Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume V

800.5043/3–2349: Circular airgram

The Secretary of State to Certain Diplomatic and Consular Offices ¹

secret

Washington , March 23, 1949—4:10 p. m.

Following the withdrawal of the CIO, British TUC and Netherlands Federation of Labor (NVV) from the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), the Executive Bureau of the WFTU resolved to hold an Asiatic Trade Unions conference in Peiping at the end of May or early in June and invite all WFTU members as well as some unaffiliated unions to attend. Included in those that are certain to be invited will be the organizations from Siam, the Philippines and Japan, whose “applications” for affiliation with the WFTU were approved by the Executive Committee following the split. (No formal application by Japanese unions is known of here.) A large delegation, including WFTU Secretary-General Saillant (Communist-controlled French CGT), Rostovski (Soviet Assistant Secretary WFTU), Monk (Australia)^*, Suzine (International Dept USSR Trade Union Council) and Liu (China),² were reported to be leaving very soon for visits to the countries; of the Middle and Far East for the purpose of organizing the conference. Rostovski and Liu are said to be heading the arrangements. A reliable, secret source has reported that Comintern circles in Paris attach great importance to this conference and that a very large budget for travel, propaganda, etc. has been established.

The Department views the planned Asian meeting as an important move in the overall Communist program for Asia and requests the field to keep it informed of related developments of significance. Included in the information desired are: reactions in Asian countries to news of WFTU split; possible courses of action of WFTU Asian member bodies; information concerning activities of members of WFTU delegation while in Asia. The Department believes discreet conversations with known non-Communist labor leaders, provided satisfactory relationships with them have already been established, might be useful. While the details related in this, and the circular airgram of February 7, 1949, entitled “Communist Trade Union Emphasis on Asia”,³ are secret, the facts regarding the WFTU split, the probable withdrawal of other trade union centers, and the expectation that a new non-Communist body will be formed are unclassified and should be widely publicized.

Follow-up messages concerning WFTU plans in Asia will be sent as significant information becomes available.

The following background material relating to the causes of the split in the WFTU and developments looking towards a new non-Communist labor international is forwarded for your information:

1. The withdrawal, in January 1949, of the American, British and Netherlands members of the Communist-dominated World Federation of Trade Unions has set in motion a train of events of direct interest to the Department and to United States Missions abroad.

2. The split in the WFTU, founded in 1945, results basically from (1) the East-West cleavage as reflected in the labor movement, and (2) Communist exploitation of their control of the WFTU Secretariat for Communist propaganda and organizational ends. The British Trades Union Congress (TUC), the CIO, and the Netherlands Federation of Labor (NVV), having come to the conclusion that they could no longer remain associated with the organization, broke their connection at the January meeting of the Executive Bureau. They are now circulating a statement of the reasons for their action to the other democratic members, who are expected, in the main, to follow their example. The AFL refused from the beginning to be associated with the WFTU and has waged an unremitting campaign against it.

3. The withdrawal of these non-Communist trade union “centers” (national federations) from the WFTU is a welcome development from the standpoint of United States policy and interests. However, the present transitional phase, which finds the Communists in undisputed control of the WFTU apparatus while the democratic centers move slowly towards formation of a new non-Communist “international”, presents complications with which the Department must be concerned.

4. Even after the withdrawal of practically all the non-Communist centers, which may be expected to take place during 1949, the WFTU will remain far more active and influential than the pre-war Pro-fintern (Red International of Labor Unions). The affiliation of the majority centers in France and Italy (CGT and CGIL), which are still under Communist control, provides a Western European base useful for propaganda purposes. (Note that Di Vittorio,⁴ head of the CGIL, was elected as President to succeed Deakin,⁵ of the TUC, immediately following the split.) The WFTU will have at its disposal a number of Communist-controlled affiliates in Latin America, the Near and Far East, and colonial areas. It will no doubt continue to exploit, at least as skillfully as it does at present, its “consultative” status in the UN/ECOSOC, and in the UN Specialized Agencies, including notably the International Labor Organization. In non-European areas especially, it will be able to capitalize, at least for the time being, on its claim to be the only functioning labor international capable of aggressively defending the rights of workers and their organizations. Even within those areas where labor is predominantly anti-Communist, it may succeed in enrolling individual Communist controlled unions in the “trade departments” it proposes to establish, and Perhaps in the WFTU itself.

5. The Second Congress of the WFTU, now scheduled to meet in Milan in June 1949, may reveal the broad outlines of the WFTU’s strategy and tactics under completely Communist management.⁶ It is already evident, however, from the decisions taken by the Executive Committee meeting held in Paris following the split (January 1949) that the WFTU will immediately intensify its propaganda and organizational activities in the Far East, to which agents and funds have been assigned in preparation for an Asiatic Regional Conference.

6. The International Trade Secretariats (international associations on a craft or industrial basis), the ERP-Trade Union Advisory Committee, and the Inter-American Federation of Labor continue to exist as regional and functional centers upon whose support for major U.S. policy aims we can count. Initial discussions are also in process looking toward the formation of a non-Communist Asian federation. However, the impetus for an effective international of world-wide scope must come from Western Europe and North America.

7. It is generally recognized by the leading democratic organizations of Western Europe and the United States that they must proceed as quickly as possible to organize an effective democratic international, capable at once of promoting labor’s interests and countering the WFTU. Unfortunately, the process is likely to be slow, and is not expected to result in the establishment of a new organization before the end of this year. Most of the democratic trade union centers must still make the decision, in the light of their respective constitutional structures and political circumstances, to leave the WFTU.^† Some of these may be reluctant to join a new democratic international in the near future, preferring, for reasons of labor and national politics, to remain in an autonomous position. Furthermore, the TUC, AFL, and CIO must reconcile what now appear to be acute differences of policies and personalities. Prior agreement among these three is an essential condition of wider negotiations for establishment of the new international.

8. Among the more serious obstacles which must be overcome in this initial phase are (a) mutual distrust among the three organizations arising out of considerations of prestige as well as rival conceptions of the scope and nature of the functions of a new international; (b) failure of the American organizations to reach, so far, an agreed basis for American representation, regarded by the TUC as a condition of successful negotiations; and (c) certain personality conflicts, including those centering around the choice of a secretary-general for the new organization.

9. The forthcoming conversations between the TUC, on the one hand, and the AFL and CIO on the other, to take place in this country towards the end of March, should reveal whether the area of agreement is wide enough to permit rapid advance towards a new international.

Acheson

1. This airgram was transmitted to the missions in Bangkok, Batavia, Bombay, Calcutta, Canberra, Canton, Colombo, Karachi, London, Manila, Moscow, Nanking, New Delhi, Peiping, Rangoon, Saigon, Seoul, Shanghai, Singapore, Tokyo, and Wellington.
2. Monk [Albert Monk, Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions], as a non-Communist and the representative of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which is expected to withdraw from WFTU membership shortly, may decline to participate. [Footnote in the source text.]
2. Of the persons referred to here, Louis Saillant was an officer in the Confédération Générale de Travail, S. N. Rostovski was an official in the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions of the USSR, and Liu Ning-yi was Vice President of the Chinese Trade Union Congress.
3. Not printed.
4. Giuseppe Di Vittorio, Responsible Secretary of the Italian General Confederation of Labor and member of the Central Committee of the Italian Communist Party.
5. Arthur Deakin, General Secretary of the British Transport and General Workers’ Union and Chairman of the General Council of the British Trade Union Congress.
6. A 29-page report on the Second World Congress of the World Federation of Trade Unions, held in Milan, June 29–July 11, 1949, was transmitted to the Department as an enclosure to despatch 954, July 19, from Rome, neither printed. The report cautioned that while the Congress did not receive much publicity outside the left-wing press, it was of substantial propaganda and morale value for the 253 representatives of 53 countries attending (800.5043/7–1949).
7. The Irish and Canadian affiliates have already, in effect, signified their intention to withdraw. The Scandinavian and Benelux centers (in addition to the NVV) and Switzerland may be expected to follow without much delay. Austria, Australia and New Zealand will probably take action before the end of the year. This will leave a Russian dominated WFTU with affiliates drawn principally from Soviet Russia and her satellites, including the Soviet Zone of Germany; the majority movements in France and Italy; and Communist-dominated organizations in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. [Footnote in the source text.]