The Real Giveaway

What does the U.S. stand for in the world other than being the biggest military power and the richest country on earth? One thing it stands for is wrapped up in a well-worn term: "foreign aid." Since World War II the U.S. has helped other countries to revive their economies and backstop their military forces in the amount of $40 billion. Not every dollar or even every million dollars of this has been wisely spent, but on the record the program stands as a unique effort in the history of nations of one country's using its power and its wealth to try to build up a prosperous, orderly free world.

Last week one of the most diverse citizens' groups ever assembled packed the Presidential Room of the Statler-Hilton in Washington to hear Harry Truman, at lunch, and Dwight Eisenhower, at dinner, kick off a bipartisan drive for a $3.9 billion foreign aid appropriation. In charge was the President's special foreign aid salesman, Eric Johnston. On hand were labor leaders and dowagers, bishops and Hollywood entertainers, the Democrats' Lyndon Johnson, Adlai Stevenson and Dean Acheson, the Republicans' Dick

Nixon, Bill Knowland and Joe Martin. In the advance billing the program seemed to promise more hoopla than hope, but as it got rolling it proved a fine blend of practicality and idealism.

"Time for What?" Both notes were sounded by Truman: "I have heard that there are members of Congress who expect to do most of their economizing in the budget this year by voting to cut the funds for foreign economic aid . . . People will forgive us for spending too much in the search for peace; they will never forgive us for refusing to spend enough . . . We are planning to spend $40 billion on defense next year . . . The only thing we can do with armaments is to buy time. Buy time for what? . . . The mutual security program is the cutting edge on the tool that gives some meaning and purpose to all our efforts for defense."

Both themes were also sounded by Dwight Eisenhower, who carefully ticked off the so-called hardheaded reasons for foreign aid, e.g., the setback to Communist imperialism, the increase in U.S. military security, the improved U.S. economic position through expanding trade with aided countries. Then the President tore into the foes of foreign aid who would dismiss it with the contemptuous phrase that it is a do-gooders' scheme:

"If anyone wants to judge this program only on a 'what's-in-it-for-me' basis, he can find all the justification he needs. If others want to add another element, 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you,' I see no reason to apologize. I can see no great evidence of intelligence in sneering at do-gooders if their do-gooding helps America at the same time it helps our friends."

"Spiritual Heritage." The next few weeks would tell how much effect the demonstrations had on congressional appropriations committees. But already the aid argument had an upbeat feeling sadly missing a year ago.

To a noticeably friendly House Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary of State Dulles offered the opinion that the enemies of foreign aid are the real advocates of a "giveaway." If they had their way, said Dulles, by now the U.S. would have given away a dozen nations with hundreds of millions of people, access to essential resources, necessary bases and "worst of all, America's great spiritual heritage."

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