The U.S. Director of the International Finance Corporation, or his Alternate, acting on the advice of the Council, supported the decisions taken with respect to the foregoing matters.

TABLE 9.-International Finance Corporation_commitments1 and disbursements, by area and country, through Dec. 31, 1963

1 Net of cancellations, terminations, and securities under standby and underwriting commitments acquired by others.

NOTE.-Detail will not necessarily add to totals due to rounding.

Source: International Finance Corporation.

II-75

THE INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION

ACTIVITIES OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION DURING 1963: Annual Report of the President (Johnson) to the Congress on U.S. Participation in the U.N., Transmitted August 20, 1964 (Excerpt)52

The International Labor Organization (ILO), which was established in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles 53 and later was incorporated into the U.N. system, is dedicated to the development of standards to guide member states in improving working and living conditions. In addition to its standard-setting function, under which it brings representatives of governments, employers, and workers together to discuss economic and social problems and to recommend standards for their improvement through governmental or voluntary action, the ILO is also engaged in programs of technical assistance and related educational activities in the labor field. Among its other functions, the ILO also serves as a clearinghouse for technical information in the labor field, conducts research, and publishes special studies and reports.

Over the years, the membership of the ILO has steadily grown. With the admission of Burundi, Uganda, and Trinidad and Tobago, its membership increased in 1963 from 105 to 108 countries.

The International Labor Conference, which is the legislative body of the ILO, met in June 1963. It dealt, inter alia, with human rights, particularly in regard to discrimination; technical assistance; and standards concerning safety of machinery and termination of employment. In addition to consideration of the general question of discrimination, the Conference also was confronted with the major issue of South African membership in the ILO while South Africa pursued its declared policy of racial discrimination (apartheid).

The International Labor Conference also dealt with the ILO budget. With regard to the regular activities of the ILO for 1963, including its own operational program, the Conference provided the ILO with a net expenditure budget of $14,006,834. For 1964, the Conference approved a net expenditure budget of $16,388,799.

The ILO Governing Body (the organization's board of directors) met four times during 1963. In recognition of the expansion of the ILO, particularly as the result of the admission of newly independent African nations, the Governing Body was enlarged from 40 to 48 members (24 governments, 12 employees, and 12 workers).

52

6a U.S. Participation in the UN, pp. 278–284.

A table containing the membership of the ILO as of Dec. 31, 1963, and contributions as assessed for 1964 is printed in Yearbook of the United Nations, 1963, pp. 601-602.

53

See Foreign Relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, vol. XIII (1947), pp. 692 ff.

As in the case of the International Labor Conference, the Governing Body also was involved with the question of South Africa's membership in the ILO. In addition, it considered recommendations of a Commission of Inquiry investigating complaints by Portugal that forced labor was being practiced by Liberia in contravention to its obligations as a party to the ILO Forced Labor Convention. Also, the Governing Body decided to establish an International Center for Advanced Technical and Vocational Training in Turin, Italy.

As the result of action taken by the Governing Body to strengthen various programs of the organization, an Automation Unit was established in the International Labor Office (the ILO secretariat) to deal with the social consequences of automation and advanced technology. A Discrimination Division was established in the Office to conduct promotional and educational activities of the ILO to help overcome discrimination in employment. This Division also serves as a clearinghouse for information in this field, undertakes research, and assists the Governing Body's Special Committee on Discrimination.

A thoroughgoing management study of the Office was prepared by a U.S. management firm. The firm's recommendations for procedural and organizational improvements to increase efficiency and effectiveness of the Office will be considered by the Governing Body early in

1964.

UNITED STATES REPRESENTATION

George L-P Weaver, Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, Department of Labor, continued to represent the United States on the Governing Body. Also, he was one of the two U.S. Government delegates to the International Labor Conference in June 1963; George P. Delaney, Special Assistant to the Secretary and Coordinator of International Labor Affairs, Department of State, was the other U.S. Government delegate. Richard Wagner, Chairman of the Board, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, was the Employer delegate; and Rudolph Faupl, International Representative of the International Association of Machinists, was the Worker delegate. Messrs. Faupl and Wagner also are members of the ILO Governing Body, having been elected by the worker and employer groups of the Conference, respectively. Congressmen Adam Clayton Powell, James Roosevelt, and William Hanes Ayres served as congressional advisers to the delegation.

SOUTH AFRICAN ISSUE

The determination of African countries to expel South Africa from the ILO was demonstrated dramatically at the 1963 International Labor Conference. The issue came to a head when the South African Employer delegate rose to speak. A noisy demonstration resulted when his right to speak was sustained by the chairman (Rudolph Faupl, U.S. Worker delegate, who had been elected the Worker Vice President of the Conference). The African countries maintained that South Africa's failure to comply with the 1961 Conference resolution, inviting it to withdraw from the organization until it had abandoned

Doc. II-75

54

its apartheid policy, justified the Conference in excluding South Africa from participation in the Conference. The United States and other members maintained that the ILO Constitution did not provide for exclusion of a member in this fashion and that representatives of South Africa retained the right to speak at the Conference.

After the South African Employer delegate's right to speak had been upheld, 31 African and 5 Arab countries withdrew from the Conference.

Speaking for the United States, Assistant Secretary Weaver made a strong statement in defense of freedom of speech. He warned that "when freedom of speech is threatened in any forum, the usefulness of that forum is ended...." He stressed the importance of following constitutional procedures and the rule of law, and took issue with those calling for arbitrary and illegal action by the Conference. Making clear U.S. condemnation of apartheid, he reminded delegates that the report on discrimination had found that discrimination in one form or another exists in every country.

The Soviet Union tried to take advantage of the situation by moving for adjournment of the Conference before it had acted on the ILO budget. This failed, however, and the Conference completed all of its work, including adoption of the budget.

Immediately following the ILO Conference in June, the Governing Body excluded South Africa from participating in all ILO meetings except the annual Conference, and authorized the Director General, accompanied by a tripartite delegation, to visit the U.N. Secretary-General to discuss the problem of South African membership in the ILO. It also placed the question of amending the ILO Constitution to permit the expulsion of South Africa on the agenda of the November 1963 session of the Governing Body.

The United States took the position that the United Nations as the principal political organization in the U.N. system, should set the framework within which action on essentially political issues is taken by organizations of the U.N. family. In the absence of such prior U.N. action, the United States opposed the Governing Body's decision to exclude South Africa from all ILO meetings except the Conference, supported the decision to send a Governing Body delegation to the U.N. Secretary-General, and abstained on the decision to include the constitutional amendment question on the agenda for the November session of the Governing Body.

The Governing Body did not deal with the substance of the constitutional amendment question at its November meeting, but appointed a tripartite committee to study the question as a whole and to make recommendations to the February 1964 session of the Governing Body. HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVITIES

An important discussion of discrimination took place at the 1963 International Labor Conference, when it considered the report of a Committee of Experts based on information about discrimination in

"See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1961, pp. 217–218.

employment from 138 countries. The United States took the initiative early in the debate and presented an open and forthright explanation of current developments in the United States. This was well received by the Conference and resulted in a number of African speakers recognizing the sincerity of the U.S. approach to this problem. The U.S. Representative, Assistant Secretary George L-P Weaver, stated:

One of the positive determinations to be drawn from a study of the report is that discrimination in one form or another is to be found in every country, no matter how high its ideals nor how perfect its constitution and legislative bulwark might be. According to the report, none of us, sitting in this Committee, can truthfully say that his country is free of discrimination . .

The United States was built, and its traditions of freedom established, by minority groups. Ours is not a perfect society, but we have the means and the determination to constantly improve it and move ever closer to the ideals set forth by our founding fathers. We do not hide our problems; they are there for everyone to see, and we invite the whole world to observe and evaluate our efforts to solve them.

Congressman James Roosevelt, speaking for the United States, also spoke on the discrimination report, stating that as a Member of the U.S. Congress he would urge the United States to ratify the ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958,55 and to take leadership to eliminate apartheid. He concluded by saying:

I speak for the entire United States Government delegation when I say that favorable action in the adoption of this report will be one more indication that we have discharged our trust in a manner beyond reproach in this important area. It will help assure that the principles and purposes which first attracted you and us, and the African nations, to the ILO remain unsullied by political adventuring and expediency. This is a firm step that my country is proud to take, side by side with our colleagues here in the ILO, to achieve in deeds as well as words that social justice upon which rest the hopes of all mankind for a world finally at peace.

Another significant development in this field was the reconstitution of the Special Committee on Discrimination as a regular standing committee of the Governing Body to consider the most effective manner in which to strengthen the action of the ILO in this field. Assistant Secretary of Labor Weaver was unanimously elected chairman of the Committee.

During 1963 the Governing Body also completed action on a complaint filed by Portugal against Liberia alleging violation of the provisions of the Forced Labor Convention which Liberia had ratified in 1931. This complaint was filed under article 26 of the ILO Constitution which provides that a complaint may be lodged by a state "if it is not satisfied that any other Member is securing the effective observance of any Convention which both have ratified . . . ." Other provisions of the Constitution provide procedures for this type of action, including appointment of a Commission of Inquiry.

This complaint was duly investigated by a Commission of Inquiry which found that radical changes made in the relevant legislation since the filing of the complaint had eliminated all major discrep

"See ibid., 1958, pp. 202–205.