65 



Members of Congress were assured — and did not appear to ques- 

 tion — that economic development of the poorer countries woidd 

 benefit the U.S. national interest by eliminating the preconditions 

 for the spread of communism.^ 



Congressional supporters of the legislation dealt mainly with the 

 need to improve the international political posture of the United 

 States. For instance, Representative Abraham Ribicoff regarded it as 

 "an investment, and investment in the future, which will pay off in 

 peace and security." ^ Some Members attached importance to the 

 potential benefits of the legislation for foreign trade. Said Senator 

 Hubert Humphrey : 



Let me say to those who are interested in our business and industrial picture 

 that with point IV we will find markets. We cannot sell American goods to paupers. 

 We can beat our chests for the next 10 years; but until the people of the world 

 have raised their own standards of living and until they have the means to buy 

 our goods, we cannot do business with them.^ 



Others cited improvements that would result in U.S. supplies of stra- 

 tegic materials: 



Rubber, sisal, industrial diamonds, bauxite, of which we have a very small 

 and limited supply * * * palm oil, of which we have none, graphite, sperm oil, 

 of which we have none, and other materials of that type.» 



Opposition to the concept of technical assistance was based not on 

 questions of feasibility, but on such tangential issues as isolationism 

 and opposition to United Nations membership, the need to protect 

 U.S. agriculture and industry, and opposition to what might become 

 excessive interference of Government with trade and commerce. 

 Senator Burnet R. Maybank saw a trend in the bill toward socialism. 

 Others objected to the proposed legislation on the grounds that 

 technical assistance in irrigation might increase cotton production 

 abroad so as to impair U.S. markets. '° 



Business and financing 



Issues occupying a major portion of congressional attention related 

 to financing or — as an alternative to public funding — the provision 

 of capital investment by private American business and the establish- 

 ment of guarantees for its safety. 



Diu"ing the postwar period many business spokesmen had opposed 

 large-scale export of public capital to promote economic development. 

 Instead they preferred more profitable techniques — the provision of 

 private capital investment (\\dth appropriate assurance of guarantees 

 for returns on investments) and international trade. ^^ 



'Whereas, a decade later, Walt W. Rostow was to write: "Communism is best understood as a disease 

 of the transition to modernization." ("Guerilla Warfare in Underdeveloped Areas." In "The Guerilla and 

 How To Fight Him." Selections from the Marine Corps Gazette. Edited by Lt. Col. T. N. Greene. (New 

 York, Praeger. publishers, 1962), p. 56.) Social scientists generally accept the hypothesis that groups most 

 susceptible to the appeals of communism are those who have had their expectations heightened by a meas- 

 ure of advancement, and who are then frustrated and look to the Communist political managers to help 

 transmit their demands to local political leadersliip tlirough legitimate channels, or, conversely, to help 

 overthrow the existing leadership to accelerate their personal progress. 



■ Statement of Representative Abraham Ribicoff. Foreign Economic Assistance. Consideration on the 

 floor of the House. Congressional Record (Mar. 27, 1950), p. 4140. 



8 Statement of Senator Hubert Humphrey. Economic Cooperation Act of 1948. Consideration on the 

 floor of the House. Congressional Record (Mar. 29, 1950), p. 6263. 



» Statement of Representative Mike Mansfield. Foreign Economic Assistance. Consideration on the floor 

 of the House. Congressional Record (Mar. 29, 1950), p. 4337. 



w See statement of Representative Peter Mack. Foreign Economic Assistance. Consideration on the 

 floor of the House. Congressional Record (Mar. 27, 1950), p. 4175. Southern Senators voted against point 

 rV by a margin of 11 to 8. 



" David Baldwin. "Economic Development and American Foreign Policy 1934-62." (Chicago, the Uni- 

 versity of Chicago Press, 1966), passim, but especially pp. 103-4. 



99-044—69 6 



