Study Prepared in the Division of International Labor and Social Affairs, Department of State 3
International Labor Movements After the WFTU Split
1. Summary and Recommendations
The split in the World Federation of Trade Unions in January 1949 found the chief free trade union centers—the CIO and the British Trades Union Congress (TUC), which seceded from the WFTU, and the AF of L, which had never joined—in agreement on the need for a democratic anti-Communist international labor body. But they have [Page 829] not yet fully agreed on next steps in the creation of such an international.
The chief immediate difficulties to be resolved are those of prestige relations (AF of L-CIO and AF of L-TUC) and personalities. There are also issues of organizational structure, and the place of various Latin American, Middle and Far Eastern unions, and relations with the international trade secretariats.* The genuine differences of interests are not too great, and with a measure of good will current difficulties can be resolved. But they have held up the action necessary to create a new international and delayed its formation perhaps to the end of this year. Meanwhile the democratic groups still in the WFTU will be taking the steps necessary to disaffiliate.
A new international will have its chief strength in the national centers of Europe (including Western Germany), the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. It will include many Latin American unions, some colonial groups in the Caribbean and in Africa, and probably some federations in the Middle and Far East, but all these will reflect the weakness of trade unionism in these areas. Its aims will be stated largely in terms of the protection of labor’s traditional economic interests and the representation of labor in world affairs. Its chief activities are likely to be essentially political) since its firmest characteristic will be its anti-Communism, and its chief members will be supporters of their governments, especially in foreign policy, as long as the present constellations of politics hold. The need to counter the drives of the WFTU, moreover, will in itself direct much of the energies of a democratic international into activities that are essentially political. The major economic business of democratic world labor will probably be done by the international trade secretariats, in close association with the new international.
Such a new international would have great value in offsetting the “labor unity” appeal of the WFTU. It would give the support of international recognition to the hardpressed democratic labor organizations of France, Italy and Germany, and to the non-Communist unions of Latin America, the Middle and the Far East. In the United Nations and its specialized agencies, and in general appeals to world opinion, it would offer a democratic challenge to the WFTU’s claims to represent world labor.
The WFTU split is a serious tactical setback for the Kremlin. But [Page 830] the physical equipment and the label of the World Federation of Trade Unions remain with the international Communist movement. Even after the split is completed, the WFTU will be far more powerful than the pre-war Red International of Labor Unions. Now freed of inhibitions imposed on it by the affiliation of the CIO, the TUC and other democratic federations, it will begin serious propaganda and agitation in the colonial and underdeveloped areas. Its overtly Communist character may prevent it from making much greater headway than the WFTU has achieved in Latin America or the Caribbean. In most of Africa and in the Middle East it is likely to be repressed for the time. Its greatest potential menace to U.S. foreign policy aims lies in the Far East, where it will probably use considerable money, organizers and propaganda in promoting and exploiting the Soviet line of defense of the colonial peoples.
In the United Nations (chiefly the Economic and Social Council, and the International Labor Organization) it can be more obstreperous than it has been, but it will be far less influential. And it may hesitate to use all its possibilities of noise and obstruction for fear of losing its consultative status.
The WFTU will continue a serious menace to American foreign policy as long as it can be made to appear the major voice of workers throughout the world, especially if large numbers of workers feel exploited and repressed. It is therefore in the interests of United States foreign policy that the prestige and power of the WFTU to advance Soviet foreign policy objectives be reduced; that the remaining non-Communist members withdraw from the WFTU; and that a vigorous democratic international labor federation be established. These are tasks primarily for the labor organizations, not for government. It should be noted here that while there are great risks to improper or unwise intervention in labor affairs, assistance may be given by the Department or by U.S. missions to developments in line with our policy by: (1) encouraging and facilitating the cooperation of the AF of L, the CIO, and railway labor unions with non-Communist labor abroad; (2) making known to democratic labor groups abroad, through radio, press and informed personal contacts, the position of American labor on international affairs, on the WFTU, and on plans for a new international, and (3) if occasions present themselves, helping the development of a new international trade union federation that will be democratic, free of control by governments, and anti-Communist.
[Here follow the body of the study presenting a detailed review of the circumstances of the withdrawal of democratic labor organizations from the WFTU, an analysis of the prospects and problems of a new international labor organization, and a brief survey of the character and strength of WFTU activity.]
- This study was drafted by Val R. Lorwin of the Division of International Labor and Social Affairs. The extract printed here comprises 2½ pages of the 24 pages of the source text.↩
-
International trade secretariats are the rather (barbarous English name given to the international federations of national unions of a single or allied industries or trades—e.g. the International Transport Workers Federation, composed of national unions of maritime, longshore, road transport and railway labor, or the International Metal Trades Federation.
National centers are federations of various unions of different trades and industries on a national basis—e.g. the AF of L, CIO, British TUC. [Footnote in the source text.]
↩