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)

                         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
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
Congressional elevance: Senate Committee on Governmental

          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
                 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-
                 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
                        'AI4NTONT   . 0O UI


The Honorable Abraham Riticoff
Chairman, Committee on Governmental
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.

     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

                                       Departments of State,
                                         Labcr, and Commerce


       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

   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

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.)

        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
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

     -- 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.
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
that the United States had decided to
         Organization.  The basic objective     of
 in the
U.S. agencies in the short term is    to  reverse
 the trend toward politicization of the
 zation.   GAO believes that the continued lack
 of long-range U.S. program ooectives raises
 auestions about the seriousness of the
 stated commitment to improve the quality
 U.S. participation.

 Agencies officials agreed with GAO's conclusio-
 that without continued hiqh-level U.S.
 U.S. participation would deteriorate.


               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

             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

              ON ANALYSIS                                 25
                Planning and budgeting process            25
                Constraints on member influence           28
                Conclusion                                30
              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
      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
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


                                           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.)
      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
controlled by their government and can vote           before
Both employers and workers   must  be  represented
either can vote.
      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.

 1/   "U.S. Participation in the International Labor
      tion Not Effctively Managed,"  Dec. 22, 1970,  B-168767,
      and 'Numerous Improvements Still Needed in Managing
                                                      July 18,
      Participation in International Organizations,"
      1974, B-168767.

      The Organization was established to set international
labor standards which improve working conditions, years, it
employment, and promote human   rights.     In  recent
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
 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
 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
 3,200 which is divided about evenly between its
  in Geneva, Switzerland, and the field offices.
      Programs in the ILO regular budget are totally financed
 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.

            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
     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
Ukraine                                         1.69            1.35             c/13
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.

                   EACH MEMBER OVERNMENT
                          sends 4 Deleptesr:
                            2 Geverment
                              1 Employer
                               1 Worker
                             to the annali

         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

FOR ADVANCED TECHNIiCAL                                   FOR LABOR STUDIES
AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING                                         GENEVA
         TURIN                                     _

     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
     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.
     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
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-

                            CHAPTER 2

     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.

     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

     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

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.
     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

     4.   Efforts to radically charge the structure
          of and power relationships within ILO.

     5.   Toleration of irrelevant political attacks
          on members in the Conference.

     6.   The growing tendency to inject U.N. politi-
          cal resolutions into the deliberations of

     7.   The weakness of Western European and other
          Western-oriented member states on East-West

     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.

     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

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
     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-

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.


     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

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.

                          CHAPTER 3

     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.
     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
     4.   Planning, performance, and evaluation of
          social security.

     5.   Fundamental human rights.


     State officials told us that the Department's objective
for ILO is to work toward alleviating the conditions noted
in the U.S. lettĀ¢ of intent to withdraw--the erosion of
tripartism, selective concern for human rights, disregard
for due process, and increasing politicization of ILO.

      In a sense, State's objectives are short term and are
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
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

     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.

    1.    Strengthen ties with other industrial
          ILO members.
    2.    Establish a new relationship with
          developing countries.

     3.   Seek ways to get more direct benefit
          from U.S. participation in ILO.
     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
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.

     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

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.

     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

             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."


     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.

                      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.


     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

     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

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.

     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,

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

     -- The individual people are committed, but the Depart-
        ment doesn't appear to be committed to its responsibil-

     -- 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.

     -- I'm not sure there is a commitment beyond
        November 1977.

     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
     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

     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.

     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.


     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

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.

     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-

     -- 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;
       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.

     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.

                      CHAPTER 5



     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.

     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.

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
     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

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                 =
                                           Jan 1977 --- Secretariat Issues
                                                        Budget Proposal To
                                                        Member Countries

   Member Analysis,       --- Jan - Feb 1977           _
   Positions Developed
                                 ,...-"        Feb - Mar 1977 -- Proposal Comes
                                                                  Before the Governing
   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
    Touches on Budgec     --- May - June 1977

                              JUNE 1977 -- Budget Comes
                                                 Before ILO Conference
                                                 For Final Approval


      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

     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.

     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

     U.S. officials responsible for technical programs
have come to much the same conclusion about the best way

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.

     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.

                      CHAPTER 6

                 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.

     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
     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

          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.

                                          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-
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.
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
      After the project is approved by all is responsible
UNDP, and the Government--the ILO       working closely with
 for implementing the  project and for
 the UNDP resident representative.
       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.

     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

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

     -- 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-


State Department

     The Department of State identified th:ee ways that
the administrative and program effectiveness nf ILO can
be evaluated:

    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
    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
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
     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.


     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

                                                   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.

                          CHAPTER 7

      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
     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

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-

     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.


     We recommend that before November 1977 te Departments
of State, Labor, and Commerce:

     -- 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.

     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
     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.

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
                    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
                    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
                     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
                     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-
                     I look forward with interest to learning your thinking in
               this important area.
                                                         Sincerely yours,

                                                         Abe Ribicr"

APPENDIX II                                    APPENDIX II

                      U.S.    DELEGATION'
                TO THE 6t      SESSIONOF THE
                         JUNE 1976

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
The Honorable
John Ashbrook
United States House of Representatives
The Honorable
Frank Thompson, Jr.
United States House of Representatives
Catherine E. Bocskor
Staff Attorney
Division of General Legal 3erviceb
Solicitor's Office
Department of Labor

APPENDIX II                                      APPENDIX II

John T. Doherty
Labor Attache'
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

APPENDIX II                                    APPENDIX II

Charles H. Smit..,, Jr.
Chairman of the Board
SIFCO Industries, Inc.
Cleveland, Ohio
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

                                                  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


 Irving Brown
 International Representative
 American Federation of Labor and
   Congress of Industrial Organizations
 Paris, France

 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
  International Ladies' Garment Workers
  New York, New York
  Jesse Friedman, Regional Director Development
  American Institute for Free Labor
  Washington, D.C.

APPENDIX II                                    APPENDIX II

D. Patrick Greathouse
Vice President
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
  and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
Detroit, Michigar

Paul Hall
Seafarers International Union
  of North America
Brooklyn, New York

Edward Hickey
Attorney at Law
Washington, D.C.

James T. Housewright
Re.ail Clerks International Association
Washington, D.C.

Lane Kirkland
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
Washington, D.C.

Albert Shanker
American Federation of Teachers
Washington, D.C.

APPENDIX II                                   APPENDIX II

J. C. Turner
International Union of Operating Engi:leers
Washington, D.C.
Martin J., Ward
United Association of Journeymen
  and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe
  Fitting Industry of the United Stat s
  and Canada
Washington, D.C.

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.

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

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.

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.

    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.

                                 Henry A. Kissinger

APPENDDIX IV                                      APPENDIX IV


                                               Appointed or

     Cyrus R. Vance                           Jan. 1977
     Henry A. Kissinger                       Sept. 1973
     William P. Rogers                        Jan.  1969

     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

     Dale E. Good                              Apr.    1973
     Daniel L. Horowitz                        May     i I
     George P. Delaney                         Mar.    19o3

     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

      Daniel L. Horowitz                       Jan.    1976

      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

APPENDDIX IV                                  APPENDIX IV

                                           Appointed or
     Randall G. Upton                      Sept. 1974
     Allen R. Delong                       June 1969
     Charles E. Smith, Jr.                 June   1974
     Edward P. Neilan                      June   1966
     Irving Brown                          June   1975
     Bert Seidman                          June   1972
     Rudolph Faupl                         June   1958