Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1963-09-15
BIZ GEORGE sHERMAN

AAASAAS AAAgA SeAJH
A barrage Of charges and
counter charges over exactly
why Mr.. Farlan6 resigned is
bringing to the surface two
interviewing arguments over
how United States diplomacy
should be conducted in Latin
America. They are:
I. The new people to-people'
approach VS.. the more tradi-
tional government to-govern-
ment" approach.
2. The impact project" APP
proach VS.. the "long-range
planning" approach in dis
spensing United States aid dol
lars for the Alliance for Pro-
Sress.
For more than two years the
Kennedy administration has
been quietly struggling for q
happy balance between these
different approaches to Latin
America. The basic problem Is
how to use the United States
presence and power to spur a
peaceful revolution" aimed In
many cases against the very
groups running the govern
Hnents.
Out Into the Open
Now Mr.. Farland's break with
the State Department and the
accompanying publicity given
his criticism Of United States
aid and diplomacy have
brought the argument out into
the open. Now that argument
IL being mixed up with parti-
san politics In this country.
Mr.. Farland, who calls him
self q liberal Republican" was
q political appointee. He was
first name dAmbassador to the
Dominican Republic by Presi-
dent Eisenho over. and then
transferred to Panama in 1860.
President Kennedy decided to
keep him on.
His critics charge that he Is
conducting q still-unannounced
campaign to become Republic
can governor or Senator Of his
home State of West Virginia.
Whatever the reason, his at
tack on the diplomatic bureau
cracy has touched sensitive
well-springs Of resentment In
the State Department between
political appointees and career
diplomats.
Some officials note pointedly
that Mr.. Farland resigned only
after the State Department re-
fused to give him the top ca
reer rank Of ambassador he
sought before transfer to an
other post.
Raises Basic Issues
But these officials do not
deny that Mr.. Faland has
raised basic issues for United
States diplomacy. During his
three-years In office, he be-
came O leading exponent In
Latin America of "people-to.
people" diplomacy and impact
project" aid-as opposed Il
their less dramatic alternatives
As Ambassador. he was al
ways in the public eye. He trav-
eled the length and breadth OF
Panama, dedicating sc hools
launching self-help housinl
projects, shaking hands, speak
ing at local fiestas.
With q maximum Of publici.
ty and O minimum Of United
States aid dollars, he sought Il
stimulate individual local pro-
jects which would dramatic thu
Alliance for Progress for Pan
aHnanians and associate the
United States with 1t.
BY most accounts Mr.. Far
land was o huge success. B.
the time he resigned las
month, he was generally re-
garded as one Of the most po'
pular United States ambassa'
doris In Latin America, and ont
who had enormously improved
relations with o strategic coun'
try always sensitive about
United States possession Of tho
Panama Canal.
Approaches Diverge
But somewhere along tn
way, the Farland approach be
gan to diverge from the over
all United States aid approach
He now claims this aid is ham
pered by red tape. excessive
planning, incompetent admin
istration, and too much contro
from Washington. He chargei
that the Alliance for Progress
Is lost In grandiose schemes be-
tween governments which
mean nothing to the common
man.
As an example, he has citet
expensive feasibility studies thI
United States requires be L.
boriously carried out on ur'
gently-needed feeder roads fol
markets in the interior. HI
maintains that II the roads
could be cut up into smaller
Brotherhood Barbecue