A second problem which involved due process was that condemnations were frequently made without adequate investigation of the charges that were being made against various people within that organization. Another very important principle is that the main purpose of the International Labor Organization is . . . to adopt and enforce labor standards. And too often the basic purpose was diverted by extraneous political matters that were injected into the procedures of the ILO.

[F]or instance, . . . you would come to talk about questions like the condemnation of some country for political actions rather than anything related to labor standards at all. And then another principle, of course, is tripartitism. And in this, of course, the International Labor Organization is unique among United Nations organizations. And that is it has representatives of unions, workers, employers and government from different countries, and tripartitism means that the labor and employer representatives really represent labor and employers.

Too frequently that principle was diluted when the delegates represented government almost exclusively. So those were the four basic concerns that we had about the operations of the ILO.

White House Press Release, Nov. 1, 1977. 16 International Legal Materials 1562 (Nov. 1977).

During this briefing session, Secretary Marshall expressed doubt that one-year extension of the notice of intention to withdraw given in a letter dated November 5, 1975, from Secretary of State Kissinger to Francis Blanchard, Director General of the ILO, was permissible under the ILO constitution:

[W]e would be subject to challenge if we tried to participate with the one-year extension when the constitution, we thought, was fairly clear on that matter.

A problem that we have, of course, is we have objected in the past to other countries twisting the language of the constitution in order to fit their own purposes. And so we thought that the question of a one-year extension was questionable at best, . . . and I guess the real and final reasoning is it is hard to see what you could accomplish in one year with an extension . . . .

*

Id. 1565.

Secretary Marshall indicated that in spite of the withdrawal and the consequent termination of about $20 million in annual, direct contributions by the United States to the ILO, the United States would continue to follow and in some cases indirectly support some ILO activities:

I think, of course, it is important to clarify that even though the United States withdraws, we intend to continue to watch the ILO's activities very carefully. And I hope personally that the time will come when we can see our way to get back in.

Also, we will continue to contribute to the ILO's activities because most of its technical assistance funds, some $35 million a year, come from the UNDP, United Nations Development Program, and we contribute over $100 million a year to that program and will continue to do that.

I think we will continue to contribute to the information gathering and statistical activities.

Id. 1565-1566.

For further information concerning the U.S. formal notice of intention to withdraw delivered on Nov. 5, 1977, see the 1975 Digest, Ch. 2, § 4C, pp. 70–73.

D.

INTERNATIONAL STAFF AND STRUCTURE

Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization On June 2, 1977, President Carter proclaimed that the amendments to articles 10, 16, 17, 18, 20, 28, and 32 of the Convention of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) as adopted on October 17, 1974, by the Assembly of IMCO at its fifth extraordinary session held at London from October 16 to 18, 1974, shall enter into force for the United States on April 1, 1978. The IMCO Convention was signed on March 6, 1948 (TIAS 4044; 9 UST 621; 289 UNTS 48; entered into force for the United States on March 17, 1958). As indicated by President Gerald R. Ford in his letter of transmittal to the Senate dated July 10, 1975, requesting advice and consent to ratification, "[t]hese amendments enlarge the membership of the IMCO Council from eighteen to twenty-four, insure equitable geographic representation of member states on the Council, and open participation on the Maritime Safety Committee to all members of the Organization."

77 Dept. of State Bulletin 667 (1977). S. Ex. F, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. III (1975). On Oct. 22, 1975, then Senator Mike Mansfield submitted a report to the full Senate from the Committee on Foreign Relations, which described the background and purpose of the proposed amendments as follows:

Background

The Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) is the specialized agency of the United Nations concerned solely with maritime affairs. Approximately 90 states are members of IMCO.

IMCO's objectives are to facilitate cooperation among governments on technical matters affecting shipping with special responsibility for the safety of life at sea to ensure that the highest possible standards of safety and efficient navigation are achieved. This entails providing extensive exchange between nations of information on technical maritime subjects.

IMCO's organization operates through its Assembly of member nations, together with a Council of eighteen members, a Maritime Safety Committee of sixteen countries and a Marine Environment Protection Committee of unlimited membership.

The Assembly consists of representatives from all IMCO member states. It decides upon the work program, votes the budget to which all member states contribute on an agreed scale of assessments, approves financial regulations, elects the IMCO Council and approves the appointment of the Secretary General.

The Assembly normally meets in London, and regular sessions are held every two years.

The Council consists of representatives from eighteen member states elected by the Assembly for a term of two years; it normally meets twice a year and is IMCO's governing body between Assembly Sessions.

The Maritime Safety Committee deals with aids to navigation, construction and equipment of ships, rules for preventing collisions at sea, dangerous cargoes, maritime safety procedures and requirements, marine casualty studies, search and rescue, and other related matters.

Proposed amendments

The following is an excerpt from the Department of State's letter of submittal describing the amendments:

As set forth in the resolution adopting the amendments, the amendments were adopted in recognition of the need to ensure that the principal organs of the Organization are representative of the total membership of the Organization, and to ensure as well equitable geographical representation of member States on the Council.

Article 10 of the Convention, as presently in force, restricts the eligibility of membership on the Maritime Safety Committee to full members, thus excluding associate members. Article 28, as amended in 1968, provides that the Committee, consisting of sixteen members, be selected according to a formula that ensures: first, that eight members be selected from among the ten largest shipowning States; second, that four additional members account for geographic representation in each of the following areas (1) Africa, (2) the Americas, (3) Asia and Oceania, and (4) Europe; the third, that the four remaining positions be allocated to members not otherwise represented in the other two categories. In addition to these three classes, it is provided that eligibility for election requires that member candidates have an "important interest in maritime safety."

The proposed amendments to articles 10 and 28, as well as the related amendments to articles 16, 31 and 32, provide that the Maritime Safety Committee, the principal functional organ of the Organization, dispense with the imposition of limitations on eligibility as described above. It would now be opened to membership by all member States desiring to exercise that right.

Articles 17 and 18, as amended in 1967, refer to the size and composition of the IMCO Council. Article 17 provides that the Council be composed of eighteen members. Article 18 describes the election of members to the Council in three categories which require that: (a) six shall be States with the largest interest in providing international shipping services; (b) six shall be other States with the largest interest in international seaborne trade; and (c) six shall be States, not elected under (a) or (b) above, which have special interests in maritime transport or navigation, and whose election to the Council will ensure the representation of all major geographic areas of the world.

The proposed amended articles 17 and 18 enlarge the Council to twenty-four members, the six additional members to be absorbed by the third designated category which is retained along with the other two categories. In addition, the proposed amendment to article 20 simply alters the number of members required to provide a quorum, a change which reflects the increased size of the Council.

The United States, as a member of the Ad Hoc Working Group which considered possible amendments to the Convention, participated in the preliminary consideration of these proposed amendments and supported their adoption, which later proved to be unanimous. Although the United States had preferred at the outset that any enlargement of the Council membership be distributed

throughout the three election categories and that a limited membership scheme, with traditional election classes, be retained for the Maritime Safety Committee, it became clear that these objectives did not have wide support. Moreover, it was observed that to pursue these aims would have been divisive given the large measure of support for expansion of membership proposals found among members of the Working Group. Thus, the resulting compromise as evidenced in these proposed amendments reflects the larger interests of maritime nations in increasing the participation by all nations in the workings of the primary IMCO organs. It favors as well the United States interest in preserving the Council's traditional election categories and avoids the explicit identification of any category or proportion for "developing countries."

S. Ex. Rept. No. 94-3, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 1–3 (1975).

U.S. Support of International Organizations Senator Abraham A. Ribicoff, Chairman of the Committee on Government Operations of the U.S. Senate, released on February 7, 1977, a report entitled "U.S. Participation in International Organizations," 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977). In his statement before the Senate on that date, Senator Ribicoff described, inter alia, the financial support provided by the United States to 65 different international organizations and some of the concerns of the Committee with regard to such organizations.

Set forth below are portions of Senator Ribicoff's remarks:

The United States is now engaged in a wide range of specialized agencies of the U.N., and other similar organizations. The committee report identified 65, although the number continues to grow each year, ranging from large technical assistance organizations-U.N. Development Program to organizations that test seeds-International Seed Testing Association-or seek to promote studies on Pan American history and geography-the Pan American Institute of Geography and History.

It is now time for a thorough reassessment of our policy toward these organizations. I intend that the committee study these international organizations, and the manner in which the United States participates in them. The United States should continue to support only those organizations which are really accomplishing something.

The United States spent more than $1 billion in 1975 in support of international organizations. About $619 million of this went to just three international development banks. Altogether, the United States has provided over $22 billion since 1945 to the U.N. system, including the financial institutions

The committee report. . . provides a general review of the problems Congress and the executive branch must consider as it examines anew its policy toward international organizations. It discusses, first,

the size and nature of the organization; second, the political trends in the organizations, and the U.S. Government's response to growing politicization in the organizations; third, the proliferation of international organizations; fourth, the effectiveness of the international organizations; fifth, U.S. participation in the international organizations, including how U.S. policy is coordinated and implemented; and sixth, personnel in the international organizations.

One of the problems the report points out is the growing domination of Third World politics in the organizations. . . .

*

While the international organizations must improve their own operations, we must improve the way we participate in these organizations, as well . . .

* * *

The excessive level of the salaries of U.N. employees must be reviewed .

Although the United States provides on the average 25 percent of the budget of the organizations, Americans fill on the average only 16 percent of the professional positions

The United States will have to more realistically assess the capabilities of the organizations, and work to make the system a more effective one than it is now.

123 Cong. Rec. S 2393-2394 (daily ed. Feb. 7, 1977).

Organization of American States

On April 26, 1977, Ambassador Gale W. McGee of the U.S. Permanent Mission to the Organization of American States (OAS) submitted a diplomatic note to His Excellency Dr. Juan Pablo Gomez-Pradilla, President of the Permanent Council of the OAS requesting the General Assembly to place on its agenda a proposal to limit the assessment against any member of the OAS to no more than 49 percent of the organization's regular budget. Ambassador McGee made the following observations in support of this U.S. proposal:

.. Your Excellency will recall my government's view that the present system for financing the organization, under which the United States pays 66 percent of the assessed budget, is harmful to the organization. It makes the OAS too dependent on a single member, and it projects a false image of the organization to the rest of the world. Summing up, the U.S. Secretary of State said [at Santiago on June 11, 1976], "It is important to find some basis for OAS financing that will, over time, reduce the U.S. share of the assessed costs while ensuring that the activities of the OAS in the vital development assistance field are not weakened."

Specifically, it is the view of the United States that no one member should be assessed more than 49 percent of the Organization's regular budget. This is the position to which we hope the other members will be willing to give their serious and sympathetic attention.