pendent 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 Constitution in 1919, have not worked out everywhere 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 revising 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 because they have another political system. We will not. Some accommodation will have to be found, and some surely can be found. But if none is, the United States will not submit passively to what some, mistakenly, may suppose to be the march of history. In particular, we cannot accept the workers and employers groups 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 Association 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 Association, 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.

3. Disregard of due process

The ILO once had an enviable record of objectivity and concern for due process in its examination of alleged violations of basic human rights by its member states. The Constitution of the ILO provides for procedures to handle representations and complaints that a member state is not observing a convention which it has ratified. Further, it was the ILO which first established fact-finding and conciliation machinery to respond to allegations of violations 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 the 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 Organization. The ILO does have a legitimate and necessary interest in certain issues with political ramifications. It has major responsibility, for example,

for international 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 more relevant to those organizations' 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 United Nations family.

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 ILO. 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 United States 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 committee will also enter into the closest consultations with the Congress, to the end that a unified and purposeful American position should emerge.

U.N. Doc. A/C.5/1704, Nov. 6, 1975.

United Nations

Participation in Debate

When the United Nations Security Council renewed the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) on November 30, 1975, it included in its Resolution 381 (1975) subparagraph (a) calling for the Security Council to "reconvene on January 12, 1976, to continue the debate on the Middle East

problem including the Palestinian question, taking into account all relevant United Nations resolutions." The President of the Council read the following statement after the vote:

It is the understanding of the majority of the Security Council that when it reconvenes on January 12, 1976, in accordance with paragraph (a) of Security Council Resolution 381 (1975) the representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organization will be invited to participate in the debate.

Prior to the vote Ambassador Daniel P. Moynihan, United States Representative to the United Nations, stated that the United States considered that only Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 were relevant to the situation in the Middle East. Following the vote, he stated:

My delegation wishes also to make clear that the United States. . . does not support the statement of the Council President ... indicating that the PLO will be invited to participate in the January session. This statement in any event did not report a decision, but was merely a summation of the views of some members of the Council. We do not consider that the extraneous matters which have been introduced into the Council's action today can have the effect of changing either the negotiating framework, the basis for these negotiations, or the participants in them.

. . . I should like also to note that subparagraph (a) of the operative paragraph, properly read, declares the intention of the Security Council to debate the question of whether or not the Middle East problem does in fact include the Palestinian question. . .

See Press Releases USUN-165, 166(75), Nov. 30, 1975; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIV, No. 1906, Jan. 5, 1976, pp. 28-29. See post, this Chapter, § 4, p. 84, and Ch. 14, § 5, p. 819.

For U.N. General Assembly Res. 3375 (XXX) of Nov. 10, 1975, calling for PLO participation "in all efforts, deliberations and conferences on the Middle East which are held under the auspices of the United Nations . . .," see post, Ch. 4, § 5, p. 260.

On December 4, 1975, the Security Council of the United Nations adopted by a vote of 9 to 3 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions, a procedural proposal for the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in a debate on the Israeli air raids on Lebanese territory. Accordingly, the President of the Council invited the PLO representative to participate in the discussion, without the right to vote. In a statement to the Security Council earlier that day, Ambassador Daniel P. Moynihan, United States Representative to the United Nations, said:

The U.S. delegation has insisted upon a vote on the issue of inviting representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organization to appear before the Security Council. As a matter of principle, we shall vote against their being invited to appear.

my government is not prepared to acquiesce in an action which will undermine the negotiating process, which is the only process that can lead to peace. For the representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organization have repeatedly. . . told the General Assembly of their disdain for systematic negotiation.

We urge all who share the hope for a just peace in the Middle East to withhold their support from this . . . attempt to use this body to deal with an amorphous terrorist organization as though it were a concrete entity with the attributes of a sovereign government.

In a subsequent statement to the Council the same day, Ambassador Moynihan said:

.. there does not now exist any state of Palestine, nor does the Palestine Liberation Organization claim that there exists a state of Palestine. The PLO cannot therefore be treated as the government of a state.

For the full text of Ambassador Moynihan's statements, see Press Releases USUN-174 and 175(75), Dec. 4, 1975; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIV, No. 1906, Jan. 5, 1976, pp. 21-22. The Security Council vote of Dec. 4 for PLO participation in the debate was opposed by Costa Rica and the United Kingdom, as well as the United States. France, Italy, and Japan abstained. Under Art. 27 of the United Nations Charter, decisions of the Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of 9 members.

D. INTERNATIONAL STAFF AND STRUCTURE

United Nations Industrial Development Organization The Second General Conference of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), which met at Lima March 12-27, 1975, adopted a Declaration and Plan of Action on Industrial Development and Cooperation which included a recommendation that UNIDO be converted into a Specialized Agency of the United Nations. The United States cast the sole dissenting vote against the Declaration and Plan of Action as a whole. See post, Ch. 10, § 3, p. 554. No separate vote was taken on paragraph 69 of the Plan of Action recommending to the General Assembly that UNIDO be converted into a Specialized Agency. In a written reservation to the paragraph, the U.S. Delegation stated:

Although we remain unconvinced of the wisdom of transforming UNIDO into a Specialized Agency, the United States would have abstained if the paragraph dealing with this point had been brought to a vote as an indication of our desire to keep open the possibility of an expanded role for UNIDO in a more cooperative international development environment.

In a statement to the Conference on March 18, 1975, Ambassador W. Tapley Bennett, Jr., Deputy U.S. Representative to the United Nations and Chairman of the Delegation to the Lima Conference, had said:

We see serious difficulties. . . in the proposal that UNIDO be converted into a specialized agency of the United Nations. We believe that it could be seriously counterproductive to undertake such a major change in the Organization status at this time. It would inherently entail a long and costly period of transition and uncertainty. The energies of the Organization would be absorbed in that process rather than in its primary task of helping the developing countries.

For the text of the Lima Declaration and Plan of Action, see U.N. Doc. ID/B/ 155/Add.1, Apr. 14, 1975. For the full text of Ambassador Bennett's statement of Mar. 18, 1975, see Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXII, No. 1869, Apr. 21, 1975, pp. 518-522. For U.S. reservation to par. 69 of Lima Plan of Action, see Report, Second General Conference of UNIDO, Lima, Peru, Mar. 12-26, 1975, U.N. Doc. A/10112, June 13, 1975. U.N. General Assembly Res. 3362 (S-VII), adopted Sept. 16, 1975, endorsed the Lima recommendation that UNIDO be converted into a specialized agency and established an intergovernmental committee to draw up a constitution for UNIDO, to be submitted to a conference of plenipotentiaries in late 1976.

United Nations Development System

Secretary of State Kissinger, in an address to the Seventh Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on September 1, 1975, delivered on his behalf by Ambassador Daniel P. Moynihan, United States Representative to the United Nations, called for review and reform of the entire United Nations development system. He stated:

Most relevant to our discussion here is the improvement of the U.N. system, so that it can fulfill its charter mandate "to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples." . . . In our view, an improved U.N. organization must include: