Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T07:41:09.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Labor, the UN and the Cold War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Harold Karan Jacobson
Get access

Extract

One of the significant structural differences between the organization of economic and social work under the League and under the United Nations is the extent to which non-governmental organizations (NGO's) have been allowed to participate. NGO's have been granted far greater privileges in the UN than they enjoyed in the League. Initially, they were formally recognized in Article 71 of the Charter, which gives the Economic and Social Council the right to make “suitable arrangements” for consultation with them. While defined in differing ways during different periods, consultative status under this article has, subject to various conditions, always included the right to participate in the debates of ECOSOC, its commissions and committees, and to propose items for inclusion in their provisional agenda. NGO's have made extensive use of these privileges. Their use, however, as well as the entire record of NGO action in the UN, has been inseparably linked with the cold war. Russian demands at San Francisco for privileges for the newly created, communist-controlled World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) were a contributing factor in the decision to include Article 71 in the Charter. The initial definition of this article resulted primarily from the interaction of pressures by the Soviet Union and the WFTU and the western response.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , Winter 1957 , pp. 55 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 There is a growing body of literature on the NGO's themselves. The most comprehensive work is White's, Lyman Cromwell, International Non-Governmental Organizations, Rutgers, New Brunswick, N. J., 1951Google Scholar. Two works on the international trade union movement are of particular significance: Lorwin's, Lewis L., The International Labor Movement, Harper, New York, 1953Google Scholar, and Windmuller's, John P., American Labor and the International Labor Movement, Cornell, Ithaca, New York, 1954Google Scholar. The recent article by Morris, Bernard S., “Communist International Front Organizations,” World Politics, 10 1956 (Vol. 9, No. 1), p. 76–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is also of interest. However, there has been no specific attempt to measure the impact of the NGO's, either singly or collectively, on the UN.

2 The technical committee concerned with drafting the provisions for economic and social cooperation decided almost unanimously to admit the WFTU as an observer, but the following day the Steering Committee voted 33 to 10 to overrule this decision. For the debate see: United Nations Conference on International Organization, Document, V, p. 152–154, 207–212Google Scholar; and, X. p. 16.

3 See the letter from Walter Citrine and Louis Saillant, President and General Secretary of the WFTU, to the President of the Preparatory Commission: UN Document A/BUR/8.

4 The Soviet Union presented this demand several times during the negotiations, first in the Assembly (UN Document A/C.i/15, p. 4) and then in ECOSOC and its committees (UN Document E/NGO/10, p. 3; ECOSOC, Official Records [2d Session], p. 108–109Google Scholar; and UN Document E/C.2/10, p. 3).

5 Sidney Hillman, for example, was one of the most vociferous supporters of the WFTU, At one point in the negotiations he was responsible for pressing the WFTU demands. See his letters to the President of ECOSOC: UN Document E/50 and E/55. Leon Jouhaux, a member of the French delegation to the United Nations and a Vice President of the WFTU, also performed a similar role. See his letter to the President of the Assembly: UN Document A/C.2&3/2.

6 Much of the credit for the mention of the AFL and the ICA in Assembly resolution 4(1) belongs to an American delegate, Senator Tom Conally. During the debate he threatened in a not very veiled fashion that the United States would not participate in the UN if the American position were not met: General Assembly, Official Records (1st session, 1st part, Plenary Meetings), p. 509–514Google Scholar.

7 Soviet delegates attempted to have the privileges granted to an organization depend on whether or not it was “international”, the effect of which would have been to prevent the AFL from gaining equal status with the WFTU: UN Document E/NGO/10, p. 2.

8 See the letters from Louis Saillant and Leon Jouhaux and the draft resolution submitted by the Soviet Union: UN Documents E/C.2/1; A/C.2&3/2; and A/C.2&3/10/Rev.1.

9 See ECOSOC resolution 57 (IV).

10 See UN Document E/C.2/48.

11 A good description of the early relations between the USSR and the ILO is given in Beloff's, MaxThe Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia (New York, Oxford University Press, 1947 & 1949), 2 vols., I, p. 197–198Google Scholar.

12 United Nations Conference on International Organization, Documents, X, p. 40 and 171Google Scholar.

13 These attempts concerned the Social Commission (UN Document E/260, p. 24, and E/AC.7/7/Rev.1, p. 9); ECE (UN Document E/ECE/12); ECAFE (UN Document E/CN.11/SR.39, p. 2–3); and ECLA (Economic and Social Council Official Records [6th session], p. 360–361Google Scholar).

14 ECOSOC resolution 288 B (X). The NGO concerned had the choice of making the oral statement either before the Council or before one of the Council's committees.

15 UN Document E/C.2/28.

16 UN Document E/C.2/32.

17 UN Document E/822, E/822/Add.1 and E/822/ Add.2.

18 See UN Documents E/841: E/1095; E/1882; E/1922; E/2154; E/2333; E/C.2/34I; E/C.2/343; E/2434; E/2464; E/2498; and E/2587.

19 UN Document E/C.a/28.

20 Such a proposal was specifically made again at the eighth and ninth sessions of the Council in 1949: UN Documents E/1264 and E/1478. However, it remained a continuing undercurrent in the debate.

21 ECOSOC resolution 277 (X).

22 ECOSOC resolution 474 A (XV).

23 ECOSOC resolutions 351 (XII), 444 (XTV). 474 B & C (XV), 503 (XVI), 523A (XVII) and 575B(XIX).

24 Economic and Social Council Official Records(18th Session), Supplement No. I, “Resolutions”, p. 28Google Scholar.

25 New York Times, August 11, 1956, p. 3.

26 UN Documents E/627 and E/627/Add.1.

27 See ECOSOC resolutions 121 (VI), 196 (VIII), 242 D (IX), 445 E (XIV), 504 G (XVI), and 587 C (XX).

28 AFL officials publicly announced that the proposal was aimed at the Soviet Union and its satellites (New York Times, February 3, 1948, p. 6), and the American delegate, Thorp, Willard, admitted that the item “had been brought before the Council in a somewhat questionable way” (Economic and Social Council Official Records [6th session], p. 13)Google Scholar.

29 UN Document E/596.

30 Economic and Social Council Official Records(8th session), p. 105Google Scholar.

31 See the Soviet proposals: UN Documents E/1194, E/1222 and E/1485.

32 ECOSOC resolution 195 ( VIII). Even this decision was a compromise. It resulted from the adoption of an Australian amendment which was designed to replace the American proposal for an immediate investigation. The vote on the amendment was 12 to 5, with I abstention (Economic and Social Council Official Records [8th session], p. 464Google Scholar).

33 ECOSOC resolution 350 (XII); Economic and Social Council Official Records (12th session), p. 310Google Scholar.

34 UN Document E/2431.

35 ECOSOC resolutions 524 (XVII) and 607 (XXI), and General Assembly resolutions 740 (VIII) and 842 (IX).

36 See the dispatch by Hoffman, Michael in the New York Times, 06 19, 1956, p. 8Google Scholar; also the official description of the discussion that occurred in the ILO in 1956 (International Labor Organization, International Labour Conference [40th session], Report IV [1], Forced Labour, p. 3–22Google Scholar).

37 The first proposal was made by the WFTU in an addendum to its initial memorandum (UN Document E/r332/Add.2). It was reintroduced by Czechoslovakia at the fourth session of the Assembly (UN Document A/1081). The WFTU made a similar proposal in 1951 which was sponsored by Poland (UN Document E/L.156), and Russia also introduced related resolutions in 1952 and 1953 (UN Documents E/L.388/Rev.1 and E/L.531). Two final proposals were made in 1954 (UN Documents E/L.624 and A/L.188). Both were based on new WFTU memoranda, but because of the changed rules of procedure they had to be introduced by the USSR.

38 This happened in the 9th session of the Council (Economic and Social Council Official Records [9th session], p. 779–782Google Scholar, and in the 4th session of the Assembly (General Assembly Official Records [4th session], Second Committee, p. 147–148)Google Scholar. As a result the rules of procedure were changed to prevent its recurrence.

39 Walter M. Kotschnig, Director of the Office of Economic and Social Affairs, Department of State, and frequent member of American delegations to the UN, has developed a similar hypothesis concerning the effects of Soviet participation in the UN on the program of aid to the under-developed regions of the world. See his article “Economic and Social Foundations of the United Nations,” American Philosophical Society, Proceedings, XCV (1951), p. 512–518Google Scholar.