1298 



rich nations of the world were devoting to foreign assistance only half 

 of the 0.7 percent of their GNP that the United Nations had proposed 

 as a proper allocation. The United States in particular was "laggard" : 

 the percentage of its GNP allocated to foreign aid was expected to 

 shrink to 0.24 by 1975."* In June 1973, Robert R. Bowie of the Harvard 

 University Center for International Affairs pointed out that the 

 LDCs have become the "forgotten men" of U.S. foreign policy. He 

 noted that U.S. foreign assistance had dropped to a low of three- 

 tenths of 1 percent of its GNP, ranking 12th among the rich nations 

 on this scale.'^^^ 



Foreign policy specialists attribute this declining interest in inter- 

 national development to disillusionment growing out of the frustra- 

 tions of the Vietnam War, to the mood of withdrawal gripping the 

 Nation in the aftermath of Vietnam, in reaction to two decades of 

 Avhat many believe to be overcommitment in foreign affairs, to the bal- 

 ance of payments crises, doubts as to the efficacy of foreign aid, increas- 

 ing domestic economic problems, and finally to the weakening of the 

 Cold War spirit which had previously provided a substantial motiva- 

 tion for foreign aid. 



This declining interest in development coincides Avith the continu- 

 ing brain drain, now almost entirely from the LDCs. Inflows of sci- 

 entists and engineers are decreasing, but the decline in this area is 

 offset by a marked increase in the medical inflow\ The downtrend in 

 development and the sustained brain drain both contradict the prin- 

 ciple of development, defeat the declared national purposes of assist- 

 ance to the LDCs, and — many observers contend — contribute to poten- 

 tially dangerous political consequences for the future. 



QUESTION OF COMMITMENT TO LDC's ; AMERICAN RESPONSIBILITY AND 



NATIONAL INTEREST 



The interaction between brain drain and development in U.S. for- 

 eign policy, as well as the contradiction now evident between policy 

 intentions and actual performance in foreign assistance, raise a basic 

 question about the Nation's commitment to the LDCs. For in the long 

 run, and in some cases the short, the developing countries suffer ad- 

 versely from the drain-off of professional manpower, and this loss of 

 an educated elite in turn impairs the development that United States 

 proposes to advance. 



Students of brain drain state that the United States has assumed a 

 responsibility toward the LDCs in accepting their professionals.^^'' 

 Perhaps the greatest responsibility this Nation assumes, they would 

 argue, is to insure their return home after training so that they can 

 carry on the tasks of nation-building. At this juncture responsibility 

 becomes a national interest for the United States. As Dr. Frankel told 

 the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1968 : 



. . . the "brain drain" is an important problem because it raises, in the most 

 dramatic form, the question of the liind of world in which the United States wants 



"< Harrv B. Ellis, "Foreign Aid Falls to Filter to Poor," The Chri^tw.,, Science Monitor, 

 Dec. 15, 1972, p. 10. 



"™ Robert R. Bowie, "Forgotten Men of U.S. Foreign Policy," The Christian Science Mon- 

 itor. June 27, 1973, p. 14. 



"8 pqj. example, Stevens and Vermeulen spoke of "the formidable international respon- 

 sibilities imposed on the United States by the annual appearance of 10,000 physicians 

 from countries with a vast range of languages and cultures, many of which have totally 

 Inadequate health services." (p. 76) 



