1299 



to live a generation, or even a half generation from now. Over the long run we 

 cannot stand the burden of a world in which most people and most countries will 

 have inadequate intellectual resources and leadership of their own, and will have 

 to lean on us and one or two other giants for their own well-being. This is why 

 the brain drain is an important matter, and why it behooves us to seek aflSrmative 

 measures to alleviate it.^^^ 



Widening Gap Between Advanced and Developing Countries. — But 

 a more profound national interest is involved than ]ust the burden of 

 dependency : it is the potential consequences for the United States of 

 a continued widening gap between the advanced and developing coun- 

 tries. An underlying assumption of arguments by brain drain critics is 

 that failure to halt the migration of professionals from the LDCs can 

 only widen this gap. Development specialists warn that despite decades 

 of development assistance the gap between rich and poor, rather than 

 narrowing, has indeed been widening. Therein lies the potential dan- 

 ger, they say, for future U.S. foreign policy, and the vital connection 

 between brain drain and foreign policy. 



The argument is posed in general rather than specific terms. It goes 

 something like this : as the development gap widens, tensions increase 

 between the rich and poor nations — the "global cities" versus the 

 "global ghettoes" ; the rich become richer, the poor poorer ; social and 

 economic progress among the LDCs become arrested; frustration, 

 anxiety, and despair set in as hopes and expectations diminish ; bitter- 

 ness and resentment are directed towards the rich and often against 

 competing neighbors among the poor; global instability results; the 

 United States, as the world's richest nation, cannot avoid being en- 

 meshed in the international troubles that flow from these economic 

 conditions. Among development specialists it is virtually a self-evi- 

 dent truth that growing impoverishment of the Third World has po- 

 tentially adverse consequences for American diplomacy.^^^ Secretary 

 of State Henry Kissinger said as much when he told the special session 

 of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in April 1974 on the 

 matter of raw materials and development : 



On behalf of President Nixon, I pledge the United States to a major effort in 

 support of development. My country dedicates itself to this enterprise 'because 

 our children — yours and ours — must not live in a world of brtttal inequality, 

 because peace cannot be maintained unless all share in its benefits, and because 



"^Hearings, Senai^, Judiciary Committee, International Migration of Talent and Skills, 

 1968, p. 22. Dr. Frankel has also defined the problem in moral terms. In an address to the 

 State Department-sponsored conference on the imijrration of talents and skills, he said : 

 "First of all," It [brain drain] has been defined differently because our moral standards 

 have changed. We no longer think that the manpower of the rest of the world Is a resource 

 for the enrichment of the already rich societies. We regard this as a problem, not just an 

 opportunity. We take It as a sign of our defect and not a sign of the manifest opportu- 

 nities we open up to people elsewhere in the world." (Department of State. Proceedings of 

 Workshop on the International Migration of Talent and Skills, October 1966, p. 78.) 



^* The potentially explosive nature of the LDCs was demonstrated by David Wood In a 

 study entitled, "Conflict in the Twentieth Century." He noted that the majority of con- 

 flicts during the post-1945 years to 1967 had taken place in Africa, the Middle East, and 

 Asia — the so-called Third World. He cited a list of 80 conflicts. A large number of them 

 followed on or had been associated with the breakup of colonial empires and the sub- 

 sequent emergence of new states which are often small, poor, and Insecure. All but eight 

 of these 80 conflicts Involved Third World participants on both sides. (Adelphi Papers. 

 .Tune 1968, p. 19. Cited in, BrzezinskI, op. clt., p. 7.) Since 1967, major wars have erupted 

 In Nigeria, between India and Pakistan, and in October 1973 between the Arabs and Israelis. 

 The United States has been Involved directly In many of these upheavals within the less 

 developed areas of the world, most notably Southeast A^ia (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos) 

 and the Middle East, where even today it finds itself deeply entangled. 



