The ILO
Sir: Returning home after the end of the ILO Conference recently I was surprised and dismayed to read Eric Moonman's article in your issue of 10 June; surprised because I believe that he sympathises with the objectives of this organisation, and yet dismayed because he draws such negative conclusions from what must have been a very brief visit. I wish he had spoken with the British delegation who were neither dispirited nor demoralised.
In fact, this year's conference was much better than we had feared and, although regretting the absence of our friends from the US, I believe that we at least held our own. Of course, the ILO is sometimes misused for political purposes, but this I regret is not only a one-sided process. Our turbulent world is more fragmented and more complex than it was when the ILO's constitutionwas originally inspired by the vision of eliminating injustice, hardship and privation everywhere and it is not unreasonable that the privileged position which it then gave to the states of chief industrial importance should now be questioned. It is not unreasonable that problems of Palestinian workers in the Middle East and of apartheid in Southern Africa should command some of the conference's attention.
Admittedly, it is difficult to prevent such emotive issues slipping outside the ILO's proper field of competence; but the record shows that we successfully maintained 'due process' this year. Of more significance. which Mr Moonman's article overlooks, was our achievement in unanimously approving two new conventions and in completing first year studies of two more useful technical items (relating to the protection of dockers against accidents, and rest periods in the road transport industry). Our Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations successfully discharged its responsibilities, processing some forty-nine reports from governments of varied political complexions, and welcoming an additional one hundred and thirty-five ratifications of Conventions during the past year.
Of course we are anxious and of course we have to fight, but how much better to do so by active participation than by meekly leaving the field to our adversaries. As employer representative of a nation which depends so much on worldwide trade I do not believe we can afford to opt out of the world's only tripartite international organisation.
Jack Coates Employer Member, Governing Body of the ILO, Confederation of British Industry, 21 Tothill Street, London Siis/1
Previous page
