The Case for Foreign Aid

Into the cavernous caucus room of the Senate Office Building last week marched NATO's General Alfred Gruenther. about to close out his distinguished Army career, on what he considered one of his most important missions: persuading the Senate Foreign Relations Committee not to vote cuts in the Administration's $4.7 billion foreign-aid program. Washington was crowded with holiday tourists, plenty of advance publicity had been given General Gruenther's appearance, and he could be counted upon for an eloquent, meaningful performance. But when the hearing opened only a handful of spectators and five Senators were present.

With a huge map of Europe on his right and a rack of charts, e.g., of NATO air strength, on his left. Al Gruenther spoke without notes for 45 minutes, effortlessly rattling off the complex statistics of defense expenditures, populations and strength estimates, persuasively arguing that Soviet "smiles, happy talk and receptions" in no way justify a dilution of Western strength. Items: P:The announced 1,200,000-man cut in Russian military personnel is nothing more than "a unilateral demobilization program behind closed doors," and will not substantially affect their military potential. If the manpower cut were carried out, it would reduce Russian land forces from 175 to 115 divisions--and NATO has already estimated that with nuclear firepower the Soviet "could be fully as effective with 100 divisions."

P: NATO is by no means ready to sustain such a loss as contemplated by the proposed foreign-aid cuts (which International Cooperation Administrator John Hollister last week estimated would more than halve the allowance for NATO's military hardware over the next fiscal year).' Gruenther said that the full West German contributions of twelve divisions and 1,380 aircraft will not be available for three more years. Not until then will NATO really be strong enough to defend West Europe against Russia.

The Senators were generally sympathetic, said privately that Gruenther had made the finest possible presentation of the Administration's case. But that, apparently, was not enough. Barring emergency Administration action, the prospect was that the more than $1 billion foreign-aid cut already voted by the House Foreign Affairs Committee (TIME, June 4) would probably stick when the House and Senate came to a final vote.

Last week the Senate also: P: Struggled through a hodgepodge of amendments to approve the 16-year, $37 billion highway construction bill in substantially the same form already voted by the House (TIME, May 7). P: Shouted approval of a bill aimed at tightening the U.S. narcotics laws. Sponsored by Texas' Democratic Senator Price Daniel, the bill, as sent to the House, would ban all heroin in the U.S., require even hospitals and druggists to give up their supplies. More drastically, it would allow the courts to impose the death penalty on persons selling heroin to juveniles and on all heroin peddlers and heroin smugglers convicted for the third time.

P: Received from its Judiciary Committee a bill that would, in effect, cancel out a recent Supreme Court decision. Last April the Supreme Court had ruled in the case of Communist Leader Steve Nel son, who had been convicted of sedition under Pennsylvania law, that the Federal Government had exclusive jurisdiction over sedition cases. Jointly sponsored by twelve Republican and three Democratic Senators, the new bill would restore the validity of the antisedition laws in 42 states.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.