living under which their economies
can develop. This is a long-term process, in which their own efforts will
play the major part, but in which our
help can be crucial."1
Those who favor foreign aid point
to the advantages of collective security for the United States, contending
that the military forces which our
allies provide defend the U. S. as well
as their own borders. The U. S. supports, in varying degrees, more than
2(X) divisions, 700 combat vessels, and
300 air squadrons in 37 countries. The
key to peace lies in this combined
military strength of the free world,
together with the greater measure of
economic security provided by American assistance, according to proponents of foreign aid, who believe that
we must maintain the cooperation and
unity of the free world in order to be
strong enough to resist Soviet aggression and expansion.
As long as the free world stands
with the United States, our strength
consists of 75 per cent of the world's
population. If the Soviet bloc could be
extended to encompass the rest of the
free world, including South America
and the rest of North America, it
would have 94 per cent of the world's
population. Or, related to land area,
we either have 65 per cent of the1
world on our side, or the Soviet bloc
has 95 per cent on its side. It i.s
argued, in the light of these figures,
that failure to bind the free world
countries together would tilt the advantage to the Communists. Even if
West Germany's and NATO Europe's
population, steel capacity, and coal
fields were added to those of the
Soviet bloc, the United States would
be outweighed three to one in population, two to one in hard coal, and at
least matched in crude steel production.
Those who stress American dependence on the free world also point out
the large per cent of our strategic
materials which come from abroad.
For example, 67 per cent of the bauxite, 100 per cent of the natural rubber.
100 per cent of the tin, 100 per cent of
the industrial diamonds, 95 per cent
of the manganese. 99 per cent of the
chromitc. 95 per cent of the cobalt. 85
per cent of the platinum, etc.
To the allegation that our foreign
aid has not brought us friends and
therefore has not been a cohesive
force- for a stronger free world, proponents argue that our aid is an investment in strength and democracy, and
that while foreign nations may differ
sharply with us, it does not follow that
they are unfriendly. They add that to
require foreign political policies to be
aligned with ours would defeat our
i"Mntual Security Program" - Message from Ihe
President of the United States (H. Doc. No. 358),
March 19. 1956.
efforts to obtain goodwill and would
be regarded as imperialism by other
countries. The uncommitted people of
the world would be thrown against us,
they argue, if we demanded such
alignment, pointing out how we would
have felt in 1939 if Great Britain had
demanded that we be actively with
them or against them.
In view of America's industrial advancement and its limited manpower,
many people feel that America can
make its best contribution to the free
world defense through providing technical weapons and equipment and
modern aid and naval power and leaving to our allies the responsibility of
providing defensive ground forces and
local naval and air power. This will
discourage the small "brush-fire" wars
and if they do break out, they will be
fought without atomic weapons and
can be more easily stopped.
It is pointed out that the U. S. must
maintain troops at all points contiguous to the Soviet bloc in order to prevent Soviet expansion and because
\iiiciican manpower is limited, allied
forces must be relied on to provide
That Communist Russia realizes the
restraint placed on her by free world
cooperation and unity is shown by her
current bid to provide the help needed by underdeveloped countries who
are at present in the camp of the free
world. This trend was pointed up by a
recent editorial in the Northampton
(Mass.) Daily Hampshire Gazette
which stated, '. . . The Soviet Union
has launched a foreign-aid program of
its own, with the obvious intention of
outdoing America in this effort and
thus gaining world domination.
"The President is not saying to Congress that foreign economic aid must
continue forever. He is saying that the
Sov let Union is now using all methods
short of war to entice the underdeveloped nations into its embrace. He is
saying that the cold war has become
bitterly competitive and that unless
the United States (wakes up) to its
implications, we may lose the cold
Walter Lippmann propounded the
same theory when he recently wrote,
"We have come to the end of the time
when the- non-Communist world is
willing or is compelled to look solely
to Washington for economic aid. We
are living in a time when almost all of
the countries which have been receiving aid from us feel that we have a
competitor in the Soviet Union, and
that thev are now in a position to bargain with both of the two superpowers.
". . . We shall have to go on with
foreign aid. For we cannot refuse to
compete, leaving to the Soviet Union
by default a monopoly in the under
developed countries of South Asia and
Another argument of those favoring
foreign aid is that the expanded exports from the U. S. are financed with
our aid and that this export trade sustains high levels of employment within the United States. It was maintained by Harold Stassen, former
administrator of foreign aid programs,
that our foreign aid program assisted
the U. S. in its post-Korean War economic readjustment by strengthening
foreign economies whose financial
crises abroad would have adversely al-
fected our economy and by prov idhi?
these foreign countries with the mean*
of buying more U. S. exports, thereby
strengthening our own economy,
U. S. Representative John W. Hesel'
ton of Massachusetts, stated on the
floor of Congress that at the presefl]
level of spending, foreign aid costs
each citizen of the U. S. onlv $26 •'
year and that the U. S. cannot allor"
to discontinue such aid.
In an article in the April issue <*
Harper's Magazine, Peter F. Drueki''
appeals to his readers to considfl
funds spent for foreign aid as an Sj
penditure of self-interest insteW
of "foreign aid." Regarding this jjj
states, "In President Eisenhower's cufl
rent proposal to put 'foreign aid' on I
long-term basis we have made the f>r*
step toward an effective policy. Fron"'
nent groups, such as the Commit"'
for Economic Development, are dj
mantling sharp increases iii foreifl
aid, especially to the Near East aJJ
Asia. But much of this is still 'forci'-"
aid,' still conceived as an answer
Jf ing us
Communist pressure rather thai
basic- long-range American need i"1
On a nationwide radio broaden* j
Rep. Alvin Bentley of Michigan stat^
along this same line, "I have critici/';-
!"« as a,
""I the o
^» aid '
the (foreign aid) program and I Wj
continue to criticize parts of it. buM
think if all foreign aid were just v» M1'
out . . . the effects abroad would 1
very disastrous . . . the Commu'*
would immediately be able to f>v
run a large part of the free world m
probably force us, in return, to '1°
On the other side, critics of Amfj
can foreign aid programs argue '
the security of the United Stated
of other free countries would 1"'
creased if greater defense exenclit" (j
were undertaken at home instead I
in assistance to our allies. The) I
that our security lies in the deteflj
power of our atomic and hvil'"'
Crr, S mn
1-5 n tht' a
V -20 P
"Washington Post and Tsnu
llullitiii uf America's Town Mcitiu
I. uni. iiv 15, 1056.
Facts Foitcxi News, June,