The CHAIRMAN. It doesn't seem to me to be germane on point 4. Mr. MARSH. All right, I think it will be developed later, but, of course, I will accept your judgment. (Article taken from United States News and World Report, submitted by Mr. Marsh, is as follows:) [From U. S. News and World Report, March 31, 1950] SUPPOSING YOU WERE A RUSSIAN (By David Lawrence) Diplomacy is the art of devising ways out of misunderstanding and disputeways which will appeal to the other government as well as to your own. To do this successfully, it is necessary to put yourself in the other fellow's place and examine what you say to him judged by his critical viewpoint. For if you insist on calling him names publicly and denouncing him as faithless and as unlikely to keep any agreements he might sign, then there is not much use talking to him at all. The American people expect their Government to find an honorable means of ending the cold war with Russia-to try to talk peace and make peace. Supposing you were a Russian and read the speech made in California by our Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, on how tensions between the United States and Russia could be removed-what would you say about his suggestion that free elections should be held in the satellite states of Europe so as to choose governments which would be representative of the people's will? We deal with Peron in Argentina, and we lend money to Tito, who has just conducted a one-ticket election in Yugoslavia. Secretary Acheson says: "However much we may sympathize with the Soviet citizens who for reasons bedded deep in history are obliged to live under it, we are not attempting to change the governmental or social structure of the Soviet Union." But what are we broadcasting 24 hours a day over the State Department's own Voice of America? Do we not preach the merits of private enterprise under capitalism? Don't we seek always in our dealings with European countries to influence them to adopt our ways and methods of carrying on economic enterprises? Isn't the Marshall plan conducted our way rather than under socialized schemes such as the Russians operate? There are also some paragraphs in the Acheson speech about the "majority decision" concept in the United Nations and how the Russians consistently disregard it and walk out. But what is the situation in the Security Council where the Communists who are in de facto control of China are seeking admission to the Council? The United States refuses to recognize them as representative of the Chinese people. Great Britain, which has recognized the Communist government in China, abstained from voting, as did Norway. The three votes supporting Russia were offset by the votes of Ecuador, Cuba, and the United States. This left the decision to the votes of France and Egypt. A Russian, of course, thinks of Ecuador and Cuba as American-controlled votes, and he is suspicious of the failure of Britain and Norway to vote-which the Russian thinks of as a form of boycott, too. Plainly this is an arguable situation. It is a piece of western parliamentarism which is not lost on Russian observers. Let us, at least, not fail to understand the provocation behind the walk-out. Supposing, also, a Russian were reading from the Acheson speech this paragraph which seeks to outline the basis of peace: "A will to achieve binding, peaceful settlements would be required of all participants. All would have to produce unmistakable evidence of their good faith. All would have to accept agreements in the observance of which all nations could have real confidence." But then the Russian reads: "I fear, however, that I must warn you not to raise your hopes. No one who has lived through these postwar years can be sanguine about reaching agreements in which reliance can be placed and which will be observed by the Soviet leaders in good faith." After opening the door, we slam it shut. What would you, as a Russian, think of such tactics? Let us make up our minds either to adhere consistently to the principle that we wish to see free democratic governments established all over the world and fight the cold war on that premise no matter where it leads us, or else let it realistically face the facts of international life and stop making proud claims about our own virtue. If we want to get rid of tensions in the world, let us not attribute bad faith publicly to other governments with which we supposedly wish to reach an agreement or a truce permitting some form of coexistence of two systems. Diplomacy, to be successful, must embrace an understanding of the other fellow's reasoning and an honest examination of the weaknesses of one's own viewpoint. Mr. MARSH. Then Peter Edson in the Washington Daily News has been writing a series of articles on point 4, and in the issue of April 1an unfortunate date-he had an article entitled "Point 4 Is Good Business," in which he says: In the final analysis, the test of the point 4 program of technical assistance to underdeveloped countries is whether it is good business for the United States. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a very unfortunate assumption to make. It shouldn't be bad business, I will admit that, but the assumption that point 4 is going to open up a field for enormous profits for American industry and American finance all over the world is certainly going to alarm a lot of people, and I conclude with the hope that you will make it mandatory upon the President to cooperate; if not, you will let the United Nations administer this. The CHAIRMAN. We will give consideration to your view. Thank you very much, Mr. Marsh. Senator HICKENLOOPER. Is that the last witness? The CHAIRMAN. That is the last witness. Senator HICKENLOOPER. I wonder if I could ask Professor Hansberry a question. I am interested in the question of investments, either for profit or for foreign and economic benefit in local areas. Are you familiar with the operations in Liberia? Professor HANSBERRY. In a general way. DEVELOPMENT OF LIBERIA Senator HICKENLOOPER. In Liberia. I would like to have your views on whether or not you believe that the Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. activities in Liberia have been, on the whole, beneficial to the country and the people and the social and economic situation in Liberia, leaving out incidental arguments which might arise. Professor HANSBERRY. Well, I would certainly agree that, on the whole, they have been beneficial. However, I would qualify the remark by saying that there is considerable room for improvement. For example, business organizations of this kind go into colonial areas and frequently pay what is called the prevailing wage. Unfortunately, that has been to a measure true in Liberia. However, the fault is not always wholly with the operating company. There are local interests sometimes that object to paying a larger wage, but I think the wages should be increased. Senator HICKENLOOPER. It has been my understanding-I haven't read too much about it, so I may be entirely wrong and my information may be wrong, I just don't know-from what I have read about those operations that a very substantially greater wage is paid there than was the prevailing wage when they went in; is that right? Professor HANSBERRY. That is quite true, but it is still inadequate. Senator HICKENLOOPER. But they have, in fact, substantially raised the wage standard, haven't they? Professor HANSBERRY. Quite so. Senator HICKENLOOPER. In addition, they have introduced sanitation, they have introduced modern construction methods, they have built schools and they are spending a great deal of money out of profits which they make, and they are a profit-making corporation, I understand that, but they have spent those for social and educational and other benefits which were not previously in existence to any great extent; is that right? Professor HANSBERRY. That is right, too. Senator HICKENLOOPER. I presume one could argue whether they should take out so much profit from this. That may be another field, but I am interested on the whole phase of this operation as to whether they have contributed to more education, better living standards, whether they are adequate or not, but whether it has been on the plus side. Professor HANSBERRY. Yes; it has been on the plus side. There is a slightly different situation in Liberia than in colonial non-selfgoverning territories. Senator HICKENLOOPER. I understand that. Professor HANSBERRY. In Liberia, the native people have agencies through which they can negotiate directly with the business enterprise concern. So I would say the condition is more favorable there than elsewhere, but it certainly has been to the advantage of Liberia, there is no doubt about that. Senator HICKENLOOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand in recess. (Whereupon, at 4 p. m., the committee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.) (The following statements were submitted for the record:) STATEMENT BY UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL Our international union takes this means of urging your committee to pass legislation to implement President Truman's point 4 program. It is our firm conviction that this program is an essential element in rounding out our present foreign policy. Economically backward countries provide the seedbeds in which communism and threats to the peace of the world root. We strongly feel that point 4 must be placed alongside of the Marshall plan and the North Atlantic Pact as part of our international armor in a world that is still struggling up the hard road toward peace and prosperity. We are especially interested in seeing to its that economically backward countries be helped with capital supplies, technical assistance and all other necessary services so as to enable them to raise their living standards and make it possible for them to live peacefully and with a measure of decent well-being for their people. Our major concern regarding point 4 is that the agreements negotiated under the legislation being considered take into account the protection and improvement of the living and working conditions of the peoples of those backward countries as well as the security of foreign investments. We do not fear the economic development of those areas; what we fear is their economic backwardness as a drag upon the peace and prosperity of the whole world. We do not fear their potential competition with our industries; we fear the competition for foreign populations with low standards of life and labor. It is to the interest of this country, of American labor and American business, as well as to the interest of a prosperous world that point 4 be implemented, with all proper safeguards for the populations involved. AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Hon. Toм СCONNALLY, Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR CHAIRMAN CONNALLY: The American Farm Bureau Federation has consistently supported programs for international cooperation to bring about reconstruction and recovery. We believe the point 4 program for the economic development of underdeveloped areas is sound and will bring closer to realization the objectives of the long-established principles which the American Farm Bureau Federation supports. We wish to commend the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for its unanimous approval of this program. At the Thirty-first Annual Convention of the American Farm Bureau Federation in December 1949, the voting delegates, representing 1,409,000 farm families, passed the following resolution: "World-wide need is far beyond the ability of the United States to fulfill. We can, however, greatly hasten the expansion of the economy and of world trade by encouraging governments to make it possible for the people within these countries to bring about improved standards of living by more efficient production of goods and services. We believe the principles expressed in the so-called point 4 program to promote the economic development of underdeveloped areas are sound. We recommend that this program be designed for maximum self-help by participating countries. "In planning these programs, we urge that the agricultural experiences gained in South America in the operation of this type of program by the Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations (U. S. Department of Agriculture) be used as a guide in this expanded program. All countries should be encouraged to cooperate with each other in sharing their technical knowledge of efficient agricultural production and of other fields of endeavor. This can perhaps best be done on a regional basis. "In the operation of the point 4 program, land-grant colleges, experiment stations, and private associations and organizations should be allowed and encouraged to participate fully. "We urge international cooperation to encourage investment of private capital abroad in useful projects and support sound standards for safeguarding such investments. In general, United States investors should be assured that they are given treatment in foreign countries comparable to that which domestic investors have, and that it is reasonably comparable to the treatment given to foreign investors in the United States. "In planning this program, we recommend that due consideration be given to maintaining a proper balance between agricultural and industrial development in the participating countries. Expansion of industry in underdeveloped areas is essential in order to provide job opportunities, increase purchasing power, and raise the living standards of the population." We believe this resolution sets forth very clearly the basis for our support of this program. The American Farm Bureau Federation board of directors on March 31, 1950, in further consideration of this program, recommended that the provisions of section 304 of H. R. 7797, already passed by the House of Representatives, be maintained in the final legislation. We therefore strongly favor the objectives of the point 4 program for the development of underdeveloped areas. We respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the hearings conducted by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Sincerely yours, JOHN C. LYNN, Assistant Legislative Director. SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, POSTWAR WORLD COUNCIL, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: Since you gave so limited a time to the public for any testimony on the point 4 legislation which was requested by the State Department, I respectfully request that you insert this memorandum in the record. In this matter I speak not only for myself but for the Socialist Party and the nonpartisan Postwar World Council, of which I happen to be chairman. We are entirely in sympathy with the spirit of President Truman's proposal in point 4 of his inaugural address to extend cooperative aid in the development of underdeveloped countries. We do not believe that the State Department's proposals add up to a genuine bold new program in this important field. But they do represent a beginning. It is quite true that they ought to be approved only as a beginning of a program which will involve large expenditures in a war against hunger and poverty throughout the world. Large expenditures, however, should not be undertaken without a proper program, proper personnel, and proper cooperative arrangements, not only with the UN but with governments and peoples affected by our plan. The cost of a proper beginning is small, but the House has cut appropriations below the relatively small amount requested for a beginning. My general point of view as to the magnitude and purpose of a world-wide war against poverty is well set forth in No. 1 of the Bold New Program Series, entitled "A Policy and Program for Success," written by Messrs Anderson and Rausenbush and published by the Public Affairs Institute. I presume the gist of this was set before you by Dr. Dewey Anderson, who testified before you on Monday, April 3, and I shall not recapitulate it. I desire to emphasize these points: (1) Every effort should be made to carry out this bold new program through the UN. This is in line with American policy of building up the UN and it is also a necessary protection against misrepresentation of our motives by Communist propaganda. It will probably be easier to get cooperation with peoples, as well as governments, if the UN looms large in the picture. (2) Eventually a bold new program will involve large expenditures. Under no other circumstances can it be carried out on a scale of developing industry and agriculture to a point where hunger can be conquered. (3) We cannot afford to refuse to implement a bold new program on the ground that it will cost us billions of dollars, because a successful war on poverty and hunger is so large a part of the struggle for peace. This constructive program must be the American answer to false charges of Stalin's communism. Its costs will be as nothing compared to the costs of war which it may help to avert. Indeed, the program may contribute directly to our own prosperity, which in part depends upon a solvent world. Today our prosperity and our employment are dangerously tied up with an arms economy. If on Easter Sunday an angel from heaven should proclaim everlasting peace and hence the end of the arms race, on Easter Monday there would be the beginning of a panic in America. The end of the arms race would be the end of jobs. Of course, the alternative would be a program for financing the war against poverty both in this country and abroad. The end of the arms race would give us from 10 to 13 billion dollars annually for this enterprise. I do not assume that of itself the implementation of President Truman's bold new program would bring universal disarmament or peace. It would be one way to give effect to Senator McMahon's important popular proposals. It is obvious, however, that a genuine bold program for peace, such as we Americans now conspicuously lack, requires that our Government tie up two ideas which indeed are inextricably interwoven: First, an appeal for a conference of the nations under UN auspices to work out a comprehensive program of disarmament under the inspection and enforcement of a strengthened UN; and, second, an American pledge in concert with other nations to use moneys thus released from a race to death for a constructive conquest of poverty. It seems to me that consideration of the State Department's timorous proposals looking to a bold new program should be the occasion of your submission of a plan that might lift up the hearts of our people now almost fatally resigned to war and incited to hysteria by the stupid and reckless way in which charges of disloyalty have been thrown about. I do not minimize the necessity of a proper and orderly concern for military security when I say that any real hope depends on the end of the armament race. Even an appeal for it, accompanied by a bold new program of war on poverty, would tremendously weaken the Communist position in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and large parts of Europe, I appeal for leadership along these constructive lines. Sincerely yours, NORMAN THOMAS, Chairman. |