on their soil since the spirit of nationalism and the remembrance of colonialism are still strong. The disparities
of living standards of these Americans
and the mass of the people create
jealousy instead of friendship, and
many of the Americans who participate in the technical assistance program do not exercise tact in refraining
from boasting about the achievements
of the American way of life.
Also, a source of ill will toward the
United States is the division of our aid
among recipients. Those who do not
receive as large a grant as other countries resent us. Examples are found in
the Middle East where the comparative size of aid received by Israel and
the Arab states has been, and remains,
a frequent source of criticism of the
United States. Similarly, the provision
of military assistance to Pakistan led
to denunciations of the United States
in India inasmuch as they were involved in a border dispute with Pakistan. Nehru called for mass rioting to
show their displeasure. Our assistance
to India helped her to become self-
sufficient in rice, but this hurt the
Burmese and Thai export markets anel
increased the economic difficulties of
Latin Americans are extremely disappointed with the small amount of
aid they received during the postwar
period in comparison with the much
larger sums given to the countries of
Western Europe, and on the other
hand, the Western European nations
disapprove of our aid to Far Eastern
powers because this diverts aid from
Opponents of foreign aid contend
that although Soviet offers of aid and
expanded trade have made a favorable-
impression, disappointment will eventually follow in the underdeveloped
countries because the Soviet Union has
a long record of not living up to its
economic bargains with the West and
will no doubt continue true to form.
These critics argue that it might
have been better for us to withdraw
from the Egyptian Aswan Dam project and allow the Soviets to build it.
Such a project would use immense
amounts of Soviet resources which
could not be devoted to strengthening the Soviet Union internally, and
with the dam taking considerable time
for completion, the lengthy presence
of Soviet technicians on Egyptian soil
would be certain to lead to animosity
toward them. Furthermore, if we
make an evident attempt to match
Soviet aid in this instance we will only
earn the contempt of the Egyptians.
Some opponents of aid to underdeveloped countries state that it is a
mistake to compete in international
charity with a totalitarian government
which has the- power to depress its
people's standard of living in order to
finance foreign aid. Proponents counter with the view that the efficiency
of our free enterprise system makes it
easier for us to compete with the
Soviet bloc in economic competition
than in military efforts, and urge that
we take up the challenge and prove
to the world that our system is more
productive as well as more desirable
from the standpoint of freedom.
PRO AND CON QUOTES
ON FOREIGN AID
From the Town Meeting national radio
broadcast April 1, 1956
. . . There is more anti-American feeling today in almost
every country we have helped
than there was in 191ft when
Marshall aid began. That's understandable. We are the rich
uncle who has moved into the
home of his poor nephew and is
now telling him anel his family
how they should live. And on
top of it all, forcing the poor
relations every Saturday night to
look at motion pictures hragging
about how rich the domineering
old fossil is. . .
James L. Wick,
Publisher of Human Events
... If these monies (foreign
aid) were labelled "the anti-
Cm,,unii-l fund," there would
be little oppositif»n to them and
a much clearer understanding of
the purposes and reasons for
We should ... he willing to
say to those free countries who
are willing to help themselves
that America is in the light fur
freedom to stay and that we are
prepared to assist them in their
own advance, economically and
politically, towarel freedom.
I think that we sboubl tmly
spend money in those countries
that we are convinced want to
build themselves as free nations.
In other worrls, I do not believe
that we should spend money on
a Soviet satellite that was determined to remain a Soviet satellite. . .
U. S. Representative,
(D) of California
Opponents of aid have advanced
the theory that our assistance has restrained local efforts for improvement,
stating that many Middle Eastern vil-
lagers have refused to do things for
themselves because, in their opinion.
if they waited long enough the U. S.
would do it for them. They note that
many underdeveloped countries impose extreme restrictions on private
foreign investment and have done exceedingly little to mobilize domestic
Critics state that the policy pursued
by the United States in the distribution of aid has been all wrong because'
much of our aid has gone to countries
who are either neutralist, seriously
threatened with internal communism.
or who have gone Communist an''
then have thrown off communism-
Those who oppose this policy state
that this encourages countries to take'
a neutralist stand or to allow Communist infiltration in order to secure additional aid from the United States
This opinion was well expressed by
William Henry Chamberlin who stated, "'Billions for private investmefl
on fair terms, not a cent for econonii
handouts, especially to unfriendly
neutrals' would be a very good steel
ing direction in the field of foreigt-
In regard to the new foreign polifl
of the Soviet, John T. Flynn suinint''1
up the feeling of many of the oppf
nents of the American foreign aid pi*
gram when he stated on a natioDJ
radio broadcast, "The Communis"
don't care about so-called free Enrol/
and Africa. They are interested in ofl*
thing — in encouraging the Unit''1'
States government to spend itself in"
This same line of reasoning V*
expresed in an editorial publish'''
recently in the Indianapolis Star a''1
placed in the Congressional Record W
Senator William E. Jenner of India'''1
It stated, "For ten years straight i'"
State Department has been sending *
average of $5 billion a year abroad!
foreign aid. The idea is to w
cold war by helping our allies becoll
strong and united and to win mjl
allies to our side. Yet today, after ,l
years of doing the same thing defc"
ive-ly, what do we find? We find C
allies less united. The neutralists ;1
more neutral. There is less muWJ
strength abroad than was promisy
And the Soviet Union has beei
ning skirmish after skirmish in ™
eohl war both in taking territory "'
in winning support from the unC
,s »'• tn,
- '%:• *
aid and who must decide whetnC'i tj_ me
not it should be continued and wh*j \^' 'ast ,
er advantages which might be S^Cj, c°rne
So the battle rages on. In the B|
analysis, of course, it is the AmC'.j
taxpayer who foots the bill for for61'
^ Sen ie
, Ir> Eur
t "ew n
by it would be worth the sacrifu
which its -
Acknowledgemen.1 is mode to the
Enterprise Association, Inc., 1012 Fourte
v w., Washington 5, D, C, for A.E.A. R«P"
817, used as source material,
■•'Uncle Shylock and the Dollar Gap," b^JH
Henry Chamberlin, Human Events, March *
Broadcast Reprint M-113, Scheduled Vlniu-'i *1
the HeadUsm," by ]<>hn T-
■ i» -;ice
25, 1956. I'm'l"1'1'
Facts Forum News, }uni\
" I i