500C.115 28th Conference/123: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State
[Received 7:42 p.m.]
2838. I have kept Mr. Eden fully informed regarding our exchanges with the Soviet Government on the question of Russian participation in the ILO Conference and I communicated to him the substance of the Soviet note contained in the Department’s 1947, March 15, 7 p.m.,46 and the text of our reply contained in the Department’s 2103, March 21, 3 p.m.47 I also gave Mr. Eden the substance of the observations which the Department suggested Mr. Harriman make in presenting our reply, and told Mr. Eden of the President’s personal message to Marshal Stalin mentioned in the Department’s 2329, March 25, midnight.48
In reply to the request I made to Mr. Eden based on the last paragraph of the Department’s 2103, March 21, 3 p.m., I have just received from [him] the following note:
“Am grateful to you for your letter in which you were good enough to enclose a memorandum about Soviet participation in the work of the [Page 1022] International Labour Organization and in particular in the forthcoming Conference.
You say in the penultimate paragraph of the memorandum that the State Department would appreciate learning what steps the British Government has taken or might take after ascertaining the views that have been expressed by the Soviet Government in reply to the American démarche.
The question whether we should make a parallel approach to the Soviet Government has been carefully considered and I now write to explain to you my Government’s views.
We have watched with some anxiety the difficult situation which has been created by the differing views among American and British Trade Union Organizations on the subject of relations with the Russian Trades Unions. We are inclined to think that, having regard to public statements made by the American Federation of Labour about the relationship of the Russian Trades Unions to the Soviet Government, the Russian Trades Unions may fear that if they are represented at the International Labour Conference the credentials of their representative might be challenged under the constitution of the ILO.
We have no knowledge of the grounds on which the Soviet Government base their view that the ILO has insufficient authority successfully to carry out the duties arising from collaboration in the field of labour. The reference, however, to the need of more democratic forms of organization in the field of labour collaboration appears to indicate that their view is based on the divergence existing between the Trades Union Organizations in Russia, Great Britain and the USA.
In view of the course of events since the Soviet Government was first approached about participation in the Conference, we consider that it would be wiser not to press the Soviet Government further at the present stage. We would hope that they will be more favourably disposed towards the idea of association with the ILO when discussions of the form of a future world organization have made some progress.49 It has always seemed to us that in view of past events the Soviet Government would prefer not to return to the existing bodies but, as a matter of self-respect, to resume their connection with these international activities as a founder member of a reconstituted organization.
I would, however, propose to instruct Sir Archibald Clark Kerr50 to intimate that His Majesty’s Government remain equally desirous of obtaining the cooperation of the Soviet Government in the ILO and hope that circumstances will make it possible for the Soviet Government to renew their cooperation with the International Labour Organization.[”]
- See footnote 38, p. 1017.↩
- See footnote 40, p. 1018.↩
- See footnote 41, p. 1019.↩
- For documentation on the exploratory conversations on international organization held at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington by representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China, August 21–October 7, 1944, see vol. i, pp. 713 ff.↩
- British Ambassador in the Soviet Union.↩