765.00/10–2851
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs (Bonbright)1
Subject: Italian Trade Union Situation
| Participants: | Mr. Michael Ross, International Representative, CIO Deputy Assistant Secretary James C.H. Bonbright, EUR |
| Mr. Joseph N. Greene, Jr., WE | |
| Mr. Daniel L. Horowitz, EUR/RA |
Mr. Ross explained that he wanted to convey to the Department the views of the CIO on the Italian trade union situation before leaving for New York to attend the CIO Executive Committee meeting and National Convention.
Mr. Ross said that both he and others in the CIO concerned with the Italian situation had supported the policy of unification of all non-Communist trade union forces into the CISL on the basis of their belief that such an effort at establishment of non-religious, non-political trade unionism was worth trying and might achieve the basic objective of competing successfully with the Communist controlled CGIL. He said that it has become evident, however, that this policy is not being successful in its principal objective and that, therefore, the CIO is now convinced of the necessity for supporting not only the CISL but also the UIL.
Ross said that among the reasons for the conclusion reached by the CIO were
1. Evidently the traditions of political unionism are sufficiently strong in Italy that the concept of an American type of unionism has not made the impression upon the workers which it originally was believed might take place;
2. The CISL has not been making any appreciable progress in recent times in reducing the strength of the CGIL;
3. Workers by and large identify the CISL with Christian Democracy and clericalism, despite the efforts of the organization to convey a contrary impression;
4. Pastore, Secretary General of CISL, is, in Mr. Ross’ opinion, one of the best trade union leaders in Western Europe. On the other hand, both his personality and manner convey to the public a figure in the clerical tradition rather than in the trade union Socialist tradition;
5. The present size of UIL is not as significant as the fact that potentially it could draw heavily upon CGIL strength if given support;
6. The ICFTU is committed to take a decision at its Executive Board meeting late in November on UIL application for membership. This decision will be favorable, since throughout the time that the UIL application has been pending, the only two trade union centers opposing admission have been CISL and the AFL. Not only do the European unions actively support admission, but also the Latin American unions.
Ross said that the Romita-Saragat Socialists would, he was certain, ask their supporters in CISL to shift over to the UIL. In Ross’ opinion, most Socialists in CISL would do so. He said that he realized such a shift, combined with UIL admission to ICFTU, would strengthen the hand of those Christian Democratic trade unionists who desire Christian unionism. He said that he recognized that [Page 731] this might, at worst, mean that CISL would become a Christian organization and that the possibility could not be entirely excluded that CISL might eventually even leave the ICFTU and join the Christian trade union international (CISC). He did not exclude the possibility that support of UIL might strengthen these tendencies. On the other hand, he said that his organization felt that despite these possibilities it is necessary to support UIL equally with CISL, to achieve the basic objective of overcoming CGIL strength.
Ross said that if support is given to UIL an understanding between UIL and CISL should be worked out to eliminate direct attacks upon each other and that both concentrate upon gaining strength away from CGIL. On the other hand, he thought it impractical to impose any requirement that neither organization admit former members of the other.
Mr. Ross said he was convinced that Tom Lane, the Labor Attaché in Rome, is so completely committed to and identified with exclusive support for the CISL that were a shift of policy accepted along the lines the CIO suggests it would be necessary to transfer Lane. Ross added that he had known Lane for a number of years and had always had the best relations with him, so that there was nothing personal in this assessment.
- Drafted by Horowitz.↩