Слике страница
PDF
ePub

they must be the most frustrated and disillusioned people on earth.

As for the foreign officials whose visits to the United States are subsidized, I wonder how much understanding they really gather in their tours of the United States. Do they see only the shell of America? Contrary to the recently popular song, "Getting to Know You" does not always mean "getting to like you"; in fact, "getting to know you" frequently means "getting to despise you." For on a short-term basis, people of different value systems come to realize that they disagree with those of another value system about things that never even occurred to them before they came into contact.

Real international understanding is a cumulative thing and should be thought of in terms of generations. An official on a subsidized visit naturally has on the blinkers of his own society-blinkers through which he must look and which cloud his vision. In a few short months he could not possibly gather much understanding of the United States and its people. For one never understands another country and its people until one absorbs the beliefs and customs of that country and its people and thus is able to judge its people by their own value system.

Mr. President, this has been a long review of the question of foreign aid. But I conceived it is my duty to state my opposition more clearly than ever during this year of great decisions.

I am tired of giveaway programs. I am weary of oversimplifications. I am disgusted with waste and unfulfilled promises of accomplishment.

I am annoyed by those nations which play the role of international coquettes;

who openly say that they will take aid from any nation, Soviet or Western.

I am also irritated by those leaders who suggest that their countries will turn to communism if we do not sign a blank check. In July 1961, the President of Pakistan, Ayub Khan, said that if we gave his country billions of dollars, Paki

stan would embrace democracy and be

our friend. But if not, Pakistan would

turn to communism. Moreover, it was also reported in 1961 that Ambassador Habib Bourguiba, of Tunisia, stated, as he left the conference table with Secretary of State Dean Rusk:

I suggest the free world act now before another world does.

Foreign aid is the vehicle of special interests. Foreign aid is the vehicle of selfish interests. No matter how its cloak shines with humanitarianism and empty promises of economic progress, foreign aid is still not in the national interest.

At times like this, I am reminded of this message from the words of one of our greatest Presidents, Woodrow Wilson:

When I think over what we are engaged in doing in the field of politics, I conceive it this way. Men who are behind any interest always unite in organization, and the danger in every country is that these special interests will be the only things organized, and

that the common interest will be unorganized against them. The business of Government is to organize the common interest against the special interests.

I shall vote against foreign aid, as I have always done in the past.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I have just read an article which was published this afternoon in the Washington Star. The article was written by one Joseph Kraft; and in the article he undertakes to deal with the debate on the floor of the Senate on the pending legislation.

Mr. Kraft seizes on the very popular approach to every subject today, when it is desired to prejudice any case by substituting fancy for fact and by seeking to don the mantle once worn by Ananias-by indulging in the most contemptible kind of falsehoods in attempting to prejudice the opposition to the foreign aid bill by reciting the fact that some southern Democrats are opposed to the bill.

The writer has made the statement that the southern Democrats, in a secret caucus, had agreed that they would support the efforts of the Senator from Oregon to rewrite the foreign aid bill on the floor of the Senate. He went on to attribute that support to a great many ulterior purposes in an effort not only to prejudice the opponents of the bill now before the Senate, but also to prejudice any opposition that might ensue later to the so-called civil rights measure. Of course, that man is a contemptible falsifier, which is evident from the vote taken on the floor of the Senate just a few minutes ago, before I had read the article. He said:

All the southern Democrats had met and had agreed on this course.

briefly, and I think I am correct in sayI have checked the yea-and-nay vote crats followed the voting pattern he has ing that every one of the southern Demoalways followed with respect to foreign

aid. Those who are in favor of foreign aid voted against the motion to recom

mit, and those who are opposed to increasing foreign aid voted in favor of the motion to recommit. I do not have the actual yea-and-nay vote before me,

but the Senator from Alabama [Mr.

HILL] has not yet completely deserted the little group of embattled southern Democrats; the Senator from Florida

[Mr. HOLLAND] has not; the Senator

from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN] has not; the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT] had not at the last account that I had from him. All of them voted against the motion to recommit.

All of those who voted in favor of the motion to recommit have a consistent record of voting to reduce the foreign aid authorization or opposing the program in its entirety.

We have come to a pretty pass in our country when men of the fourth estate, who are supposed to be men of honorand most of them are-seize on every issue that comes before the Senate in an effort to twist, distort, and wilfully and malignantly falsify in order to attempt to prejudice the case in favor of the pending civil rights legislation, which has not yet reached the floor of the Senate, or-as, in this case, attempt to prejudice the efforts of all those who are opposed to the foreign aid program or seek to reduce the authorization therefor.

Mr. President, there is nothing I can do about it. I cannot stop it. It is not a new custom, although all of it is not as vicious and as open and flagrant and maliciously false as is the article to which I have referred. But I shall continue to protest it and to have embalmed in the volumes of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the fact that some men who are supposed to be devoted to a cause that is protected in the Constitution of the United States-the freedom of of the press-abuse that freedom by attributing evil purposes to all those who do not agree with their views on all legislation. It ought to stop. Those who own the newspapers should see to it that this kind of yellow journalism is eliminated or else there will be a time when they will have have finally made the circuit around and distorted the position of everyone, and there will be some curtailment of the right of the press to slander, libel, and falsify, as is done in the article to which I have referred.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield. Mr. MANSFIELD. Before I make the request which I intend to make, I should like to say that the writer to whom the distinguished Senator from Georgia has referred, whoever he may be, I am sure underestimates very drastically the integrity of the Senator from Georgia as well as the integrity of the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. President, I referred previously to an amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON]. It is my understanding that a prior amendment to the Mansfield-Dirksen amendment had been offered by the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND),

and is now pending. I have been trying to locate the Senator from Florida to ask him to make certain that his amendment would not be called up this afternoon because of the commitment which the leadership has given to the Senate that there would be no further votes

this afternoon. I am quite certain that the distinguished Senator from Florida will agree to the arrangement, because

he has had to leave the Chamber tem

porarily, and therefore I cannot at the present moment see him. But I desired to put the Senate on notice that there will be no further votes this afternoon.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida said that he intended to file the amendment, so that he could call it up on Monday. I believe that the Senator will find there is no difficulty.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I have stated information I received from one of the

attachés.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield.

Mr. MORSE. I regret that I did not hear the Senator's comment. I came into the Chamber as the Senator was closing. I understood that the Senator made some reference to the Kraft col

umn.

Mr. RUSSELL. I said that he was a candidate for the mantle of Ananias and had demonstrated more ability to

wear it than anyone I have known recently.

Mr. MORSE. That is an appropriate description of that journalist. Earlier today I had paid my disrespects to him for his lying column published today.

Mr. RUSSELL. I regret that I did not hear the Senator. I was out of the Chamber when he made his statement.

Mr. MORSE. I made it clear that I had been advised by Senate colleagues that there had been no such secret caucus as is reported. I also made it clear that the writer had done a great injustice to my southern colleagues. I expect that kind of justice to be done to me by men of the yellow press of America. That does not concern me, except that I attempt to keep the record the record straight each time I observe such articles by paying my disrespects to such kept journalists.

Mr. RUSSELL. The writer evidently undertook not only to prejudice the case of the Senator from Oregon, but also undertook to make a case against the efforts of the southern Democrats in connection with a proposed civil rights bill. He is trying to kill two birds with one falsehood, to besmirch all those whose consciences will not permit them to support the foreign aid bill as well as those who will be opposed to a socalled civil rights measure when it comes before the Senate.

He endeavored to create a monumental falsehood in order to accomplish a double purpose with one falsehood.

Mr. MORSE. I wished the Senator to know that I paid my disrespects to that kind of journalist. I desire that the RECORD be clear again that there is no arrangement between the Southern Senators and the Senator from Oregon.

I know that on the merits and the demerits of the bill Senators will exercise their independent judgments.

I also suggested that the writer take a look at the division of the southern Senators in this body on the question. I suggested that he look at the record of the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN] and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT].

Mr. RUSSELL. As well as the senior Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL] and the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND], who voted in the negative. Unfortunately they have persisted in the error of their ways by supporting all foreign aid legislation.

Mr. MORSE. Nevertheless, I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Georgia has joined in nailing this vicious, lying article to the mast.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield.

Mr. LAUSCHE. I commend the Senator from Oregon for his bold and direct approach and purpose to reveal the truth. Unless journalists are truthful, we will run into calamity. The Senator from Oregon has exhibited his usual, objective, and courageous approach to problems in regard to foreign aid.

ator from Georgia brought up, I believe ator from Georgia brought up, I believe I, too, have attended every one of the southern caucuses. I can truthfully say that the proposal of the Senator from Oregon was never discussed before the group at all. I believe he will agree that neither I nor any other Southern Senators has come to him and acknowledged anything about it.

Mr. LONG of Missouri. Mr. President, since the American Revolution, the people of our Nation have had one fundamental dream with respect to the damental dream with respect to the world family of nations. That is, that it be made up of free and independent nations. While for many years our role in achieving such a world was passive, time achieving such a world was passive, time and events have brought us to a role of and events have brought us to a role of world leadership. Our own security prevents us from turning our backs on this vents us from turning our backs on this leadership. The basic question before us today is how can we as a nation best exercise this leadership to accomplish the longstanding dream of freemen and the longstanding dream of freemen and thus advance our own security.

The

To answer this question, we must first recognize the forces working against a world of free and independent nations. Of course, the foremost enemy of freedom is Communist imperialism. Communists are hard at work attempting to penetrate and dominate the underdeveloped nations of the world. In Latin America, Asia, and Africa, the Communists are utilizing every weapon at their command-social, political, and military-in their efforts to make this a

Communist world. Their allies in this

fight against freedom are poverty, disease, ignorance, and desperation.

Our efforts must be directed toward overcoming all of these forces. Foreign aid has proved an effective instrument in this struggle and I believe it can be made this struggle and I believe it can be made an even more effective instrument in achieving a world of free and independent nations.

Mr. President, critics of foreign aid almost always include in their charges the assertion that you can't buy friends. the assertion that you can't buy friends. This is a very easy charge to make since it is axiomatic. However, the charge is it is axiomatic. completely irrelevant to foreign aid since the program is not intended to buy friends. The military support phase of the program, of course, is for the purthe program, of course, is for the purpose of strenthening the military might pose of strenthening the military might of the free world. The nonmilitary phase is intended to help less fortunate underdeveloped nations strengthen their economic and political independence. That is, to help the people of the nations win their struggle against poverty, disease, ignorance, and desperation.

Paramount to success in this endeavor is a desire on the part of underdeveloped nations to achieve economic and political independence. All our Nation can do is help those who are willing to help themselves. As a general rule, economic aid should not be extended unless the recipient nation undertakes to carry out the necessary social, political, and economic reforms. This was the intent of Congress in enacting the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Alliance for

Mr. MORSE. I appreciate the Sena- Progress. tor's comments.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, to go back to the discussion that the Sen

Mr. President, I believe the basic intent of Congress in enacting these two programs is sound. I believe the future

security of the free world depends on our continuation of an effective foreign aid program. This belief is supported by the fact that almost all industrial nations of the West have adopted programs to economically assist the underdeveloped nations. oped nations. Even the Soviet Union has recognized the effectiveness of this approach by adopting an economic assistance program to bring underdeveloped nations under Communist influence.

Our economic assistance program to Western Europe after the war had dramatic results and its success was easily measured. Unfortunately, this cannot be true of our present program. Europe had all the necessary requirements for economic development other than capital and plants. The underdeveloped nations are beginning from scratch. It will be a long but necessary road.

Our actions on the pending bill should be aimed at carrying out the policy envisioned when the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Alliance for Progress were initially enacted.

ALLIANCE FOR PROGRESS Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, recently I had the opportunity to visit the small nation of Uruguay for the dedication of a statue to George Washington. During my visit, I had occasion to talk with many members of the Uruguayan Government, business and civic leaders, as well as our personnel in the Embassy and related missions. Although I have always been interested in the Alliance for Progress, and have offered it my supview in operation the vast hemispheric port, this was my first opportunity to program that has developed under the sponsorship of President Kennedy, to promote the economic and social devel

opment of Latin America.

In the numerous discussions I had in Uruguay, the Alliance for Progress repeatedly became the topic of interest and concern. A number of Uruguayans were unhappy with the slowness of the implementation of this program. On the other hand, I was extremely impressed by the dedication of the Uruguayan Government and the people of Uruguay in following a course of action within the framework of the Alliance for Progress, although it was apparent that they, themselves, were not moving as fast as possible.

Since the time of my visit to Uruguay, I have been devoting a considerable amount of my time reviewing the Alliance.

Certainly, neither party can claim exclusive authorship of our present Latin American program. It was during President Eisenhower's regime that the Act of Bogotá, calling for mutual cooperation, was adopted tion, was adopted. It was also at the request of President Eisenhower that Congress, in 1960, authorized $600 million for the Inter-American Program for Social Progress.

Then, under President Kennedy, the Alliance itself was inaugurated in August 1961, at a meeting of finance ministers at Punta del Este, Uruguay. It was conceived as a vast, dynamic program, engulfing the northern and southern continents of America, and dedicated to the

eradication of poverty, ignorance, and disease, which have plagued Latin America through its long and turbulent history. Twenty nations signed the Charter of Punta del Este, and dedicated their programs and their efforts to the accomplishment of such goals as: elimination of adult illiteracy by 1970; increasing life expectancy at birth by a minimum of 5 years; an annual rate of growth of 2.5 percent per capita per year; and encouraging and expanding such related enterprises as housing construction, sewage and sanitation facilities, agrarian reform, and increased productivity; and to the development of long-range programs which would insure the self-sustaining growth of each

nation.

Since its inception, I have heard some critics prophesy the failure of the Alliance for Progress, while others have predicted its eventual failure unless certain changes-which happen to fit their own ideas are made immediately.

Sentiments like these could indicate that there exists an impatience to get moving, to get the job done, and that would be all to the good; I am afraid, however, that this attitude reflects defeatism and a deep misunderstanding of what we have undertaken.

These people have forgotten what President Kennedy said when he first outlined his proposals for the Alliance at the White House on March 13, 1961. The 10-year plan for the Alliance, he said, will be the years of maximum effort, the years when the greatest obstacles must be overcome.

And, if we are successful

He said

if our effort is bold enough and determined enough, then the close of this decade will mark the beginning of a new era in the American experience.

I would like to stress his use of the word "beginning." Those who complain that the Alliance has failed in 24 months to correct the economic and social distortions of 250 years of colonialism and 150 years of frequently turbulent political independence should go back and read Mr. Kennedy's speech to discover the full dimensions of the job we are tackling.

As stated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in its recent report on the Alliance for Progress:

These criticisms reflect not only the obstacles facing the Alliance, but also the enormous problems that called it into being. Certainly, the Alliance for Progress has not been a total success. However, the great progress that has been made is miraculous in the face of the problems it faces. As Tad Szulc, noted columnist on Latin American affairs, has said:

Social and political unrest are rising vertically like a maddened fever chart.

The chamber of commerce has pointed out the principal criticisms brought against the Alliance in the light of its objectives, accomplishments, and potential. These criticisms, and the chamber's answers, are as follows:

It hasn't gotten off the ground. The need for speed is urgent. As U.S. Alliance Coordinator Teodoro Moscoso constantly stresses: "It is 1 minute to midnight in Latin Amer

ica." Tomorrow the hemisphere may have more Cubas to deal with. Yet any program as complex and ambitious as the Alliance requires time to get moving, and the results are not likely to be apparent overnight or even within the first few years. Economic development historically shows a tendency to accelerate from slow beginnings.

Its machinery is inadequate. Much more needs to be done to improve coordination among the United States, the IDB, the OAS, ECLA, and the other international institutions which will participate. The OAS machinery itself, particularly the Panel of Nine, needs to be strengthened and its role clarified. National planning for the Alliance in Latin America is just getting underway, but AID and other U.S. agencies could improve their coordination. As one leading U.S. newspaper has put it: "Latins thought they had a monopoly on manana and they were both perplexed and dismayed when they discovered that this was another field where Washington was first."

The U.S. contribution is inadequate. At this stage most of the Latin American countries have not completed their plans, much less undertaken the varied and complex selfhelp efforts necessary to make U.S. aid effec

tive.

Latin American governments have not met the conditions to which they agreed. This is one of the thorniest problems for the Alliance, because of the inclination of AID and other agencies to provide aid, as in the past whenever an emergency arises. On the other hand, 18 Latin American countries have taken positive steps toward sounder longrange planning, self-help, and reforms.

The emphasis is on social development rather than the real need for investment in productive enterprise. In this respect, viewpoints differ widely. Many experts feel that there is not enough time to follow the pattern of the United States and Europe, and that social and economic development must be pursued simultaneously if either is to succeed.

The reforms envisaged by the alliance are unfair. Members of the so-called oligarchies of Latin America have made this charge. This is the group which stands to be most

policies. However, these oligarchies stand to immediately affected by altered land and tax lose more in the long run if they are unwilling to relinquish some degree of the control which they now enjoy. As one Peruvian aristocrat said, "Either we give or they take."

The Alliance gives too little emphasis to the role of private enterprise. If this investment is to materialize, Latin American gov

ernments must make more strenuous efforts to provide the conditions necessary for the free enterprise system to function adequately. Among other things, many countries will have to reexamine policies on expropriation and compensation, state planning, state investment in enterprise, and business regulation. Of the total $80 billion expected from the Latin American countries over the 10-year period of the Alliance, nearly three-fourths is to be in the form of private domestic investment by the Latin American businessmen themselves.

The alliance lacks a mystique. The U.S. Government has so far failed to create a genuine enthusiasm for the Alliance in this country, and in much of Latin America it is still largely unknown or misunderstood. Without broad popular support, the task of the Alliance will be infinitely more difficult. A new public information effort by the OAS

was launched in July 1963, to create greater

public consciousness of the Alliance and to stress, particularly in Latin America, the partnership nature of the program.

The Alliance for Progress has recently been faced with a series of blows, more particularly the military coups d'etat in the Dominican Republic and Honduras.

As stated by Tad Szulc in the New York Times of October 6:

Because this [Washington] is a town that has accustomed itself to think in the blackand-white terms of definitive victories or definitive defeats, the instantaneous inclina

tion here was to begin composing the obituary of the Alliance for Progress.

To me it is quite apparent that these setbacks should not reflect adversely on the Alliance for Progress program, since these military coups are not a result of the failure of the Alliance, but rather a most vivid manifestation of the tremendous problems which the Alliance is attemping to overcome.

The New York Times, on Monday, October 7, in referring to these last violent death throes of the Latin military and oligarchy, correctly stated that—

The Alliance needs time, persistence, and that elusive quality-faith. It must not be used to bolster military reaction, but it must not be given up because these vestiges of a dying past are making last stands in some Latin American countries.

I do not deny that what has happened in Honduras and the Dominican Republic is sad-sad for the Alliance for Progress, sad for the Dominicans and Hondurans, and sad for those around the free world who strongly believe in the principles of self-government democracy.

and

Even though we have taken one step backward in these instances, the story of the Alliance is not yet finished. Even the Dominican and Honduran stories are not yet finished. I remind you that even in the cases of the military coups d'etat in Peru and Argentina, they have eventually resulted in free elections and representative democratic governments.

I cannot promise you that there will not be similar setbacks in the future in Latin America before the Alliance for

Progress achieves its ultimate goals.

Battles are lost, but wars are still won. What is at issue is whether, in the face of adversity such as we have recently encountered, we have the necessary fortitude to continue this war against communism, or whether our frustrations will result in our withdrawing from the affray. Upon this decision will rest the ultimate success of the Alliance for Progress.

Support for this program by the American people unfortunately ebbs and flows with every intermediate small advance or setback. Our fickleness in this regard

leads our Latin American friends to feel that possibly we are incapable of the long-sustained effort necessary to reach the goals set by the Alliance. Castro and his communistic cohorts in Latin America play continually on this fear as part of his campaign to destroy the program that stands between Latin America and Communist Communist domination. Castro, recently on the Havana radio, happily

commented:

The North American Congressmen have cut in half certain funds which the administration has asked for the Alliance for Progress. Of course, that famous Alliance was

always conceived on a false basis, as an instrument of aggression against the Cuban revolution. It was from the beginning doomed to failure.

The Chilean Communist newspaper, El Siglo, tolled the death knell of the Alliance as follows:

The $2 billion annual aid promised 2 years ago was mere propaganda and was actually reduced to $600 million. The result has been stagnation, even retrogression instead of predicted growth, since in this period North American monopolies have withdrawn from Latin America more than AID furnished. With the House cut to $450 million, the Alliance has died. May it rest in peace.

It is miraculous that, considering the problems faced in Latin America, we have had the degree of success that has accrued to the Alliance in short time of its operation. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sums up its report, as follows:

In the face of these difficulties, the Alliance for Progress stands as a bold program calculated to make at least a start toward the long-range solution of Latin America's diverse problems and toward assurance of social and economic progress in the years

ahead.

[blocks in formation]

Until a couple of years ago, very few of us in the United States were aware of the real nature of the problems of Latin America, and few of us cared. As Mr. Moscoso recently stated in the Saturday

Review of October 12:

Latin America was a region we took for granted. We went there as tourists, and counted on it to supply us with coffee, bananas, and raw materials. It was also an area to which we exported a large volume of our manufactured products. Through these decades, Latin America either failed to develop

modern economies and societies, or it reared distorted economies dependent on only one or two products-tin in Bolivia, oil in Venezuela, coffee in Brazil. All this time, blissfully ignored by all but a few, tensions and problems were growing. Revolutions made colorful, but unimportant, reading. Dictatorships and political convulsions drew from most of us a yawn rather than a quest for understanding. Only intermittent largely ineffective attempts were made to get to the root of the problems that were growing in Latin America and that sooner or later were bound to command our attention.

Then came Fidel Castro, and suddenly, North America awoke to Latin America. The Alliance is not a carbon copy of the Marshall plan which merely-yes, I said "merely"-set itself the tack of reconstructing war-ravaged economies. This is a program, as Alliance Coordinator Teodoro Moscoso has put it, which seeks to build-not to rebuild-economies and societies ravaged by history. Against this background, it seems to me that the expectation of quick results in the shape of a flourishing, contented, democratic Latin America after 2 years of treatment, is as ludicrous as it sounds. Another thing that is right with the Alliance is its concept. It does not gloss over problems but faces up to them honestly. It does not say that, with a few million dollars poured into technical assistance projects, we can

make up for 150 years of underdevelopment. It calls for changes in the outdated and brittle structure of the Latin American economies and societies, so that the money and the other resources that are poured in are channeled to the people who need them most. Nor is the Alliance just another aid program. It puts the burden of the effort as far as internal reform as well as the generation of funds are concerned-on the Latin American countries themselves. United States and other outside aid can and will become effective only to the extent that the Latin American members of the Alliance carry out their end of the bargain. President Kennedy has said repeatedly that this is "a vast cooperative effort in which the United States is the junior partner."

Not only are they required to institute basic reforms in order to better respond to the needs of their people-not only is the principal burden of generating 80 percent of the necessary funds within their own countries but even on those programs with which we assist them, they provide a substantial portion of the funds.

that 65 percent of the resources within Latin America must come from private sources there. Also, $300 million a year will be needed over the course of the 10year program from U.S. and other foreign private investors. What is needed is the maximum cooperation and pooling of resources from both the private and public sectors. For what we are after are modern economies in the Government serving the people and in which private initiative has the opportunity to play the productive role it must assume if the country is to prosper and the people are to be free.

Development toward fair tax loans and proper administration is another thing that is right with the Alliance for Prog

ress.

Twelve Latin American countries have either passed new and tighter tax legislation or improved their tax and customs collection systems. In seven cases, the reforms have been of major scope. This area is of great concern to the founders of the Alliance both here and in Latin America.

It is also, as we know from our own experience in the tax field, one of the most politically sensitive and difficult.

In Mexico we have authorized a $20 million credit for loans to small farmers. It is expected that Mexico's own contribution to this program will be $185 mala and Chile, Colombia, and Bolivia,

million.

AID is providing a $30.5 million loan to Argentina for the construction or improvement of 1,200 miles of highways. Argentina will provide $160 million.

In Chile, through the social progress trust fund, we have made a credit of $2 million available to build 1,900 homes. The local contribution is in excess of $52 million.

A grant of $310,000 for technical assistance in the formation of credit unions in Latin America has resulted in stimulating and creating some 500 credit unions. New credit unions are being created at the rate of 60 a month.

In Central America the social progress trust fund has made a $2,925,000 loan to the five Central American universities, for improvement of the training of their technical and professional personnel. This is being matched by an equal amount from the countries themselves.

Another thing that is right with the alliance is that it is not a governmentto-government program.

It recognizes candidly that roads, ports, communications, and other infrastructure facilities are generally beyond the ability of private enterprise to provide. So, to the extent that these basic ingredients need to be provided, we have to work with governments.

Even most of the loans that are made under the Alliance for Progress to recipient governments end up in the private sector. For example, the supervised agricultural credit loan to the Government of Mexico, which I have referred to, is for the purpose of distribution through private banks, for small agricultural credit loans under a controlled rate of interest, to farmers for the purchase of seed, equipment, fertilizer, and the other basics required for full utilization of the land.

But beyond this, private enterprise must carry the burden. It is estimated

However, the beginning that has been made in countries as far apart as Guate

is impressive. At the same time we realize that it is only a beginning.

One of the most valuable services that our American technicians are providing today in Latin America is advice on tax collection and fiscal administration. Our Internal Revenue Service in a short time has built up a fine and efficient record in this field.

Rational comprehensive modernization of agriculture is another thing right with the Alliance for Progress.

As in most underdeveloped countries in the world, agriculture is the backbone of the economy of Latin America. Yet, much as these countries depend on it, agriculture is at the root of much of Latin America's economic and social difficulties.

It is either turning out too much of a few products such as coffee or it is producing too little of the desperately needed staples like wheat and corn. What is more, agriculture is highly inefficient, employing far too high a percentage of the population and thus unable to give those masses more than a few crumbs of the small pie they all have to share. So, naturally, it did not take much imagination when the charter of the Alliance was drawn up, to make agriculture a big chapter. Agrarian reform was the watchword. And it gave rise very quickly to the misconception that all that was wanted or needed was the splitting up of the large landed estates, which were owned by a few wealthy men who also played a decisive role in controlling the political destiny of their countries. But it is not this simple. The fact is that, in a number of cases where land was divided and given to individual farm families, production did not increase. Instead, it fell and, in some cases, drastically. Bolivia, which went through this experience beginning in 1952, is a case in point. So I prefer to speak rather in terms of modernizing agriculture. By that we do not mean

taking land away, dividing it up and redistributing it, but orderly reorganization, including possible changes in land tenure, supervised credit and extension services, and farm-to-market roads which make it possible to get a product to the places where it is needed. This is the rational way in which the Alliance is tackling the problem of agriculture. It is the right way. Under this kind of program, Venezuela, with relatively little help from us, has succeeded in resettling close to 60,000 farm families on land of their own since President Kennedy visited there just a little over a year ago. In Chile, Colombia, Bolivia, and many other places in the area, similar programs are getting into high gear. In these efforts, American land grant colleges, like the Universities of Wisconsin and Iowa, are playing a major role. Experts from these universities are in Latin America or are training Latin Americans in this country, thus making available the best knowledge that we have developed and put to use in this field.

Bringing other free world developed nations in to help provide the funds for modernization of Latin America in the joint interest of all free countries is another thing that is right with the Alliance.

The notion that the United States is footing the whole bill for the Alliance has been removed even further from the truth because of some recent developments in the consortium approach to aiding less-developed countries—a technique which the World Bank pioneered in India. After preliminary discussions on Colombia's development program, we now have the prospect of West European participation in Alliance efforts to bolster Latin American economies.

A consultative meeting in Washington was held under the sponsorship of the World Bank and yielded clear-cut indications of commitments from that organization and from European countries

to join us and Colombia in financing the initial stage of Colombia's 10-year national development plan. This is the first case in which our efforts to spread the financial burden of Latin America's economic and social development to the other industrialized nations are bearing substantial fruit. There is reason to hope that in the case of Chile, a similar multination financing pattern can be

worked out.

Under the leadership of my good friends and esteemed colleagues, Senators HUMPHREY and JAVITS, the Atlantic Community Development Group for Latin America, known as ADELA, is being formed to add its efforts in inducing the more developed countries to participate in the economic development of

Latin America.

The promotion of a vitally increased role for private enterprise in the programs of the Alliance and the heartening response in recent months of some American firms are more things that are right with the Alliance.

Another important point that needs mention is the extensive program this administration is carrying on to attract more funds from American private investors into Latin America, as well as

to create greater confidence and thus more productive investment from private sources within Latin America. U.S. loans to intermediate credit institutions in Latin America under the Alliance so far exceed $100 million. These loans are used for credit to farmers, small and medium size private businesses precisely to develop the kind of healthy, decentralized business activity which is so vital both to economic progress and to the development of social and political stability. For example, with the assistance of the United States, five private development banks have been formed or are in the process of formation in Colombia.

As for U.S. private investment, the Agency for International Development is carrying on a program of loans in local currency in the Latin American countries from funds generated from the sale of surplus U.S. food stocks; loans in dollars; sharing of the cost of investment surveys; and, most important, guarantees of new investments by U.S. firms against the triple risk of expropriation, inconvertibility, and war. This makes it This makes it clear that we are in full agreement with those who want the Alliance to make use of the resources and the know-how of private enterprise.

Vision, the largest circulation news magazine in Latin America, published in both Spanish and Portuguese, has recently issued a report pointing out that from U.S. private enterprise the net capital flow to Latin America, plus reinvested earnings, and expenditures for depletions, depreciations, amortizations, and other plant retirements, amounted to about $1 billion.

Those American firms which have shown faith in the future of Latin America and in the success of this program by making new investments in the region are to be congratulated.

The Alliance is fulfilling many of the goals and aspirations of the Charter of Punta del Este. The amount of accomplishments that have occurred in this relatively short period of time since the inception of the Alliance can be measured as follows: 140,000 new homes or family dwelling units have been constructed in Latin America; 8,200 new classrooms have been built, and more than 4 million textbooks have been printed and distributed in the drive for educational improvements; 160,000 agrieducational improvements; 160,000 agri

cultural loans have been made to Latin

American farmers for the purchase of individually owned farms, for improved seeds and broodstock, for modern agricultural implements; 700 communities for the first time have sanitary water facilities, and 900 hospitals and health centers have been established in a part of the world where disease traditionally

has snuffed out the lives of 85 children

out of every thousand before the age of 5. This compares to a similar mortality rate of 28 per thousand in the United States.

Gentlemen, as you look at these figures, I believe that we are all struck with what seems to be quite a large accomplishment, but I venture to say that this represents only a dent in the great shield of poverty in Latin America. I am impressed on the one hand by the accom

plishments that have occurred, and on the other hand by the immense task still confronting Latin America. I share with President Kennedy his views on the Alliance for Progress. As you remember, he said:

We have a long, long way to go, and in fact in some ways the road seems longer than it was when the journey started.

Probably the greatest roadblock to the success of the Alliance for Progress has been the unwillingness of the Latin American Nations to mobilize their available resources at the pace demanded by the rising expectations of Latin America. However, thanks to the firmness of Teodoro Moscoso in insisting that reforms be a condition to assistance, we are seeing increasingly that the Latin Americans are beginning to realize that this is not just another aid program, but one requiring that they, themselves, make the principal efforts.

only one minute to midnight in Latin We have, as has been said quite often, America. And the clock continues to move. The Castro-Communist design of coercion in this hemisphere has been dealt with in considerable depth on many previous occasions in this chamber. It would be unnecessary for me to dwell on

the subject, which I know is well understood by others of my colleagues. However, I must remind you that the Alliance communism in this hemisphere. for Progress is the only alternative to

If we consider the facts which are no choice but to support Latin America available to us, we will see that we have to the fullest. Historically, Latin America, and the United States have been States and Latin America have enjoyed bound tightly together. The United a mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services. Presently Latin America accounts for the purchase of 20 to 25 percent of total U.S. exports sold abroad. Likewise, the United States purchases 40 to 45 percent of Latin America's total exports. Without question, the pattern on economic interdependence has joined South America, and unless we are willing together the continents of North and to abrogate the existing trade and commercial ties between the United States and Latin America, we must continue to support the Alliance for Progress. For the Alliance is the only substantial deterrent to the influx of Castroism in this hemisphere. If it fails, the vast markets and storehouse of natural resources in Latin America will no longer be available to this country.

Therefore, it is quite apparent that, in addition to our security interests and the eleemosynary aspects of the Alliance, there is also economic justification for its continued support.

The contrary is also true. The Alliance for Progress has carried the brunt of the attack against the United States from Castro and his Communist cohorts. Their vehemence against the Alliance is the best evidence of their fear that through the Alliance for Progress their ambitions for conquering Latin America will be thwarted. All of us are concerned with the problems that are presented by this little island. However, what has happened in Cuba is of relatively small

« ПретходнаНастави »