and many were adopted by the Committee, and some later by the Governing Body.

But on the issue of composing committees of the Conference the Ago Committee disagreed from the outset, with Worker and Government members agreeing on what came to be the final proposal and the Employer members in firm opposition.10 In the March 1959 session of the Governing Body, a proposition was adopted, over the vote of the Employer Group and the United States Government, which provided that any delegate to the Conference, aggrieved at having been excluded from participating as a voting member of a Conference committee, could make an appeal to a Panel of three jurists, independent of and outside the Conference, who would decide whether or not he might properly be seated as a voting member of a committee. But not more than two delegates could thus be added to any one committee. The proposition also made "group" or "bloc" voting permissible if two-thirds of the members of a committee group should so decide. By this device all votes of the group could be cast in such manner as a two-thirds majority would decide.

This proposition, as passed by the Governing Body in March, was adopted by the Conference in June by a vote of 137 to 112, with 12 abstentions, except for the "bloc" voting provision, which was rejected through a coalition of the Communists' and free Employer representatives' votes.12 The free Employers were opposed to the principle of "bloc" voting while the Communists were opposed because they viewed it as an attempt to deprive them of voting rights. It is to be noted that the United States had explained its opposition between March and June to all Governments through diplomatic channels and the Delegation continued efforts along these lines in Geneva. The large vote in opposition was due in part to these efforts but, at the same time, it manifests basic disagreement with the compromise solution. The deep rooted nature of this conflict and the position of the United States is clearly stated by Mr. Lodge in his comments to the plenary session of the Conference. Mr. Lodge stated in part:

The proposal before us is an attempt to compromise a conflict which has beset the ILO at least since 1932. Almost from its inception this Organization has been faced with the very fundamental problem of placing on committees to vote employers or workers who, because of the system under which they live and by their own admission, are not free to deliberate independently or to speak their minds and are in fact no different from government representatives.

The United States does not believe, however, that the proposal provides any real answer to the basic problem which confronts us. In fact, we believe that it holds some very real dangers for the future of this Organization. The central issues at stake are the tripartite character of the ILO and the right of the Employers' and Workers' groups to decide for themselves who should represent their viewpoint on the technical Committees of the Conference. If these prin

10

For the report of the committee, see ibid., Minutes of the 141st Session of the Governing Body, Geneva, 10-13 March 1959, Appendix II, pp. 64-70.

11

See International Labour Conference, Forty-third Session, Geneva, 1959: Record of Proceedings, pp. 769–770.

12 See ibid., p. 776.

ciples are compromised, then the qualities which give this Organization its unique role in international relationships we feel will eventually disappear. This Organization embodies, we think, a very realistic understanding of the nature of employer and worker relationships in today's world. It was conceived in the recognition that in any free society there exist quite legitimate differences of outlook and interest among workers, employers and governments. It is in this context that the conception of a tripartite structure, within which representatives of the differing viewpoints of workers, employers and governments can independently and freely express their opinion, has its meaning. An essential corollary to this is that the respect for the rights of these groups must be maintained.

The real question before us is not one of defining what technically constitutes an employer or a worker, nor is there any question involved as to whether peoples living under various social systems, each with its distinctive institutions, can collaborate peacefully and constructively. We all know that they can and they do. The question before us is whether an administrative agent-whether he is called an employer or a worker of a monolithic State without the right to act on his own authority-can be conceived of being an employer or a worker as that title has been conceived in the functioning of this Organization. I do not believe we should accept the fiction that there are societies whose social, political and economic relationships are characterized by a perfect harmony of interests among workers, employers and governments and that this leaves them all to act as one. The reality of the situation is that all representatives from the nations that make such claims are compelled to vote only in conformity with that viewpoint regardless of their undeniable differences.

The United States is committed to the preservation and strengthening of the tripartite structure of the ILO and to the preservation of the rights of the employer and worker groups to designate who shall sit on the respective committees as spokesmen for their viewpoint. We believe that the proposals before us are incompatible with both of these principles.

I think we should proceed with caution and deliberation. The free interplay of employers, workers and governments has been the lifeblood of the ILO. On it our Organization was founded and on it it has thrived and, I believe, will continue to thrive. Stifle this interplay by compromising the independence of the three groups and we will have lost forever that one great principle which ensures our Organization's continuing contribution to the welfare of mankind and the peace of the world."

In accordance with the Ago proposal, a Panel of five judges having terms of 3 years (see Appendix II) 14 was established to hear and decide appeals for places on the Conference Committees.15 From this Panel three were appointed by the Governing Body to hear the appeals of the Communist Employers at this session of the Conference.16 As this procedure was without precedent, the judges necessarily charted a new course, but were guided by two basic considerations. First, the delegate lodging an appeal should be treated on a footing

13 For the complete text of Mr. Lodge's statement, made June 5, 1959, see ibid., pp. 52-53. 14 Not reprinted here.

15 For the report of the Governing Body of the ILO of June 9, 1959, recommending the members of the panel and for the ILO Conference's approval of the recommendation on June 10, see International Labour Conference, Forty-third Session, Geneva, 1959: Record of Proceedings, pp. 771-772 and 158-159, respectively. 16 For the Governing Body's selection June 10, 1959, of the three members of the Appeals Board, see ibid., p. 772.

17

of complete equality in the procedure and have an opportunity of presenting his position to the Board. Secondly, the proceeding should be sufficiently expeditious to permit the decision of the Board to become effective at as early a stage of the Conference as possible. In pursuance of the responsibility placed upon it by the Conference, the Board assigned eleven Communist Employers to seats on six Committees.18

In the first Session of each Committee on which Communist Employers were seated, the free Employers delivered a statement to the Chairman and then withdrew, leaving, in effect, bipartite committees. The free Employers maintained their participation in the plenary sessions of the Conference but did not resume their committee participation. Due to the lateness of the Conference decision upon which the Employers' action was based this withdrawal was not as crippling to the work of the Conference as it might have been had the withdrawal taken place at the outset of the Conference, for the work of the committees was well advanced. The following statement, delivered to the Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, states the Employers' attitude:

The Appeals Board, which has been appointed against the formal opposition of the free Employers' delegates both in the Governing Body and at this present Conference, and whose constitutional character we are unable to recognize, has decided to add Mr. Surguchev (U.S.S.R.) to the voting section of this Committee. The Board has thus required the free Employers to accept in the Employers' Group of this Committee the presence of a delegate who is in fact merely an additional delegate of his Government and whom the Employers' Group of the Conference had refused by an overwhelming vote to designate as its representative. The free Employers' delegates consider that they are unable to lend themselves to such a procedure and have decided to take no further part in the work of this Committee. It is for this reason, Mr. Chairman, that we withdraw from the Committee room.

We would add that the free Employers' Group has asked the Employers' members of the Governing Body to request reconsideration of this entire question by the Governing Body at its November Session.

We would ask that the present statement be recorded in the report of the Committee."

The Appeals Tribunal directed additions of eleven Communist Employers to the following six committees:

One Employer delegate from U.S.S.R. on the Committee on the Application of Conventions.

Two Employer delegates from U.S.S.R. and Czechoslovakia on the Committee on Health Services.

Two Employer delegates from Albania and Ukraine on the Committee on Fishermen.

Two Employer delegates from Byelorussia and Bulgaria on the Committee on Radiation.

Two Employer delegates from Poland and Hungary on the Committee on Non-Manual Workers.

Two Employer delegates from Yugoslavia and Rumania on the Committee on Collaboration.

"The statement of the Appeals Board concerning procedure, June 12, 1959, appears ibid., pp. 772–773.

19

For the report of the Appeals Board of June 17, 1959, see ibid., pp. 773–775. This statement, submitted June 18, 1959, was recorded in the Committee's report of June 19; text ibid., pp. 667–675.

Hungarian Credentials

By resolution of September 14, 1957, the General Assembly of the United Nations found the Hungarian Regime to be a creature of the Kremlin, installed and maintained by Soviet military force.20 Then, in 1958, the International Labor Conference rejected the credentials of the Hungarian Government, Employers and Workers on the ground that the delegation was not truly representative of the Hungarian people.21 At this session the Conference again rejected the credentials of the entire Hungarian Delegation and the U.S. Government Delegation was a moving force in mobilizing delegate support of the action.

Both the Workers' and the Employers' Groups in the Conference had filed challenges against the credentials of the Hungarian delegation this year.22 Under ILO procedures, such protests are referred to a three-man Credentials Committee on which Workers and Employers are represented and whose Chairman is a Government representative. Procedures provide that in the event one or more of the Credentials Committee members find the credentials to be invalid, such finding must be put to a vote of the Conference and, if supported by two-thirds of the Conference, the credentials of the challenged are rejected. The Employer and Worker members of the Credentials Committee filed a majority report recommending the rejection of the credentials.23 The Chairman's report recommended that the question be held in abeyance, following United Nations General Assembly practice. 24

The necessary two-thirds of the Conference voted to accept the majority report. With respect to the Government delegates, 145 delegates voted in favor of rejection, 70 against (39 of these were cast by Communist delegates), with 38 abstentions; 25 with respect to the Hungarian Employer delegate, the Conference rejected his credentials 153 to 64, with 30 abstentions,26 while the Worker delegate's credentials were rejected 146 to 62, with 29 abstentions.27 By this action, the Conference once again declined to recognize the regime that is maintained in force in Budapest only through the intervention of the Soviet military machine and whose behavior since it took office in 1956 has appalled the world.

The position of the United States was well stated by Mr. Henderson in his remarks to the plenary session of the Conference on June 22, 1959:

20 U.N. General Assembly Res. 1133 (XI); text in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1957, pp. 702–704.

"See ibid., 1958, p. 201.

"The employer delegates in a letter dated June 5, 1959; the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions in a letter dated June 4, 1959; and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions in a letter dated June 1, 1959. Report of June 17, 1959; text in International Labour Conference, Fortythird Session, Geneva, 1959: Record of Proceedings, pp. 627–628.

For the second successive year the International Labor Conference has received objections to the accreditation of the Government delegation of Hungary-objections presented by delegates and organizations representing the vast majority of the Workers and Employers present at this Conference. For the second time a majority of the Credentials Committee of the International Labor Conference has decided that the objection to the nomination of the Government delegates and advisers of Hungary is well founded and that the Conference should refuse, as it did last year, to admit these delegates and advisers, in conformity with paragraph 9 of article 3 of the Constitution of the ILO and paragraph 7 of article 26 of the Standing Orders of the Conference.28

The reasons for the position taken by the majority of the Credentials Committee again this year and by the 42d International Labor Conference last year are absolutely clear. They are compellingly stated in the majority report of the Committee. In the light of this report and the facts on which it is based the United States Government believes that this Conference again should reject the credentials of the Hungarian Government delegation. We believe that this Conference should also reject the credentials of the Workers and Employers from Hungary, and refuse to admit the entire Hungarian delegation.

The events behind this decision of the majority of the Credentials Committee and of the last Conference are beyond dispute. They were eloquently set forth in the report of the United Nations Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary in 1957, and are explicitly stated in the resolutions adopted by the 12th and 13th Sessions of the United Nations General Assembly in 1957 and 1958.0 These indictments include a thorough and complete analysis of the situation in Hungary since the spontaneous national uprising led by students and workers in October and November 1956," and in effect constitute the resounding condemnation of an overwhelming majority of the peoples of the world.

The situation remains tragic. Hungary is still enslaved. It was deprived of its liberty and political independence by a foreign power. The Government of Hungary has been imposed on the people against their will by the ruthless intervention of Soviet military force. Masses of its citizens have been forcibly deported to the U.S.S.R. Secret trials are followed by executions, and thousands are political prisoners in jails and concentration camps. Thus fundamental rights and freedoms which have been proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and acknowledged by all free men have been indiscriminately violated.

We have heard several government delegates today make statements in reference to false accusations and slanders. I would inform those delegates that there, in the gallery of this Conference Hall, there are witnesses who would testify as to the events which have been described in the majority report of the Credentials Committee, and I refer to Anna Kethley, the ranking Minister in exile, to General Bela Kiraly, the military commander of Budapest, and Bela Fabian, a former Member of Parliament, who are sitting in the gallery today. This definite action by the International Labor Conference goes beyond the less drastic actions of the United Nations which has deferred judgment on Hungarian credentials from year to year. A proposal of the United Kingdom that the Conference follow the precedent of the United Nations General Assembly and, while condemning the Hungarian Government, take no action respecting the validity

* See ibid., pp. 632-635.

The conclusions from this report of June 20, 1957, are printed in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1957, pp. 680–685.

20

See U.N. General Assembly Res. 1133 (XI) of Sept. 14, 1957 (text ibid., pp. 702-704), and 1312 (XIII) of Dec. 12, 1958 (text ibid., 1958, pp. 683-684).

21

* See ibid., 1956, pp. 462–499.

Text in A Decade of American Foreign Policy: Basic Documents, 1941-1949, pp. 1156-1159.