Evening star., 1960-09-01
LETTERS TO THE STAR
Our Inconsistent Foreign Policies

Your editorial, Break With
Trujillo," helps emphasize the
difficulties we encounter when
we undertake drastic meas
ures against a right-wing die
tatorship, such as the Domin-
ican Republic, which has
given us no offense. while we
permit left-wing dictator
ships, such as the kind now in
control in Havana, which try
to undermine our country, to
get off almost unscathed. You
might have added that it is
policies such as these which
account for our losing, as we
have been doing, the cold wal.
We have invariably tried to
close the stable door after the
horse was stolen. The only
thing consistent about our
policies has been our incon-
SiStencies.
It has been known for
many years that Communists
have infested the Latin
American countries. They
have pursued in these coun-
tries the process of infiltra-
tion and subversion by which
they have been able, without
the loss of a single soldier, to
obtain dominion over one
third of the worlds popula-
tion and one-fourth of the
worlds surface. 1t was inevi-
table that sooner or later
they would be able to chal-
lenge us in our own back
yard. While we were pursuing
what had come to be known
as a policy of containment,
by which further advances of
the Communists would be
halted, we were the ones who
were actually being contained
by them. While we were
building bases in other lands,
and relied on these bases, as
France once relied on the
Maginot Line, they were
building far more effective
bases among the peoples
whose liberties they intended
to destroy.
Now that the inevitable has
come to pass. so that it is
even impossible to get the
Latin American countries to
take a strong position against
a common enemy, we hope,
by an expenditure of 5000
million in Latin America, to
undo the damage which has
been done by our many years
of neglect. 1t would be a
cheap way of buying security,
if security could really be
bought that way.
But that method of making
friends and influencing peo-
pie is not likely to be more
successful when applied to
Latin America than it has
proven to be in other parts of
the world. Since the end of
World War II we expended
more than $40 billions in
foreign aid. We have fewer
friends in the countries in
which this money was ex-
pended than we had before
we started. We ought to con-
tinue to spend sucn money
for humanitarian reasons,
but as a means of furthering
our own security or that of
the free world this method
has been a bust. The Rus
SLAMS got better returns on
their promises than We got
for our cash.
This policy of foreign aid,
which we would now extend
to Latin America. was predi-
Gated on a theory. for which
there is no foundation, that
if we could abolish poverty
throughout the world the
basis for Communist growth
would be removed. While
poverty is undoubtedly an
ally of communism it does
not alone account for Com
munist growth. When Russia
took over Czechoslovakia the
latter was the most advanced
country economically in Eu-
rope. Subversion and infiltra-
tion can proceed apace in the
advanced countries.
Secondly, even if it were
true that the abolition of
poverty would prevent the
spread of communism, there
is no reason to assume that
we are in a position to abol-
ish poverty everywhere in
the world. We haven't even
abolished poverty in our own
country. 1t is a mistake to
believe that there are no
problems affecting the world
that money cannot cure, or
that even if that were the
case. we have the money to
do it.
Nor will we obtain the
security against aggression
which we seek by applying
sanctions to countries which