Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1963-06-21
Updotinq the Alliance

The basic criticism which two lead
ing statesmen Of Latin America have
leveled against the Alliance for Prog
ress makes a good deal Of sense. Pre-
sented in separate reports to the Organ
ization of American States by former
president Juscelino Kubitschek of Bra
I'll and Alberto Lleras Camargo Of Co
lombia, 1t was that the United States
exercises virtual monopoly Of control
over the Alliance.
We agree. What began two years
ago with great fanfare as hopeful
collective venture for raising economic
and social standards in Latin America
seems to have degenerated into a vague
and still ineffective North American aid
program. Both here and in Latin Amer
lea the feeling has grown that anyone
desiring any kind OF Alliance assist
ance-be 1t monetary, technical or cul-
tural-must trudge through a maze of
unco-ordinated agencies In the United
States Government, in the Organization
of American States and in the interna-
tional financial community conferred
here. No single hemisphere agency
exists to give the Alliance for Progress
even physical entity, let alone day-to-
day guidance Of its many-Sided pro-
grams. You will not find the Alliance In
the phone book.
The question is how to enlist Latin
American support behind reform, while
at the same time giving sense Of par
ticipation in planning and distributing
United States aid. The new Inter-Amer-
lean Development Committee proposed
by both leaders could well fill the bill.
Composed Of one leading representative
from each member country, it would give
the Alliance the psychological identity
it so badly needs. With time and sue
cess, the committee could also gradually
assume more and more responsibility
for allocating aid funds much as the
Organization Of European Economic Co
operation (oEEC) did for Europe during
the Marshall Plan.
The United States originally sup
ported such multi-lateral set-up at the
founding conference of Punta del Este
in August, 1851. The idea was rejected
by leading Latin American governments
at that time. They apparently thought
they could get more aid in bilateral
dealings with the United States.
In any move to committee setup,
at least two dangerous pitfalls must be
avoided. First, the new Inter-American
DEVELOPMENT Committee must not be-
come another decorative piece Of inter-
American bureaucracy. The committee
must absorb, not add to, functions now
done piecemeal by individual agencies.
It must have the power and personnel
to coordinate these agency programs
and to impose self-diScipline on member
governments in carrying out promised
reforms.
Also to be avoided is too much
dilution Of United States control over
aid funds. The Latin American govern
mentS have still to demonstrate their
capacity to work together and to carry
out national plans. At this stage, the
United States cannot be expected to
give them more than an advisory voice
in aid distribution
We have until the top-level meet
ing of hemisphere economics ministers
in Brazil next october to work out the
details. Meanwhile, the two former pres
idents have given eloquent testimony as
to how close to collapse Is the whole
alliance idea. The need for some form OF
bolstering action is evident and urgent.