83 



Anotlier warnins; came from Kurt Weil, a consult iiig engineer and 

 specialist in industrial development, who foresaw actual harm to the 

 developing countries as a possible outcome of uncritical application 

 of American technology. He said: 



The world's economy is today endangered by too la\ ish an imitation of American 

 industrial techniques/ Uncritical export of U.S. Ixnow-how, notably to Asia and 

 South America, can thwart the drive to lift living standards as symbolized 

 by * * * point 4. Point 4 can damag(i rath(!r than Vjencfit V.m countries it is 

 designed to help. 



Alany of the plans that have been drawn up in the past by .\merican engineers 

 and economists for large-scale developnuaits in Asiatic and Latin American 

 countries have failed because they turned out to be unrealistic. They calhnl for 

 whol(!sale transplanting of American technology to tho?e countries without a 

 sufficient grasp of local conditionSj and for too rapid progress toward mechaniza- 

 tion in areas where tradition made speedy change impossible, [^"art of the] fault 

 is to be found in o\<'rsimplification rootc^d in too great an immersion in the 

 American A\'ay of doing things. Technicians in the underdeveloped countries 

 want to be shown why th<; m(>thor's of life that were good enough for their ancestors 

 are not good enough for them. A big job of selling and of education would have to 

 pr<iced<' any such evolution in their way of doing things * * *. ?^iost of the 

 technically backward countri"s have old, high cultures. It would be folly to rlestroy 

 them by tr3'ing to convert thes<' civilizations into a poor replica of life in Ann'rica.^'^ 



In retrospect, the easy assimiption as to the feasibility of ti'ans- 

 planting U.S. technology to imdeveloped regions is the more re- 

 markable because of the real and evident dilemma that \\as presented 

 by the social and political structures of candidates for ai(L On the 

 one hand, the United States depended for much of its support, in the 

 effort to contain conununism. on tlie stable institutions of developing 

 countries — landowning groups, the military, religious leadership, and 

 those who had developed large interests in extractive industries — 

 mines, refineries, timbering, and plantations. New technology wotdd 

 leave none of these imaffected. In man}' instances, the cltange would 

 place in jeopardy the status of the very persons most relied upon to 

 support U.S. political objectives. The temptation must be resisted, 

 said Galbraith, to give only such aid as suits the convenience of existing 

 leadership : 



* * * If we are to aid such countries at all [said Galbraith] we must aid them 

 where the aid counts. Above and far beyond Point 4, we must put ourselves on the 

 side of truly popular government with whatever pressure we can properly employ. 

 [Emphasis in original.] ^'^ 



George Hakim, a counselor of the Legation of Lebanon in Washing- 

 ton and a former professor of economics, made the requirement even 

 more explicit: 



What is in fact needed in the imderdeveloped countries is no less than a social 

 revolution invoh'ing the transformation of a semifetidal, reactionar\' social order 

 into a new industrial system under which the forces of production could develop 

 and expand freely so as to raise the standards of living of the people as a whole.'^ 



It would seem to be a reasonable proposition that a major new 

 national program that contained such evident conflicts in purpose 

 and impact Avarranted a great deal of careful study in advance of its 

 implementation. The dilemma presented by the adverse impact of 

 U.S. aid on those persons most dependent on the United States for 



89 Kurt Weil. New York consulting engineer and specialist in industrial development. "Pitfalls of Point 

 4." United Nations World magazine. Vol. 3, No. 9, September 1949, pp. 57-59. 



"0 Cialbraith. "Making 'Point 4' Work," op. cit., p. 231. 



'1 George Hakim. "Point 4— The Need and the Impact." Annals of the American Academy of Politica 

 and Social Sciences. July 1950, op. cit., p. 69. 



