370 



Similar reports appeared in many other journals. For example: 

 "Funds to Flood Mekong River Project?" {Christian Science Moni- 

 tor, April 10) ; ''Hopes for Harnessing the Mekong'' {Business 

 Week, April 17) ; "The Mekong, Work in Progress" {London Econ- 

 omist, April 17) ; "The Promise of the Mekong" ( Washington Star, 

 April 21) ; "On the Mekong, Mr. Johnson's Billion Dollar Offer" 

 {New Republic, April 24) ; "A Project to Harness the 'Sleeping 

 Giant'" {Life, May 3). 



But, as the commitment of U.S. troops to the Vietnamese conflict 

 continued to enlarge throughout 1965 and following years, interest 

 in the Mekong development feature of President Johnson's proposal 

 dwindled. Opposition to all forms of intervention in Southeast Asia — 

 whether military or economic — intensified. The speech itself faded to 

 a brief episode in the eventful period that culminated in the Presi- 

 dent's decision not to seek reelection in 1968, the violent protests that 

 exploded on American college campuses, the disorderly events of the 

 Democratic presidential convention in Chicago, and the choice of 

 President Nixon to lead a new administration committed to U.S. 

 withdrawal from Vietnam. 



Thus, while in the United States the President's Mekong proposal 

 may have slowed the growth of opposition to the war, its longterm 

 domestic impact is open to question. Its diplomatic consequences 

 abroad are perhaps even more subject to speculation and debate. At 

 least in a broad and symbolic sense, however, it may have left an en- 

 during impression. Eugene E. Black, who served beginning in 1965 as 

 Advisor to President Johnson on Southeast Asia Economic and Social 

 Development, holds the following affirmative view : 



While impossible to measure with any precision, there is little doubt in my 

 mind that the political impact [on indigenous leadership elements] of President 

 Johnson's offer of large-scale postwar assistance to Southeast Asia was sub- 

 stantial. ... I considered the $1 billion offer to be more symbolic than mathe- 

 matically precise. . . . Both an immediate and short-range political impact 

 of our offer was its positive role as a catalyst in stimulating the interest in 

 and moves toward regional cooperation. . . . Many of the regional organizations 

 and groupings in Southeast Asia owe their origin or vitality to the boost for 

 regional cooperation given by the United States in the period 1965-1969. Best 

 known is the formation in late 1965 of the Asian Development Bank. . . . Less 

 recognized but no less real was the large increase in inter-regional personal 

 contacts which occurred in Southeast Asia over these years at various levels 

 and in varied forums. I have in mind such developments as the initiation of 

 plans for a region-wide study of transportation infrastructure (the study was 

 completed in 1971 with help of the ADB) ; the coming together of Ministers of 

 Education of the region to plan development of training institutions of regional 

 significance and the mushrooming of specialized regional groups to consider 

 one topic or another of economic, social or political significance. . . . The Johns 

 Hopkins speech and the stepped-up interest in the development potential of the 

 Mekong which it generated certainly had a healthy political impact in the non- 

 communisl riparian states hy focussing attention < m the future. I know this 

 from my four trips to the areas for President Johnson and subsequent visits. 

 ... I would, therefore . . . say both the short and long-term political impact 

 of the Johns Hopkins offer was substantial in the professional communities in 

 all the riparian states hy opening up new horizons. . . . 10a 



Some Possible Longer-Range Consequences of the Mekong Concept 



The question remains as to whether regionalism as an international 



strategy for peace offers opportunities to he exploited. In the United 



10 » Excerpt from a statement of Mnrcli 14, 11*72, prepared by Mr. Black in response to 

 questions by the author. The full statement Is reproduced In the appendix to this study. 



