1292 



the very skills and talents they are attempting to increase, an important part 

 of the foreign aid program is undermined/^ 



Under section 5 of the report entitled, "Major recipients of U.S. for- 

 eign aid in recent years account for a large share of scientific immigra- 

 tion from the developing countries," the Committee explained in 

 detail its findings that demonstrated the heavy burden borne by 11 

 major recipients of aid, namely, India, Korea, Turkey, China, Brazil, 

 Pakistan, Philippines, Iran, Chile, Israel, and Colombia, and how the 

 drain of professional manpower had tended to offset this aid. In 1967, 

 these 11 LDCs supplied two-thirds or 5,189 of the 7,913 scientists, 

 engineers and physicians entering the United States.^^® 



Criticisms hy Sen-ator Mondale. — Senator Walter F. Mondale, a 

 long-time critic of brain drain from the LDCs to the United States, 

 rested his case largely on the contradiction between brain drain and 

 foreign aid. In a Senate speech on August 31, 1966, the Senator ac- 

 knowledged the "many brain drains" that have occurred in the course 

 of history, but emphasized that the problem as it now related to the 

 LDCs was "particularly urgent." He expressed his concern that brain 

 drain from the developing countries "compromises our commitment 

 to development assistance, by depriving new nations of high-level man- 

 power indispensable to their progress. It runs counter to the education 

 and training programs which are so vital to our foreign aid." Student 

 leakage contravened efforts by AID to train leadership cadres in the 

 LDCs such that "the brain drain among students more than cancels 

 out one important phase of our foreign assistance programs." ^^^ 



Qualifying Views of the Department of State; Contrasting View of 

 AID. — The State Department has assumed a defensive posture on the 

 foreign policy implications of the brain drain issue. Spokesmen like 

 Dr. Frankel acknowledge the gravity and complexity of the problem, 

 but in terms of official action they tend to disclaim responsibility on 

 the ground that brain drain is essentially a problem for the LDCs to 

 resolve, since programs sponsored by the U.S. Government (e.g., AID 

 training programs) are controlled and consequently student leakage 

 is minimal. (Students of brain drain have disputed this claim.) How- 

 ever, the Department of State qualified this view in an ambiguous 

 statement, seemingly implying that student leakage through non- 

 sponsored channels might adversely affect development. 



A "background note" prepared for the occasion of the Interagency 

 Council's workshop and conference on "International Migration of 

 Talent and Skills" alluded to the increase in flows of professional man- 

 power that produced the problem of brain drain. Causes were com- 

 plex, it said, but the net effect for the sending country was the same, 

 namely, their exchangees, students or trained professionals, have be- 

 come emigrants. "Such losses," the note continued, 



. . . tend to be particularly diflBcult for less developed countries to sustain ; 

 they seek to conserve and develop their resources, especially their stock of edu- 

 cated and skilled manpower. The United States Government is often actively 



''^ Renort, House Government Operations Committee, Scientific Brain Drain from the 

 LDSs. 1968, pp. 1-2. 



'w Ibid., pp. 14-15. 



""" Sen. Walter F. Mondale, "The Brain Drain from Developing Countries," Remarks in 

 the Senate, Cam^resaional Record, Aug. 31, 1966, p. 21477. 



