Evening star., 1951-09-26
General Eisenhower's Appeal

Barring the unexpected, the House Senate
conferees on the foreign aid bill very probably
will remain unmoved by General EiSenhower's
personal appeal for reconsideration of the drastic
cut in the funds voted for economic assistance
to Europe.
But the conferees by turning a deaf ear
to this appeal, cannot avert the consequences
of an unreasonable slash in economic funds. If
the Senate-approved figure should stand, there
will be paper saving of some $875 million.
Actually, however, assuming that we intend to go
through with the task to which General Eisen-
hover has been assigned, nothing will be saved.
AS the NATO commander has put it, instead of
effecting true economy, we will wind up by
buying less defense at higher price
There is popular notion that neat dis
tinction can be made between military and
economic aid. This was evidenced during the
debates in Congress and in the decision to make
a much smaller reduction in funds sought for
military items. The notion, however, is thor
oughly fallacious one at least in It's application
to our NATO partners.
In the first place, a great deal of the So
called economic aid since the beginning of the
war in Korea has been redirected toward the
attainment of military objectives. What real
distinction can be drawn, for instance, between
the use of military aid to acquire fighter planes
and the use of economic aid to build roads to
the air fields from which those planes will fly?
Furthermore few if any of the countries of
Western Europe can make any substantial addi-
tional cuts in their civilian economies. These
countries have made certain military commit
ments to General Eisenhower. They have under
taken to furnish designated numbers of troops,
specified military equipment, etc. Generally
speaking, those commitments were made on the
assumption that their internal economies would
be reinforced, directly or indirectly, by American
aid If that aid is not to be forthcoming we
should expect but one result The governments
of European countries that are in financial dis
tress will not meet their commitments. All of
them have voted higher military budgets, but
drastic cut in economic assistance will compel
them to apply less of their own revenues to
military ends and more to the support of their
own economies.
We may not like this. We may say that the
European countries should contribute what they
have agreed to contribute. But whether we like
it or not, facts are facts and political govern
ments are political governments. IF we cut $875
million from the requested economic aid, General
Eisenhower is going to get smaller military
contribution from Europe and it is going to be
spread over a longer period Of time.
He says that this is not true economy-that
1t will cost us more in the long run If we go
through with the NATO project He also says
that time is the critical factor-that any delay
in creating an effective European defense in
creases the danger of an attack and total war.
Do the members of Congress have confidence
in General Eisenhower? If so, why do they ignore
his urgent recommendations in this matter?
Perhaps they do not have sufficient confidence
in him to accept his views as being valid. In
that event, upon whose advice is this cut being
made? Certainly there is no responsible official
in the military, in the administration, or in
Europe who believes that cut of this magnitude
is wise. They all believe, on the basis of their
experience with the problem, that it is most
dangerous kind of false economy. Upon what
superior judgment does the Congress rely?