Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, General; the United Nations, Volume I

IO Files: US/A/C.2 and 3/8

Memorandum by Adlai E. Stevenson, Alternate Representative on the United States Delegation, to All Political Officers on the Delegation Staff

secret

[New York,] December 7, 1946.

At the San Francisco Conference, the World Federation of Trade Unions made an aggressive effort to be admitted to the Assembly and Commissions. But the Steering Committee concluded that no private organization should have any special position in the Conference.

At the General Assembly in London last winter, the Soviet Delegation introduced a resolution supporting a letter from Louis Saillant, Secretary-General of the Federation, requesting special recognition of the Federation in the Assembly and also rights of participation in the work of the Economic and Social Council.

The matter was debated there interminably in the General Committee, Committee I and the General Assembly. You are familiar with the results: resolutions recommending that the Economic and Social Council establish consultative arrangements with WFTU and with the AFofL and the International Cooperative Alliance.

In short, the best we could do at London was to insure equal treatment for the AFofL and the International Cooperative Alliance. Our policy there was first to resist the WFTU proposal and, failing that, to get equal treatment for two other large international non-governmental organizations.

Last June, after careful consideration, ECOSOC worked out a system of categories and placed these three organizations in Category A for consultative relationship with the Council because of their general interest in all of the work of the Council. Later, in October, the International Chamber of Commerce was added to Category A.

Despite the opportunity to do so, the WFTU has thus far made no proposals or suggestions relating to the work of the Council, and the WFTU negotiators expressed satisfaction with the consultative relationship established by the Council at its last session.

However, Leon Jouhaux, one of the French Delegates and a Vice-President of WFTU, wrote a letter to President Spaak on November 12 complaining that these arrangements were insufficient and requesting

1. The right to submit to the Council questions for insertion in the provisional agenda, in accordance with the procedure now applicable to specialized agencies;

2. The right to present written and verbal statements to the Council on all matters of concern to the Federation.

The USSR presented these two requests to Committee I⁵⁸ in the form of a resolution and after prolonged debate the Committee approved the first of these requests 22 to 15 and rejected the second 24 to 14. The U.S., the U.K., Canada and a few others vigorously opposed the adoption of this resolution.

After further debate, we succeeded in getting a resolution adopted which reaffirms the general principle that all non-governmental organizations in Category A should receive equal treatment in respect of consultative arrangements with the Council. This “equality of treatment” resolution was introduced (1) to meet the challenge to the principle of equal treatment and (2) as a hedge against the possibility that our efforts to defeat the USSR resolution in the plenary meeting of the GA may be unsuccessful.

Our Delegation should vigorously oppose, in plenary session, the Soviet resolution granting the WFTU the same rights as a specialized agency with regard to inscribing items on the provisional agenda of the Council on the following grounds:

1. The arrangements worked out by the Council should be entirely satisfactory and afford WFTU and the other three non-governmental organizations included in Category A ample access to the agenda.

2. These arrangements have not even been tested by usage and it is altogether premature, therefore, to assume their inadequacy.

3. These arrangements should be given a reasonable trial before the GA considers any recommendations for change.

4. The GA should not interfere in the details of the Council’s work with regard to consultative arrangements with non-governmental organizations.

5. Such a right, which would have to be extended to other organizations in Category A, would seriously jeopardize the Council’s control over its own agenda; in this connection, it should be borne in mind that the placing of items on the provisional agenda is tantamount to placing them on the approved agenda.

It is apparent that the Soviets and possibly others are determined, if possible, to exalt the prestige of the WFTU at the expense of the ILO, to serve political purposes. That this incessant pressure for special recognition for WFTU is not motivated by a desire to improve the efficiency of the conduct of its business with the Council is best evidenced by the fact that it has made no use of the consultative arrangements already established.

As we attach first importance to defeat of this resolution in the General Assembly and because many Delegates do not take it seriously, or are influenced by their domestic labor movements, it would be very helpful to contact as many as possible before this matter arises in the Assembly to make clear the degree of our interest and the reasons for our opposition to the USSR resolution.⁵⁹

58. Mr. Stevenson’s intended reference here is to the Joint Committee of the Second and Third Committees.

59. General Assembly debate on the draft United States and Soviet resolutions incorporated in the Joint Committee’s report took place on December 15, the Soviet resolution being adopted by 25 votes to 22 votes with 6 abstentions and the United State resolution by 34 votes to 11 with 8 abstentions; for General Assembly proceedings on this see United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, First Session, Second Part, Plenary Meetings, pp. 1393 ff. (hereafter cited as GA(I/2), Plenary). Texts are found in United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, First Session, Second Part, Resolutions Adopted by the General Assembly during the Second Part of Its First Session, pp. 77 and 78; the two were designated two parts of the same resolution, Resolution 49 (I), entitled “Activities of the Economic and Social Council”.

    The Soviet Union at this time re-introduced on the floor of the General Assembly the section of its original resolution that had been rejected by the Joint Committee (paragraph 2); see GA(I/2), Joint Second and Third Committee, pp. 96 and 97, annex 3b and GA(I/2), Plenary, p. 1591, annex 92a). This Soviet amendment was rejected by the General Assembly.

    For a statement made to the General Assembly by the Alternate Representative on the United States Delegation (Douglas) against both the draft Soviet resolution and the Soviet amendment, see GA(I/2), Plenary, pp. 1399 ff.