Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XII, American Republics

66. Scope Paper¹

Sao Paulo, October 24, 1963.

UNITED STATES DELEGATION TO THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE INTER-AMERICAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL AT THE MINISTERIAL LEVEL

Sao Paulo, October-November 1963

Main U.S. Objectives at Sao Paulo Meetings

1. Since the Alliance is a long-term effort, and this is only the second annual meeting of the IA-ECOSOC, the character of the conference itself is of great importance. USDel will strive to make this annual assembly of the Alliance the forum where all problems are discussed honestly, and constructively. The resolutions which are adopted should be few, and meaningful.

The evaluation by IA-ECOSOC of the progress of the Alliance is contained in a brief report issued by the ministers; a longer report (La Marcha de la Alianza) is prepared by the experts. USDel will seek to make these reports of the highest quality.

2. The USDel should support a meaningful Latin American initiative to establish CID along the lines approved by the President.

The establishment of the new committee will provide an entity with a wider coordinating function than heretofore exercised by any agency within the Alliance.

The committee’s activities, as well as those of the Panel of Nine, should not be limited to review and recommendations relating to national development plans but should also include studies and recommendations concerning foreign trade and integration policies and programs both with respect to their effectiveness and their consistency with national development plans as well as to their consistency with the plans and programs of other countries in the region. The creation of such a committee offers perhaps the best means of strengthening the multilateral character of the Alliance and of increasing pressures on member countries to adopt sounder and more constructive policies.

3. Explain or clarify U.S. assistance data and operations under the Alliance, including major problems which have affected these operations. USDel will express willingness to review possibilities of streamlining procedures, and will point out the improvements made since the Mexico City Meetings.

4. USDel will support, or co-sponsor, a resolution on a study leading to the establishment of methods and institutions for promoting the trade of OAS members (including the U.S.), e.g., undertaking market research, promoting knowledge of trade opportunities, providing a variety of services to exporters, etc. A major new effort toward export promotion is sorely needed.

5. The U.S. will press for approval of a plan to secure Latin American financial support, starting in January, 1965, for the expenses of the expanded Pan American Union activities in support of the Alliance now financed by a U.S. grant.

Background

The purpose of these meetings is to conduct the Second Annual Review of the Alliance for Progress. The First Annual Review was held in Mexico City during October 1962.² The Mexico City meetings are considered to have been highly successful, since the debates were quite frank—in contrast to traditional Inter-American gatherings which have been characterized by florid oratory, avoidance of the difficult issues, and too much formality. It is in the interest of the United States that in the Sao Paulo meetings there be a thorough discussion of all the problems confronting the Alliance, a realistic evaluation of the progress made in its first two years, and that resolutions be adopted which will lead to constructive action to further the aims of the Alliance.

It is anticipated that during the two weeks of the meeting at the expert level the agenda will be covered completely. As a result, the ministerial meeting will receive from the expert meeting a general analysis of the Alliance, plus an analysis of those important issues which the experts either have not been able to resolve, or simply prefer to leave to the discretion of the ministers.

The usual focus on the alliance relates to its basic approach as expressed in the Charter of Punta del Este. Since the United States was the only “external” source of support signatory to the Charter of Punta del Este, much of the discussion at IA-ECOSOC inevitably centers around what the countries of Latin America have done for themselves, and what the U.S. has or has not done to support them. Thus, we can expect that our Latin partners will tend to emphasize U.S. shortcomings. The U.S. delegation will be prepared to clarify and explain our operations over the past two years. The report prepared by the U.S. Government for the IA-ECOSOC will perhaps reduce considerably the amount of time spent by the conference in determining what in fact was done by the U.S. over the past year under the Alliance, and permit more attention to be given to the problems encountered by the Latin American countries, individually and collectively, in meeting their own responsibilities under the Charter of Punta del Este.

Special Note—The discussion of any agenda item which has program or budget implications should be brought to the attention of USDel spokesmen on budget committee.

Agenda

The provisional Agenda will probably be adopted without major changes.

Under Topic I-A (Planning, Reforms and Financing) there will be general presentations made by the heads of delegations—at the expert level—followed by a discussion of results obtained in the countries and in the region in 1962 and the first half of 1963. There will probably be much interest shown by the Latin American delegations in the adequacy of external financial and technical assistance, both in terms of quantity and quality. The data will show that the total availability of external resources was smaller in 1962 than in 1961, even though the amounts provided by the U.S. Government were roughly at the same level.

A more detailed debate on sectorial and functional development problems will be conducted under Topic I-B of the Agenda. Here most of the emphasis will be on internal measures taken by the Latin American countries. The U.S. Delegation will be in a position to show that our support has been substantial in most of these areas. Special attention will be given to agrarian and tax reforms.

Topic I-C might receive the greatest attention by newsmen in the United States and in Latin America, as well as by the delegations to IA-ECOSOC. It is important, however, that action on the Lleras-Kubitschek proposals not be made the sine-qua-non for the success of the S#o Paulo meetings. There is a well documented story to tell about substantial achievements under the Alliance for Progress in the member countries and several other proposals for future action have potentially great merit. The establishment of CID must not be allowed to appear as a second beginning of the Alliance; rather, it should be considered a further, if dramatic, step in the evolution of an ongoing program which was already judged in Mexico City to be intrinsically sound.

Topic II (Latin American Foreign Trade and its Significance for the UNCTAD) may well turn out to be as important to many delegations as I-C. Indeed, the title of the topic was officially proposed by the governments of Argentina, Brazil and Chile. The S#o Paulo meetings present an opportunity to begin a dialogue between the U.S. Government and the Latin American governments on the many issues that may be debated at the UNCTAD. It is probable that Latin American delegations will be anxious to get U.S. assurances of support for some of their projects. While sympathetic interest can be shown the Delegation will doubtless be unable to support all proposals fully at this time.

Topic III (Regional Integration) may provide a more substantive debate than there was in Mexico City. There is increasing concern in the various countries with the limited opportunities for national development. The S#o Paulo meetings may turn out to be place and time for regional integration to be given a real push forward. Some general principles for an acceleration of the integration movement—which is at the heart of the Alliance—may be discussed. USDel should seize the opportunity to make clear its support of genuine steps for economic integration and the fundamental importance of promoting competitive forces to maintain and sustain economic growth.

Topic IV (Programs and Budgets) may be the most troublesome of the Agenda items, in that perhaps an insufficient number of delegations will assign a member, and those who are assigned may not be competent to the task. The regular budget of the Pan American Union for those activities within the sphere of competence of IA-ECOSOC must be given a preliminary analysis as a basis for recommendations to the Council of the Organization of American States. The activities and budget of the Program of Technical Cooperation will receive final approval by the IA-ECOSOC, and the pledges of financial support will be requested at a designated session at the ministerial level. Other delegations should be prodded into giving these OAS programs and budgets the attention they deserve. At the Mexico City meetings, the analysis was only cursory. The experience should not be repeated in Sao Paulo. Finally, consideration will be given to the establishment of a new OAS fund for the Alliance for Progress, in which a special U.S. contribution would be matched, in an agreed proportion, by Latin American contributions.

1. Source: Department of State, ARA/IPA Files: Lot 69 D 211, IA-ECOSOC (Ministerial Level), Position Papers and Background Papers. Limited Official Use. Drafted by Elac and cleared by Rogers, Turnage, Tragen, Luzzatto, Weintraub, Wilson (RPA), Barcroft (USIA), Rendall (Treasury), and Monyihan (Labor).
2. See Documents 48 and 50.