The Press TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1956. A New Marshall Plan

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27862, 10 January 1956, Page 8

The Press TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1956. A New Marshall Plan

In his “ State of the Union ” message 'to Congress, President Eisenhower , has taken a bold, even defiant, line jon foreign aid. For one thing, he has invoked the name of the Marshall Plan for the expanded programme of economic help for under-developed countries—a gesture that the free world beyond America will certainly find encouraging but which will arouse mixed emotions in the United States. For even now it may be doubted whether most Americans realise just what the Marshall Plan meant to the recovery of warshattered Europe. Everyone, on the other hand, knows the cost of that great and generous programme in dollars and taxes over a long period of years. Deeply impressed as Americans may be with the need to counter effectively Russia’s new “ rouble offensive ” in the developing countries of the Middle East and South Asia, the term “ Marshall “ Plan ” must have an unpleasant suggestion of permanence. This, indeed, is the real measure of the change in national policy indicated recently by Mr Dulles and confirmed by President Eisenhower's message to Congress. Americans have always thought of their foreign aid programmes, military and economic, as temporary; and both parties have promised that this expenditure would be steadily reduced. The Republicans, in opposition, were especially critical of the foreign aid programme of the Truman Administration; and they did not lack support from rebellious Southern members of the Democratic Party. And now, just when Americans have been expecting a substantial easing in the burden of foreign aid, just when members of the Republican Party, dedicated to the principles of the balanced budget and lighter taxes, have seen some real prospect of redeeming their election pledges, President Eisenhower and his Administration have declared not only that foreign aid must be increased, but that it must continue at the higher level for some years to come. This is foreign aid planning for the “ long “ haul ”,

This change in policy could not have been achieved without a good deal of heart-burning in the higher circles of the Republican Party; and it will not be approved by Congress without opposition from both Republicans and Democrats. It could not have been put to Congress at all without the immense personal •authority of President Eisenhower to back it. Even so, the foreign aid vote of 4,900,000,000 dollars requested for this year is a compromise between, on the one hand, the demands of the “ Young Turks ” in the Administration for a programme that would eclipse all Russia’s efforts by its vastness, and on the other, the insistence of Mr Humphrey, Secretary of the Treasury, and other influential members of the Administration upon a significant reduction in foreign spending. Much the same battle has been fought over defence budgets; and the same sort of compromise has lately reconciled the contending sides to a continuing annual expenditure of about 35,000,000,000 dollars on defence. Vast though this sum is, the need for it is easily seen and approved by the average American citizen. The average American, too, can more easily see the advantage to his country of foreign aid that goes to the strengthening of the defences of his country’s allies than aid that builds up the economies of foreign lands—as often as not his own commercial competitors. And yet, as the “New “ York Times ” said recently, “ the “kind of aid that warms the heart “is the kind that builds dams in “ Egypt, develops water for the thirsty lands of Jordan, increases “ crop yields in India, Indonesia, “and the heart of Africa. Let us “not forget that food, shelter, and “ old-fashioned kindness are also “ weapons in our cold war