Chapter II After the “Spirit of Geneva” Comes the “Spirit of Santiago

Chapter II Afterthe “Spirit of Geneva” Comes the “Spirit of Santiago”:Early RegionalCooperation in Latin America

The 1930s not onlyled the ILO to reflect on its position and its role within Eu- rope, it also prompted the organisation to reconsider its place in the world, along with the means to be developedtofortify its relations with countries outside Europe. In his 1932 annual report,AlbertThomas thus called for strengthening collaborations with non-European countries.¹ However,considering how little weight the demands of developing countries still had at the ILO in compar- ison with thoseofindustrialised countries – whose social policies weremore de- velopedand whose influenceonthe international scene wasmuch moresignifi- cant – it seemed the time had not yetcome for anysignificant commitment in this direction. This balance of power would onlytrulybegin shifting after the entry of the United States into the ILO in 1934 and following the first Latin Amer- ican regional conferencein1936. The regionalisation of ILO activities is one of the manifestations of the “shift in balance” that took place at the ILO in the 1930s, when LatinAmerican countries began playing agreater role internationally.² Before the Second World War, as it sought to build new spaces for dialogue closer to the social and economic realities of its member states,the ILO organised two regional conferences in Latin America that heralded the beginning of anew practice of international technicalcooperation. Beyond particular regional trajectories,this chapter aims to analyse the ILO’sinfluenceinpromotingforms of regional technical cooperation. Doing so helps reframe the consequences of this reconfiguration in the broader context of new reflections on ways to encour- agesocial progress and the adoption of stricter social standards in less industrialised countries.After highlightingthe limits of the participation of non-Europe- an countries in ILO activities, this chapter offers an analysis of the regionalisation process thattook place within the organisation, focusingon the case of LatinAmericancountries,which playedacentral role in promoting aLatin Americanperspective and more broadlyinfluencingthe ILO’sglobalisa-

 Director’sReport,ILC,1932, 879, ILOA.  Director’sReport,ILC,1938, 71,ILOA.

OpenAccess. © 2020 Véronique Plata-Stenger, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensedu nder the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110616323-006 62 IDevelopment as aUniversal Strategy tion process.³ This will lead me to probe the impact of this reconfiguration on ILO activities, stressingtwo main areas of collaboration: social insurance and migrationfor colonisation.

1Opposing Models: “Europeanism” vs “Universalism”

The regionalisation of ILO activities was part of aEurocentric reflection on the limits of international cooperation. From 1930 onwards,criticism of the ILO’s predominantlyEuropean character became systematic. Faced with an international context plagued by rising tensions,one in which the global economic crisis meant the gradual closure of borders and the emergence of regional blocs, the ILO became aware of the limits of its actioninEurope and in the rest of the world. In this conjuncture,Latin America, wherethe first regional offices had opened as earlyasthe late 1920s, acted as acatalyst in the decentralisation of the ILO’sactivities away from Europe.

1.1 The EuropeanOriginsofthe ILO

Although AlbertThomas, who gave the International Labour Office avital force, never ignored the importance of forging links all over the world, the social issues tackled by the Office were to alarge extent limited to European industrial soci- eties.⁴ The background of the international civil servants workingfor the Office reinforcedthe organisation’sEuropean character.⁵ In 1925,although the Office boasted 25 different nationalities among its staff, French and British nationals held the best positions, and the organisation’stwo official languages wereEng- lish and French. In 1932, of the 420employees, only18had non-European back- grounds.Outside Europe, the organisation remained little known. Office publications werenot widelydistributed and the organisation had very little contact with labour movements, such as organisations not affiliated with the Interna- tional Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU), whose members predominantlyrepre-

 AntonyAlcock was one of the first to highlightthe new importance of non-European countries to the ILO.Alcock, A. 1971. Historyofthe International Labour Organization,135.London: Mac- millan.  Guérin, D. 1996. Albert Thomas au BIT 1920–1932: de l’internationalisme àl’Europe. Genève: Euryopa, 61.  Plata, V. 2010. Le Recrutement des fonctionnaires du Bureau international du travail en 1920: Une approche prosopographique. Master diss., University of Geneva. II Early RegionalCooperation in Latin America 63 sented workers’ delegates to the ILO.⁶ Thus, despite its universalistic claims, the ILO,like the League of Nations, was largely dominated by European cultureand representations. As aresult, it aroused little interest outside Europe, and strug- gled to provide tangible proof of its proclaimed universalism. The low level of participation of Latin Americancountries in the works that came out of the Geneva conferences demonstrated the limited reach of its action.⁷ Between 1919 and 1933,onlyChile and Uruguaywererepresented at the conference each year,followed closelybyVenezuela and Brazil. Besides,most government delegates were postedabroad and did not necessarilymaintain close relations with their respective governments. The ability of these Latin Americandelegations to disseminate information on ILO activities is questiona- ble, as both workers’ and employers’ representativeswereoften missing.Ofthose in attendance, the workers’ representativeswerenot necessarilyspeaking on be- half of labour organisations,which were practicallynon-existent in Latin Amer- ica in the 1920sand 1930s.⁸ Although the organisation of the International La- bour Conferences (ILC) in Geneva wasinitself abarrier to these countries’ participation duetothe cost and duration of trans-Atlantic travel at this time (the return tripwould take delegates amonth and ahalf), the overall lack of interest in ILO activities was palpable, as the organisation wasconsidered to be far removed from the realitiesofnon-European countries. This feeling was reinforced by the fact that international conventions, con- ceivedonthe model of the world’smost industralised nations, did not reflect the economic and social conditionsofthe less developedcountries,which often failed to ratify them.⁹ The debates that arose at the beginning of the

 Tosstorff, R. 2010. “Albert Thomas,the ILO and the IFTU”,inVan Daele, J. et al. eds.ILO His- tories. Essays on the International Labour Organization and ItsImpact on the World Duringthe Twentieth Century,91–114. Bern: Peter Lang.  Alist of Latin American countries that were members of the ILObetween 1919 and 1950:Ar- gentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Salvador (from1919 to 1939 and since1948), Gua- temala (from1919 to 1938 and since 1945), Haiti, Honduras(from1919 to 1938 and since1955), Peru, Paraguay(from 1919 to 1937 and since 1956),Uruguay and Venezuela (from 1919 to 1957 and since1958). See the database of ILOmember countries,http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/french/ mstatesf.htm. [last accessed 17.09. 2019].  Note, however,the exception of Mexicoand Argentina,where therewere central workers’ organisations.RL86/0 “Relation of the ILOwith central and south America. General”,ILOA.  In 1930,Latin America onlyhad light industries,despiteaninitial period of industrialisation from the latenineteenth century until the depression of the 1930s. Forageneral overview of the economic development of Latin America since1830, see the datedbut still very useful mono- graphbyLéon, P. 1969. Économies et sociétés de l’Amérique Latine. Essai sur les problèmes du développement àl’époque contemporaine, 1815–1967. Paris: Regards sur l’Histoire. 64 IDevelopment as aUniversal Strategy

1930s on the “European” natureofthe international labour Conventions bears witness to this. The corollary of this debate was the growingemphasis on the need to develop asocial policy cateringtothe conditions of less industrialised countries.Atthe 1934 ILC, several delegates echoed this concern. The ILCs werethus graduallybecomingaplace wherethis “dissociation” from Europe could be expressed, and the opposition between the ILO’suniversalist model and national and regional particularities articulated.¹⁰

1.2 Pan-Americanism and the Creation of RegionalLabour Offices

This movement was reinforced by the growinginterest in regional integration projects outside Europe, to which the 1929 pan-European project of Aristide Briand certainlygavenew impetus. While their promoters sawthem as a means of adjustingthe ILO’ssocial protection paradigms to non-Western con- texts,these projects also testify to the feeling of “collective insecurity” which then dominated international meetings and which could be explainedinpart by the rise of extreme nationalisms¹¹ and the LeagueofNation’sfailures regarding economic cooperation and military security.¹² In the field of social policy,new proposals for regional labour organisation wereconcretelychallenging the ILO’suniversalist discourse. The fourth Balkan Congress, which met in Thessaloniki, Macedonia, in November1933, recommended atext proposingadraft convention for the organisation of alabour office in the Balkans.¹³ At the MontevideoPan-AmericanConferenceof1933,¹⁴ or-

 On international conferencesasspaces for the construction and confrontation of models in a Cold Warcontext, see Kott,S.2011. “Par-delà la guerrefroide. Lesorganisations internationales et les circulations Est-Ouest (1947–1973) “, VingtièmeSiècle. Revued’histoire 1(109): 129–143.  Éric Bussièrealso considers the importance of this context in the development of regional cooperation under the auspices of the League of Nations.See Bussière, E. 2005. “Premiers sché- mas européens et économie internationale durant l’entre-deux-guerres”, Relations internationales 123(3): 51– 68.  Guieu, J.-M. 2009. “L’‘insécuritécollective’.L’Europe et la Sociétédes Nations dans l’entre- deux-guerres”, Bulletin de l’Institut PierreRenouvin,2(30): 21–43.  Letter fromAdrien Tixier to WilfredJenks,August 25,1934. RL 01/4 “Coordination between regional labour organisation and the ILO”,ILOA.  At the end of the nineteenth century,Pan-American conferences wereorganised for the first time. The first,held in 1889,led to the creation of the International BureauofAmerican Repub- lics, which in 1910 became the Pan-American Union (PAU). Althoughdominated by American politics,itrepresents the first time inter-American relations wereinstitutionalised. Smith, J. 2000. “The First ConferenceofAmerican States (1889–1890) and the EarlyPan American Policy II Early Regional Cooperation in Latin America 65 ganised by the Pan-American Union (PAU), aproposal submitted by the representative of Mexico, which had onlybeen amember of the ILO since 1931 despite rapprochement effortsbyAlbert Thomas dating back to the 1920s, ¹⁵ aimeddi- rectlyatthe creation of aregional labour office.¹⁶ Mexico had alreadymade a similar proposal at the 1928 Pan-AmericanConference.¹⁷ This pan-Americanla- bour office would have the dual functionofcollectingand exchangingsocial information, and would thereforecompetewith the International Labour Office in Geneva.¹⁸ The Montevideo conference alsoadopted aseries of recommendations on the institution of unemployment insurance and the establishment of apublic works programme. Resolutions werealso passed asking governments to examine the possibility of establishing mandatory health-accident-disability-pension insurance laws. The creation of an inter-Americaninstitutefor the development of the cooperative movement,which would be institutionallylinked to the PAU, was alsoplanned. The MontevideoConferencethus votedonacomprehen- sive programme for the development of social policies, withoutany mention of collaboration with the ILO. The MontevideoConferenceattests to significant efforts aimed at connecting elites and fosteringdialogue on social policy issues of particularinterest to Latin

of the United States”,inSheinin, D. ed. Beyond the Ideal: PanAmericanism in Inter-American Affairs,19–32. Westport: Greenwood press. Foratransnational approach to Pan-American conferences, see Guy, D. 1998. “The Pan American Child Congresses,1916 to 1942: Pan Americanism, Child Reform, and the WelfareStateinLatin America”, Journal of Family History 23(3): 272–291. Forahistory of international relations between the UnitedStates and Latin American countries, see Smith, J. 2005. TheUnited States and Latin America. AhistoryofAmerican diplomacy,1776– 2000. New York: Routledge;Schoultz, L. 2003. Beneath the United States:AHistoryofU.S. Policy TowardLatin America. Cambridge Massachusetts: HarvardUniversity Press;Sheinin, D. ed. 2000. Beyond the ideal: PanAmericanism in Inter-American affairs. Westport,Conn.: Green- wood Press; Smith, P. H. 2000. Talons of the Eagle: Dynamics of U.S.-Latin American Relations. New York: OxfordUniversity Press; Molineu, H. 1986. US Policy toward Latin America:from Re- gionalism to Globalism. Colorado: Westview Press.  Herrera León, F. 2011. “Méxicoyla Organización Internacionaldel Trabajo:Los orígenes de una relación, 1919–1931”, Foro Internacional,204:336–355.  XR 62/1/1 “Pan-American Conference(Montevideo, Dec.1933)”,ILOA.  Such aproposal had alreadybeen made by Argentina at the American Congress in Tucuman, in 1916.D600/923/2/6/2 “VI ConférencePan Américaine de la Havane. Janvier 1928.Mr. Poblete Troncoso’smission to aboveconference”,ILOA.  Letter from Harold Butler to Leifur Magnusson, Decembre27, 1933.XC61/1/2 “United States. Correspondent’sOfficeWashington.L.Magnusson. Jacket 1to4”,ILOA. This project also provided for atripartitecommission for the recruitment of administrative and technical staff, agovern- ing bodyand Pan-American conferences. 66 IDevelopment as aUniversalStrategy

Americancountries.¹⁹ This phenomenon was reinforcedbythe global economic crisis, which was causing profound upheavals marked by new political organisations, the growingdesire for economic development and the emergenceofnew social ideologies.²⁰ In Mexico, Chile and Argentina, wheresince the 1920sre- formist tendencies wereemerging in intellectual and parliamentary circles,political elites werethus seeking to promoteaEuropean-inspired policyofsocial reform, and perhaps even to globalise the movement,asproposals for regional labour organisation indicate.Asof1933, inter-Americancollaboration also grew in popularity under Roosevelet and his Good Neighbor Policy. The relative success of this policyalso coincided with the developmentofpan-Americanism, which had begun defining North-South relations and served as the basis for the development of anew modernisation theory between American politicans and Latin Americanspecialists.²¹ It is worth mentioning that since the early1930s, there had been aproliferation of publications on pan-Americanism in widely read publications such as WorldAffairs,participatinginthe creation of a “professional” discourse on Latin America,and attestingtothe growinginterest of Americansocial sciencesinthis region. In Montevideoin1933, supported onlybyMexican and Cuban delegates, the project of apan-American labour office failed to be implemented. The Latin Americandelegates from Brazil and Venezuela reaffirmed their commitment to the ILO,asillustrated by this statement made by the Brazilian delegate, Carlos Chagas: “The social reasons which must serveasabasis for legislation to assist the workingclasses and for the regulation of relations between employers and workers,and more broadlythe principles which must inspire national legislators in matters related to labour,are universal in character.” ²²

 Social policyissues were first discussed in the PAU’sprogramme of activities at the 1924 San- tiagoConference. Some annual publicationsare available at http://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Pan+American+Union%22 [last accessed 17.09. 2019].  On the development of social policies in Latin America, refertothe collective work of Bel, C., Lewis,C.M.eds. 1993. Welfare, Poverty and Development in Latin America. London: The Macmil- lan Press. See in particular Lewis,C.M.“Social Insurance: Ideology and Policy in the Argentine, c.1920–1966”:175 – 200.  Berger,M.T.2000. “AGreater America?Pan Americanism and the Professional Studyof Latin America, 1890 –1990”,inSheinin, D. ed., Beyond the Ideal, 79–94.  Original quoteinFrench: “Lesraisons d’ordre social qui doivent servir de base àlalégisla- tion d’assistancedes classes ouvrières et àlaréglementation des relations entrepatrons et travailleurs,etengénéral les principesqui doivent inspirer les législateurs nationaux en matièrede travail, ont un caractère universel”.XR62/1/1 “Pan–American Conference(Montevideo, Dec.1933)”,ILOA. II Early Regional Cooperation in Latin America 67

This statement was made at the instruction of Affonso BandeiradeMello, Director-General at the Brazilian Ministry of Labour,who was regularlypresent in Geneva. The project did not receive support from the United States either, as some representativesofthe Roosevelt administration were alreadyincontact with the International Labour Office. Harold Butler would ensurethat the Roo- seveltadministration opposed anynew initiative to createapan-American organisation that would dublicate efforts made by the Office in Geneva.²³ The support of the United States was confirmed in Montevideo through Frances Perkins’ intervention with the Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, the delegatetothe conference, in order to avoid the adoption of the Mexican project,the creation of which would have complicated the negotiations on the accession of the United States to the ILO.²⁴ The latter werenot opposedtothe development of social policy in Latin America, quite the contrary.The US government viewed this movement fa- vourably,insofar as it echoed its desire to improveeconomic relations with this region.²⁵ In this regard, the ILO,whereEuropean powers could counterbalance the influenceofLatinAmerican countries,could serveasaninstrument in the development of Roosevelt’seconomic securitypolicy.²⁶ Taking into account the influenceofcommunism in Mexico and Nazism in Argentina and Brazil, support for the ILO also constituted aclear stand in favour of the democratic model of social policies.²⁷

 Letter fromButler to Leigfur Magnusson, Decembre27, 1933.XC61/1/2 “United States. Corre- spondent’sOffice Waschington. L. Magnusson. Jacket III: 1932–1935”,ILOA.  According to aconfidential report,the United States expressed its negative opinion to the subcommission where the Mexican project was discussed, even though it was not an official member.XR62/1/1 “Pan–American Conference(Montevideo, Dec.1933)”,ILOA.  ForJoseph Smith, the United States did not conceive pan-Americanism in acontextofregion- al cooperation but “as afunction of US political and economic expansionism in the Americas”. Latin America was thus perceivedaboveall as amarket for accessible rawmaterials capableof absorbingthe surplus of American agriculturaland industrial production. Smith, J. 2000. “The First ConferenceofAmerican States (1889–1890) and the EarlyPan American Policyofthe Unit- ed States”,inSheinin, D. ed. Beyond the Ideal: PanAmericanism in Inter-American Affairs,20. Westport,Conn.: Greenwood Press.  In 1940 the inter-ministerial meetingheld in Havanamarkedthe establishmentofinter- American economic cooperation with the erection of atrade wall, the objective of which was to counterthe German economic threat by payingfor the surplus productionofthe 21 Latin American Republics.See “The cartel plan and the Havana Conference”.Z10/3/1 “2nd regional ConferenceofAmerican Sates, Cuba 1939”,ILOA.  An article in the New York Times of December 9, 1933 wroteabout Cordell Hull’sspeech in Montevideo: “[He]has contrived in one shrewd gesturetothrow the weightnot onlyofthe Unit- ed States but of the twoAmerican continents into the world psychological balancefor peace”. 68 IDevelopment as aUniversal Strategy

Resolutions passed in Montevideo provoked an unprecedented mobilisation at the International Labour Office. After the conference, diplomatic missions multiplied. Between 1934 and 1936,Butler visited Latin America twice, thus re- launching the policy initiated by Thomas tenyears earlier.²⁸ In 1934 Butler went to Mexico and therewas assured by president Abelardo L. Rodríguez and General Calles thatMexico would “go cool on anyproject for aPan Amer- ican labor office”.²⁹ Stephen Lawford Childs,³⁰ then amember of Butler’scabi- net,along with Adrien Tixier,head of the Social Insurance Section,also visited several Latin Americancountries between 1934 and 1935 to surveygovernments on ways to strengthen the ILO’spresenceonthe continent.³¹

2The Regionalisation of International LabourOffice Activities

Faced with the challengeposed to the ILO by the pan-American labour office project,International Labour Office civilservants began reflectingexplicitlyon the possibilities of integrating regional cooperation into the broader framework of international cooperation.³² Thesereflections underscorethe growingimpor- tance of non-European countries within the ILO at this time, as it was beginning to provide concrete institutional solutions to their demands.

New York Times,December 9, 1933.XR62/1/1 “Pan-American Conference(Montevideo, Dec.1933)”,ILOA.  CAT1–25–2 “Organisation voyage Amérique latine”,July-August 1925;RL86/0 “Relation of the ILOwith central and south America. General”,ILOA.  Letter fromButler to Phelan, October 26,1934. XT 61/4/1 “Director’svisit to USAand Mexico (October-November 1934)”,ILOA.  Stephen LawfordChilds (1895–1943) was aBritish international civil servant.Beforejoining the ILO, he worked for the League’sHighCommissioner for Refugees.After Butler’sdeparturein 1938, Childs left the ILO and returned to the British Foreign Office.Hedied in aplane crash between Iran and Iraq in 1943. On his mission in connection with the 1936 regional conference,see XD 12/1/1 “Regional ConferenceofAmerican States members of the ILO. Santiago de Chile (De- cember 1935-January 1936). Jacket II”,ILOA.  Singleton, L. 2013. “The ILOand Social Security in Latin America, 1930 –1950”,inHerrera León, F.,Herrera González, P. eds. América Latina ylaOrganización Internacional del Trabajo: Redes, coopéración técnica einstitucionalidad social, 1919–1950,243 – 74.MéxicoCity: UMSNH, UM, UFF.  Plata-Stenger, V. 2015. “To Raise Awareness of Difficulties and to Assert their Opinion”. “The International Labour Officeand the Regionalization of International Cooperation in the 1930s”, in McPherson, A., Wehrli, Y. eds. Beyond Geopolitics:New HistoriesofLatin America at the Lea- gue of Nations,97–113.New Mexico, University of New MexicoPress. II Early RegionalCooperation in Latin America 69

2.1 Regional Cooperation Serving InternationalCooperation

Until the mid–1930s regional arrangementsremained controversial within international organisations.³³ While the Covenant of the LeagueofNations explicitly referred to regional agreements,mistrustwas pervasive.These projects wereseen as weakeninginternational cooperation, especiallythe manifestlyhegemonic ones proposed by Japan and Nazi Germany. The ILO chose to adopt an intermedi- ate position, as evidenced by the 1934 reportbyILO legal adviser, Wilfred Jenks: It might be well for the Office to be more ambitious to control such tendencies in their earlystages thanithas been in the past.For this purpose, it might be well to prepareamodel of constitution for regional labour organisations,which could be circulated among interested persons as soon as regional organisation has become aserious possibility in anyarea.³⁴ ForJenks,regional cooperationhad to be promotedonlyinsofar as it strengthened the ILO’spolitical position. Regional cooperation was also to be co- ordinated at all levels, including research programmes and regional conference programmes. Jenks further insisted that the provisions proposed by the ILO should not be amended in its constitution, but rather insertedinto the constitu- tions of the regional organisations.Onlyin1946,with the constitutional revision of the ILO,would the practice of regional conferences be normalisedinArticle 38. While regional cooperation projects addressingsocial policies wereseen as agood thing by the International Labour Office, as they attested to the liberal spirit that reigned in “peripheral” countries,civil servants of the Office were also well aware of less desirable potential consequences,the more important being doubts about the universality of the organisation. ForAdrien Tixier,recog- nition of regional units could also encouragecoalitions against certain conventions. Referring to the ILO’sexperience with Scandinavian countries,henoted: “Thus, to please Denmark, acountry of voluntary insurance, Sweden and Nor- way, which have compulsory insurance systems, frequentlyabstain from voting our conventions.”³⁵ The creation of regional institutions would also call into

 Rens,Jef. 1959 “Latin America and the International Labour Organisation. Forty years of collaboration 1919–1959”,inInternational Labour Review 80(1): 6. Forananalysis of the discussions on “decentralisation” at the LeagueofNations,see Richard, A.-I. 2012. “Competition and Complementarity:Civil SocietyNetworks and the Question of Decentralisingthe League of Nations”, Journal of Global History 7(2): 233–256.  RL 01/4 “Coordination between regional labour organisation and the ILO”,ILOA.  Letter from Adrien Tixier to Wilfred Jenks,August 1934.RL01/4, “Coordination between regional labour organisation and the ILO”,ILOA. 70 IDevelopment as aUniversal Strategy question the ILO’scompetenceonspecific issues, such as equal treatment of do- mestic and foreign workers,inparticular regarding social insurance benefits. Fi- nally, Tixier waspreoccupied by the participation of workers’ organisations in these regional labour offices. He feared that the regional labour office projects of which the Office was aware would operate mainlyunder government control, representing their interests aboveall. He thought in particularofthe pan-Amer- ican labour office, where, with the exception of Argentina and Mexico, the labour forces that wereonlybeginning to organise³⁶ had little to no influenceontheir governments.³⁷ Butler’sannual reporttothe 1934 International Labour Confer- ence reflects the discussions taking place at the ILO at the time, concluding with these words:

The great majority of labour problems arenodoubt universal and not regional in character. In matters such as hours of work, social insurance, health and safety,thereshould be one world standard, and anyexceptions in favour of particular countries or regions should be laid down by the Conferenceitself as the authority,which sets the general standard.³⁸

While in itself the development of regional cooperation was perceivedasapos- itive sign, civil servants at the Office hoped this movement would not lead to for- mallycalling into question the universal character of the ILO.This position re- mains faithful to that expressed as earlyas1930byAlbert Thomas.³⁹

2.2 MoreSpace forNon-European Countries

That being said, the ILO was to carry out aseries of institutional reforms in hopes of strengthening collaboration with countries outside Europe. The aim was, first and foremost,tobroaden representation on the Governing Body.In

 On the roleofAmerican trade union organisations in the development of Latin American trade unionism and its integration intoaUS-led Pan-American federation, see Alexander,R. J.,Parker,E.M.2009. International Labor Organisations and Organised Labor in Latin America and the Carribean: AHistory. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO; Touraine, A. 1988. “L’évolution du syn- dicalisme en Amérique latine”, Revue française de sociologie 29(1): 117–142. On the history of the AFL, see Lorwin, L. L. 1972. The American Federation of Labor. New Jersey:Augustus M. Kelley Publishers.  Alreadyin1925, Thomas noted: “our relations with Latin American workers’ organisation re- main fragmented and scarce”.These organisations,heremarked, “areoftentimes still weak. Few have had direct or indirect contact with our Conference”.Director’sReport,ILC,1925, 1032, ILOA.  Director’sReport,ILC,1934, 73,ILOA.  Director’sReport,ILC,1930, 7, ILOA. II Early Regional Cooperation in Latin America 71

1934,anamendment to Article 393regardingthe composition of the GB adopted in 1922 entered into force. This amendment increased the composition of the GB from 24 to 32 members, 16 of whom had to be non-European.⁴⁰ Other reforms werenot successful due to the LeagueofNation’sbudgetdownsizingpolicy, over which the ILO had no decision-making power whatsoever.⁴¹ Moreover,in 1936,the CommitteeofExperts on the application of conventions suggested, in vain, to hire more non-European experts. It also proposed taking more binding measures and authorising the Office to contact governments directly, so that they could specify the difficulties preventing them from fullyimplementing the conventions.⁴² In 1934,however,the ILO adopted abudgetaimed at developing its activites in non-European regions,adecision closelylinked to the United States’ recent entry into the ILO.Inparticular,there was an increase in funding for the development of relations with LatinAmericancountries.⁴³ Until the ILO relocat- ed in Montreal, the decisions of the FinancingCommitteepoint to the ILO’sstrategy,asinfluenced by the United States,tomovecloser to LatinAmericancoun- tries.⁴⁴ Finally, the ILO decided to createaSection of non-European countries within the International Labour Office,⁴⁵ whose function was to centralise and

 Ghebali,V.-Y.1975. Organisation internationale et guerremondiale. Le cas de la sociétédes nations et de l’organisation internationale du travail pendant la seconde guerremondiale. PhD. dis- sert., Sciencepolitique, Grenoble 2, 40 –50.  In 1933 acommittee headed by the Belgian governmentdelegateErnest Manhaim made some suggestions of an essentiallyfinancial nature, proposing, for instance, the adoption of a system that would make it possible to distributethe travelexpenses of delegates to the confer- encemoreequitablyamong all member states, or the poolingofthese same expenses for delegates and alternates,inorder to reduce the burden on nationals of non-European countries.GB’s report, 63rd session, June 1933,270, ILOA.  D775/100/2 “ILOGoverning Bodysess.75(Geneva, Apr. 1936): documents,item2–Appoint- ment of additional experts,moreparticularlyfromextra-European countries,the Committee of Experts on the application of conventions (GB.75/2/68): E, F”,ILOA.  D769/100/15 “ILO GoverningBodysess.69: documents,item 15,report of the FinanceCom- mittee; Contribution of the United States of America to the ILO”,ILOA. The budgetestimates for 1935 increased to 215,000 Swiss francs from 173,000 in 1934.These expenses cover credit for cor- respondents,the development of relations with non-European countries (20,000 Swiss francs for 1935 fromthe United States contribution, compared with 0in1934and 1933), press agencies, contributors to Spanish and Italian journals,contributors to the Recueil de jurisprudence,translations and remuneration of articles,convening experts,reports and various collaborations.  D787/100/8 “Diplomatic. ILOGoverning Bodysess.87 (Geneva, Apr1939), documents, item 8 – Report of the FinanceCommittee: BudgetEstimates for 1940”,ILOA.  Similarly, aLatin American officewas created in 1923 at the League in response to requests by Latin American delegates for better representation of their interests in the Secretariat.Wehrli, Y. 2003. “Créeretmaintenir l’intérêt” : la liaison entre le Secrétariat de la Société des Nations et l’Amérique Latine (1919–1929),Master diss., University of Geneva, 76 – 77. 72 IDevelopment as aUniversal Strategy disseminate information while developing research in three distinct geographical areas:Asia, LatinAmerica and the Middle East.In1936, some ten civil servants ranthis Section. However,for budgetary reasons,its activites rapidlyde- creased until 1939,when they ceased altogether. The running of this Section relied solelyonthe strengths alreadypresent within the Office and did not have its own programme.Itthus functioned aboveall as akind of showcase for the ILO’sglobalising activities.⁴⁶ Neverthe- less, its members produced aseries of studies in various fields, such as the working conditions of agricultural workers in India, conditions in the household in- dustry in certain parts of Japan, workinghours in China, and the living and workingconditions of some indigenous peoples of Latin America.Italsosent translations of the Director’sand annual reports to all Latin American trade union organisations with which the Office had relations.⁴⁷ In 1936,the Confeder- ation of Mexican Workers (CTM)benefited from afreeand permanent supplyof Spanish and English editions of all its publications.⁴⁸ The Office alsowished to strengthen its non-European staff. On this point,however,little concrete progress was made due to budgetdeficits recorded year after year.The ILO was also concentrating its resources on the expansion of its correspondants network. New branch offices wereopened in Mexico in 1935,Cuba in 1936,Chile, Venezue- la and Peru in 1937,aswell as Ecuador,Colombia and Uruguay in 1938. These offices wereadded to those of Rio de Janeiro, opened in 1929,and Buenos Aires,in1931. Finally, research missions multiplied in the 1930s, particularlyinthe field of social insurance.⁴⁹ During his trip to South America in 1934,Tixier witnessed the extent of the social insurance movement in Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Urugay.

 In 1936 the members of this section wereMack Eastman (Canada), Caldwell(Australia), Rao (India), Kamii (Japan)and Wilson (USA)for Asia, Djamalzadeh (Iraq)for the Middle East and Moisés Poblete Troncoso (Chile), Vasquez (Colombia) and Guillen-Monfrote(Spain) for Latin America.  Since1919 the ILOhad published aSpanish version of the ILC’sproceedings. The Director’s Report was published in Spanish as of 1928.The Spanish version of the International Labour Re- view was published in Madrid as of 1923.The ILR also had subscribers in Spainand its colonial territories in Morocco. The ILR tookits final title of Revista Internacional del Trabajo with the first issue of 1930.In1945, Spanish became an official language of the ILO. Bollé, P. 2012. “La Revue internationaledutravail,leBIT,l’OIT:fragments d’une histoire”, ILR 152, special issue: 1–14.  RL 41/3/2 “Relations with the Confederacion de TrabajadoresdeMexico. VicenteLombardo Toledano. Rodolfo Puna Soria”,ILOA.  Plata-Stenger, V. 2017. “L’OIT et l’assurance sociale en Amérique latine dans les années 30 et 40:enjeux et limitesdel’expertiseinternationale”, Revue d’histoiredelaprotection sociale,10(1): 42– 61. II Early RegionalCooperation in Latin America 73

Despite significant progress,henoted that these countries’ legislation did not always complywith the principles enshrined in international labour conventions.⁵⁰ Forinstance,regarding accident benefits (with the exception of Uruguay and, to alesser extent,Chile), experts and administrators,favoured alump-sum compensation system, while the ILO had adopted aconvention in 1925 which established as aprinciple the payment of beneftits in the form of apermanent disability or death pension (Article 5ofConvention No.17). Thesame applied to the principle of compulsory social insurance, which Tixier felt was being adopted re- litavely slowly.⁵¹ As for compulsory accident insurance, this model had been in- troduced in Uruguay in 1934 – while in Argentina, Chile and Brazil, insurance remained optional. Except for Chile, health insurance was also optional in all South American countries.InMexico, acommission of the DepartmentofLa- bour,chargedwith drafting alaw on social insurance, was created in 1934.It supported compulsory social insurance against workplace accidents and occu- pationalhazards including disease, sickness, maternity, old age, invalidityand unemployment.Thisdevelopmentowedmuch to Professor Federico Bach, one of the authors of the commission’sdraft proposal, also an International Labour Office correspondent who was in regular contact with Harold Butler.This first at- tempt at reform would however fail.Itwas not until 1943that asocial secturity lawwas adopted in Mexico.⁵² Fornational administrators and experts, Tixier’smission acted as areminder of the social insurance principles established in international conventions.⁵³ Tix- ier specificallyinsisted on the refractory position of the Office concerning the management of social insurance by privatecompanies,which he did not regard as trulysocial institutions.⁵⁴ Finally, he believed that one of the major problems at work in Latin America was the lack of organisation and rationalisation of insurance systems. According to him, laws and regulations bindingthe financial management of insurance institutions was overlyvague. Within the Social Insur-

 G900/30/5 “Mr.Tixier’smission to South America, Autumn 1934”,ILOA.  Tixier,A.1935. “Le développement des assurances sociales en Argentine, au Brésil, au Chili et en Uruguay” (I), ILR 32(5): 647–673and 797–827.  The ILOcontributedtothis in 1941bysendingexperts from the Social Insurance Section to establish the financial basis for social insurance. SI 12–61– 1 “Social security:correspondence with R. Watt,American Federation of labour,USA,1943Conferencepaper RW on AFL trade union attitude towards the Wagner-Murray-Dingall Bill (social security legislation); 1942note O. Stein on social security trends in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico; 1941Paper RW on social insurance”,ILOA.  G900/30/5 “Mr.Tixier’smission to South America, Autumn 1934”,ILOA.  Tixier,A.1935. “Le développement des assurances sociales en Argentine, au Brésil, au Chili et en Uruguay” (I), ILR 32(5): 647–673. 74 IDevelopment as aUniversalStrategy ance Section, Tixier’smission in Latin America playedacentral role in the development of areflection on the need to develop more concrete actionfor the adoption of social insurance systems in less developedcountries,aperspective which was at the heart of this Section’sorientation towardstechnical assistance. For Tixier,the Office’sactivities suffered from important shortcomings. First,it was of little use to countries that did not alreadyhavegeneral social insurance systems in place, and which lacked the specialists and/or the tools needed to draft new legislation.⁵⁵ In the 1934 to 1935 activities programme, he announced the Section’snew orientation: “After tenyears of comparing various national leg- islations, Ibelievethat the Insurance Sectionmust begin producing trulytech- nical studies.”⁵⁶

2.3 Organising the 1936 Regional Conference in Santiago de Chile

However,itwas not until the regional conferences,organised in 1936 in Santia- go,Chile and in Havana in 1939,that sustainable technical cooperation between the ILO and Latin Americancountries began. This institutional development was implemented under Butler’sdirection, who, in 1933,had alreadyconfessed the following to Raul Migone, civil servant in the Argentinian Ministry of Foreign Af- faires and ILO correspondent in BuenosAires: “Indeed, Ibelievethat,through action developed on the spot and by addressing the issues of particularinterest to these countries,wewill have to try by all means to strengthen our relations with the countries of Latin America.”⁵⁷ The invitation to organise the first regional conference in LatinAmerica was presented duringthe 1935 ILC by the Chileangovernment delegate Garcia Oldini, sent directlybypresident Arturo Alessandri Palma.According to Moisés Poblete Troncoso, the Chileanresponsible for relations between the Office and Latin America,this invitation was linked to aweakeningofthe president’sposition in the face of workers’ organisations, particularlyafter the strike of southern agricultural workers in 1934.⁵⁸ As of October 1935,the country having ratified33

 G900/30/5 “Mr.Tixier’smission to South America, Autumn 1934”,ILOA.  XO 1/7/1 “Social Insurance Section (1932–1938)”,ILOA. Original quoteinFrench: “Après dix ans d’études comparativesdes législations nationalesjecroisque la section des assurancesdoit entrer dans la phase des études véritablement techniques.”  Letter from Butler to Migone, December 28,1933. XR 62/1/1 “Pan-American Conference(Mon- tevideo, Dec.1933)”,ILOA.  NotefromMoisés Poblete Troncoso, May23, 1935.XD12/1/1 “Regional ConferenceofAmer- ican States members of the ILO. Santiago de Chile (December 1935-January 1936)”,ILOA. II Early Regional Cooperation in Latin America 75 conventions, the Governing Body unanimouslyaccepted Chile’sinvitation later that year.Several factors mayexplain this enthusiasm. This particular conference was perceivedbythe ILO as anew opportunity to provetonon-European countries thatitwas atrulyuniversal organisation. Moreover,the presenceof the United States,committed to apolicy of rapprochement with Latin America, directlycontributed to guiding the ILO in favour of inter-Americancooperation. It was believed that such aconference would alsostimulate the ratification of international labour standards in Latin America.Finally, accordingtoTixier,this conference was an opportunity to support progressive forces in Latin America and to consolidatethe ILO’srole in the development of trade unions, while coun- terbalancinggovernmentcontrol over workers’ organisations,which was partic- ularlyprevalent in Brazil and Uruguay.⁵⁹ In 1936,atthe first Regional Conference held in Santiago, Evert Kupers, president of the Dutch Federation of Trade Un- ions and workers’ representative on the GB, recalled the importance the ILO placed on this issue:

The workers in this part of the world must learn however that they must not expect every- thingoflegislation and that all their hopes should not be placed in the action of Govern- ments in their favour.The workers must understand that here, as in manyEuropean countries,ifthey wish to improvethe standardofliving, shorten hours of work and raise their culturaland physical standards, they must help themselves. Forthis purpose, they must first of all develop strong trade union organisations.The InternationalLabour Organization rests on three pillars – Governments, employers’ organisations and workers’ organisations.⁶⁰

Following the approval of the GB to organise aconference in Santiago, Chile, an organisingcommittee was setup. It wascomposed of Butler, Phelan, Childs and the heads of several Office Sections.⁶¹ Before the conference, Butler sentcivil servants to several Latin American countries.InSeptember 1935,Poblete Tronco- so went to Santiagotosettle the practical and political questions raised by the conference. On the margins of the conference, in November 1935,toprepare for his visit to Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina, as well as to encouragethe authorities to send tripartite delegations to Santiago, Butler also sent Childs on atrip to Latin America.⁶² The most vehement opposition came from Argentina, then

 Adrien Tixier’sReport, January 22, 1935,RL86/0 “Relation of the ILOwith central and south America. General”,ILOA.  Minutes of the Santiago Conference,1936, 187, ILOA.  XD 12/1/1 “Regional ConferenceofAmerican States members of the ILO. Santiago de Chile (December 1935-January 1936), Jacket II”,ILOA.  Ibid. 76 IDevelopment as aUniversalStrategy plungedinmilitary authoritarianism. At this time, accordingtoAlejandro Un- sain, the Office’snew correspondent, the majorityofmembers of government believed thatthe ILO was “bound up with socialism by an umbilical cord”.⁶³ Dur- ing his mission in Argentina, Childs told Butler of the considerable difficulties he encountered: “It has required alot of pushingand tough lunchingand it was a narrow shave.”⁶⁴ Moreover,and despite an invitation sent by the Office, the PAU was not represented at the conference.⁶⁵ Mexico did not send adelegation, and onlythe MexicanambassadorinSantiagowas present.ILO’saction was thus weakened from the outset by this lack of support,but also by the instability of its relations,due in large part to the frequent political reconfigurations in Latin America, where, according to notes made by the Spanish civil servant Xav- ier Bueno in 1931, “an influencial man can be exiled overnight”.⁶⁶ The practical organisation of these two conferences generatedsignificant recruitment and accommodation research work for ILO staff. These tasks werethe responsibility of asmall group of civilservants who left as scouts afew weeks before the beginning of the conference. The success of the 1936 conference was mainlydue to two civil servants:Moisés Poblete Troncoso and the Swiss Maurice Thudichum. In his privatearchives, Thudichum reportedonthe prepa-

 Letter fromAlejandroUnsaintoStephen Lawford Childs,May 5, 1934.XC2/1/2 “Argentina. Correspondent at Buenos Aires. Mr.A.Unsain”,ILOA.  Letter from Childs to Butler,December 13,1935. XD 12/1/1 “Regional ConferenceofAmerican States members of the ILO. Santiago de Chile (December 1935-January 1936), Jacket II”,ILOA. The situation was complicated by the poor relations between Migone, former ILOcorrespondent in Buenos Aires, the Minister of the Interior,Melo, aconservative,and Carlos SaavedraLamas,a politician and President of the League’sGeneral Assemblybetween 1936 and 1937.Inparticular, Migone had supported the appointment of Albert Thomas in 1920,while Saavedra Lamas con- sideredthis appointment incompatible with Thomas’ former ministerial functions.See the letter from Childs to Butler,Decembre5,1935.  Amongthe AFL members,some continued to defend the idea of apan-American workers’ organisation in favour of the United States. In 1929,Matthew Woll, vice-president of the PAU, stated in the American Photo Engraver,ofwhich he was one of the editors: “The Pan-american Federation of labor has proclaimed its unqualified sovereignty over the labor movements of the New World. It has proclaimed what amounts to an international Monroe Doctrine for all the Americas.” CAT5–31–3 “Relations et informations. États-Unis d’Amérique. Efforts pour rap- procher l’American Federation of Labor de la Fédération syndicale internationale, d’une part et de l’Organisation internationale du Travail, d’autre part”,ILOA.  Xavier Bueno’sReport,1931. RL 86/0 “Relation of the ILOwith Central and South America. General”,ILOA. Xavier Bueno, aSpanish national, was born on August 4, 1883. He began aca- reerasajournalist and publicist beforebecominghead of section at the Ministry of Labour in Madrid. He joined the ILOin1925inthe National Information and Relations Section. In 1932, he was transferred to the pressoffice. He left the ILOon31January 1940.See his personal file P 1848, ILOA. II Early Regional Cooperation in Latin America 77 rations for the event and noted the role playedbyProtestant missionary net- works in the recruitment of conference staff. ⁶⁷ The first Regional Conference of Americanmember states of the ILO was held from 2to14January 1936,and broughttogether all the Latin American countries as well as Canada and the United States.⁶⁸ Unlike conferences in Gen- eva, it broughttogether influential figures in the field of social policy.The pres- ence of the Brazilian Affonso BandeiraDeMello, whose role was highlighted in Montevideo, should be noted. Director-General at the Ministry of Labour and Secretary-General of the National Labour Council, he was amemberofthe ILO GB and was appointed vice-president for the government group in Santiago. At the opening session, the Chairperson of the Governing Body,the Canadian Walter Riddell, emphasised the scope of the SantiagoConference, which he described as amanifestation of globalisation at the ILO: “The SantiagoConference is apractical expression of its present worldwide outlook.”⁶⁹ However,the con- ferenceshed light on the ambiguity thatresulted from the ILO’sregional involve- ment.Indeed, in his 1936 report,Butleracknowledgedthat the developmentof social legislation in Latin America had been poorlyassessed in Geneva, and that Americansocial problems wereofaunique nature.⁷⁰ The conference alsobroad- ly reproduced the opposition between the universalist model and the Latin Americanperspectivesonlabour,asshown by the intervention of the Venezue- lan government delegateLuis Yepes:

Through it the problems peculiar to our Continent will be studied and understood and a spirit of solidarity and comprehension will emerge which will prevent the introduction and adoption of doctrines and laws alien to American mentality which do not meet the needs of our environment.The resultofpast activities has been amost,unsatisfactory sol- ution of South America’ssocial problems.The mere copyingofEuropean and North Amer- ican methodshas not proved favourable, but throughthe work of this Conferenceweshall become betteracquainted with American labour ideals;weshall getabetterknowledge of our own mentality and abilitytosecurethat measureofjustice to which we areentitled.⁷¹

 MauriceThudichum’sprivate archives, held by his grandson PierreRoehrichinGeneva. Four collections in quarto of two hundredpages each entitled Notes diverses, généalogiques et autres coveringthe period 1913 to 1960,plusafifth collection of notesentitled Vagabondages dans le souvenir,which contains his memoirs written between 1951and 1961.  Costa Rica, which is not amember of the ILO, was also present as an observer.For areport of this conference, see 1936, ILR 33(4) and (5): 512– 531 and 688–727.  Ibid.,516.  Minutes of the Santiago Conference,1936, 304,ILOA.  Ibid.,97. 78 IDevelopment as aUniversal Strategy

The workers’ group stronglyexpressed its desire to increase international cooperation on social policies. The Chilean workers’ delegateLuis Solis Solis clearly insisted on the political and technicalvalue of collaborations with the ILO for the labour movement:

We think that the importance of geographical and historical considerations has been largely over-emphasised. The rapiddevelopments of recentyears have abolished manyofthe differences between the countries.Now that the International Labour Organization has been strengthen by the adherenceofthe United Sates, and now that it has shown its interest in American problems by callingthis Conference, it is surelywisest for us to rallyround that Organisation, which has behind it sixteen years of experience and afine record of sci- entific and legislative work. The Workers’ Groupistherefore entirelyopposed to the proposal of aseparate Pan-American Labour Organisation.⁷²

He added: “The workers of Latin America are certainlynot prepared to be de- privedbyadiplomatic manœuvre of the rights they can enjoywithin the Inter- national Labour Organization”.⁷³ ILO regional conferences were thereforea means of giving an international dimension to theirconcerns, while at the same time providing leveragetolimit governments’ influenceontrade unions. Luis Solis Solis’ statements betray the difficult position of trade unions in Chile, wherea1925 lawprohibited the creation of aGeneral Labour Confedera- tion. Moreover,by1930, Chile was suffering from the effects of the economic crisis, as demandfor nitrates and copper,the country’smain sourceofincome, had fallen dramatically, along with its prices.⁷⁴ The social context became explosive with the railwaystrike of January 1936,inwhich Luis Solis Solis took part.Dem- onstrations multipliedand political tensions soared duetothe growinginfluence of communist-leaningtrade unionists.⁷⁵ Tension generatedbythe presenceof communists was palpable in the Chilean press which presented the ILO conference as ameetingofcommunist leaders in LatinAmerica.⁷⁶ In response to the

 Proceedings of the Santiago Regional Conference,61. Archivesofthe LeagueofNations,Unit- ed Nations,Geneva. See also D1086/12 “1st regional conference of American States members of the ILO (Santiago de Chile, Dec.1935) – Notes, Pamphletsand Speech on the Conference”,ILOA.  Proceedings of the Santiago Regional Conference,61. Archivesofthe LeagueofNations,Unit- ed Nations, Geneva.  Cassasus-Montero, C. 1984. Travail et travailleurs au Chili. Paris:LaDécouverte.See in particular Chapter1“La formation du prolétariat et du mouvement ouvrier autour de l’enclave (1830 –1960)”.  D1086/12 “1st regional conference of American States members of the ILO(Santiago de Chile, Dec.1935) – Notes, Pamphletsand Speech on the Conference”,ILOA.  On the arrest of Luis Solís Solís,see XK 1/12/1 “Arrest of M. Solis (ChileanWorkers’ delegate. Regional Conference. Santiago,January 1936)”,ILOA. II Early RegionalCooperation in Latin America 79 mobilisation of workers,the government madearrests and declared athree- month-longstate of emergency.Luis Solis Solis would suffer the direct consequences of this repressive policy as he would be arrested by the end of the San- tiagoConference. Regional cooperation thus seemed to be at the crossroads of a “positioning game” opposing the national and the international.⁷⁷ Both adiscourse and a form of action, regional cooperationwas in fact amidwaycompromise between national and international interests, allowing them to come together,not with- out ambiguities. The experience of the SantiagoConferencealsoshowed that the ILO’sregional action helpedstrengthen its position in Latin America,with- out however completelydefusing the demands for apurelyregional approach to labour issues. Proposals to create aregional labour office were again taken up by some delegates, such as the Uruguayan government delegate, José Guiller- mo Antuña.⁷⁸ While adopting aposition of frank collaboration with the Interna- tional Labour Office, Antuña stressed the fact thatsocio-economic problems had become more complex and that their solutions could not,assuch, rely solelyon the development of social legislation. Accordingtohim, they presented an Amer- ican overtone, which could onlybeintegrated within the framework of regional cooperation, better able to grasp the continent’s “social atmosphere”,and to defend the national sovereignty of its countries.⁷⁹ This discourse clearlyheld ana- tional,regional and international dimension. While Argentina defendedana- tional and regional policy,which would help reinforceits position in the Cono Surand in Latin America more broadly, Antuña’sspeech also echoed the fear of acommunist influenceinArgentina, as well as the concerns of the Latin Americanpolitical elite in the context of apossible warinEurope.⁸⁰ The decla- rations made by governmentrepresentativesthen clearlyindicated that while they recognised the ILO’scapacity to solve labour problems, they also believed that these problems were aboveall Latin American issues.

 Revel, J. 1996. Jeux d’échelles :lamicro-analyse àl’expérience. Paris:LeSeuil.  Proceedings of the Santiago Regional Conference,41. Archivesofthe LeagueofNations,Unit- ed Nations, Geneva.  Antuña referreddirectlytothe Chacoconflict and insisted that this conflict should have been resolvedbythe American countries and not by the League. Proceedings of the Santiago Re- gional Conference,141.Archives of the League of Nations, United Nations,Geneva.  Antuña explicitlyreferredtothe communist threatand the need to improveworkers’ living conditions to counterthis influence. Proceedings of the Santiago Regional Conference,1936, 42, ILOA. 80 IDevelopment as aUniversalStrategy

3The Beginnings of the ILO’sRegional Programme in Latin America

3.1 SocialInsurance: ILO’sKey to Latin America

The resolutions adopted at the 1936 and 1939 regional conferences and submitted to the GB formallyestablished the ILO’sregional programme in Latin Amer- ica.⁸¹ One of the majorresultsofthe SantiagoConferencewas the impetus given to the dissemination of the European social insurance model in Latin America.⁸² At the 1935 ILC, Latin Americandelegates presented awide rangeofissuesthat they wished to see addressed, includingthe living conditions of agricultural workers,the question of wages, housing,leisure, workers’ educational development,unemployment from the perspective of international trade restrictions between rawmaterial producing countries and Europe and, finally,emigration.⁸³ Despite the diversity of these proposals,the SantiagoConference placed social insurance and the workingconditions of women and children at the heart of its agenda, under pressurefrom Adrien Tixier,for whom the conference was pri- marilyintended to position itself in favour of compulsory insurance, an area wherethe production of international labour conventions was most important, but wherethe number of ratifications was also the lowest,inEurope and else- where.⁸⁴ This strategyalso stemmed directlyfrom the reports prepared by the ILO during the research missions in Latin America before 1936,whose main ob- jectivesweretosupplement documentation on existing forms of social insurance, and to better understand its role in economic life by evaluating the “practical functioning as well as the technical and financial organisation of insurance institutions in South Americancountries”.⁸⁵ To guaranteethe success of Tixier’sstrategy,the Office sent its best experts to Santiago. Oswald Stein, Czech by birth, amember of the Social Insurance Sec-

 Rens,Jef. 1959 “Latin America and the International Labour Organisation. Forty years of collaboration 1919–1959”,inInternationalLabour Review 80(1): 1.  Plata-Stenger, V. 2017. “L’OIT et l’internationalisation de l’assurance sociale en Amérique latine dans les années 1930 et 1940 :enjeux et limites”, Revue d’histoiredelaprotection sociale, 1(10): 45 and following.  XD 12/1/1 “Regional ConferenceofAmerican States members of the ILO. Santiago de Chile (December 1935–January 1936)”,ILOA.  Foradetailed discussion on this point,see Seekings,J.2008. “The ILOand Social Protection in the Global South, 1919–2005”,CSSR Working Paper no. 238, ILOCenturyproject,December, 2–36.  Extract from documentGB68/17/1012, 17.G900/30/5 “Mr.Tixier’smission to South America, Autumn 1934”,ILOA. II Early RegionalCooperation in Latin America 81 tion since 1922 and an actuarial specialist,represented the Office at the Commit- tee on Social Insurance established in Santiago. This committee worked on the basis of the report on social insurance produced by the International Labour Of- fice, which described results achievedsince 1919.Itisthereforenot surprising that the resolutions adopted approved the principle of compulsory and contributory insurance enshrined in ILO conventions, which would be reaffirmed in Ha- vana in 1939.This second conferencealsoadopted the principle of tripartite collaboration in the administration of social insurance and focused on defining the aims and functions of social insurance in terms of prevention, reparation and compensation. However,debates did arise in Havana, in particular concerning the institutions dealingwith occupational risk insurance. At that point,the ILO’sposition had always been to favour institutions exclusively responsible for the preventionand compensation of industrial accidents,ortoestablish mu- tual insurance schemes, which, like social insurance, would operate under the financial and administrative supervision of public authorities. To this principle, several employers’ delegates, notablyCuban and Mexican, opposed the principle of freechoice for employers and freedom of competition among different insurance companies.⁸⁶ Other resolutions show thatthe Committee on Social Insurance addressed the particularconditions of Americancountries by proposingadjustments to the rules laid down in the conventions. In 1936,itwas decided that special measures should be taken to set up ageneral healthservice in sparselypopulated areas.Onthis point,the SantiagoConferencemarked afurther stageinthe development of the ILO’sreflections,begun in 1927,onthe problem of the application of conventions in sparselypopulatedcountries.⁸⁷ On the topic of pensions in the event of death,itwas decided that when states could not afford the payment of apension in accordance with the provisions of the insurance system it could be replacedbyalump sum paid to the widow,disabled widower or children.⁸⁸ In Havana, the Committeealso granted payment in kind and the principle of self-

 Second report of the Social InsuranceCommittee. Proceedings of the Santiago Regional Con- ference. Archivesofthe League of Nations,United Nations,Geneva.  The issue was raised at the 1927 ILCaspart of the discussions on health insurance. Seekings, J. 2008. “The ILOand Social Protection in the Global South, 1919–2005”:19–20.CSSR Working Paper no. 238, ILO Century project,December.  This measurewas not new to the ILOand reflected the debatethat had marked ILCs since the 1920s, between the contributory and non-contributory pension model. On these debates, see Seekings,J.2008. “The ILOand Social Protection in the Global South, 1919–2005”.CSSR Work- ing Paper No. 238. ILOCentury Project: 1–50.See also Kott,S.2008. “De l’assurance àlasécurité sociale (1919–1949): L’OIT comme acteur international”:1–29.Geneva: International Labour Or- ganization, Workingpaperfor the ILOCentury Project. 82 IDevelopment as aUniversalStrategy insurance, i.e. coveragebyemployers for theirown risk, whenever aguarantee could be giventocomplywith their commitments. Finally, the Santiagoand Havana Conferences helped re-launch discussions on the link between social insurance and healthpolicies, which alsosparked interest both in the United States and in Latin America, as in Chile, whereresearch and projects for the development of social medicine were encouraged by the state.⁸⁹ In 1936,for instance, the CommitteeonSocial Insurance stressed the need to link health insurance to prevention and the education of workers regarding hygiene and nutrition. These facets of health insurance werenot necessarily new to the ILO in the 1930s, but reflected the growinginfluenceofAmerican countries,particularlythe United States,inguiding the ILO’spolicyonsocial insurance.⁹⁰ The interwar regional conferences also spawned the implementation of technical cooperation mechanisms in the field of social insurance. In Geneva, in order to assist national administrators in the financial organisation of their insurance systems, aseries of technicalconferences on social insurance wereorganised in 1936,1937and 1938, which enabled the ILO to establish the principles of investment policies.⁹¹ Stein admittedthat the work of the Social Insurance CorrespondenceCommittee, which met threetimesbetween 1937 and 1938, was mainlyaimed at monitoringthe investment policies of insurance funds rather than providing new knowledge to the Office.⁹² The Office was alsoconsid- ering aseries of technical publications on statistics and financial forecasts in order,asTixier pointed out,toprovide abasis for actionbymajor trade unions,

 In 1937 the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Social Assistancesubmitted adraft lawonthe creation, for all funds,ofapreventive and social medicineservicefor the earlydetection of tu- berculosis.Itwould be sent to the ILOthanks to Tixier’sfriendlyrelations with Eduardo Cruz Coke, Minister of Health starting the same year and main architect of Chile’shealth system. SI 18/1/12 “Questions médicales de l’assurance sociale, Chile”,ILOA.  Kott,S.2008. “De l’assurance àlasécuritésociale (1919–1949)”.The definition of social security would be broadened after the adoption of the Atlantic Charter in 1941, which recognises the right to social security as ahuman right.  1st principle:Investments by social insuranceinstitutions must be subject to national regulation. 2nd principle:consultations must be limited to the frameworkofcompulsory insurance. 3rd principle:onlylong-term investments areconsidered as part of the investments of social insurance institutions.SI10/10/9 “Investissement des fonds des institutions d’assurancessociales. Comitéd’experts pour les assurances sociales.Genève8–10 déc. 1937”,ILOA.  NotefromStein to Tixier,June 27,1938. SI 10/11/3 “Comitédecorrespondancepour les assurances sociales.11e consultation d’experts. Investissement des fonds des institutions d’assurancessociales.Genève, 5au9Décembre1938. Convocation”,ILOA. II Early RegionalCooperation in Latin America 83 which wishedtosee international conventions reformed, or even ratified.⁹³ In 1939,these projects were concretised with the publicationofavolume on the investment funds of social insurance institutions,followed ayear later by the pub- licationofastudyonthe statistical bases, financial systems and actuarial forecasts of old-age, death and disability insurance, basedonthe experience of European countries,whose data remained most accessibleatthis point in time.⁹⁴ From 1940 to 1945, important progress was made regarding the adoption of social insurance systems, as well as the extension of social coverageinLatin America.While the ILO had largely inspired this movement,other more region- allyspecific models weredeveloped, notablyinChile and Peru, whereparticular attention was paid to health-related issues.⁹⁵ ILO regional conferences could thus be considered as institutions that encouraged aprocess of “Europeanisation”.⁹⁶ However,this processwas dialecti- cal, insofar as the regionalisation of ILO activities also allowed Latin American elites to internationalise theirown social development agenda.⁹⁷ The ILO had thereby created an environment conducive to integrating the needsof“peripheral” countries into the international agenda. The development of ILO activities on labour migration also made this clear.

3.2 Migration forColonisation: PopulationRedistribution and Development

Social insurance was not the onlyarea of cooperation to be initiatedbythe re- gionalconferences.For example, the 1936 resolution on indigenous workers gave rise in 1937 to the first publication on indigenous workers in Peru, by Moisés Po- blete Troncoso. While the ILO had takenaninterest in this issue as earlyasthe

 Draft programme of work for 1934 and 1935.XO1/7/1 “Social InsuranceSection (1932–1938)”, ILOA.  L’investissement des fonds des assurances sociales,1939. Études et documents, Série M, no. 16.Geneva: InternationalLabour Office; Technique actuarielle et organisation financière des assurances sociales,1940.Études et documents,Série M, no. 17.Geneva: International La- bour Office. ILOA.  Proceedings of the Fourth ILO Regional Conference, Montevideo, 1949, 92 and following, ILOA.  Clavin, P.,Patel, K. K. 2010. “The Role of International Organisations in Europeanisation: The Case of the League of Nations and the European Economic Community”,inConway, M., Patel, K. K. eds. Europeanisation in the Twentieth Century: Historical Approaches,110 –31. Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan.  Twoyears after Santiago,AntonyAlcock notedthat the GoverningBodyhad hired48Amer- ican experts in 11 different commissions.This figure also includes experts from the United States. Alcock, A. 1971.137. 84 IDevelopment as aUniversalStrategy

1920s, the practical and technical orientation in this field took place after the SantiagoConference. It became all the more evidentafter the fourth regional conference in Montevideoin1949,which recommended that the Governing Body instruct the Office to studyand coordinate the organisation of various technical assistance programmes concerning indigenous workers, and the launching of the ILO’sAndean Programmein1952.⁹⁸ However,inthe late 1930s, it was in the field of colonial migration that the effects of the ILO’sregional action weremost acutelyfelt.The organisation of a research mission to Brazil in 1936,the holding of aconference of experts in Gen- eva in 1938, which led to the adoption of an international convention on migrant workers in 1939 (No. 66), and the organisation of amission of technical assistance to Venezuela in 1938 all testify to the central role playedbythe Santiago Conferenceinreviving this issue at the end of the 1930s. Since the 1920s, the issue of migration had been at the heart of the concerns of the Office’ssocial reformers who sawitasavector for the dissemination of social protection.⁹⁹ In a1925speech to the Rio de Janeiro ConferenceofMunic- ipal Employees, Albert Thomas had alreadystressed the need for apolicy ensur- ing uniform social protection conditions in order to ensure the economic success of immigration policies.¹⁰⁰ In 1925 he had sent Louis Varlez, head of the Office’s Migration Service, to Latin America.There he was to studythe possibilities of re- locating Russianrefugees in certain Republics.¹⁰¹ At the 1927 Geneva Population Congress, Thomas again stressed the need to organise migration internationally and advocated for the creation of what he then called aSupreme Council on Mi- gration, which would allow for arationaldistribution of manpower and resour-

 Guthrie, J. 2013. “The ILOand the International Technocratic Class,1944–1966”,inDroux J., Kott,S.eds. Globalizing Social Rights. TheInternational Labour Organization and Beyond,115– 136.ILO Centuries Series.Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan. Forfurther informationonthe An- dean Programme, see Alcock, A. 1971. Historyofthe International Labour Organization,251– 253. London: Macmillan.  The First World Warhad also contributed to makingthis issue one of the fundamental aspects of reconstruction.Paul-André, R. 2006. “Géopolitique et État-providence. Le BIT et la politique mondiale des migrations dans l’entre–deux–guerres”, Annales.Histoire, Sciences Sociales 1(61): 99–134.  Thomas’ speech at the ConferencetoEmployees of the Municipalities of Rio de Janeiro. Thomas,A.1947. Politique sociale internationale,105.Genève: Bureauinternational du travail. See also Kévonian, D. 2005. “Enjeux de catégorisations et migrations internationales”, Revue eu- ropéenne des migrations internationales 21(3): 95– 124.  Kévonian, D. 2005:103.Onthis mission, see G900/15/4 “Mission de Varlez en Amérique du Sud, 1925”,ILOA. II Early RegionalCooperation in Latin America 85 ces.¹⁰² Despite these initiativesand the creation of an International Commission on Migration in 1921,the ILO failed to develop international cooperation in this field in the 1920s. It was not until the SantiagoConferencethatprogress was made in this area, when the principles of international coordination and the development of practical strategiesfor the implementation of migration policies with acolonial lens werefirst concretised.The economic crisisand the restriction of migration flows meant that the ILO’saction favouring organised migration was part of the fight against unemployment in Europe and against the economic imbalances that threatened or delayedsocial progress in less developed countries.Inthe international context of the 1930s the question of colonial migration alsoproved to be urgent,not altogether unrelated to the humanitarian crisis posed by the estab- lishmentofthe Nazi regime and the proliferation of persecution, particularlytar- geted at German Jews. Forsome non-governmental organisations the ILO could playacrucial role in making information on immigration opportunities available to European relief organisations.¹⁰³ In Santiagothe resolution on immigration proposed by the Brazilian government directlyinvolved Latin Americancountries in the international effort for global economic recovery.Since the early1930s Brazil had sought to mobilise the ILO on this issue. That sameyear,atthe ILC,BandeiradeMello stressed the importance of migration for colonisation in resolving unemployment in Eu- rope.¹⁰⁴ On the heals of the SantiagoConference, during his stayinBrazil and after meetingits Minister of Foreign Affairs, Macedo Soares,Butler proposed, in connection with the Brazilian draftresolution on immigration, to send an In- ternational Labour Office mission to investigate the problem of migration from the perspective of economic and social development.¹⁰⁵ In July 1936 he sent Fer- nand Maurette and the Argentine Enrique Siewers,amember of the Migration Section, to Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay.¹⁰⁶ ForMaurette, the situation in Brazil

 Thomas,A.1947. Politique sociale internationale,108.  Letter from LordBearsted, British member of the GoverningBody, to Childs,April, 27,1936. G900/46/38 “Mr.Maurette’smission to Brazil, Uruguay,Argentina. 1936”,ILOA.  ILCRecord of proceedings, 1930,172, ILOA.  XT 86/1/1 “Director’smission to South ans North America (November 1935–February 1936)”. Sincethe 1920samovement for the development of industrial social policyhad emergedinSão Paulo, outside the public sphere, throughorganisations and institutes created by entrepreneurs, engineers and educators, nurtured by the spirit of rationalisation. Weinstein, B. 1996. ForSocial Peace in Brazil Industrialists and the Remaking of the Working Class in Sao Paulo,1920–1964,56. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.  Governing Body,77th session, 1936,191,ILOA. G900/46/38 “Mr.Maurette’smission to Brazil, Uruguay,Argentina. 1936”,ILOA. 86 IDevelopment as aUniversal Strategy in the 1930s vividlyrevealed the need for an organisation of international labour migrationfor economic development.Hewas clearlyinfavour of the government’spolicy of using still virgin areas for settlements: “The continuity of the occupation and exploitation of the country,bothinspace and in time, is one of the first conditions for the economic implementation of so manyresources”.¹⁰⁷ After having visited the Institute of Agriculturelocated in Campinas thanks to the intervention of Henrique Doria de Vasconcellos, Director of the Institute of Immi- gration, eager to develop international cooperation with International Labour Of- fice experts, Maurette welcomed the government’sagrarian reforms and the development of planning in this sector of activity:

The eraofsole privateinitiative […]seems to be over.Although we arenot yetspeakingof “directed agriculture”,wemay speak of acontrolled, advised, supported and organised agriculture.Itisthe signofaStatehavingreached the ageofmajority.Such apolicyofcon- trol, advice, concernand organisation is legitimateand must be fruitful in the demograph- ic, social and agriculturalsectors.¹⁰⁸

Both Maurette’sreport and the Office’scomprehensive reportoncolonial migration weresubmitted to the ILO’sInternational CommitteeonMigration which met in November1936. The Committeedecided to include the problem of worker migrationinthe context of financingdifficulties,both from the point of view of their settlement and transportation costs,conclusions which led to the organisation of aconference of experts on migration for colonisation, organised from 28 February to 7March 1938.¹⁰⁹ Forthe first time in its history,the ILO wasorganisinganinternational technical conferencewith more representativesfrom Latin America than from Eu- rope. Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia,Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela were represented. However,few of them were

 Maurette, F. 1937. Quelques aspects sociaux du développement présent et futur de l’économie brésilienne,9.Études et Documents Série B(Conditions économiques), no. 25.Geneva: Interna- tional Labour Office. Original Quote in French: “La continuitédel’occupation et de l’exploitation du pays,dans l’espace comme dans le temps est une des premières conditions de la mise en œuvre économique de tant de ressources.”  Ibid., 29.Original quoteinFrench: “L’époque de l’unique initiative privée[…]semble rév- olue. On n’en est pas encore àl’agriculture dirigée, […]mais on en est àl’agriculture contrôlée, conseillée, soutenue, organisée. C’est le fait d’un État arrivé àl’âgedelamajorité. Unetellepo- litique de contrôle, de conseil, de sollicitude, d’organisation est légitime et doit êtrefructueuse dans le domaine démographique et social commedans celui de l’agriculture.”  La Coopération internationale technique et financièreenmatièredemigrations colonisatrices. Conférence technique d’experts,1938. Études et documents. Série O(Migrations), no.7.Geneva: International Labour Office. II Early RegionalCooperation in Latin America 87 qualified experts, most Latin American governments being represented by con- suls, chargésd’affaires or heads of delegations and permanent representatives to the League of Nations. The League of Nations sent several economists, such as the AustrianRichard Schüller, the Italian Pietro Stoppani and the Canadian Louis Rasminsky,the third governor of the Bank of Canada and one of the archi- tects of the future Bretton Woods system implemented in 1944.¹¹⁰ The aim of the conferencewas to define the methodsofinternational technical and financial collaboration, and to make proposals from which emigration and immigration countries could draw inspiration for the conclusion of bilateral agreements. The conferencehad before it areport from the Office addressing all these points. However,atthis point,its work on migrant workers was stillatan embryonic stage. To date it had carried out piecemeal studies focusing solelyon adescription of nationalexperiencesand published in the International Labour Review.¹¹¹ These studies had no practical use for the various emigration and im- migrationoffices.¹¹² Thus discussions at the Conferencereflected the central role playedbythe experiencesofArgentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay with the institutional organisation of migration in highlightingarangeofissues related to ter- minologyand the international organisation of worker migration.¹¹³ The purely technical nature of this conference made it possible to reach decisions “under conditions of unexpected unanimity”,which helped considerably broaden the Office’smandate.¹¹⁴ It became competent in providing aregular information service on all practical questions raised by the admission of immigrants as set- tlers.¹¹⁵ The conference alsoopened the debate on the financial issues tied to raising capital in third countries,inthe cases whereneither the country of immigration nor the country of emigration had accesstothe necessary funds. On this point,itdecided to instruct the Office, in consultation with the Economic and

 Clavin, P. 2013. Securing the WorldEconomy:The Reinvention of the League of Nations, 1920–1946. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press. See Chapter9in particular.  Siewers, E. 1934. “Les possibilités de colonisation en Argentine”, ILR 30(4): 487–523; Lopes, R. P. 1936. “La colonisation au Brésil”, ILR 33(2): 164–197; Berenstein, M. 1936. “Les États du Levant sous mandat français et les problèmes d’émigration et d’immigration”, ILR 33(5): 728– 764; Tait,C.1936. “Migrations et peuplement en Australie, en Nouvelle–Zélande et au Canada”, ILR 34(1): 37–71,and “La colonisation au Chili. Rapports et enquêtes”, ILR 34(3): 388–462; Ogishima, T. 1938. “L’émigration japonaise”, ILR 34(5): 663–698.  Governing Gody, 83rd session, April 1938, 24,ILOA  Ibid.,56.  Ibid.,20.  These aspects werepresent in the ILOreport submitted to the Technical Conferenceand form the basis of the work plan accepted by the Conference. GB, 83rd session, April 1938, 53–63, ILAO. 88 IDevelopment as aUniversalStrategy

Financial Sections of the League of Nations, to examine the possibilities of car- rying out research on this problem and creatinganinternational lending institution to provide credit for settlement.Lastly, the Conference invitedthe GB to establish apermanent International CommitteeonMigration for Colonisation in order to facilitate the coordination of the emigration and immigration countries concerned and studyingreater depth the problems of international financing,as well as the means of solving them. As aconcrete resultofthe 1938 conferencethe Office was able to organise amission of technicalassistance to Venezuela in 1938. The purpose of this mission was to help create an institute for immigration and settlement,acentral institution in the government’sdevelopment strategy.¹¹⁶ Forsix weeks,Enrique Siewers,alongside expert Henrique Doria de Vas- concellos, responsible for land settlement policy in Brazil, visited whitesettle- ments in Venezuela.¹¹⁷ They drafted two reports one of which described the situation in the Chirguasettlement where48Danish families had settled. The other report presented itself as ageneral studyofthe possibilitiesofimmigration and resettlement of Europeans in Venezuela, fruit of atwo-week trip in the two most important regions of the country for immigration: the Valencia Lake bassin, and the Andes.¹¹⁸ If the archivesdonot specify the Office’sroleinthe organisation of the functioning of the Institute, whose creation was decided by ministerial decree on 15 September 1938,¹¹⁹ Siewers gave an ideal description, presenting it as “amodel for the organisation of settlement and immigration in other Latin Americancountries”.¹²⁰ The Office’sactivities testify to the central role of Latin Americancountries in reviving the migration issue at the ILO in the late 1930s. On the one hand, the 1938 conferenceofexperts and the mission of technicalassistance to Venezuela illustrate the role of the ILO in the internationalisation of aparticular aspect of migration, despite the increasingly nationalistic nature of migration policies in the late 1930s. In 1939 the adoptionbythe ILC of aRecommendation (No. 61) and the Migrant Workers Convention(No. 66), which concerned the recruitment, placement and workingconditions of migrant workers crowned the ILO’seffort- s.¹²¹On the other,itexemplifies attempts to link international labour migration to

 Wright,W.R.2003. Café Con Leche: Race, Class,and National Image in Venezuela: 101–102. Ann Arbor:UMI Books.  E22/63/2 “Colonisation and migration. Relations with the InstitutoTecnicodeImmigracion ycolonizacion, Caracas”,ILOA.  Ibid.  Ibid.  Ibid.  Alcock, A. 1971. Historyofthe International Labour Organization,136.London: Macmillan. II Early Regional Cooperation in Latin America 89 the problem of economic development in Latin America. This link was reaffirmed at the Havana Conference, wheredelegates stressed the importance of systemati- callyorganisingmigration for agricultural and industrial development.

Conclusion

As non-binding forums for the exchangeofviews and experiences on social policies, labour relations and workers’ protection, the interwar regional conferences provided an ideal forumfor discussing the specific problems of Latin American countries,under the authority of the ILO.The regional conferences in Latin America werenot aimedatregionalising international labour standards but reflected apragmatic approach by the ILO to tackle the practical difficulties preventing less developedcountries from adopting and ratifying international labour Conventions. Considered in the interwar period as ameans of combating protectionism, the regionalisation of ILO activities was not just aresponse to the European context,wherenationalisms weregrowingstronger.The ILO’sstrategy alsostemmed from an internal reflection on the need to broaden the modal- ities of its action(the mere production of international conventions having not succeeded in meeting the needs of the less developed member states), and to ex- tend the scope of possibilitiesregardingthe protection of workers. The regional conferences also promotedthe creation of collaborative net- works based on the sharing of technical knowledge.They adopted resolutions that fostered the development of ILO technical studies capable of assisting national administrators in their reform processes, and the establishment of atech- nical advisory system. This process, which began in the 1930s, undoubtedlyex- plains the survival of the ILO duringand after the Second World War. While the Havana Conferencedid not adopt anyresolution promotingthe organisation of new regional conferences,their importance for the development of ILO action was highlighted on several occasions.The Havana Conferenceadopted aresolu- tion, best known todayasthe “Havana Declaration”,drafted by WilfredJenks, which incorporated the preamble to the ILO Constitution, the LimaDeclaration of 24 December 1938 and the joint Declaration of Continental Solidarity,adopted in Panamaon3October 1939.Itassociatedthe ILO even more clearlywith inter- Americancooperation, while giving it the mandate of economicallyand socially preparingthe post-war period. EdwardPhelan’s1941annual reportconfirmed that the ILO was committed to the development of aregional social policy to be included in post-war policy.InLatin America the organisation of regional conferences would continue after the war,inMexico in 1946,inMontevideoin 1949,inRio de Janeiro in 1952,and in Havana in 1956.The end of the war and 90 IDevelopment as aUniversalStrategy the accompanying wave of decolonisation would also enable the ILO to invest in other continents.InAsia for instance the first ILO regional conference was held in India in 1947inthe wake of the country’sdeclaration of independence.