foreign donations programs - PDF, 101 mb - usaid

This is a world problem. The stakes are too large,
tile issues too complicated and too interbound with
custom and commerce, to leave the entire solution to
those countrics that have supplied, or received, the most
food assistance during the postwar era. The experience,
the ideas, the skills, and the resources of every nation
that would avoid calamity must be significantly brought
to bear on the problem.
The United States Congress recognizes the moral and
practical implications of hunger and malnutrition,
Over the years its members have taken the lead in developing
programs to prevent famine and to improve
diets. Th b;it instrument Congress has used for, this
effort h.l been Pij 'c Law 480-- the authorizing legislation
for ,Ate Food fi~i 'race program.
It is ,()I easy to i; mstue the achievements of a progra,
with stinht11iiplk objectives as Food for Peaceaiding
the needy, assisting economic development, supporting
U.S. foreign policy, increasing trade, bolstering
American agriculture. Yet as we look back on more
than a decade of effort, the accomplishments are remarkable
by any test.
Hundreds of millions of people have directly benefited
from American foods. The lives which otherwise might
have been lost--the grief which otherwise might have
occurred-could have dwarfed the total casualties of all
the wars during the period. I tend to think historians
of future generations may well look back on this expression
of America's compassion as a milestone in man's
concern for his fellow man.
Food for Peace, however, is aimed at more than individual
survival-and individual growth. It is directed
toward national survival--and national growth. P.L.
480 has been an important resource in the growth process.
With the day-to-day difliculties which countries face, we
sometimes fail to recognize how far many of the nations
we have aided have come in their development effort.
An analysis of Food for Peace programning-which constitutes
more than a third ofour total economic assistance
effort-is a good yardstick to measure such achievement.
Frequently a country's development is directly reflected
in its graduation from being a recipient of heavily subsidized
food aid.
Consider, for exai ple, the couintries receiving our ood
and fiber for"local currency in the first full year of opera-
tion a decade ago. There were 27 of them in mid-1956.
Today, more than half have reached a point of economic
development where they no longer require such aid.
This group which had graduated from Title I programs,
2
last year purchased more than $2 billion in agricultural
commodities through comicicial channels. This is
more than triple their combined dollal purchase of a
decade ago. Even excluding Britain, France and West
Germany-today's big dollar customers who purchased
only small amounts under P.L. 480 and left the program
early-the gains are still impressive. Dollar sales of
U.S. farm products to the other Title I graduates were
well over a billion dollars last year-more than four times
the amount in 1956.
Growing economic strength is also evident in that group
of 13 countries receiving Title I food a decade ago which
continued to buy U.S. farm commodities for local currency
in FY 1965. They still face economic difficulties,
but together these nations have more than doubled their
dollar agricultural purchases from the United States over
the ten-year period.
Global generalizations are difficult. But the broad
pattern clearly shows substantial progress.
Indced, the problems today arc in many ways more
serious than those facing the Congress when it enacted
this law. The critical food shortage in India, though
aggravated by drought, should be read as a warning that
a crisis in food and population trends is already at the
world's doorstep. The Food for Freedom legislation
which I have proposed to Congress faces up to these
problems. It takes into account the experience and lessons
of P.L. 480, along with the changing conditions in
food needs and supplies. It recognizes that the program
will be judged in the long rum by its success in encouraging
self-help programis and attitudes in the recipient
countries.
We have progressed a great deal during the past
decade. We now know that food assistance can:
* make an important contribution to economic
development
9 serve the highest objectives of U.S. foreign policy
ahelp American agriculture
ostrengthen the habit of international cooperation
e help to dispel Malthmsian fears which have historically
haunted mankind.
1y any standards, this nation can be proud of its Food
fo, Peace
tie
progran.
Congress
It
the
gives
annual
me
report
pleasure
on
to
the
submit
1965
to
carried on ider Public Law 480, 83rd Congress,
activities
as
areded.
a ndd.LYNDON B. JOHNSON.
TimE WHITE HousE, June 30, 1966.