85. Telegram 1584 From the Embassy in Yugoslavia to the Department of State, March 11, 1976, 1430Z.1 2
TELEGRAM
Department of State
BELGRADE 1584
R 111430Z MAR 76
FM AMEMBASSY BELGRADE
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 5876
INFO USMISSION
GENEVA
BELGRADE 1584
Exdis
PASS LABOR FOR SECRETARY USERY AND DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY SEGALL; COMMERCE FOR UNDERSECRETARY
DEPT FOR IO ASSISTANT SECRETARY LEWIS
E.O. 11652: GDS
TAGS: ILO PORG
SUBJ: MEETING WITH ILO DIRECTOR GENERAL BLANCHARD
1. ON MAR 6 MET WITH BLANCHARD, WOLF, HIS LEGAL ADVISER, FORTIN, CHEF DE CABINET, ACCOMPANIED BY AMBASSADOR DALE, HOROWITZ, USG MEMBER OF GOVERNING BODY, AND LABATT GENEVA. TOOK VERY LOW KEY APPROACH WITH BLANCHARD, EXPLAINING PURSUANT TO CONSTITUTION NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ANY GOVT TO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE DG, THAT FURTHERMORE HIS CAPACITY TO SATISFY BASIC U.S. CONCERNS LIMITED. HOWEVER, DID INDICATE THAT BLANCHARD’S AND HIS OFFICE’S DRAFTING OF DOCUMENTS SUCH AS THOSE FOR EMPLOYMENT CONFERENCE AND ADVICE TO THE CHAIR, AND ON OTHER MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS COULD BE OF IMPORTANCE.
2. I TRIED TO HIGHLIGHT SERIOUSNESS OF U.S. PURPOSE BY DISCUSSING U.S. FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION DURING PERIOD OF TIME OF NOTICE. TOLD BLANCHARD THAT WE WERE COMMITTED TO SATISFY OUR INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS AND THAT BECAUSE OF APPROPRIATION DIFFICULTY WE COULD CONCEIVABLY EVEN PAY DUES FOR EXTRA MONTH OF DECEMBER 1977.
3. BLANCHARD EXPRESSED APPRECIATION FOR RECOGNITION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIS POSITION AND THAT OF PRIME MINISTERS, FOREIGN MINISTERS AND LABOR MINISTERS OF VARIOUS NATIONS. ON THE OTHER HAND, HE WAS COMPLETELY NONPLUSSED BY MY RELUCTANCE TO GET INTO THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS ISSUES AND AGAIN AND AGAIN ASKED FOR ELABORATION OF OUR LETTER. AT ONE POINT HE CONTENDED THAT AMBASSADOR MOYNIHAN AGREED WITH HIM THAT OUR LETTER WAS INSUFFICIENTLY DETAILED. I RESISTED GETTING INTO A DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD EXPLORED WITH VARIOUS GOVTS AND ALLUDED TO THEM ONLY GENERALLY.
4. SOMEWHAT OFF BALANCE, BLANCHARD AT ONE POINT SAID HE COULD NOT BELIEVE THE U.S. WOULD LEAVE THE ILO, AND AT ANOTHER, THAT HE WAS AFRAID WE HAD ALREADY DECIDED TO LEAVE THE ILO. I INDICATED THAT I WAS NOT UNDULY OPTIMISTIC SINCE UNLESS MEMBER NATIONS AND PARTICULARLY THE INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACIES AGREED TO A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN THE ATMOSPHERE ON THE ISSUES SET FORTH IN THE SECRETARY’S LETTER, OUR COURSE OF ACTION WAS DETERMINED. BLANCHARD EXPRESSED CONCERN WHETHER 23 DEMOCRACIES COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND EMPHASIZED HIS DESIRE TO BE NEUTRAL. I RESPONDED THAT WE REGARD NEUTRALITY AS REQUIRING FEALTY TO THE BASIC PURPOSES AND STRUCTURE OF THE ILO.
5. IN RESPONSE TO THE POINTS IN LETTER, BLANCHARD ARGUED THAT OUR POSITION ON DOUBLE STANDARD WAS MISCONCEIVED BECAUSE OF THE PROFESSIONALISM OF THE COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS, TO WHICH I RESPONDED THAT OUR CONCERN WAS MORE FOR THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON APPLICATION OF CONVENTION AND THE CONFERENCE PLENARY. BLANCHARD ACKNOWLEDGED THAT GEORGE MEANY HAD RAISED THE SAME POINT WITH HIM. HE EMPHASIZED THAT HE AGREED WITH OUR BASIC POSITIONS, CLAIMING THAT HE HAD CONSISTENTLY URGED ILO MEMBERS TO COMPLY WITH DUE PROCESS POINTING OUT THAT ONLY LAST WEEK HE HAD SUGGESTED THIS TO THE SOVIET UNION. HE EXPRESSED COMPLETE SUPPORT FOR U.S. PROPOSAL TO AMEND ARTICLE 17 OF THE STANDING ORDERS.
6. AFTER HE MENTIONED GEORGE MEANY SEVERAL TIMES, I EMPHASIZED THE BREADTH OF CONSENSUS ON U.S. ILO POLICY. BLANCHARD ACKNOWLEDGED IT BUT CONTENDED HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH NUANCES OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS OF STATE, LABOR AND COMMERCE. I DISCOUNTED THAT.
7. AT LUNCH I ASKED BLANCHARD WHAT THE SOVIET POSITION WAS ON THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS AND ON U.S. POLICY GENERALLY. BLANCHARD DESCRIBED THEM AS VERY QUIET, INDEED. I ASKED WHY THAT WAS SO AND HIS ASSOCIATES SUGGESTED TWO POSSIBILITIES: (1) FORTIN, THAT THE SOVIETS DID NOT WANT TO BE BLAMED FOR PRECIPITATING U.S. WITHDRAWAL AND (2) WOLF THAT WITHOUT THE U.S. AS A BACKBOARD, SOVIET PROPAGANDA EFFORTS IN THE ILO WERE LESS EFFECTIVE AND MEANINGFUL. FOR OBVIOUS REASONS BLANCHARD EXPRESSED DISPLEASURE WITH THE LATTER SUGGESTION.
8. AFTER LUNCH, AT HOROWITZ’ SUGGESTION, I PULLED BLANCHARD ASIDE AND PRIVATELY EXPRESSED APPRECIATION FOR HIS ACTIONS DURING THE MID-EAST DEBATE AND FOR HIS RECENT DESCRIPTION OF FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND TRI-PARTITISM AS TOP PRIORITIES FOR THE ILO (HE CLAIMED HE WAS CRITICIZED BY THE SOVIETS FOR THAT). I ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE POSITION OF FRANCE, HIS COUNTRY, WOULD BE OF PARTICULAR SIGNIFICANCE.
9. COMMENT: THERE WAS NO PURPOSE IN COMING ON STRONG WITH BLANCHARD. THE SITUATION PRESENTS INHERENT PRESSURE. I THOUGHT IT MORE USEFUL TO REFLECT A SORROWFUL, DOWN-BEAT ATTITUDE TO ADD TO OUR CREDIBILITY. FURTHERMORE, I DID NOT DISCUSS IN DETAIL OUR 76-77 AGENDA BECAUSE I DID NOT WANT TO IMPLICITLY SANCTION BLANCHARD AS A MEDIATOR BETWEEN U.S. AND OTHER ILO MEMBERS. HE IS, OF COURSE, INFORMED OF OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES, PARTICULARLY FRANCE, AND WILL SURELY POSE AS A SOPHISTICATED EXPERT ON THE U.S. POSITIONS BUT THE MORE OFF BALANCE THE MORE HE IS WORRIED AND THAT ITSELF WILL HAVE A SALUTARY IMPACT ON HIS ACTIONS, THE ACTIONS OF HIS OFFICE AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, ON THE EUROPEANS WITH WHOM HE IS IN CONSTANT CONTACT. SILBERMAN
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files. Confidential; Exdis. Sent with instructions to pass to Secretary of Labor W.J. Usery, Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Labor for International Affairs Joel Edwin Segall, Under Secretary of Commerce James A. Baker III, and Lewis. Francis Wolf was Legal Adviser of the ILO. For Kissinger’s letter tendering notice of withdrawal from the ILO, see the source note to Document 83.↩
- Silberman reported on his meeting with Blanchard to discuss the United States position with regard to International Labor Organization withdrawal.↩