Слике страница
PDF
ePub

from the channels of misrepresentation and fraud means more present and repeat business for all of us who attempt to conduct our businesses as merchants, in every good sense of that good word. We are particularly grateful, General Clark, for your Consumer Fraud Bureau which by making all proper efforts to protect the consumer, also protects the reputation of the good merchant, and

means more sales for the honest retailer.

We are pleased, also, with your efforts to retain at the local and State level the responsibility for fighting and defeating the cancerous evils of fraud and deceit. Such

local efforts inevitably must lead to less pressure for more control at the national level, for further federalization of our lives and

our businesses.

The most mischievous current example of this effort for further Federal control undoubtedly is the so-called but mislabeled "truth-in-lending bill" being sponsored by the junior Senator from Illinois.

We appreciate, General Clark, that you political party. But I hope you won't mind our telling you that what you have done, and what you are doing, and what you plan to do to protect the consumer public of our great State is more practical and far more helpful to and protective of our people than any so-called truth-in-lending bill could ever hope to be. We, as merchants dedicated to serving our customers fairly and honestly, have a desire and a responsibility to clean our own house to the fullest possible degree. And to the extent that governmental help is necessary, we want that help at the local and State levels where bureaucratic costs can be held to a minimum and where the responsibility for protecting the good and for developing the wholesome growth of this great industry is more keenly felt and can be more closely watched over.

and the Senator are members of the same

Finally, your efforts not to duplicate, but to augment the excellent work of our Better Business Bureau and our crowded courts, is leading to better cooperation on all sides. Our desire is to have Government and business and enforcement agencies working together as a team to create a more wholesome, productive atmosphere for the building of needed sales volume with the help of sound credit.

Illinois and Chicago are the consumer credit capitals of the world. We must protect the good name of credit. We need to fight, unsparingly, against those who would misuse and abuse credit, against those who, by their sharp and shady practices, are inviting impractical legislation which would make the extension of credit unprofitable for all of us who seek only to make this service available to our customers on an honest and legitimate basis.

The Illinois Retail Merchants Association invited, as participants in this evidence of regard for General Clark's program, a number of agencies who cooperated both in getting legislative acceptance of the fraud bureau statute and in continual efforts to protect the Chicagoland public against victimization. The guests included top executives of Chicago's daily newspapers, Ely Aaron, chairman of Mayor Daley's Human Relations Commission, Judge Benjamin Schwartz, formerly associated with the attorney general's office, and officers of the Chicago Better Business Bureau and the Credit Bureau of Cook County.

THE GOOD SHIP "SEQUOIA" Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, on November 6 I dispatched a letter to the Secretary of the Navy requesting a list of the names of passengers aboard the Navy's pleasure yacht Sequoia during

the time Mr. Korth was Secretary of the Navy.

I also requested this information by telephone, but I have yet to receive even confirmation of receipt of my letter. It seems obvious now that the information I have requested will not be forthcoming through normal channels even though the Sequoia is not a ship of the line-unless it might happen to be the "party line."

Mr. President, I fail to perceive any valid reason for the administration's reluctance to divulge the identity of passengers aboard the Sequoia. It is not a fighting ship-it is a Government pleasure boat, fueled and furnished by the American taxpayers.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that my letter to the Secretary of the Navy be printed at this point in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD with my remarks in the hope that its appearance on these printed pages will prove an inducement to the release of the information I have requested.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

NOVEMBER 6, 1963. THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, The Pentagon, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY. Recent events have made it necessary that I request from you a list of the names of all persons who have been taken aboard the Secretary of the Navy's yacht, the Sequoia, during the time Mr. Korth was Secretary of the Navy.

It is my understanding that by necessity the Navy keeps a list of the names of all the guests who have been entertained on the yacht. This is a simple request and should be complied with quickly. It is important that I have the complete list by Monday, November 11, 1963.

Sincerely yours,

MILWARD L. SIMPSON,
U.S. Senator.

JOSE FIGUERES AT HARVARD Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, Harvard University and the United States are indeed fortunate to have my United good friend Dr. Jose Figueres, a former President of Costa Rica, devote several months of his valuable time and wide experience to the teaching of Latin American affairs in this country. As a visiting professor at Harvard, Dr. Figueres has initiated a course which has been met with great enthusiasm by a body of sophisticated and critical students.

Dr. Figueres recently granted an interview to Bertram B. Johansson of the Christian Science Monitor. I ask that this incisive question-and-answer session be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the interview was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Christian Science Monitor,
Oct. 23, 1963]

A VOICE FOR DEMOCRACY (When a constitutional government in Latin America, which the United States has

supported to the hilt, is overthrown by a military government defying the constitutional situation, what should U.S. policy be? Should it cut off foreign aid? Should

it let conditions deteriorate and ripen for anarchy, communism, chaos? A Latin American examines the issues.)

(By Bertram B. Johansson)

José (Pepe) Figueres often describes himself with pride as a ropemaker and a farmer. His pride in being an artisan-he also is an engineer of note is his way of being com

pletely modest about his accomplishments as a former President of Costa Rica, a tough leader in the fight against Communists in actual battles in the late 1940's in Costa Rica, and now in the ideological battle throughout the hemisphere.

Dr. Figueres is recognized as one of the

hemisphere's deep political thinkers and

statesmen, and one who has had an influence on the gradual formation of democratic thinking and morality in Latin America, far beyond what many observers have yet acknowledged.

He has often been a consultant to Latin

American chief executives and to American Presidents, including Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy. When his advice has been followed, which isn't very often, it has produced good results.

Dr. Figueres raises coffee and sisal, the latter for his own rope and burlap bag factory over which he exercises a fond and meticulous supervision, guiding the complicated weavings, turnings, and twistings necessary in the manufacture of rope so that it will come out of the twisting machines twisted in such a way that it will lie straight.

WHO NEEDS CHESS?

I once asked Dr. Figueres whether he played chess, thinking that he might, with such an inquisitive mentality able to cope simultaneously with the current specific moves and the faroff grand plan. He replied:

"Why do I need to play chess when I have my complicated ropemaking procedures and the snarls and intricacies of Latin American politics?"

This fall semester, Dr. Figueres is a visiting professor on Latin American affairs at Harvard University. Students often applaud his lectures, which is unusual at Harvard on any sustained basis.

His talent is such that while he can describe the hemisphere as going up in flames at one moment and prophesy Cassandra warnings of doom if the hemisphere does not wake up to the Communist threat, he still can forcefully and logically affirm his strong belief in democracy, and convince others of its strength.

Latin America, but a long-range optimist. He is a short-range pessimist on affairs in One of his worries is that there might be some people in the U.S. Department of State who don't believe democracy can work in Latin America.

During the height of the Dominican Re

public crisis of late September, when Presi

dent Bosch was overthrown by a military coup, Dr. Figueres received phone calls from the Dominican Republic, from Presidents Betancourt and Orlich of Venezuela and Costa Rica, from Gov. Luis Múñoz Marín of Puerto Rico, talked with members of President Kennedy's official family in Washington, and was in touch with many figures in the moderate liberal movement in Latin America,

pressing for the principle of not recognizing illegal and military governments, and supporting constitutional juridical principles.

Dr. Figueres, who usually reserves the last 10 minutes of his Harvard lecture periods for a brisk question-and-answer period, willingly submitted to an interview, a synthesis of which follows:

Question. Dr. Figueres, how do you feel about the military coups in the Dominican Republic and Honduras and the overthrow of President Bosch?

Answer. This is a serious setback in the march of democracy in Latin America-one more setback.

The first Dominican communique from the military said they had seized control because "incapacity was the order of the day, and unemployment, too." This phrase is very significant in Latin American affairs. The military often finds that incapacity is the order of the day.

UNEMPLOYMENT CAUSES UNREST

And unemployment, unfortunately, is an

indication of the real causes of today's unrest

in Latin America. Today's unrest is mainly economic. The political events, the social tensions are only consequences of a sick economy.

The trend of the moment in Latin America, I am sorry to say, is toward more military coup d'etats. I have been saying this in my articles in the last few months. I am very sorry every time a democratic and civilian government is overthrown, but I expect more

to fall.

This is a wave in a long movement of the currents of democracy within history. This is an unfavorable wave. We have to expect it. We musn't be too disappointed.

The juridical system of democracy will eventually flourish, but for the time being the weakness of the Latin American economy is such that these things are bound to happen.

Question. How can you be so sure that democracy eventually will flourish, and that the problems are not insurmountable?

Answer. The problems are by no means insurmountable. I have been dealing personally with these problems of government by democracy and totalitarianism for a lifetime. And I have come to the conclusion, which is not wishful thinking, that democracy is not only acceptable but desired by most people, or by all people.

I would say that freedom is a luxury all human beings like to enjoy, that the capability of education is universal with the human being, that it is utterly pessimistic and negative to assume that some people, some countries, cannot live in liberty, or do not wish to live in liberty. You will hear this said, many times, that some peoples do not want, or do not deserve, or are incapable of handling freedom.

This is not true. There is a question of degree. The Anglo-Saxons may have a little more ability for adjusting themselves to order and freedom, but judging from what I have seen throughout the world, maybe more than from what I have read, because I want to use my personal experiences, these values are universal.

HEMISPHERIC COMPLETENESS Question. How would you describe the importance of Latin America to the United States, and vice versa?

Answer. The Western Hemisphere-and I mean Canada, the United States, and Latin America-is destined to be a great factor in human history, and the sooner we are able to integrate in some manner, the sooner

mankind will be benefited.

It is interesting to see, by means of a world map, the geographical as well as the historical importance of the Western Hemisphere. The Western Hemisphere is by far the most complete geographical area.

It is in the zones near the tropics that many of the products that are indispensable

to civilization are produced. And it is only

the Western Hemisphere as a whole that possesses both northern and southern regions, or temperate zones, and a wide tropical zone rich in sugarcane, coffee, cocoa, rubber, and other articles indispensable to

our civilization.

Question. After a decade of dictators falling in Latin America, what would you describe as the reasons for this new wave of military governments in Latin America?

Answer. This is due to two causes. Many people have been scared by the advance of the Communist revolution, espe

cially since the Cuban experience in 1959 with the advent of Fidel Castro. This is one of the reasons there seems to be an encouragement toward military dictatorship again, both by the conservatives of Latin America and of the United States.

The second cause, which may possibly be even more serious, is the Latin American depression, a depression of which you do not read in this country in your newspapers beWestern Europe, but a depression which in cause it does not affect the United States or some aspects is as bad as the depression of the 1930's.

STABLE PRICES CALLED NEED

Latin America, after a certain boom, or

relative boom of prosperity, caused partly by the economy of the Korean war, went into a depression caused by the dropping of the prices of Latin American exports, particularly of coffee, which is its main export and the second export article in the world. It comes after oil.

And this affects directly at least 14 Latin American countries and indirectly all of them, and also affects all sectors of the economy, even though they may not be directly concerned with coffee.

It is incredible how much economic harm has been done to Latin America by allowing the prices of primary commodities to drop And when I say "by allowing" I mean by the lack of international means of stabilization at fair levels of prices.

Question. What do you think of the $10 billion Alliance for Progress aid program in Latin America, which requires the cooperation of both continents in the hemisphere?

Answer. I think that if the Alliance for Progress-which is a good concept that I support that if the alliance had paid more attention to raising prices of Latin American exports and raising wages within each country, this would have been better than relying too much on long-range plans of development and diversification. If prices of exports and if wages are not raised, we are going to have a decade of great economic difficulty.

The recent world coffee agreement is a good beginning. Unfortunately it came too late, and started at too low a level of prices.

The most important step in social improvement in poor countries is raising wages, and the most important step toward international economic justice is raising export national economic justice is raising export prices.

Foreign financing of the capital deficit, and long-range planning, should be the complement of a basically sound relation with the developed countries.

LABOR URGES BUSINESS TO JOIN

STRUGGLE IN LATIN AMERICA

the wake of the keen disappointment I Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, in felt when the House cut $150 million in Inter-American Alliance funds, it was reassuring to learn that the American labor movement is maintaining its program in Latin America and seeks to broaden its impact by urging American businessmen to do likewise.

Recently AFL-CIO President George Meany told the Chicago Executives' Club that organized labor, in a spirit of brotherhood and enlightened self-interest, is erhood and enlightened self-interest, is spending fully 25 percent of its entire income in its international program. This includes operation of training schools in Washington and elsewhere for Latin trade unionists as well as their support for a period of time after they return home to pass along their new knowledge.

Meany urged American business firms to help strengthen democracy in Latin America by learning to recognize the rights of the people and their unions. A private enterprise economy in which only the rich get richer, is inviting a Communist takeover, Meany stated.

Business apparently is seeing merit in the role labor is playing. David Rockefeller suggested recently a privately financed business counterpart of the Peace Corps.

It is entirely possible that in this vital battleground south of the border American labor and American business will forge a unity of purpose and action that will aid in freedom and economic advancement for the entire Western Hemisphere.

These facts alone should be evidence that we are being pound foolish in our foreign aid program at a time when the struggle is intensifying-not abating.

I ask unanimous consent that this speech by AFL-CIO President George Meany before the Chicago Executives' Club on September 20, 1963, be inserted into the RECORD. Also, to be printed in the RECORD two news stories relating to Labor's activity in Latin America and a transcript of a radio broadcast centering on the Alliance for Progress.

There being no objection, the speech, news stories, and transcript were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: TEXT OF AN ADDRESS BY AFL-CIO PRESIDENT GEORGE MEANY TO THE CHICAGO EXECUTIVES CLUB IN THE CONRAD-HILTON HOTEL ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1963

I welcome this opportunity here today to discuss the program of the labor movement in the field of international affairs, because I am convinced it is one of our most important undertakings-possibly, in terms of the future of the world, the most important of all.

Let me point out at the start that this is not a new field for us. The proceedings of the second convention of the American Federation of Labor, held in 1887, included a report by the resolutions committee duly adopted that "friendly relations with European trades unions . . . be continued and encouraged." Obviously those relations had already been established.

Originally, I suppose, this grew out of our common heritage with Western Europe. Many of the early union leaders in the United States had come from Great Britain or Germany, where Marxist trade unionism had its beginnings. Although our labor movement developed along different lines, the old ties have remained strong. For instance, all through this century, and back into the 19th century, we have exchanged fraternal delegates with conventions of the British Trades Union Congress.

But there is another common bond among workers that is even stronger. The man who works for wages has a great deal in common with all other men who work for wages, whether they are in France or Japan or in East Africa. The wage levels, the conditions of life, may differ from place to place, but the basic circumstances are very much the same. If you work for wages you still need some kind of organization, some kind of common effort, to protect and advance the common interests of all. This was the beginning of the American labor movement's interest in other countries-as they phrased it in the last century-improving the lot of the workingman. And that was what we concentrated on, here and in other countries, almost to the exclusion of everything else.

In one sense this is still our basic goal. This is still the basic objective of a trade union. But in order to work toward that objective, we have had to broaden out. We have had to keep abreast of the tide of world events.

When that resolution was passed in 1887, the world was a much simpler place. At least it looked that way. The old A.F. of L. could concentrate on the condition of the workingman, because the framework of a free society was more or less taken for granted.

Yes, there were some restrictions on the freedom of American workers; but it was generally felt that they could be corrected in time, since there was freedom in the Nation as a whole. Yes, there was a czar in Russia, a Kaiser in Germany, and a great many kings and emperors in other countries. But only a few of them were absolute monarchs; most of them allowed some form of union organization, and besides, for almost two centuries prior to that, democracy had been cutting down the remaining citadels of royalty.

The

In short, it was possible to believe that if the labor movement just concentrated on improving the condition of the workers, it could, in a reasonable time, correct most of the shortcomings in human society. Freedom was on the march; labor only needed to catch up and keep up with the advance. But then the tide began to turn. Bolshevik triumph in Russia led to a regime that made the czar seem like Father Christmas by comparison. Mussolini's Fascists turned Italy into a police state. Hitler took power in Germany. Spain fell to Franco. And in small countries, a whole assortment of local strong men did away with democracy.

This was only the beginning. Through subversion and war, Hitler's Nazis crushed free societies in virtually every nation in Europe. After the war, "liberation" had barely been celebrated when the Soviets, in their turn, imposed an iron dictatorship on all of Eastern Europe from Latvia to Bulgaria.

For 25 years democracy gave way on one front after another, in one country after another, to totalitarianism of every kindcommunism, fascism and some tinpot military dicatorships. The comfortable illusion of the past, that the triumph of democracy was inevitable and would take place of its own accord, was shattered. It was now obvious that democracy would not even survive unless it was vigorously defended-not just on the battlefield, but within the social structure of every country on earth.

These lessons were not lost on the labor movement. Far from it. We watched what was going on, not only as trade unionists, but as Americans, and this is what we saw.

In every nation which fell to a dictatorwhether Communist or Fascist-the first objective of the dictator and his party was to destroy the nation's labor movement. Lenin did it; Stalin did it; Mussolini did it; Hitler did it.

And very recently, having stopped pretending to be a democratic reformer and showing his true colors, Fidel Castro did it in Cuba.

The very nature of a dictator requires that he must control the means of production in his country. You can't dictate to any country, whether the dictatorship is of the right or of the left, unless you control the means of production and this means controlling labor, and it means the destruction of free trade unions, because you cannot control labor if it is free to join one with another and create and use the trade union instrumentality.

Now, of course, American union members would be opposed to totalitarian governments in any case, simply because we are Americans. But their education has been

advanced by the realization that trade unions can exist only in a free society. I think this helps to explain why American labor is antiCommunist, despite the Communist claim from the very beginning that they had set up a workers' state. American labor took the very simple position that there could not be a workers state if workers themselves are not free.

There is another side to this, which the entire business community ought to realize. Just as there are no free trade unions except in free, democratic nations, there is no such thing as a free, democratic nation without a free labor movement. Not today; not in any country that has been transformed by the industrial revolution. So, if some people are tempted to wish that unions would disappear, they should pause for a second thought. If our freedom is destroyed, it is inevitable that other segments of the community will disappear as well.

Let me emphasize that the labor movement did more than merely observe while all this was going on. The AFL-CIO, which were then separate organizations, both gave generous help to refugees from Hitler's terror-just as the AFL-CIO has done, in the last few years for the Cuban refugees.

When the war in Europe ended, AFL-CIO representatives and experts were among the first on the scene, seeking out the surviving trade union leaders-most of them were in concentration camps-and helping to rebuild democratic trade union movements. With the exception of the Marshall plan and the aid given by that plan, this was probably the most vital factor in saving Western Europe from a complete Communist take

over.

In 1946, for instance, after liberation found the French trade union completely in the hands of the Communists, a new movement was started known as "Force Ouvriere," and this movement and the financing of it was started by the American Federation of Labor. The appropriation was made to start the French movement as a break away from the Communist-controlled labor movement, and this is fundamental in our philosophy, when the Communists get control of the movement, get control of its machinery, there is no such thing, then, as trying to fight from within. You have to break it up.

Another contribution was made in 19471948, when our people were on the scene. In fact, the Mayor of Chicago was the major representative of American labor, and Joe Keenan who is quite well known here and is a vice president of the AFL-CIO, spent the better part of 4 years in Germany seeing to it that the German trade unions recovered their property which has been taken from them by Hitler, seeing to it that they developed their trade union movement along the

lines which we felt would be most effective in fighting the Communist threat. And, whereas previously in Germany, as a historic fact, there had always been three divisions of the trade union movement, the so-called Christian movement, the Protestant movement, and the so-called social-democratic movement, through the efforts of American labor, through the efforts of the people we sent to Germany-and we even reached into the clergy in order to increase our influence-we created in Germany in 1949 the Western German Federation of Labor which embraces all of these various segments of the trade union movement.

Actually, the same thing happened in Italy in 1948 and 1949 where we took two rival socialist groups and we were able to get them to join with the leading ChristianDemocratic group to form the Italian Federation of Labor. Here was another case where the Communists had infiltrated at the time of liberation and had taken over the machinery of the traditional old Federation of Labor.

The AFL-CIO, of course, cooperated in 1949 in the formation of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, which links democratic labor organizations in all the world's democracies. The ICFTU Solidarity Fund, to which the AFL-CIO is the major contributor, helps to create and maintain unions in the new underdeveloped nations of Africa and Asia. Affiliated unions of the AFL-CIO are active in the international trade secretariats, which bring together unions in the same industries or occupations throughout the world.

Twenty-five percent of the AFL-CIO'S national income-plus a great deal more from our various affiliates-goes into these international activities. And the only reward we want, the only reward we seek, is the advancement of democracy in these various areas of the world.

I have given this background in order to demonstrate that our interest in other nations is of long standing, and is solidly built upon enlightened self-interest as well as our concern for workers everywhere. We take the position, under the democratic system in this country, the free trade union movement has been able to advance-advance to a greater degree than has labor in any other country on earth. This doesn't mean we are satisfied. We are never satisfied. We keep on trying to improve. But, under this system here in the United States, we have made greater advances for American workers than have the workers of any other land, and we want for that very selfish reason, if you please, to preserve this system, to preserve a system under which it is possible to have the instrumentalities of a free trade union working on behalf of the workers.

So, when we speak of working overseas, we do so, not out of a spirit of charity but out of a spirit of brotherhood and a spirit of enlightened self-interest, because if democracy is destroyed any place in the world, that very fact represents a continued menace to the preservation of democracy here in the United States.

In other words, if all Latin America were to go the way of Castro, moving right up to our borders on the south, would that not, in a sense, be a menace to the preservation of American democracy and of the American system?

This is the reason we are active overseas, because we seek the preservation of democracy throughout the world. We see it as something that is meaningful to the preservation of democracy here, just as we see countries going behind the Iron Curtain representing a menace to the preservation of our free society.

Now, let me turn to a specific project, one in which we take a great deal of pride and satisfaction, the American Institute for Free Labor Development.

Stated in its simplest terms, the purpose of this institute is to train young trade union leaders from Latin America and the Caribbean areas. Train them in the functions of a trade union, how to make it more effective; and train them, also, and this is most important, in the role that trade unions can and must play in building a free, democratic, and prosperous society.

This was our idea, but we are not carrying it out singlehandedly. The institute is a three-way operation. It is supported in almost equal shares by industry, labor, and the Federal Government.

This is very encouraging to us, this participation of business in this enterprise. You may wonder why, for example, a man like J. Peter Grace, president of the W. R. Grace Co., should serve as chairman of the institute's board of trustees. Presumably, stronger unions in Central America would mean tougher collective bargaining problems for the Grace Co.'s operations.

But we have come a long way from the days of the banana republics, when Ameri

can companies, out of necessity sometimes rather than of choice, made their deals with local tyrants, without regard for the welfare of the population. Mr. Grace and others like him are well aware that the choice today is between democracy and Castroism in Latin America; and that, if democracy is to win, it must meet the needs and the desires of the people, starting with a higher standard of living.

Oh, I don't mean that the whole business community with interests in Latin America should become converted to trade unionism. For that matter, the whole labor movement is not yet converted to the idea of engaging in a joint endeavor with business. Shortsightedness is not confined to any one segment of our soicety, or to any particular calling or profession.

However, as I have indicated, the widespread acceptance of the institute idea has been very gratifying. And so have been the results.

Let me expand on that brief description of the institute I offered a moment ago.

The operation is centered around a school in Washington, which, since it opened in June 1962, has trained 150 young labor leaders from 19 different countries. These young men and women have come in groups of about 35 each for a 3-month program covering such subjects as the U.S. Government and democratic institutions; labor history; labor education techniques; collective bargaining; threats to unionism and democracy, such as communism and corruption, labor economics and the economic problems of industry and agriculture; special Latin American issues, such as the Alliance for Progress and probably the most important of all, the role of unions as an integral part of a modern democracy.

But even more significant is the school's multiplier effect. Resident training centers or seminar programs in Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru, Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Uruguay, and the Dominican Republic have already trained some 1,300 fighters for democracy. Additional programs are scheduled for the Argentine, Central America, Mexico, Jamaica. Much of the teaching is done by institute graduates who are supported by the institute for another 9 months, after graduation, if this is necessary, after their return home.

Meanwhile, another institute operation, its social projects department is rounding out the picture by aiding unions in building housing projects for their members, establishing credit banks and consumer cooperatives and other community institutions. This department is currently working on some 80 projects submitted by some 50 Latin American and Caribbean unions that represent some 15 million workers.

The first housing project under the Social Progress Division was in La Lima, Honduras, and was dedicated on August 24. New homes in this workers' project can be purchased for a little over $2,000.

We are devoting this particular attention to our southern neighbors because they are so clearly vital to this country's security. In that respect, Castro and Khrushchev may have done the United States a favor, and Latin America, too by bringing this infiltration of communism to the Western Hemisphere. Assistance to these people in the Caribbean and in Central and South America, can no longer be shrugged aside.

Actually, the bare facts about the physical operations of the institute cannot do it justice. These young people are not engaged in mere academic exercises. They are on the firing line-sometimes literally-in the struggle to turn back a well-organized Communist attempt to seize the labor movements in their own countries.

Let me give you just a few incidents. Two of our graduates in Honduras have taken the Standard Fruit Co. union away

from total Communist control after a 9-month battle, in which they were attacked in the Communist-controlled press and radio and had their very lives threatened.

Several months ago, the AFL-CIO interAmerican representative went to Honduras and suggested to one of the graduates that he, being faced with the daily threat of violence, might want to be moved to another job.

He said, "Don't worry about me. The Communists wouldn't dare kill me-I am too well known now. If they killed me they would just be making a martyr of me."

And he went back to work and won his fight by giving this union a free democratic leadership.

Six Institute graduates also played an important part in bringing about a popular victory in British Guiana against the Cubaoriented Government of Cheddi Jagan.

Only 10 days ago we received a letter from a graduate who was evacuated and was returned to British Guiana in late August, after completing our most recent course in Washington. Let me quote from that letter.

"The trouble we are facing here you are well aware of. Already members of the Parliament in the British Guiana Government are attacking me at public meetings. HowHowever, I want to assure you that their threats, abuses and attacks will only propel me faster in the fight against any form of totalitarianism or dictatorship in the trade union movement."

The American Institute for Free Labor Development gives men like these a conception of the role they can play in obtaining the benefits due to them as workers, and in carrying their unions forward into full participation in the economic life of their countries, toward a free and better future.

Just a few days ago, David Rockefeller, president of the Chase National Bank, appeared before the International Management Congress in New York and advocated what he calls a businessmen's peace corps. This sounds like a good idea to me, and I hope he follows through and I hope it becomes a reality. As I interpret his remarks, his main idea is to export American business know-how, in order to promote the American way of life. This means, in a sense, he is trying to export democracy. This is what we are trying to do in our role and we certainly welcome an expansion of this effort on the part of American business.

This is the point at which a discussion of international programs-whether they are Government or private-runs into the question of free enterprise.

We think our position is very simple and very logical. We assert without reservation that the private enterprise system has served this country very, very well. We suport it; we are a part of it. It is true that we are sometimes accused of being socialists because we favor programs like hospital care for the aged under social security, or better minimum wages, or a 35-hour week. But these programs are not socialism; they are social welfare programs, and this of course is quite a different thing.

The American trade union movement is not interested in Government ownership of the means of production-which is what Marxist socialism means. We want to improve the American economic system, but we don't want to replace it with a different system; we want a better life for people who work for wages but we don't want to destroy the organization that pays those wages.

We like this system, and we are going to continue to like it until some better system is devised; and, up until now, all the efforts made over the centuries on the question of government, there is no system that has been produced that shapes up to the American system.

We heard, a few years ago, about the wave of the future; communism was the wave of

the future. And we heard about the 5-year plan, and the second 5-year plan, and the third 5-year plan and so on and so forth. We heard Khrushchev say he was going to get more food for the Russian people. They were going to have more butter and more vegetables, and more meat than the American people. We have heard all of these things, and this under the system which is supposed to bring the millennium to humanity.

And what are the results? After 40 years of Communist rule, what do we see back of the Iron Curtain? Anyone who thinks that there is some real mature benefits under the Communist system that are not present under our American democratic system, let them go back of the Iron Curtain. They will need nothing more. Let them go just through the wall of East Berlin or through the gate, and they will see the difference. You will see the reason why the American labor movement has long recognized that the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat was nothing but plain, simple bunk.

However, in working with these other countries, I think we must realize and recognize that this country cannot build other nations exactly in the image of the United States. Their circumstances are undoubtedly different, their resources are different, and their problems are different, and their heritage, although it differs from ours, is just as important to them as ours is to us.

In one country, the most popular approach may be for a government to own public utilities. After all, plenty of local, county, State governments own public utilities in this country, or even the transportation system, or even, as in the case of India, it may be necessary for the government to own a steel mill to get their production up to where it might be meaningful. This is something that people in each country have to decide for themselves, on the basis of the best possible advice, for their own best interests.

We in the AFL-CIO do not even try to influence the structure of the labor movements in other nations. We teach the fundamentals of union operation, but how the pieces are put together is up to the people involved.

Our interest-and I repeat, we believe it should be the interest of all Americans-is in promoting free, democratic societies. If the people of a nation freely choose certain political and economic forms, and remain free to change them, we should not be concerned about the forms themselves. For they have the essential quality of democracy-self-determination. That, of course, rules out the antidemocratic totalitarian systems.

Now, I happen to believe that any country is likely to be better off with a large measure of private enterprise-and that applies to the workers as much as anyone else. There may be instances where a greater mixture of government enterprises is desirable, but in general, private enterprise has proved to be the most effective road to progress.

But we cannot just say "private enterprise" and let it go at that. The system has to work for the benefit of the people as a whole. In Latin America, as elsewhere, this means that the owners of business and industry have to learn to recognize unions, to bargain collectively and to accept the right of workers to strike. A private enterprise economy in which only the rich get richer is inviting a Communist takeover.

If Mr. Rockefeller's business peace corps can teach that kind of know-how, as well as industrial techniques, it will strike a telling blow for freedom.

However, I am not minimizing the traditional role of the business community, foreign investment. I would like to see more foreign investment in the underdeveloped countries, such as those where our Institute graduates are striving to build a better life

for their people. Dollar for dollar, private money has a way of producing more results than government money in such undertakings.

Moreover, although I spoke a few moments ago about the probable need for more government ownership in underdeveloped nations, I have no sympathy for the expropriation of such investments once they are made. If a government decides it needs to own a facility built with American capital, it should pay a fair price for it-or be cut off from any further American aid of any kind. On this, I do not believe there can be any kind of compromise.

At the same time, American companies investing in these nations should be free from the spirit of "dollar imperialism." They have every right to expect a reasonable return; but they have no right to expect anything more than that, such as special protection against legitimate union organization.

What is needed are the kind of businessmen who have joined with us and with the

Government in the American Institute for Free Labor Development-men who see that progress must be shared by all if it is to deserve the name. And, because they see this, they recognize the importance of a free, democratic, and effective labor movement in every free nation.

Since this is a wholly nonpolitical occasion, perhaps I may use a nonpolitical quotation from a man who is, among other things, a political figure-the President of the United States. He said in a message to the students at our most recent Institute class:

"The destruction of the free trade union movement has been a prime target of the Communist movement. Once the free trade union movement is controlled by a totalitarian state, permitted only to endorse the purposes of the state, the trade union movement is destroyed, and so is democracy."

This is what we believe; this is what we are determined to prevent, through the Institute and all our other international programs. And in this we invite the active help and cooperation of American business.

For after all, while unions and management may quarrel over the terms of a contract; while the AFL-CIO and business spokesmen may be deeply divided on a wide range of domestic issues, from fiscal policy to Federal housing, they should stand together in the great struggle of our times, the struggle that will determine the future and perhaps the survival of mankind.

There are times when management and labor may differ on the details of freedomwhen each of us feels the other is taking some of his freedom away. But our devotion to freedom itself, and to its finest expression, the democratic way of life, is identical.

Therefore, what we in the AFL-CIO are doing, in Latin America and around the world, is in the best interest of American business as well as that of American labor; so we are doing it not for ourselves alone, but for the cause of human freedom all over the world.

[From the New York Times, Sept. 17, 1963] ROLE OF U.S. LABOR GROWS IN LATIN-AID PROGRAM-13 MILLION IN LOANS APPROVED BY AFL-CIO TO HOUSE WORKERS IN THREE COUNTRIES

(By Tad Szulc)

WASHINGTON, September 16-The U.S. labor movement is playing an increasingly important role in assisting the Alliance for Progress in Latin America through direct cooperation with local trade unions.

The effort is still little known in this country. According to its sponsors, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, it is making a noticeable impact, turning Latin workers away from Communist leadership and help

ing them develop their own welfare projects.

The movement, which uses both funds and technical assistance, operates through the American Institute for Free Labor Development. It also works closely with the office of the U.S. Coordinator for the Alliance for Progress.

The institute was created in 1960, but its social projects department has been fully operative for only a year. It is administratively financed in equal parts by the AFLCIO, the U.S. Government and the business community. George Meany, head of the AFLCIO, is president and J. Peter Grace, president of W. R. Grace & Co., is chairman of the board.

The social projects department reported that in the year ended last month the American labor movement committed about $13 million in direct loans for workers' housing in Mexico, Peru and El Salvador.

The loans, coming from AFL-CIO welfare funds, carry a 100 percent guarantee from

the Administration for International Development.

In Mexico the labor movement has obligated $9,569,000 for a housing cooperative for the Graphic Arts Workers Union in Mexico City. The Government has guaranteed full repayment in dollars. The Mexican Government has also donated land for the 3,104dwelling project in the Balbuena district of Mexico City.

In Peru, where the institute has assisted in the creation of a Workers Democratic Alliance for Cooperative Housing, the AFLCIO has committed $3 million. The U.S. Government is supplying $6 million in addition through the Alliance for Progress.

In El Salvador the labor movement is contributing $400,000 toward a $1 million workers' housing project directed by the Alliance for Progress.

William C. Doherty Jr., director of the social projects department, said today that the labor movement was prepared to lend an additional total of $15 million for workers' housing in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay and Ecuador under the U.S. Government guarantee.

In some instances, labor is matching U.S. and local funds. In others, it will cooperate with the Inter-American Develop

ment Bank.

The AFL-CIO is also seeking to develop savings and loan cooperatives among the

workers in Latin America. The institute insists that a benefiting worker put into savings at least 5 percent of the total value of his home; that the land represent only 25 percent of the value of the home and its improvements, and that the worker pay a maximum of 25 percent of his regular family income toward the home.

The institute is also assisting unions in Latin America with the development of housing blueprints and the preparation of loan applications to the aid agency in Washington.

Mr. Doherty said workers in several unions had deposed Communist leadership after the institute had advised them that no assistance would be forthcoming so long as they were led by nondemocratic elements.

[blocks in formation]

Latin America occupies more than half the Western Hemisphere. The southern tip of Texas barely dips below the 26th northern parallel; from there to the equator, and the whole stretch from the equator to land's end at Tierra del Fuego, is Latin territory.

Latin America is not only vast in size but, because of its location, if for no other reason, obviously of vast importance to the United States. Yet, until comparatively recent years, our country made no real effort to make friends of our southern neighbors on a basis of equality and mutual respect.

It would take the space of many columns to review that unhappy story. Rather than do that or even to recite the better record of the labor movement-let us look at the more promising present.

Through the Alliance for Progress program the United States is at last making a comprehensive effort to create the economic, social, and political conditions that will make stable, democratic societies possible in Latin America. The program is far from faultless, but it deserves the interest and support of us all.

There is another Latin American program underway as well-one that is in some ways more dramatic. It is being conducted by the American Institute for Free Labor Development, now slightly more than a year old.

This institution was conceived by the AFLCIO and is supported by funds from labor, business, and government. As its own statement of purposes declares, it is "dedicated to the strengthening of a free society through the development of free and democratic trade unions in the Americas."

In the narrow sense the Institute is a school. The students are young, freedomloving Latin American trade unionists, carefully chosen by their own labor organizations in consultation with the Inter-American representatives of the AFL-CIO. They are brought to Washington, 35 or 40 at a time, for a 3-month course that embraces both union techniques and the successful practice of democracy. Those who graduate are then supported for 9 additional months, back in their own countries, to assure them of a chance to begin putting what they have learned to good use.

This is not a brainwashing operation, intended to dictate a course of action. Each applicant for admission must first have devised a project he hopes to carry out. Thus the Institute's role is to assist these young Latin Americans to do more effectively what they had already decided should be done.

Three classes have been graduated thus far, and a fourth is now underway. But the real story is not what goes on in Washington. The real story is what your touring columnist, Victor Riesel, will discover on the Latin American scene, both on the mainland and in the Caribbean islands.

He will find some 120 young men, the first three classes graduated by the Institute, creating and strengthening free, democratic unions where they had never before existed.

He will find them locked in battle against the Communist infiltrators trained in Castro's Cuba.

He will find them, preaching and teaching the democratic way of life, holding classes where their countrymen can learn how a union works, what democracy means, how to spot and smother Communist tactics, how to guard against dictators and demagogs from the right or the left.

He will find trade union training schools, schools for democracy, in Venezuela, in Peru, in Panama, and half a dozen other nations. He will learn that the "multiplier effect" of Institute graduates, 35 or 40 of them every 4 months, is likely to alter the whole course of history in Latin America.

Nor is this a static operation. The day is in sight when all the primary training will

« ПретходнаНастави »