American Foreign Aid Programme

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28267, 3 May 1957, Page 8

American Foreign Aid Programme

In spite of the desire of most Congressmen to reduce the size of the Budget presented by the Eisenhower Administration, this year’s foreign aid programme appears to have a better prospect than usual of passing through the Congressional machinery without crippling cuts. Instead of giving all

assistance—economic as well as military—the one general label of “ foreign aid ”, which Congressmen feel annoys voters in all parts of the United States, a clear distinction has been made between funds devoted to the economic betterment of other countries and money spent on purely military defence. Too often, Congressmen feel, the average American has tended to regard foreign aid as simply the pouring out of taxpayers’ money for the benefit of foreigners. Congressional opposition to the growing cost of foreign aid in the last two or three years has reflected this view of many voters; and the change in the system of allocating foreign aid grants is an attempt by the Administration to disarm such criticism both in the electorate and in Congress.

Not many Americans have realised that much of what is called “foreign aid” is devoted to helping friendly countries to defend themselves. According to the “ Christian Science “ Monitor ” ten-elevenths of what is now called “ foreign “ aid ” is essentially military in its purpose. Admiral Radford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has claimed that this foreign aid spending on defence is part and parcel of the Defence Department’s programme. “Expenditures abroad “ in support of our alliances do “ not differ in purpose, scope, “ or objectives from our own

“ military expenditures ”, Admiral Radford testified before a Congressional committee. It is now proposed to make the military side of foreign aid a regular part of the annua] budget of the Defence Department, which Congress usually approves without too much question. Taxpayers who resent “ hand-outs ” to foreign countries will be less likely to dispute the defence experts’ estimates of their country’s military needs. The second and smaller part of the present foreign aid programme—money provided for economic development and technical assistance—will also be on a different basis under the Administration’s new procedure. Most of the aid will be in the form of loans (on terms more liberal than existing Government lending agencies and banks can provide); the projects will be put on a long-term basis so that one year’s pruning of the foreign aid programme cannot curtail a development plan already under way; and the foreign aid planners will also actively encourage private investment in the countries which they assist. The new arrangement seems, both politically and administratively, an improvement. While Congress, in a Budget-cutting mood, may still find foreign aid a logical target, at least it will be a clearly-defined target. Foreign aid should in future not be so much at the mercy of politics. The programme proposed this year by President Eisenhower has much influential backing. Presented in its new form it should more readily persuade the American public that it should not be heavily cut—even by the most economyminded Congress since the end of World War H.