Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume IX, Foreign Economic Policy

110. Letter From the Under Secretary of State (Bowles) to Secretary of Agriculture Freeman⁰

Washington, May 19, 1961.

Dear Orville: After your comments to me at Cabinet last week, I gave some further thought to the points you touched upon with respect to the new aid agency and how it should operate, and specifically in reference to food and agriculture programs abroad. I appreciate your giving me your views in greater detail in your letter of May 12,¹ and the enclosed copy of your memorandum to the President of May 5.² Obviously, all of the questions concerning the new aid agency have not yet been resolved, but an enormous amount of thinking has gone into the plans as they now appear to be shaping up, and I know that the proposals of Mr. Labouisse’s Task Force are the product of the best judgments of some very competent people on the basis of past experience of the ICA and other aid agencies, their analysis of the current situation worldwide, and their assumptions as to the President’s own desires as set forth in his Message.

Of the three major points made in your letter, I should like to comment first on the one relating to operation of the aid agency. You have suggested that responsibility for aid programs abroad be centralized in the aid agency, but that operations be delegated to those agencies of the Federal Government having the specific expertise and greatest facilities for the particular functional area involved. It seems to me that what we are really confronted with here is a kind of a perennial dilemma which confronts organization planners, i.e., whether a job can best be done by a comprehensively organized, central organization, or whether it can best be done by a relatively small central group, farming out the operating end to specialized agencies for implementation. As you know, the fragmentation of our aid efforts has been the cause of one of the program’s greatest difficulties in the past, and the President’s proposal to establish a single aid agency “in place of several competing and confusing aid units” was aimed specifically at overcoming this difficulty. I feel that the President, in calling for a single aid agency, did not contemplate simply a coordinating entity which would develop plans, coordinate and negotiate with other agencies for operation of the program, and then make final recommendations to the President. Since the aid agency must defend the program before the Congress, it would seem essential that it also must take responsibility for the over-all direction and operation of the program in each country.

This does not mean, however, that specialized departments of the U.S. Government—Agriculture, HEW, Labor, Federal Aviation Agency, etc.—do not have an important and vital role to play. I am told that the major existing aid agency—ICA—makes extensive use of the expertise of the other departments, both in the process of developing programs and their implementation. For example, it is “buying” about $2,000,000 worth of services from the Department of Agriculture, including plant and seed testing, distribution, etc., salinity and soil fertility testing and advisory services, insect control, technical consultation and support activities, preparation of technical guidelines, special publications, and the like. Again, ICA is using the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Yards and Docks to supervise construction projects overseas, particularly road construction projects; is using the Federal Aviation Agency to supervise the installation of navigation equipment in key airports around the world; and it has a “contract” with the National Institute of Health to carry out certain research and development activities in connection with the health components of country programs, particularly with respect to malaria eradication. I am told this list could be extended almost indefinitely. I am sure that the new administration will continue and indeed expand the use of such specialized services.

Moreover, it seems to me there might well be additional ways in which such Departments as Agriculture and the new aid agency might work together in a common U.S. interest. For example, consideration might be given to a substantially greater exchange of agricultural technicians between the Department of Agriculture and the new agency, with personnel of one from time to time being detailed to the other. Perhaps also a more efficient arrangement could be made so that the new agency might rely upon the Department to provide it—on a reimbursable basis, if necessary—prompt access to top-notch departmental experts for short-time consultancy. No doubt further conversations between the Department and the new aid agency would uncover still other areas where closer cooperation would be highly effective.

As to the other points in your letter—the importance of food and agriculture in economic aid programs abroad, and the use of cooperatives—I am in complete agreement. The meeting of the food requirements of a country is to my mind a matter of first priority. Whether this is accomplished through emergency food programs utilizing our surpluses, or through augmentation of the country’s own food production resources, or both, the role of food and agriculture is indeed a primary one. I think it must, nevertheless, be fitted in as a component of the total country program. I believe cooperatives offer a particularly useful potential for providing the first and primary needs of farmers in the developing countries and I know that Mr. Labouisse shares this point of view. He has, in fact, just recently notified the farm organizations that the ICA would welcome their assistance in helping to find competent technical advisers and in the creation and development of cooperatives in some of the countries in which we operate. I think it would be very useful for you to solicit the views of the members of your advisory committee as to ways in which cooperatives of the U.S. can assist in the work we are attempting to do in the newly developing countries.

Thank you again for giving me your thoughts on this important matter. We are all anxious that the aid program be established on a sound footing that will assure the most effective operation of our programs abroad. I should be happy to discuss this whole matter with you further if you wish.

Sincerely yours,

Chet³

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 811.00/5-1961. No classification marking. Drafted by Alice May (ICA/EXSEC) on May 17 and redrafted in ICA/D on May 18 and cleared by Labouisse. Attached to another copy is a May 19 memorandum from Labouisse to Bowles, urging Bowles to sign the letter the same day if possible. He argued, “In view of his [Freeman’s] memorandum to the President of May 5 and the likelihood that the President may make some decision on this matter within the next few days, I feel it is most important to have the Department’s views on record as soon as possible.” (Washington National Records Center, RG 286, AID Administrator Files: FRC 65 A 481, Agriculture, FY 1962)
1. Document 106.
2. See the Supplement.
3. Printed from a copy that indicates Bowles signed the original.