N. specialized agencies and thereby, through U.S. participation in ILO. He has unsuccessfully sought to find more specific objectives and observed that past U.S. participation in ILO meetings has been passive and hardly consistent with trying to influence ILO objectives. A worker representative said he assumes that U.S. partic- ipation in ILO has some overall foreign policy objective but been able to that no one he has talked with at State hastreated identify it. He said ILO has always been as a "stepchild" at State, never really fitting into all that state does, and that ILO matters are handled ii a routine fashion. LABOR DEPARTMENT OBJECTIVES ARE BEING REDEFINED We reviewed several docunents at the Department of Labor which stated objectives for ILO. In October 1975, at about the time the United States decided to submit the letter of intent to withdraw, the Labor Department drafted the following ILO objectives: (1) establish criteria and goals for continued U.S. participation, correct the conditions which prompted the letter, and improve U.S. effectiveness and (2) advise the President on whether to withdra. toward the end ot the 2-year period. Six months lEter, in May 1976, Labor prepared an issue paper titled "U.S. Relations with the International Labor Organization." The paper presented some basic objectives for the period until November 1977. 13 1. Strengthen ties with other industrial ILO members. the 2. Establish a new relationship with developing countries. 3. Seek ways to get more direct benefit from U.S. participation in ILO. objectives, The most recent Labor Department's basicthan the previous dated August 1976, are more forward looking two statements. "To improve the effectiveness of U.S. participation in the ILO through efforts designed to (1) better prepare members of U.S. delegations, and (2) exert greater influence over the technical content of ILO programs to make them more effective and, in particular, more responsive to U.S. needs." would appear These basic objectives, if achieved, participation in to set the stage for improved U.S. (1) developing detailed ILO. They include such things as program proposals in cooperation with similar-thinking Body session members for presentation to the Governing (2) providing program considering the next ILO budget and plan during its suggestions for the ILO medium-term basic to influ- drafting stage. These things, considered thus, direction, encing the Organization's program and in the past, have not been done with any effectiveness that the The Labor Department believes, however, including development of new institutional arrangements, ILO programs, must those for the systematic evaluation of made on the future of be deferred until a decision Tois do would jeopardize U.S. participation in ILO. letter otherwise of intent to withdraw by the credibility of the U.S. has decided to remain stimulating speculation that the U.S. of new institu- in ILO (as evidenced by the establishment evaluation). For tional arrangements for long-term program part limited its initia- this reason, Labor has for the most of an evaluation tives Lor the time being to the developmentif the U.S. remains framework which could be made operational in ILO. three broad program Labor has lso recently identified serve will best U.S. interests priorities which it believes programs which in ILO and which will seek to influence institutions in the (1) promote -nd strengthen democratic 14 labor field, (2) promote jobs and job skills, and (3) foster better work conditions and protection of workers on the job. According to Labor officials, the objectives and milestones had been developed within the Department's Office of Policy and Program Development without consultation with State, Commerce, or employer and worker groups. The priorities document was developed by Labor and circulated to the Depart- ments of State and Commerce upon completion. It is too soon to determine Labor's progress toward focusing on priorities and achieving its objectives. The last of the staff who will be working in this area were only hired during our review. Officials told us that the Department got too late a start to have any real effect on the 1978-79 biennium budget to be presented to the Governing Body at its February-March 1977 session. It will be next year before ILO updates its medium-term plan for the next 6 years, and Labor can expect to be in a position to exert some influence. COMMERCE OBJECTIVES ARE NOT SPECIFIC The Department of Commerce views its role in ILO affairs as an outgrowth of its responsibility to promote international commerce, domestic economic growth, and labor-management sta- bility. Commerce participation was agreed to in 1956 by the Departments of State and Labor. A 1976 paper prepared by a Commerce Department official recognizes several opportunities participation in ILO affords. Listed among the general opportunities were the promotion of a free enterprise philosophy and the protection of foreign and domestic industry interests of the United States by upgrad- ing worldwide labor standards. However, we were unable to find specific objectives for Commerce participation in ILO. Every 3 months the ILO Affairs coordinator prepares a list of tasks to be performed during the next quarter and reports on the outcome of tasks set for the preceeding 3 months. These tasks are reviewed and approved within the Bureau of Domestic Commerce and are not coordinated with other agencies. We were also told that specific Commerce interests for 1976 were evidenced through its activities at a number of ILO-sponsored conferences dealing with multinational enter- prises, maritime affairs, and world employment in addition to its attendance at the regularly scheduled meetings. The fact that the conferences were clearly in Commerce's area of responsibility simplified the task of identifying agency interests for 1976. Specific objectives for 1977 had not been identified at the time of our review. One official told us that the 15 Department hoped to be able to advise the President on whether the United States should withdraw from ILO. Another, charged with developing objectives in the past, told ue he was having difficulty identifying what the 1977 goals should be. Commerce and other officials we talked to pointed out that no effort was made to identify other possible areas where the Department might play a role. For example, one U.S. Government official pointed out that Commerce has not taken any initiatives in a very important area--promoting our system of a free market economy. One reason for our membership in ILO is the oppor- tunity it provides to show developing countries the advantages of our economic system. Although this role would logically fall to Commerce, it has not moved in this area. A Commerce Department official agreed with the observation but said that such a goal must first be agreed to by State and Labor. U.S. MISSION IS NOT AWARE OF AGENCY OBJECTIVES The U.S. Mission in Geneva, which provides day-to-day contact with international organizations, was not aware of any U.S. agency objectives beyond the political interests listed in the letter of intent to withdraw. The Labor attache, the prime contact with ILO, said he had never been asked to provide data on ILO program activities. The Mission has not been required to prepare annual policy statements, such as those required of U.S. Embassies and no statement of policy goals has been established for it. The Mission itself prepared a policy statement in the summary of 1976, which stated in the introduction that: "In the past, there has been no requirement upon the U.S. Mission in Geneva to prepare an annual policy statement such as is re- quired of embassies. This is understandable because of the unusual nature of the Geneva operation. Our semi-generic nature is also reflected in the fact that there has never been an agreed statement of policy goals for Geneva. "We in the Mission have regretted, however, the absense of an overall evaluation of what we are attempting to achieve, how well we are succeeding, what the obstacles are, and how we could improve our perfor- mance in achieving them. We have felt that such an analysis would assist the top management of the Mission to coordinate and improve the diverse activities of the 16 various sections, and would give the indi- vidual officers working in specialized fields a better appreciation of how their activities relate to other p.rts of the Mission operation and to overall U.S. policy objectives. "We have also felt tL such a statement would assist those in Washington respon- sible for directing and backstoppinq our day-to-day activities." CONCLUSION Except possibly for objectives associated with U.S. withdrawal, agencies have developed their objectives accord- ing to their own interests. The Department of State has short- term political objectives tied to the auestion of withdrawal from ILO. The Department of Labor developed objectives within the Department for U.S. participation in ILO. We were advised that Commerce's statement of objectives was the wrk of one staff member and was only approved by the Bureau of Domestic Commerce. There has been little consultation among the agencies, the U.S. Mission, or with employer and worker groups. Neither employer nor employee representatives have been informed what U.S. agencies objectives were beyond the political aims. Each agency should continue to formulate its own objectives in pursuing ILO interests, but there should be coordination among them to make sure that their objectives are in harmony with overall U.S. objectives. To achieve maximum benefit from U.S. participation in ILO, these objectives should be co- ordinated among the agencies, with the U.S. Mission, and with employer and worker representatives. 17 CHAPTER 4 U.S. .ARTICIPATIONk IN, ILO Our review has shown that since 1970 the Depcrtments :f State, Labor, and Commerce have taken steps to mprove their effectiveness in carrying out their ILO responsi- hilities. However, these improvements date from November 1975, when the United States submitted a notice of intent to withdraw from ILO. It is too soon to judge the effectiveness the changes outlined below; moreover, the agencies have responded to unusual circumstances and their actions have benefited from the high level of attention focused on ILO. The real test of U.S. commitment will come if, at the end of 2 years, the United States decides to remain a member. Various agency officials acknowledged that if the United States does not withdraw and the current high level of attention abates, there is the ,al possibility that U.S. initiatives may quickly porate and the United States will find itself in the sai.e situation that led to the withdrawal notice in the first place. COORDINATING COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED The cabinet-level committee established by the President in November 1975 is charged with coordinating the formulation and implementation of U.S. policy for ILO. The Committee is chaired by the Secretary of Labor and attended by Assistant Secretaries of State, Under and Assistant Secretaries of Commerce, and by the Chairman of the National Security Council. President George Meany of the AFL-CIO and Mr. Charles H. Smith, Jr., U.S. Employer Repre- sentative to ILO have also attended and participated in decisions. In December 1975, a working group chaired by the Government representative to ILO, a Labor employee, was established to assist this committee. Meetings of the group are attended by lower level representatives from State, Commerce, and private groups. The cabinet-level committee and the working group have met several times. However, the working group last met in April 1976 and appears to have fallen into disuse. One member expressed regret at this, saying it had been a useful means of coordination among the agencies and private groups 18 even apart from its job of assisting the committee. The chairman of the group told us he has been providing the support for the committee but observed that maybe the group should be called upon more often. STATE DEPARTMENT'S COMMITMENT IS UNCERTAIN The U.S. contribution to ILO is included in the State Department appropriation. State pursues its foreign policy interests by participating in ILO meetings and conferences, reviewing agenda items, and preparing position papers. It also reviews position papers prepared by other agencies, primarily Labor and Commerce, and provides input for these two areas where appropriate. State provides one of the Government delegates to the ILO conference, who holds the position of Special Assistant to the Secretary and Coordina- tor of International Labor Affairs. An Assistant Secretary of State is a member of the cabinet-level committee established to formulate U.S. policy for ILO. Either he or his deputy participates in all sessions of the committee. In July 1976, a new office of International Labor Organization Affairs, located in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, was established by the Department of State. This office handles day-to-day ILO mters and is to have a major role in formulating, impleme .g, and coordinating U.S. policy for ILO. Responsibilities of the Office were formerly handled by the Bureau's Agency Directorate for Labor and Women. In announcing the new office, State said: "Establishment of a separate office for ILO affairs will enable te Department to respond more effectively to develop- ments in U.S.-ILO relations, and to the increased level of interest in these relations expressed by Labor and Employer arid other non-government organizations, by members of Congress and by other groups." The office was increased from one to two full-time officers. One of them provides Washington backup during the Director's attendance at ILO meetings, thus alleviating what was considered a serious weakness. The ffice director, citing the inportance of continuity in the office, 19 requested State to fill one position with someone not sub- ject to rotation. However, both positions have been filled by foreign service officers who are subject to rotation. The United States views developing a dialog with other ILO members as an important part of its ILO efforts during 1976. It initially concentrated on consultations with industrialized western democracies to find areas of common interest and to coordinate positions before ILO meetings. Officials have been encouraged by the progress in this area. We were told these countries have shown a new willingness to speak out for their interests. Officials hope to expand the consultations to developing countries and to establish consultations as part of the responsi- bility of the U.S. Embassies in the various member countries. Despite these State Department activities, many people familiar with ILO and U.S. participation over a number of years were skeptical as to whether anything had really changed. Sample comments are paraphrased below. From the workers' group: -- There is a lot of motion in the State Department but I'm not sure it is any more than that. -- ILO always has been a stepchild at State. They treat it in a pro forma fashicr. -- State is still not putting out the effort it will take to stay on top of ILO matters. From the employer group: -- The Washington backup during ILO meetings is weak and inexperie:lced. This tends to lead to a non-aggressive approach. -- The individual people are committed, but the Depart- ment doesn't appear to be committed to its responsibil- ities. -- U.S. participation is passive. From Government officials: -- I'm not sure the reorganization (at State) is really any change--except they have one more staff member now. -- They are trying to solve a long-term problem in the short term. 20 -- I'm not sure there is a commitment beyond November 1977. LABOR DEPARTMENT'S NEW INITIATIVES The Department of Labor claims a leadership role in both policy and program matters affecting the ILO. Labor has the prime responsibility for the technical aspects of ILO activities, such as development assistance projects and international labor standards. The Bureau of Inter- national Labor Affairs, which coordinates Labor's inter- national activities, carries out these responsibilities. A Department of Labor official is the U.S. repre- Sentative for the ILO's Governing Body; the Department also provides the substitute U.S. representative, and one of the two Government delegates to the Annual ILO Conference, who serves as chairman of the U.S. delegation. At the direction of the President, the Secretary of Labor serves as chairman of the cabinet-level committee established to review U.S. participation in ILO after the withdrawal notice was submitted. Additionally, the Department has a role in selecting some delegation members and advisors to ILO meetings. Labor prepares position papers in its areas of reEpon- sibilities, assigns other areas to appropriate agencies, and participates in the interdepartmental clearance of all position papers for meetings of the Governing Body and annual Conference. All position papers are subject to the approval of the Depart- ment of State. These papers cover technical labor subjects as well as administration, finance, and budget. Generally, the Department of Labor has responsibility for the former, the Department of State for the latter. In the fall of 1976, Labor hired additional staff to work with the Coordinator for ILO affairs, which should better enable it to carry out its ILO responsibilities. The new employees have already taken steps in this direction, beginning with an orientation on ILO programing and budgetary process. Labor's ILO Affairs Coordinator was at ILO head- quarters for an extensive orientation at the time of our visit there. Labor Department officials indentified the following three broad priorities which they feel will best serve U.S. interests and will develop and promote ILO programs to fit these priorities. 21 1. Promote and strengthen democr I institutions in the labor field--covers programs which both define and assess the rights and responsibilities of trade union and employer organizations, promote and facilitate industrial relations, and develop worker, employer, and government institutions. 2. Promote jobs and job skills---covers programs which help to develop both public and private (employer and worker) policies which focus on job creation and programs aimed at developing managerial and job skills. 3. Foster better coordination of work and the pro- tection of workers on-the-job--covers programs relating to job safety, health, and other work conditions. Generally, the officials we alked with elt that, of the three Government agencies, Labor showed the most promise of long-term improvement in ILO participation. They observed that most activities had been only recently initiated and were the direct result of the current unusual circumstances. Their feelings generally were that it is too soon to udge just how effective the Department will be in the long run. COMMERCE'S ROLE IS LMITED The Department of Commerce's role in ILO affairs has historically een a limited one, involving ILO's efforts to influence the labor and social policies of ito member states. For example, as ILO seeks to improve employ- ment conditions, competition between the United States and other countries may become more balanced and as economic development takes place in developing countries, potential new markets are created for U.S. capital goods and technology. A Commerce official has traditionally served as an alternate Government delegate to the annual conference and the Department is represented at least in an advisory capacity on delegations to other ILO meetings. Both Under and Assistant Secretaries of Commerce have attended meetings of the cabinet-level committee. Commerce has one employee, the ILO affairs cooi:inatcr, wo devotes full-time to ILO matters. He is assigned to the Leqis- lative Division of the Bureau of Domestic Commerce. As implied by his title, his role i to inform and obtain input from those in the Departmen' with a substantive knowledge of issues being considered by ILO. The Depart- ment maintains that approximately 15 people--including 22 several Under ar.u Assistant Secretaries--have been in- volved in ILO matters on a part-time basis. Our review has shown that their involvement included attending cabinet-level committee meetings, clearing and in some cases preparing position papers, and participation in special ILO conferences. Several officials have char- acterized Commerce participation as essentially a one- person operation. During 1976, we were told, Commerce participation went beyond the usual attendance at regularly scheduled meetings and conferences because three of the special conferences sponsored by ILO during the year concerned multinational enterprises, world employment, and maritime affairs. In addition to Commerce taking the lead in preparing U.S. positions on agenda items and in presenting U.S. posi- tions at the conferences, the Assistant Secretary for Maritime Affairs headed the U.S. Delegation to the ILO Maritime Conference. We found Commerce officials were not sure what the Department's involvement will be in 1977 and beyond and recognize the possibility it may revert to the minor role of past years. We were told that ILO initiatives had received pretty much unqualified approval in Commerce during 1976 but that kind of support might not exist under normal circumstances. Other Commerce officials agreed that the Coordinator's position was not high enough to carry any real influence in the Department and under normal circumstances the effectiveness of this position may greatly diminish. ILO MEETINGS AND CONFERENCES All three agencies select delegates to ILO meetings according to the type of meeting. -- For the Governing Body, delegations consist of Labcr, Commerce, and State Department representatives selected by each agency. Employer and worker members are chosen by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, re- spectively. -- For the annual Conference, representatives on the standing committees are independently selected by State, Labor, and Commerce. For technical committees, Labor assigns advisors from the agencies that are the most expert in the subject matter; e.g., Health, Education, and Welfare for paid educational leave; 23 Labor for labor administration, minimum wage-fixing, etc. Worker and employer representatives are chosen by the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce. -- For the Industrial Committee, delegates are chosen in a manner similar to the annual Conference. Labor assigns the technical activities to the appropriate agencies and they select their delegates. The AFL-CIO and Chamber of Commerce nominate their own delegates. -- For meetings of experts, where delegates are private individuals rather than representatives of their own Governments, the ILO usually requests the Department of Labor to submit the name of a qualified individual; however, in rare cases the ILO Secretariat is aware of an appropriate person and contacts him or her directly. The International Conferences Office in the Bureau of Inter- national Organization Affairs at the State Department plays a coordinating role in the selection of delegates. CONCLUSION U.S. participation in ILO has gained momentum since the United States submitted the notice of intent to with- draw. The United States, consistent with its pledge to do everything it can to solve problems with ILO, should be looking beyond November 1977. Past U.S. participation in ILO has suffered from the lack of a sustained interest and effort on the part of ;11 the agencies involved. Improvements have been temporary. If the United States remains in ILO, a high-level concern within the Departments of State, Labor, and Commerce must continue in order to maintain our commitment. We believe that such a commitment has not yet been made and that the improvements we observed in U.S. participation may quickly evaporate if and when circumstances return to normal. 24 CHAPTER 5 ILO PLAN, PROGRAM AND BUDGET CONSTRAINTS ON ANALYSIS Our report of 1970 noted that U.S. officials did not have sufficient information on ILO programs and recom- mended they obtain more complete nd informative budget and program proposals from the Organization. ILO's planning and budgeting documents are today still too general to permit meaningful analysis. However, U.S. officials have taker. a different approach to influencing ILO' . activities and thic approach, if followed through, may prove effective. The ILO programing and budgeting process centers around the budget, a biennium document, and the medium- term plan, which covers a 6-year period. Both documents are submitted to the ILO Governing Body for debate, and the budget must be approved at the aar.ual Conference. We found that it is difficult for members to make other than minor alterations in either document. The United States, which in the past has not had much impact on these documents, is going to attempt to have its views reflected in the plan and the budget before they are submitted for debate and approval. PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS The biennial budget and the medium-term plan on which it is based are prepared in consecutive years. The 6-year, medium-term plan is approved in even years; the budget, covering the first 2 years of that plan, is approved the following year. Thus, the 1976-77 budget was approved in 1975. Normally the plan is updated every 2 years, so a plan covering 1978-83 would have been approved in 1976. Currently, ILO is preparing the 1978-79 budget for approval during the June 1977 annual Conference. The medium-term plan is the starting point of ILO's planning process and contains the broad policies and areas of main emphasis for ILO. The process of updating the medium-term plan is analogous to that of preparing the budget. 25 1978-79 budgetary process April 1976--The Director General issued his "program guidance letter" inviting department chiefs to develop their program ideas in light of certain constraints. The medium-trm plan was the main criterion by which proposals were to be judged. Under the guidance the budget pro- posals were to range from a minimum program level of 85 percent of current biennium budget to a maximum of 120 percent of the current level for some departments. Apri. and May 1976--The departments developed detailed program proposals and submitted them to the Bureau of Pro- gram Budgeting and Management. The Bureau analyzed the proposals according to priorities, feasibility, pro- ductivity and costs, and relationship to the medium-term plan. July and August 1976--The three Deputy Directors General held hearings with all the departments. These hearings are closed to persons outside of ILO. September 1976--The General Committee presented the Director General with a list of budget increases and decreases and he makes the final decisions. An ILO official indicated that after the General Committee review, the pro- posals are pretty well locked in except for some minor changes. So far the entire process has been internal. January 1977--Member countries received copies of the proposed document. February and March 1977--The Director General's pro- posed budget will be debated at the Governing body meeting in the Planning, Finance, and Administrative Committee. The Bureau of Program Budgeting and Management attends the debates and makes lists of proposed budget cuts and con- siders their impact. The proposed package is considered by the General Committee with the Director General making the choice of specific cuts. We were told he can pick and choose those cuts consistent with his views--there are always plenty from which to choose. Finally, pro- posed cuts are reviewed by the Governing Body. May 1977--Further debate at the session of the Governing Body. June 1977--At the annual Conference, the budget is voted on by Government representatives only for final 26 approval. In the past, the Conference actions consisted mainly of determining the overall level of the budget and did not go into the specific cuts proposed by the Director General to meet that level. The budget process described above is presented graphically in the following chart. Director General --- Apr 1976 Issues Program Guidance !.,ttcrs / / Apr - July 1976 --- Departments Draft Program Proposals Departnents --- July - Aug 1976 Budget Hearings Sept 1976 --- Director General's General Committee Reviews Program Proposals Final Draft --- Sept - Dec 1976 = Prepared Jan 1977 --- Secretariat Issues Budget Proposal To Member Countries Member Analysis, --- Jan - Feb 1977 _ Positions Developed ,...-" Feb - Mar 1977 -- Proposal Comes Before the Governing Body Di rector-General considers Governing Body's Proposed Changes. Member Positions Further Developed --- Mar - May 1977 \ May 1977 --- Final Debates: Governing Body Peviews Proosal a, Modified by Dirertor-General Puts Finishing I'dA Touches on Budgec --- May - June 1977 JUNE 1977 -- Budget Comes Before ILO Conference For Final Approval 27 CONSTRAINTS ON MEMBER INFLUENCE We found that member countries that want to have an effect on LO planning and budget documents face a difficult task. The budget contains a single set of proposals described only generally withoLt offerin any alternatives or ptions. The b cet proposal does not give a complete picture of I) activities. ILO is one of the executing agencies for the Urited Nations Development Program. ILO's regular budget, however, does not show extra-budgetary funds from the UNDP even though it disburses them. A report by the Unite Nations Joint Inspection Unit showed that, in the 1974-75 biennium, direct annual expenditures for regular budget programs amounted to only $14.3 million whereas the extrabudgetary funds amounted to about $44.3 million. The plan, which is less specific than the budqet, is abstract, defines no targets, does not address the uestion of phasing out low priority programs, and contains no costing information. Both ILO and U.S. officials gree that analyzing ILO planning and budget documents is ifficult. Specifically, the United States has noted that program proposals do not contain clear or precise statements of objectives against which to measure success, and it would like to see the programing system improved by having costs of various program options presented during program reviews. Despite recent progress, they feel further improvements necessary. ILO officials told us about several improvements in the 1978-79 biennium budget: (1) program narratives would include, wherever possible, specific objectives to be achieved during the biennium, (2) changes in direction or emphasis would be indicated, and (3) extra-budgetary funded programs would be included for the first time. The 1978-79 biennium budget being prepared during our review was characterized by an ILO official as less detailed but more readable. Effective membe: analysis of the plan and budget documents is also constrained y the time element. MemLers do not receive these large and rather complex documents until late December or early January and in less than 60 days members must be prepared for the major debate on them at the February-March Governing Body session. Some further consideration may be given to the budget at the May Governing Body session before it comes before the annual June Conference for final approval--a government-only vote. 28 An adiiocnal timing problem is that when members receive the proposals they are fairly well established. U.S. officials pcLnt out, and ILO officials agree that basic changes in direction or programs are no longer practical at this time. ILO staff present the proposals after the Governing Body debate to the Director General for consideration and he recommends specific budget cuts to the Governing Body. ILO officials told us it is not really possible to make substantial changes at that time and the best that members can hope for is minor shifting among programs and a possible reduction in the budget total. In c.mrmenting on or draft report, State pointed out that program participation could be improved, but the key to such improvement was additional staff, particularly budget analysts. Opportunity for member influence ILO officials told us the opportunity for member countries to influence the medium-term plan and budget proposals occurs during the drafting stage through informal communication with ILO staff. They said the ILO staff tries to discern and consider the views of the major ndustrial members when drafting program proposals. ne official believed that the best way to influence programs would be to select areas of interest, develop positions, and seek the support of other members in advocating the positions. An ILO budget official observed that perhaps ILO should solicit member input for incorporation into program development, perhaps through a uestionnaire. However, the problem of trying to satisfl everyone could be viewed as a constraint on this approach. ILO officials also pointed out that there is a formal mechanism for program input, namely introducing resolutions at various meetings for consideration at the annual Con- ference. A recent example, still to be acted on, is a pro- posal to make direct assistance to members a substantial poLtion of the regular ILO budget; at the time of the pro- posal the 1976-77 proposed budget-allocated 31.6 percent to direct assistance. This proposal represents a dearture from the traditional U.S. and United Nations policy of centrally programing and funding development activities by voluntary contributions through the UNDP. While the purpose of the proposal seems worthwhile, we support central programing, funding and the leadership role of the UNDP. U.S. officials responsible for technical programs have come to much the same conclusion about the best way 29 to influence ILO planning and budgeting. They intend to make U.S. views known to ILO and reflected in the plan and budget before they are submitted for debate and approval. They have also recently identified areas of greatest interest to the United States and, if the United States remains a member, plan to concentrate their efforts in those areas. The Department of Labor is taking the lead in this activity. However, they were not sufficiently staffed in time to tackle the 1978-79 biennium budget being drafted in 1976. They do expect to play an effective role during 1977 when the medium-term plan update is drafted. CONCLUSION, The Department of Labor has initiated actions which could increase consideration of U.S. interests in ILO activities. The initiatives are still being implemented and could prove effective. Labor basically has been working alone in this area, and we believe it should continue to do so. Labor should also coordinate with the Departments of State and Commerce and seek their input as well a that of the employer and worker representatives. Regarding the recent proposal to fund development assis- tance from the regular or assessed budget, we believe the U.S. should reassert the U.S. position that all development and techrical assistance be channeled through the UNDP and that the proper way to finance such assistance is through voluntary contributions. 30 CHAPTER 6 EVALUATION OF ILO PROGRAMS STILL INADEQUATE In 1970, we recommended that the United Statew obtain better information from ILO and evaluate the Organization's programs. The United States is still not effectively evaluating ILO programs to ascertain that U.S. monetary contributions to ILO have been used to accomplish intended objectives. Further, ILO officials view the Organization's own evaluation efforts as inadequate. The U.S. evaluation effort has basically been limited to developing position papers on agenda items for ILO meetings and conferences. This approach is inadequate because it limits evaluation to predetermined areas which ore not necessarily of the greatest interest to the United States. Recent initiatives at the Department of Labor should, if followed through, enable a more compre- hensive look at ILO program effectiveness. Recently the ILO decided to adopt the system used by the Agency for International Development to evaluate its technical assistance projects. U.S. officials are encouraged by this development, but it is too early to determine how this decision will be implemented. ILO, U.N. EVALUATION EFFORTS-- SOME PROGRESS-NOTED We obtained information on what ILO and the United Nations are doing to evaluate ILO activities including recent changes in ILO's internal evaluation capability. Some pro- gress was noted. External evaluation 4 The United Nations Joint Inspection Un t serves as ai external evaluator for several U.N. specialized agencies, including ILO. The Unit dates back to 1968 and consists of eight inspectors who: "* * * shall make on-the-spot inquiries and investigations, and when they may them- selves decide, in the participating organizations, acting singly or in small groups, they shall have the 31 broadest powers of investigation in matters having a bearing on efficiency and economy in the rise of the orqaniza- tion's resources." The Joint Inspection Unit, in determining what reviews will be made each year, asks members for su gestions on areas that need review. The year's review areas are then selected from their suggestions, areas identified by the Unit, and requests made by the specialized agencies. The only review made solely on ILO by the Joint Inspection Unit was in 1975 on the use of ffice accommo- dations at ILO headquarters. Other reports included ILO as one of several organizations reviewed in such areas as medium-term planning, programing, and budgeting. ILO and Unit officials told us the Unit is used mainly for efficiency reviews, such as when ILO asks it in the annual ILO Conference 7.o determine potential economies. The Joint Inspection Unit recognizes that it is too small to cover all agencies effectively and is shifting its emphasis to reviews of specialized agencies' internal evaluation system. Also, the State Department has noted there is need for greater independence from the Secietariats and further professionalism of evaluation personnel. There ae two other sources of external review. An external auditor conducts an annual financial audit annually of all funds over which the Director General has custody-- regular budget, UNDP, trust funds, extra-budgetary accounts, and all other special accounts. The second source is Certified Public Accounting firms, occasionally hired to conduct management reviews in specific areas. For example, one such review was being made of ILO's computer services during our study. Internal evaluation In the past, ILO has used a system of what it terms "in- depth reviews" to evaluate its individual programs and activi- ties. These reviews are performed by the ILO Secretariat and submitted to the Program, Financial, and Administrative Committee of ILO's Governing Body. Five in-depth reviews--decentralization, international labor standards, public information, rural development, and publications and documents--some carried over from 1975, came before the Governing Body in 1976. 32 was in progress during Another review covering statistics this system was in- our study. U.S. officials agreed that were evaluations by adequate because the in-depth studies might lack objectivity. people of their own programs and thus are not really eval- studies These officials said that these what ILO has done in the uations, but rather surveys of to determine where to subject area. The results are used put future emphasis. ILO technical cooperation projects programs, one ILO conducts two general types of field one funded by UNDP. and financed by regular budget resources projects as "Seed money" is provided for such ILO-funded development, because gov- workers' education and trade union UNDP funds for these pro- ernments are not likely to ask for generally broader in scope jects. Joint UNDP/iLO projects are with ILO's charter. and are conducted in fields consistent are normally ILO technical cooperation projects technical adviser in prepared and negotiated by the ILO is instructed to follow the recipient country. The adviser and to consult and all relevant ILO and UNDP guidelinesrepresentative and appro- coordinate with the UNDP resident the country. priate counterpart organization of parties--ILO, After the project is approved by all is responsible adviser UNDP, and the Government--the ILO working closely with for implementing the project and for the UNDP resident representative. as ILO recognizes the UNDP resident representative program and as the spokesman for the entire UNDP-financed authorities. the focal point for contacts with government to cooperate with the ILO field personnel are instructedto keep him informed of UNDP resident representative and and plans fur project activities, problems encountered, the future. told that the UNDP In the country we visited, we were the visits by representative has a problem coordinating missions to determine specialized agency officials on survey their agencies' fields how they can assist the country in take place between of competence. Also, direct communications officials. For example, ministry heads and specialized agency direct contact with the the minister of labor has been inresident representative feels ILO Director General. The UNDP of these officials is need- better communications on the part issues being discussed ed so that he can keep abreast of and future plans being formulated. 33 ILO officials told us that their internal evaluation system is inadequate for technical cooperation projects. Project review and evaluation is done jointly by the host country, UNDP, and ILO, and, if appropriate, by special technical missions from ILO headquarters. ILO views this process as less than effective because it i carried out at too high a level and lacks evaluative objectives. Also, the results are not available to member countries unless specif- ically released by the host country. The State Department noted that national sovereignty is a tremendous restraint on evaluating the field programs of all U.N. specialized agencies. Recent changes in procedures To improve its internal evaluation capability, the ILO has recently: -- Created a management audit section within its Bureau of Program Budgeting and Management which will provide a source of management review within ILO by officials other than those responsible for the program being reviewed. -- Established a common register which lists all 1,500 technical assistance projects--regular and UNDP. This computerized system became operational in September 1976 and will eventually contain detailed project descriptions updated on a regular basis. -- Adopted and is now implementing the evaluation system used by the Agency for International Development which U.S. officials told us they have long advocated. The Agency and ILO o. ficials believe it is the most important step in the urea of evaluation. This system will require project objectives and benchmarks against which to measure the objectives. Periodic evaluations will be built into each project. We were told that the evaluation reports will be public information and available to members. ILO officials estimate it will be 2 to 3 years before the procedure i fully imple- mented. U.S. EVALUATION EFFORTS ARE LIMITED State Department The Department of State identified th:ee ways that the administrative and program effectiveness nf ILO can be evaluated: 34 1. Through U.S. participation in ILO meetings, at which position papers on specific agenda items and recommendations on the biennial budget can be eval- uated. However, U.S. officials acknowledge that using position papers limits evaluation to pre- determined agenda items and does not necessarily focus on the areas most important to the United States. 2. Through the U.S. Mission in Geneva, which checks on specific ILO officials, the work they are performing, or ILO-sponsored projects. U.S. Embassies are generally responsible for monitoring and reporting on programs of international organizations. We were told that the Mission has never been asked for information on ILO programs. The Labor attache said that in his exper- ience there has been little U.S. interest in ILO pro- grams. Because he has not been asked for program infor- mation, he has seen no need to become familiar with the projects undertaken by the Organization. 3. Through annual field evaluations of ILO technical assistance programs. Although annual field evaluations could be helpful, we did not find any use being made of these reports with respect to ILO. The Agency for International Development representative in Geneva told us he receives annual field evaluation reports irregularly and has never been asked to take any action based on these reports. Labor Department The Department of Labor views the preparation and inter- departmental clearance of position papers for meetings of the Governing Body and annual Conference as the primary mechanism for evaluating the ILO's effectiveness. Labor has general responsibility, shared with Commerce, for tech- nical labor subjects. Although Labor agrees that an. effective evaluation approach cannot stop with agenda items, it is not presently in a position to sufficiently evaluate ILO programs, make judgments about the relative impact of ILO programs, and actively promote those programs which sem to offer the greatest potential benefit. However, the Department is now in the process of improving its ability to review and evaluate ILO programs and has assigned additional staff members to begin detailed program analyses. Labor also plans to establish a management informa- tion system which will incorporate input on programs of 35 other United Nations and regional organizations related to ILO programs, such as Food and Agriculture Organization programs affecting rural cooperatives, World Health Organiza- tion activities relating to occupational health personnel; and regional personnel development activities. Such a system will rely heavily on information which can best be supplied by the Department of State and other Federal agencies that deal with such organizations. Eventually, Labor could use such a pool of information to critically review the related pro- .rams of various international organizations as a whole and to suggest both economies and improvements to those programs. iLO carries out a small number of in-depth reviews of selected areas each year as called for by the Governing Body; five in-depth reviews were scheduled for discussion by the Governing Body in 1976. The Department of Labor has, on a selective basis, prepared corresponding evaluations--the most recent being on international labor standards in 1975. The results of such reviews are debated before the Governing Body, with the final conclusions to be incorporated in future ILO activity. In commenting on cur draft report, the Department of Labor informed us of two new approaches to evaluating ILO field projects: periodic regional conferences of U.S. Labor attaches, and the establishment of tripartite evaluation teams by the ILO, a U.S. suggestion recently adopted by the Governing Body. If followed through on, these initiatives could improve the evaluation process. Commerce Department The Department of Commerce has not evaluated ILO activ- ities except for its part in preparing U.S. position papers on predetermined agenda items and attendance at ILO meetings and conferences. CONCLUSION U.S. agencies have shown little initiative in attempting to evaluate ILO programs and activities, basically limiting their efforts to preparing position papers on items to come befire ILO meetings and conferences. U.S. officials acknow- ledge this approach is not adequate to identify those pro- grams and administration practices which offer the greatest potential benefit. The Department of Labor has recently taken steps to improve its evaluation capability and, if the United States remains a member, plans to emphasi-. i 4iled review of 36 the ILO selected ILO activities. With U.S. encouragement, technical is establishing an internal evaluation system for steps, but cooperation projects. These are important initial we believe evaluation should be a joint effort of the Depart- ments of State, Labor, and Commerce, with input from other agencies and employer and worker groups as appropriate. with State is We believe that close coordinationfinancial particularly important because of its responsi- bility for the budget. 37 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIOrS CONCLUSIONS Our 1970 report on ILO recommended that (1) the United States develop definitive and measurable objectives and implement a plan for achieving them and (2) the Departments of State, Labor, and Commerce obtain better budget, program, and operational data and make more effective analyses and evaluations of ILO projects and programs. We repeated these recommendations in a followup report issued in 1974. Al- though State said that it generally agreed with our recom- mendations, it has taken virtually no action to implement them. In 1970, U.S. political and technical assistance ob- jectives for ILO were broadly defined and difficult to measure. Since then, relations with ILO have deteriorated to such an extent that the United States in 1975 gave notice that it intends to withdraw from the Organization unless the problems can be resolved. Today, less than a year before U.S. withdrawal becomes final, no overall statement of U.S. objectives for ILO has been developed. Generally, agency objectives do not address the question of what the United States wants ILO to accomplish. They were. developed independently according to each agency's interests. Neither the U.S. Mission in Geneva nor the employer or worker. groups were consulted. State and Commerce objectives are short term. The .S. Mission is not aware of any objectives other than political issues raised in our notice of intent to withdraw. Labor is only beginning to develop overall objectives for ILO, but these objectives are as yet imprecise. The absence of specific long-term program objectives is in consonance with the general U.S. lack of familiarity with ILO programs. The agencies should each continue to formulate their own formal objectives in pursuing their ILO interest, but there should be coordination among them to make sure that agencies' objectives are in harmony with overall U.S. objec- tives. To achieve maximum benefit from U.S. participation in ILO, objectives should be coordinated among the agencies, the U.S. Mission, and employer and worker representatives. ILO's planning and budgeting documents today are still too general to permit meaningful analysis. The Department of Labor has initiated actions to obtain information in addition to that contained in the budget documents and has 38 added additional staff to the section charged with the analysis responsibility. However, it is too soon to evaluate the effectiveness of these actions. Labor basically has been working alone in this area, and we believe it should coordi- nate with and seek the input of the Departments of State and Commerce as well as that of the employer and worker represen- tatives. U.S. agencies have shown little initiative in evaluating ILO rograms and activities, basically limiting their efforts to preparing position papers on ILO meeting agenda. The Department of Labor has recognized the need for more effective evaluation and plans to improve its evaluation capability. We believe evaluation should be a joint effort of the Depart- ments of State, Labor, and Commerce, with input from other agencies and employer and worker groups as appropriate. Between 1970 and 1975 the United States became increas- ingly dissatisfied with the direction taken by the ILO, partly because U.S. participation had been given such low priority. In November 1975, the United States submitted a notice of intent to withdraw but promised to give high priority to promoting conditions to facilitate continued participation. By November 1977, the United States must decide whether to withdraw from or remain in ILO. U.S. agencies have taken steps to improve U.S. participation only since the notice of intent to withdraw. However, our review showed that past U.S. participation in ILO was one of crisis management alternated with periods of neglect. As each crisis with ILO subsides, U.S. attention also subsides. In the present crisis, no long-term commitmerntto im- prove U.S. participation has yet been demonstrated. Thus, if the United States does remain a member of the Oraanization, U.S. participation could very easily revert to the low levels of interest demonstrated before the letter was submitted. We believe the agencies should clearly state their long- term objectives for U.S. participation in the ILO. Such a statement will enable the agencies to help formulate a recommendation to the President whether or not to withdraw because the decision will be based, in part, on what the United States will gain by continuing its membership. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that before November 1977 te Departments of State, Labor, and Commerce: 39 -- Develop overall objectives for U.S. participation in the Organization. -- Coordinate these objectives with the employer and worker representatives. -- Develop a strategy for achieving the objectives, making sure that, if the United States remains a member, it maintains a high level of interest so that recent initiatives by U.S. agencies can be further developed and carried out. AGENCIES COMMENTS Although GAO did not follow its usual procedure of obtaining formal agency comments, the draft report was discussed with key officials of State, Labor, and Commerce. These officials believe that the development and imple- mentation of program objectives would give the impression that the United States had decided to remain in the organization and that such objectives have no role to play in the final decision on U.S. membership. However, if the United States remains in ILO, the agencies propose to make program objectives a first priority. The basic objective of U.S. agencies in the short term is to reverse the trend toward politicization of ILO. We believe that the continued lack of U.S. program objectives raises questions about the effectiveness of the U.S. stated commitment to improve the quality of its participation. The absence of a commitment in the past contributed to the current situation. U.S. agencies agreed with our conclusion that without continued high- level Government interest, U.S. participation would deteriorate. The Departments of State, Labor, and Commerce believe that we should have reported on the objectives of the nongovernmental participants. The agencies indicated that the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO also lack specific long-range objectives. Our discussions with officials from these nongovernmental organizations disclosed no formalized and specific long-range objectives. We talked to the worker and employer representatives and their views are reflected in the report. The Department of State agreed that Agency program participation could be improved but felt that the key to such improvement was additional staff, particularly budget analysts, for the International Organization Affairs Bureau. 40 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I M'mMM -. SUL -M I-U LMIIO ImW I.dMiU . PW. SlIL Ym M* _ Y. AL LEK. WiMSi Gus - .A_ ,Im.I M IOIINI m A AM nMw <uOVINNMIOMrT QfATN wAsNTm"N.OC. ri, July 30, 1976 The Honorable Elmer B. Staats Comptroller General of the United States U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20548 Dear Elmer: As yu know, the Committee on Government Operations is currently reviewing United States involvement in international organizations. We are familiar with the reports the General Accounting Office has issued, the testimony you have given before various Congressional committees, and your continuing concern with improving the management of U. S. participation in international organizations. To assist the Committee I would request that GAO update its previous work by the middle of next February, including an tpdate of your prior reports on the World Health Organization, the International Labor Organization, and the Food and AgricL? -- Organization. I hope you would be prepared to testify before the Committee, possibly in the early part of the next session, on your conclusions. I would also like to have by next February a report on your current review oi employment of Americans by international organ- izations and a repjc.,t on the World Food Program and our partici- pation :n - I weld also be interested in any review you can do of the United Pistons Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. I hope that you can also consider in your work the overall management and budgetary systems of the U.N., and especially the status of your efforts to encourage the establishment of inde- pendent review and evaluation systems in international organiza- tions. I look forward with interest to learning your thinking in this important area. Sincerely yours, Abe Ribicr" 41 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II U.S. DELEGATION' TO THE 6t SESSIONOF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOR CONFERENCE JUNE 1976 REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DELEGATES Daniel L. Horowitz (chairman) Special Assistant to the Secretary for ILO Affairs Department of Labor Daze Good Special Assistant to the Secretary and Coordinator of International Labor Affairs Department of State ALTERNATE DELEGATE Randall G. Upton ILO Affairs Coordinator Domestic and International Business Administration Department of Commerce CONGRESSIONAL ADVISERS The Honorable John Ashbrook United States House of Representatives The Honorable Frank Thompson, Jr. United States House of Representatives ADVISERS Catherine E. Bocskor Staff Attorney Division of General Legal 3erviceb Solicitor's Office Department of Labor 42 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II John T. Doherty Labor Attache' 'the United States"NMissidhto - European Community !' ' Brussl.s Belgium Helen . Foerst Assistant Chief Nurse Officer Public ealth Service Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Donald . MacKenzie Assistant Regional Director for Occupational Safety and Health Department of Labor Atlanta, Georgi.a James A. Mattson Regional Labor Attache Bureau of Near Eastern and-SOuth'Asian Affairs Department of State Robert F. Pfeiffer Labor Attache United States Mission Geneva, Switzerland James H. Quackenbush Director, LO Affairs Bureau of nternational Labor Affairs Department of Labor Donald S. Shire Associate Solicitor for General Legal Service Solicitor' Office Department of Labor Lester P. $1ezak Labor and Social Affairs Adviser Bureau of African Affairs Department of State Bobbye D. Spears Regional Solicitor Department of Labor Atlanta, Georgia 43 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II REPRESENTING THE EMILOYERS OF THE UNITED STATES DELEGATE Charles H. Smit..,, Jr. Chairman of the Board SIFCO Industries, Inc. Cleveland, Ohio ADVISERS Tita D. Corpuz Director of Nursing American Hospital Association Chicago, Illinois Bruce W. Karrh, .D. Assistant Corporate Medical Director E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc. Wilmington, Delaware Carl H. Madden Chief Economist Chamber of Commerce of the United States Washington, D.C. Louis K. O'Leary Assistant Vice President Human Resources Development American Telephone & Telegraph Co. New York, New York Paul F. Shaw Vice President The Chase Manhattan Bank New York, New York Gerard C. Smetana Attorney at Law Partner, Borovsky, Smetana, Ehrlich & Kronenburg Chicago, Illinois 44 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II George F. Sorn Manager, Labor Division Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Orlando, Florida James F. Steiner ILO Advisor Chamber of Commerce of the United States Washington, D.C. John R. Wall Vice President, Personnel Republic Steel Corporation Cleveland, Ohio STATES REPRESENTING THE WORKERS OF THE UNITED DELEGATE Irving Brown International Representative American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations Paris, France ADVISERS Michael Boggs Assistant Director, Department of International Affairs American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations Washington, D.C. David Brombart Assistant to the Exe utive Director African-American Labor Center' dew York, New York Sol C. Chaikin, President Union International Ladies' Garment Workers New York, New York Jesse Friedman, Regional Director Development American Institute for Free Labor Washington, D.C. 45 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II D. Patrick Greathouse Vice President International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America Detroit, Michigar Paul Hall President Seafarers International Union of North America Brooklyn, New York Edward Hickey Attorney at Law Washington, D.C. James T. Housewright President Re.ail Clerks International Association Washington, D.C. Lane Kirkland Secretary-Treasurer AFL-CIO Washington, D.C. John J. Muth Deputy for Field Activities Asian-American Free Labor Institute Washington, D.C. Gerard P. O'Keete Director, International Department. Retail Clerks International Association Washington, D.C. Rert Se.."- Director, Department of Social Security AFL-CIO Washington, D.C. Albert Shanker President American Federation of Teachers Washington, D.C. 46 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II J. C. Turner President International Union of Operating Engi:leers Washington, D.C. Martin J., Ward President United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United Stat s and Canada Washington, D.C. 47 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III November 5, 1975 Dear Mr. DirectLor General: This letter constitutes notice of the intention of the United States to withdraw from the International Labor Organization. It is transmitted pursuant to Article 1, Paragraph 5, of the Constitution of the Or- ganization, which provides that a member may withdraw provided that a notice of intention to withdraw has been given two years earlier to the Director General and subject to the member having at that time fulfilled all financial obligations arising out of its membership. .other than express regret at this action, I would prefer to express confidence in what will be its ulti- mate outcome. The United States does not desire to leave the ILO. The United States does not expect to do so. But we do intend to make every possible effort to pro- mote the conditions which will facilitate our continued participation. If this shculd prove impossible, we are in fact prepared to depart. American relations with the ILO are older, and 1erhaps deeper, than with any other international organization. It is a very special relationship, such that on'y extraordinary developments could ever have brought us to this point. The American labor movement back into the 19th Century was associated with the international movement to establish a world organiza- tion which would advance the interests of workers through collective bargaining and social legislation. The Honorable The Director General, International Labor Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. 48 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor, was Chairman of the Commission which-drafted the ILO constittion at the Paris Peace Conference. The first meeting of the International Labor Conference took place in Washington, that same year. In 1934 the United States joined the ILO, the first and only of the League of Nations organizations which it did join. The 1944 reaffirmed the Or- Declaration of Philadelphia in ganizations fundamental principles and reformulated its aims and objectives in order to guide its role in the postwar period. Two Americans have served with distinc- tion as Directors-General: Many Americans have contri- buted to the work of the Organization. Most particularly, the ILO has been the object of sustained attention and support by three generations of representatives of American workers and American employers. In recent years, supp-rt has given way to increas- ing concern. I would emphasize that this concern has beer most intense on the part of precisely those groups which would generally be regarded in the United States as the most progressive and forward-looking in matters of social policy. It has been precisely those groups most desirous that the United States and other nations should move forwarc in social matters, which have been most concerned that tb. ILO--incredible as it may seem--has been ft .ing back. With no pretense to compre- hensiveness, I should like to present four matters of fundamental concern. 1. The Erosion nf Tripartite Representation The ILO exists as an organization in which repre- sentatives of workers, employers, and governments may come together to further mutual interests. The consti- tution of the ILO is predicated on the existence within menber states of relatively independent and reasonably self-defined and self-directed worker and employer groups. The United States fully recognizes that these assumptions, which may have been warranted on the part of the Western democracies which drafted the ILO con- stitution in 1919, have not worked out everywhere in 49 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III in the world; in truth only a minority of the nations of the world today have anything resembling industrial democracy, just as only a minority can lay claim to political democracy. The United States recognizes that reviing the practices and arrangements of the ILO is not going to restore the world of 1919 or of 1944. It would be intolerable for us to demand that it do so. On the other hand, it is equally intolerable for other states to insist that as a condition of participating in the ILO we should give up our liberties simply be- cause they have another political system. We will not. Some accommodation will have to be found, adl some surely can be found. But if none is, the , 'ed States will not submit passively to what some, mis. ly, may suppose to be the march of history. In par.. ar, we cannot accept the workers' and employers' gro s in the ILO falling under the domination of governments. 2. Selective concern for human rights. The ILO conference for some years now has shown an appallingly selective concern in the application of the ILO's basic conventions on freedom of associa- tion and forced labor. It pursues the violation of human rights in some member states. It grants immunity from such citations to others. This seriously undermines the credibility of the ILO's support of freedom of associa- tion, which is central to its tripartite structure, and strengthens the proposition that these human rights are not universally applicable, but rather are subject to different interpretations for states with different political systems. 50 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III 3. Disregard of due process The ILO once had an enviabldrasecord of objectivity and concern for due process in its examination of alleged violations of basic human rights by its member states. The constituion of the ILO provides for procedures to handle representations and complaints that a member state is not observing a convention which it has ratified. Fuither, it was the IO which first established fact-finding and conciliation machinery to respond to allegations of viola- tions of trade union rights. In recent years, however, sessions of the ILO conference increasingly have adopted resolutions condemning particular member states which happen to be the political target of the moment, in utter disregard of the established procedures and machinery. This trend is accelerating, and it is gravely damaging tho ILO and its capacity to pursue its objectives in the human rights field. 4. The increasing politicization of the organization In recent years the ILO has become increasingly and excessively involved in political issues which are quite beyond the competence and mandate of the organita- tion. The ILO does have a legitimate and necessary interest in certain issues with political ramifications. It has major responsibility, for example, for interna- tional action to promote and protect fundamental human rights, particularly in respect of freedom of association, trade union rights and the abolition of forced labor. But international politics is not the main business of the ILO. Questions involving relations between states and proclamations of economic principles should be left to the United Nations and other international agencies where their consideration is Smore relevant to those or- ganizations' responsibilities. Irrelevant political issues divert the attention of the ILO from improving the conditions of workers--that is, from questions on which the tripartite structure of the ILO gives the organization a unique advantage over the other, purely governmental, organizations of the UN family. 51 III APPENDIX In sum, the ILO which this nation has so strongly supported appears to be turning away from its basic aims and objectives and increasingly to be used for purposes which serve the interests of neither the workers for which the organization was established nor nations which are committed to free trade unions and an open political process. The international labor office and the member states of the organization have for years been aware that these trends have reduced support in the United States for the ILO. It is possible, however, that the bases and depth of concern in the United States have not been adequately understood or appreciated. I hope that this letter will contribute to a fuller appreciation of the current attitude of the United States toward the IO. In due course the United States will be obliged to consider whether or not it wishes to carry out the intention stated in this letter and to withdraw from the ILO. During the next two years the U.S. for its part will work constructively within the ILO to help the organization return to its basic principles and to a fuller achievement of its fundamental objectives. To this end, the President is establishing a Cabinet level committee to consider how this goal may be achieved. The committee will of course consult with worker and employer representatives, as has been our practice for some four decades now in the formulation of our ILO policy. The cormittee will also enter into the closest consulta- tions with the Congress, to the end that a unified and purposeful American position should emerge. Respectfully, Henry A. Kissinger 52 APPENDDIX IV APPENDIX IV OFFICIALS PRIMARILYtRESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING U.S. PARTICIPATIONt IN THE INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION Appointed or commissioned SECRETARY OF STATE: Cyrus R. Vance Jan. 1977 Henry A. Kissinger Sept. 1973 William P. Rogers Jan. 1969 ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AFFAIRS: Charles W. Maynes (designee) Jan. 1977 Sa.auel W. Lewis Dec. 1975 William B. Buffum Feb. 1974 David H. Popper June 1973 Samuel DePalma Feb. 1969 SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND CO-ORDINATOR OF INTERNATIONAL LABOR AFFAIRS: Dale E. Good Apr. 1973 Daniel L. Horowitz May i I George P. Delaney Mar. 19o3 SECRETARYtOF LABOR: F. Ray Marshall Jan, 1977 W lliam J. Usery Feb. 1976 John T. Dunlop Mar. 1975 Peter J. Brennan Nov. 1972 James D. Hodgson July 1D'0 SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR INTERNATIONAL LABOR AFFAIRS AND COUNSELOR TO THE CABINET LEVEL COMMITTEE: Daniel L. Horowitz Jan. 1976 SECRETARY OF COMMERCE: Juanita Kreps Jan. 1977 Elliot L. Richardson Feb. 1976 Rogers C. B. Morton May 1975 John K. Tabor (acting) Mar. 1975 Frederick B. Dent Feb. 1973 Peter G. Peterson Feb. 1972 Maurice H. Stans Jan. 1969 53 APPENDDIX IV APPENDIX IV Appointed or commissioned DLPARTMENT OF COMMERCE REPRESENTATIVE AS SUBSTITUTE DELEGATE TO ILO CONFERENCE: Randall G. Upton Sept. 1974 Allen R. Delong June 1969 EMPLOYER DELEGATE TO INTERNATIONAL LABOR CONFERENCE: Charles E. Smith, Jr. June 1974 Edward P. Neilan June 1966 WORKER DELEGATE TO INTERNATIONAL LABOR CONFERENCE: Irving Brown June 1975 Bert Seidman June 1972 Rudolph Faupl June 1958 54
Need for U.S. Objectives in the International Labor Organization
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1977-05-16.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)