Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1963-03-25
Too Much for Too Many?

Over the years, there have been nu-
merouS special high-level studies Of our
foreign military and economic aid. But
none has been sharper or more worthy
Of attention than the one Just submitted
to. the President by General Lucius Clay
and his l0-man Committee to Strengthen
the Security of the Free World.
Last December, in naming this dis
tinguished bipartisan group, Mr.. Ken
nedy called upon it to take "very hard
look" at the Agency for International
Development to determine whether or
not Its operations are materially" con-
tributing to the military safety and eco
nomic progress of the United States and
its friends and allies abroad. Well, to
oversimplify the committees report, the
answer is an emphatic yes, but with a
lot Of equally emphatic qualifications.
At any rate, the basic philosophy of
General Clay and his colleagues (the
sole disSenter is George Meany, who
advocates more aid rather than less) is
summed up in these words:
We believe that we are indeed attempting
w hAuOAA AOI IOO many ana LIdC nlgner
quality and reduced quantity Of our diffuse
aid effort in certain countries could accom-
plish more. We cannot believe that our
national interest Is served by indefinitely
continuing commitments at the present rate
to the IS countries and territories which are
now receiving our economic and/or military
assistance. Substantial tightening up and
sharpened detectives in terms Of our national
interests are necessary, based on q realistic
future probabilities.
There should be no doubt, however, Of
the great value Of properly conceived and
administered foreign aid programs to the
national interest Of the United States and of
the contribution Of the foreign assistance
dollar in such programs to the service Of our
Nations security. We live in q world in which
poverty. sickness. instability and turmoil are
rife and where q relentless Communist i'm
perialism manipulates this misery to subvert
men and nations from freedoms cause A
foreign aid program is one instrument among
many which we and other developed countries
adequately can afford and vigorously must
use In the defense and advancement Of free
world interests.
With that said, however, the Clay
committees critique, although couched
IN generalized language, leaves little
room for doubt that AIDS program
involves a great deal Of wasteful ex-
penditure on projects that simply make
no sense. Indeed, one of the groups
major findings (again with Mr.. Meany
dissenting) is that the current years
OUTLAWS on military and economic as
Sistance should be about $500 million
less than they are. And another Of the
FINDINGS (0Ya that xryiII I1a v&ov,,,Ia ~I,v -
claimed) is that a 'neutralist" country
like Indonesia should not be granted
large-scale American aid unless It puts
its internal house in order, provides fair
treatment to foreign creditors and en-
terprises, and refrains from interna-
tional adventures"
Similarly, in its important section
on Latin America and the Alliance for
Progress, the Clay committee puts heavy
stress on this point: mo matter what
the amount of outside assistance, moth
ing will avail to promote rapid progress
II Latin American leaders do not stimu-
late the will for development, mobilize
internal savings, encourage the massive
flow OF private investment, and promote
other economic, social and administra-
tive changes" AS for the relatively
primitive lands Of Africa, the time has
come for British and our other Western
allies France has been doing the best
Job Of all) to contribute at least as
much, relatively, as the United States
has been doing.
General Clay and his colleagues
have presented an obviously contro-
versial report This is field, after all,
in which there are more guesses than
there are certainties, and so the debate
must go on. Still, in II own way, the
"hard-loox" committees assessment OF
the situation should help TO make the
pro-and-con arguments Just a little bit
more Ineligible than they have been.
Al. - ~