Kissinger cuts aid to bring poor nations into line

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34047, 10 January 1976, Page 13

Kissinger cuts aid to bring poor nations into line

Si,

LESLIE H. GELB,

cf the "New York Times." through N.Z.P.A.J

WASHINGTON, January 9.

1 he United States Secretary of State (Dr Henry Kissinger ) has formally initiated a policy of singling out for cut-back in American aid those nations that have sided against the United States in votes in the United Nations. In some cases, the cut-backs involve food and humanitarian relief.

According to State Department officials. Dr Kissinger has already postponed agreements on detelopment aid to Tanzania and Guyana i because of their votes in the United Nations Gen-j era! Assembly to con-j demn Zionism and to oppose the Administration's position on Korea. Other nations such as Malawi and the Ivory Coast,! wmch supported Administra-| non positions in the United! Nations, will be given additional aid. The new policy was described in both negative and positive terms. The official who disclosed this information called the policy no more than a "zap list” to punish small countries and du nothing about others such as Egypt that were also voting against the United States. State Department officials! who confirmed the policy; spoke of it as a simple way of showing developing! nations that their behaviour; in international organisations ; would affect their direct rela- • tions with the United States. As one official put it: “If ; bilateral concerns aren’t. overriding — like Middle’ East peace talks — we have! to do something tangible to> them to show them that their; opposition to us is not cost! free.” Congress appears to be divided on this issue. The) -Senate Foreign Relations j Committee has issued a re-i port specifically prohibiting; the politicising of economic! •id. The House International! Relations Committee passed i a resolution that, in effect,; endorsed some kind of get-1 tough approach after the i United Nations vote con-; demning Zionism as a form I of racism. Some of the officials also; acknowledged that: High officials of the Agency; for International Devel-; optnent who are responsible for effecting de-' elopment programmes i

have not even been in-: formed of the new policy. I Nations whose aid programmes have been delayed or cancelled are not explicitly being told why, although as one official said, “when our ambassador comes to them and complains about their votes in the United Nations, and a few weeks later an aid transaction falls through, they get the picture.” The policy will now be i carried out in a more ’systematic and wide-ranging Sway. using all available aid programmes — grant military aid. military credit sales, grant food aid, credit food sales, export-import bank loans, development and humanitarian relief assistance — but relying initially and mainly on diplomatic protests. State Department officials; traced the origins of the new policy to three factors: one i was the appointment of Mr i Daniel P. Moynihan as repre■sentative to the United 'Nations. Mr Moynihan came jto this position on the heels of an article in “Com- ! mentary” magazine calling 'for a strategy of “raising ihell” in the United Nations. A second was Dr I Kissinger’s long-held belief I that when nations acted against important interests of !the United States on issues i that were extraneous to their own interests. the Administration should take ; a stem line. | The third factor was the i United Nations vote con- ! demning Zionism as a form lof racism which caused a (number of congressmen to press for cutting off Ameri-; can contributions to the; (United Nations and to many! iof its member States. State Department officials] (flatly reject the charge that! I they have produced a “zap i list” and say that their policy; has only a short-run objective. they said that an [office has been set up in the State Department to monitor and analyse United I Nations votes.

These officials acknowledged that in most cases only small developing nations could do little to the United States in return are chosen for action. Such nations include: Cameroon, Cyprus, Benin, Niger, Senegal, Burundi, Chad, and Malta. But the analyses also select nations like India, Bangladesh, and Nigeria for action. The officials also explained that in most of these cases, it is a difficult choice to actually cut off economic aid, because it would really be the people of these countries who would suffer most. “In nearly' all cases,” one high State Department official said, “there is good reason to limit our actions to diplomatic representations, sending in our ambassador to use persuasion.” I Other officials agreed that the new policy would be vigorously carried out as new aid commitments are being negotiated, and that the pattern of many nations acting against American interests where it is easier for them to do so politically should be broken. Presby 41 Former rock *n rollers probably took a second look in the mirror yesterday, the forty-first birthday of Elvis Presley. — Memphis.