Evening star., 1951-11-23

probably would be supplying at
least half of the total support
for that war. even if we sent no
troops whatsoever.
In the field of economic aid we
have been committing billions of
our taxpayers money since the
war. Following lend-lease, we
supported various minor projects,
including UNRAA: then we COM
mitted some $6 billion to the two
Breton Woods projects. We ex-
tended a loan of 81 billion to
Great Britain. We are carrying
through the Marshall Plan at a
total cost of something in the
|neighborhood of SIS billion. All
of this aid has been extended to
Western Europe out of all pro-
portion to our aid to the rest of
the world.
Dubious of Giving Aid.
Before the Russian threat
was very dubious about the policy
of advancing money to Europe in
such large amounts. certainly
when Gen. Marshall proposed to
include Soviet Russia. Certainly
it is unwise for any nation to be-
come dependent upon the charity
of another nation. and it is just
as bad for the country receiving
the charity as it is costly to the
country which gives it.
The question today. however. is
hardly an issue on which there is
a serious split. Once the Russian
threat was apparent I was in IA
vor of the Marshall Plan, in order
that these countries might be able
to meet communism more swiftly
and effectively.
But in 1851 the Western Euro
pean countries have recovered, and
their production in most cases far
exceeds their prewar production.
Aid of this kind today is far more
justified to meet famine in India
or an influx of immigration in
Israel than it is to support a Eu-
ropean country able to support
itself.
With regard to the giving of
arms aid at the expense of the
American taxpayer, I believe that
this general policy is correct, sub
ject to certain conditions. In the
first place. it ought to be fairly
clear that the nations to which aid
is extended are really threatened
by Communist attack. I have
never favored the giving Of arms
aid indiscriminately to South
American countries.
Must Stay Within Budget.
In the second place, the amount
must be within the capacity of
the United States to include in
its budget and in its program of
production.
In the third place, do not think
arms aid should be given in such
a way as to lead Russia to believe
that an attack is contemplated
against Russia itself and so in
cite it to a war which it might
not otherwise undertake.
I supported the bills for the
arming of Greece and Turkey. I
am quite willing to support arms
aid to Great Britain and France
to the extent that they are not
able to arm themselves, although
the providing OF such arms should
be first call on their own budg-
cts. and arms aid should not be
provided by the United States
simply to prevent some slight re-
duction in their civilian standard
of living.
We should long ago have sup
piled much greater support in the
matter Of arms and equipment to-
the Nationalist government Of
China. We should never have left
Korea until the Korean Army was
fully armed against a possible at
tack by the North Koreans. We
have finally adopted the policy of
arming the Chinese Nationalists
on Formosa. But whether we are
doing it is another question.
In this field. as in all other
fields Of aid, Europe has had the
lions share Of our assistance, and
the Importance of Europe has been
fully recognized in that program
and in the military aid which we
are now contemplating.
From "A Foreign Policy for Ameri-
cans Copvright. 1851, by Robert A.
Taft. Published by Doubleday g. Co, Inc.j
Distributed by the Register and
Tribune syndicate)