Aid For The “Third World”

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31196, 21 October 1966, Page 10

Aid For The “Third World”

Stating the case for a generous foreign aid policy by the United States, President Johnson said recently that by 1970 more than half of the world’s people would be living in the southern half of the world, yet they would command only a sixth of its goods and services. It is to this so-called “ Third World ” —as opposed to the Communist “ Second World ’’ and the democratic West—that aid programmes are largely directed. Aid for these countries is not merely a humanitarian duty, but an investment in democracy: struggling economies are the favourite targets for Communist propaganda. In Britain and the United States concern has been expressed about the inclination of governments to cut aid allocations under pressure of purely local circumstances —in Britain, the economic recession and the instability of sterling; in America, the cost of the Vietnam war and preoccupation with domestic plans for social betterment.

The “ New York Times ”, in a series of articles, has criticised the refusal of Congress to make a realistic appraisal of the nation’s responsibilities to provide aid. At a time when needs were soaring, the newspaper said, the Senate and the House, brushing aside Mr Johnson’s plea for unselfish thinking, had agreed on an appropriation for 1966-67 that fell below 3000 million dollars for only the third time in the 20 years of the aid programme. The United Nations had suggested an aid allocation by the richer countries of 1 per cent of their gross national product. Currently their joint contribution amounted to about .6 per cent, the American contribution being less than .5 per cent. This, said the “ New York Times ”, was disgraceful; “ there is no longer much compassion, or courage, or “ honour to be found on Capitol Hill ”, In Britain, it has been submitted that more could and should be done to keep aid at a reasonable level, in spite of economic difficulties. The “ Economist ” has pointed out that while the Government’s economy measures do not include cuts in aid, new commitments nevertheless have fallen to the second lowest level since the 19505. The West as a whole in 1965 gave more in aid to the needy nations than ever before: but the “ Economist’s ” concern was that new commitments, “ the barometer of the aid weather to *’ come ”, were registering at a relatively low level. It may well be that the problems of underdevelopment are growing faster than the efforts of the “ have ” nations to cope with them. If that is so, improved methods of assessing needs and organising aid through international agencies are urgently needed. An awakening political consciousness could speed the task of reorganisation.