1305 



for a new world order in which the rich of the earth would no longer 

 be able to dictate their wishes to the poor. The tone of hostility toward 

 the advanced industrial nations that permeated the conference was 

 shown by such slogans as, "Joint Action Against jNlultinational Corpo- 

 rations," "Economic Liberation," "Non-Alignment, a Commitment to 

 Just Causes," "Down with Racism and Apartheid," "Down with Im- 

 perialist Monopolies," and "Down with Foreign Military Bases." The 

 transcendent grievance was, however, the widening gap in develop- 

 ment between the LDCs and the advanced industrial states. As the 

 Reuter correspondent reported from Algiers, "the main binding link 

 between the participants was the feeling that they were being left 

 behind in the prosperity race led by the big industrialized 

 countries." ^®^ 



Brain Drain : Source of Grievances and Complaints. — Press cover- 

 age at Algiers did not mention brain drain as a deterrent to develop- 

 ment. But it has been a subject of complaint in the past, and among 

 LDCs most seriously affected, like India, brain drain remains a sore 

 and lively issue in relations with the LTnited States. 



As long ago as 1966, Assistant Secretary of State Frankel called 

 brain dram "an issue which is one of the steady, trying, troublesome 

 diplomatic issues confronted by your government. Many other coun- 

 tries raise the problem of brain drain with us steadily." ^^^ 



In the United Nations, delegates from the LDCs accused the West 

 of transferring its exploitative urges from physical to human re- 

 sources. On one occasion the representative from Dahomey called it 

 an "odious bleeding" of Africa, a continuation of the slave trade. The 

 General Assembly, where the presence of the LDCs is most forcefully 

 felt, passed a resolution acknowledging the seriousness of the problem 

 and expressing grave concern.'^^* 



In 1966, the Iranian Minister in charge of Cultural Affairs at Iran's 

 Embassy in Washington complained to American foreign student ad- 

 visors about the drain-off of Iranian students (some 60 percent) study- 

 ing in the United States. "Our government," he wrote, "is now thor- 

 oughly alarmed at the very high casualty rate of these skilled young 

 people and is pressing us to take effective counter-measures." ^®^ 



So concerned has the Indian Government become about the loss of 

 its doctors that it has taken administrative action to discourage emi- 

 gration. For example, the United States has been prohibited from al- 

 lowing prospective Indian FMGs to take the ECFMG examination at 

 its embassy and consulates in India.' 



In recent years, the State Department has become more sensitive to 

 the complaints of the LDCs, and apparently complaints have con- 

 tinued to be registered. Stevens and Vermeulen observed that with 

 the present foreign policy attitudes of "low profile" in foreign affairs, 

 coupled with the "pricking of the myth of omnicompetence," foreign 

 governments, heretofore inclined to acquiesce quietly and without pro- 

 test, have become "less likely to accept in silence" the loss of some of 

 their best professionals.'^*^" They pointed out that one of the underlying 



■^2 A 76-Nation Summit, The Christian Science Monitor (editorial), Sept. 11, 1973, p. 18. 

 """ Department of State, Proceedings of Workshop on the International Migration of 

 Talent and Skills, October 1966. p. 79. 

 ■^Eren, op. clt., p. 10. 

 "s Quoted in. Said, op. clt., p. 7. 

 ™9 Stevens and Vermeulen, op. clt., pp. xli-xill. 



97-400 O - 77 - 45 



