United States. Dept. of State. Office of Public Co.

Department of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) online

. (page 53 of 90)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) → online text (page 53 of 90)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


what we said. These charter provisions are
more than mere pious exhortations; they set
standards and goals which are consistent
with American values and objectives.

4. Moreover, our domestic position on
civil rights weighs on the same side of the
scale. Our country — founded on the proposi-
tion that all men are created equal and have
equal rights before the law, and currently
engaged in a vigorous nationwide program
to make that equality real for all citizens —
cannot adopt a double standard on what is
happening in Rhodesia.

5. Finally, we have practical interests in
all of Africa. Many assume that our eco-
nomic interests are limited to the southern
tip of the continent alone. These are indeed
substantial. But our current economic and
other material interests in the rest of Africa
are even more substantial, and in terms of
the future our stake is potentially even



FEBRUARY 20, 1967



291



greater. We thus have a practical interest
in maintaining good relations with the new
nations, with whom we have important, mu-
tually advantageous, and gi-owing economic
relations, and who cooperate with us in our
outer space and other peaceful activities, and
for whom the Rhodesian question is of the
highest importance.

Make no mistake about it, the basic in-
terests in the Rhodesian crisis are interests
in which America is deeply involved. We
cannot ignore that crisis without being faith-
less to our principles, impairing the good
name of our countiy before the world, and
isolating ourselves from the predominant
opinion of virtually the entire world com-
munity.

U.N. Action on South West Africa

Now I come to South West Africa, where
the same problem of racial injustice exists
in a different form. Although South Africa's
administering authority in this territory
arose from a League of Nations mandate.
South Africa has denied any international
accountability for its conduct in South West
Africa. Furthermore, South Africa has failed
in its obligation as the mandatory power to
promote the well-being and social progress
of the African population in the territory.
In fact, it has moved in the opposite direc-
tion, even applying against its people cer-
tain of the repressive mpartheid laws of
South Africa itself.

The international responsibilities of South
Africa respecting South West Africa were
long ago reaffirmed by advisory opinions of
the International Court of Justice. The
Court's decision last summer,* refusing by
a narrow majority, and on procedural
grounds, to pass on the adversaiy case be-
fore it, did not disturb these prior opinions
at all and was by no means a victory for
South Africa on the merits of the case.

The result of the Court's decision, of
course, was to bring, the whole issue to an
acute political stage. Last fall it was the
first question debated in the U.N. General As-



sembly .» The United States worked energet-
ically, and with some success, to help bring
about a constructive action in the Assembly.
We joined with a group of countries, both
African and non-African, in persuading the
Assembly to avoid an immediate confronta-
tion with South Africa. The Assembly
created a 14-nation committee charged with
recommending practical means by which
South West Africa should be administered
so that the people can exercise their right
of self-determination and achieve independ-
ence. The Assembly is scheduled to meet in
special session before the end of April to
consider the committee's recommendations.

The committee has already begun its
work. The United States is a member of it,
and our representative is the very able
foi-mer United States Attorney General, Am-
bassador William P. Rogers.'" We strongly
hope the committee's recommendations will
help to plot the course toward self-determi-
nation for the people of the territory. Here
again, our goal is to make progress by peace-
ful means — and to make sure the decisions
taken are within the capacity of the United
Nations to achieve.

It is the earnest hope of the United States
that South Africa, as a founding member of
the United Nations, will cooperate with this
committee. As I have already indicated, the
best way to solve difficult problems is not by
dramatic confrontations but by patient dia-
log. Whatever public statements have been
made, it is not too late for all concenied to
work together for a peaceful and practical
solution to this problem consistent with the
General Assembly's resolution.

Racism in South Africa

Finally, I come to the problem of racial
discrimination in South Africa itself. No-
where else in the world does a society of
several million people of the white race, with
an advanced economic and technical system,



' For background, see ibid., Aug. 15, 1966, p. 231.



" For background, see ibid., Oct. 31, 1966, p. 690,
and Dec. 5, 1966, p. 870.
'» See p. 302.



292



DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN



use the power of goveniment to impose strict
separation — and consequent subordination —
on the much largrer nonwhite majority in its
own midst. The policy is rigidly enforced.
Its domestic oiijwnents, white and black
alike, are prosecuted as criminals. Yet the
opposition does not cease and in fact is in-
creasing.

I need hardly restate the attitude of the
United States toward this phenomenon. We
find it, as my predecessor Adlai Stevenson
said, "racist in its orig'ins, arrogant in its
implementation, and, in its consequences,
potentially dangerous for all." " Our duty,
and that of the United Nations, as Governor
Stevenson also said, "is not only to help the
majority of the peoples of South Africa to
fulfill their legitimate aspirations but also
to avoid a racial conflict which could seri-
ously trouble peace and progress in Africa
and throughout the world."

In the face of this situation, over the years
the United Nations — and the United States
— has sought in various ways to influence
this situation for the better. In 1964 the Se-
curity Council, with our support, appealed
to South Africa to repeal its oppressive laws
and to release persons jailed for opiwsing
apartheid. It appealed for some process of
consultation among the various elements of
the South African population. It ordered,
and received, an expert study of the practi-
cality of economic sanctions against South
Africa. It set up an educational and train-
ing program for South Africans abroad, to
which the United States and other countries
have made contributions. This, of course, is
in addition to considerable educational aid
to South Africans abroad which the United
States Government has been carrying on in
its own right.

And, finally, the Security Council called
upon all states to embargo the sale to South
Africa of arms, ammunition, military vehi-
cles and equipment, and materials for the



" For statements by Ambassador Stevenson and
text of a resolution adopted by the U.N. Security
Council on June 18, 1964, see Bulletin of July 6,
1964, p. 29.



manufacture and maintenance of arms and
ammunition. The United States has strictly
enforced this embargo. We are hopeful that,
in some other countries where the enforce-
ment has been less strict, it will be tightened
up.

Clearly these steps have not been enough
to bring about a real change in the situa-
tion. I said last September in the General
Assembly in talking about South West
Africa that "Continued violation by South
Africa of its plain obligations to the inter-
national community would necessarily re-
quire all nations, including my own, to take
such an attitude into account in their rela-
tionships with South Africa." ^^ We of the
United States want to avoid such an even-
tuality. The United States, with other United
Nations members, will not cease its search
for peaceful and practical means to impress
upon the South African Government the
need for a policy of justice and equity for
all its peoples.

Problems of New African Nations

Such, then, are the major political prob-
lems in southern Africa today, problems
which have as their common denominator the
continuation of white racial domination.

It should be candidly recognized that
Africa has other problems, too, and that
even if the last vestiges of white racism
were to disappear tomorrow these other
problems would still exist.

There are, for one thing, the tremendous
needs of the African nations for all kinds
of economic and technical development: in
agriculture, industry, urban aff"airs, trans-
port, health, nutrition, education, and man-
power training.

There is the necessity for regional coop-
eration in many aspects of this African de-
velopment process, such as communications,
transportation, electric power. Yet today
such regional cooperation is more an aspira-
tion than a reality.

There are instances of lawless violence, and



'^ Ihid., Oct. 10, 1966, p. 518.



FEBRUARY 20, 1967



293



even of tribal and racial conflict, which every
friend of Africa must deplore.

It is not the part of friendship to be silent
about such tendencies. But neither is it the
part of wisdom or fairness to exaggerate
them or to be self-righteous about them.

What new nation, throughout history,
seeking its place in the world, has not dis-
played some of these same shortcomings?
Even today, surely we in the United States
have little cause to feel superior, since after
190 years our country is still putting its own
house in order in the field of human rights
and the rights of minority groups. And even
if we had no such problem, it is neither wise
nor admirable for the swimmer who has
made it to the shore to stand and mock those
who are still stnaggling in the water.

Like all peoples, we Americans like to re-
call our glorious past history — and it is right
that we should remind ourselves of the best
things in our heritage. But let us also recall
that America's relations with Africa have
not been altogether glorious. Our early rela-
tionships with that continent consisted
chiefly of our being a leading participant in
the slave trade. Even today we as a nation
are still working to purge ourselves of the
evil results of that episode in our history.



Now, in our time, we are engaged in a
great eflfort to redress, to balance, both at
home and abroad: at home by seeing to it
that every citizen enjoys the full rights and
opportunities of an American; and abroad
by building a new, affiiTnative, constructive
relationship with the freedom-seeking na-
tions of Africa.

The key to such a relationship, I suggest,
is a policy founded in the best American tra-
dition of pragmatic idealism. To those who
are impatient, let us show that we under-
stand and sympatliize with their impatience,
while at the same time we pursue the re-
sponsible path of orderly and realistic prog-
ress. To those who, on the other hand, resist
all changes, let us show that the way to
preserve peace is the timely redress of
legitimate grievances, not the submergence
of them.

The ultimate strength of our nation lies
in our fidelity to our liistoric values and
ideals, for which Africa today is a major
testing ground. Negro organizations and
Negro leaders do the whole Nation a service
by concerning themselves with Africa's
afl'airs. In a larger sense these affairs must
involve us all; and there is no better cause
that any Ameiican can serve.



294



DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN



THE CONGRESS



The War on Hunger: Food for India



Message From President Johnson to the Congress ■



To the Congress of the United States:



Last February I proposed that all mankind
join in a war against man's oldest enemy:
hunger.2

Last March I proposed that the United
States take part in an urgent international
effort to help the Government of India stave
off the threat of f amine.^

I address you today to report progress in
organizing the war against hunger and to
seek your counsel on steps still to be taken.
For again this year, drought in India — as in
other nations — underlines the cruel mathe-
matics of hunger and calls for action.

The problem is immense. It cannot be
solved unless each country reaches a con-
sidered judgment on the course to be
pursued. The greatest power on earth is the
will of free peoples, expressed through the
deliberative processes of their national as-
semblies. I ask you today to take the lead in
a vital act of democratic affirmation.

India is not alone in facing the specter of
near famine. One-half of the world's people
confront this same problem.

India's plight reminds us that our genera-
tion can no longer evade the growing
imbalance between food production and



' White House press release dated Feb. 2 (also
published as H. Doc. 51, 90th Cong., 1st sess.).
' Bulletin, Feb. 28, 1966, p. 336.
' Ibid., Apr. 18, 1966, p. 605.



population growth. India's experience
teaches that something more must be done
about it.

From our own experience and that of
other countries, we know that something can
be done. We know that an agricultural revo-
lution is within the capacity of modern
science.

We know that land can be made to produce
much more food — enough food for the
world's population, if reasonable population
policies are pursued. Without some type of
voluntary population program, however, the
nations of the world — no matter how
generous — will not be able to keep up with
the food problem.

We know, too, that failure to act — and to
act now — will multiply the human suffering
and political unrest, not only in our genera-
tion but in that of our children and their
children.

The aim of the war against hunger is to
help developing nations meet this challenge.
It is the indispensable first step on the road
to progress.

If we are to succeed, all nations — rich and
poor alike — must join together and press the
agricultural revolution with the same spirit,
the same energy, and the same sense of
urgency that they apply to their own national
defense. Nothing less is consistent with the
human values at stake.

Last year, many responded to India's
emergency. Canada was particularly gener-
ous in sending food aid. Each member of the



FEBRUARY 20, 1967



295



India Aid Consortium made a special effort
to meet India's need. Non-members, Austra-
lia among others, also helped. The private
contributions of the Italian and Dutch people
were especially heartwarming. But the bleak
facts require a sustained international eifort
on a greater scale. Today I propose that all
nations make the new Indian emergency the
occasion to start a continuing worldwide
campaign against hunger.

II.

The first obligation of the community of
man is to provide food for all of its members.
This obligation overrides political differences
and differences in social systems.

No single nation or people can fulfill this
common obligation. No nation should be ex-
pected to do so. Every country must partici-
pate to insure the future of all. Every
country that makes a determined effort to
achieve sufficiency in food will find our gov-
ernment, our technical experts and our
people its enthusiastic partners. The United
States is prepared to do its share.

In pursuing the War on Hunger, the world
must face up to stark new facts about food
in our times.

— Food is scarce. Nowhere is there a real
surplus. Food aid must be allocated according
to the same priorities that govern other
development assistance.

— Per capita food production in many
parts of the less-developed world is not in-
creasing. In some cases, it is even declining.
This grim fact reflects both a rising curve of
population and a lagging curve of agricul-
tural production.

— There is no substitute for self-help. The
first responsibility of each nation is to sup-
ply the food its people needs. The war against
hunger can only be won by the efforts of the
developing nations themselves.

— Food aid is a stop-gap, not a permanent
cure. It must be viewed as part of a nation's
effort to achieve sufficiency in food, not as a
substitute for it.

— Agriculture must receive a much higher
priority in development plans and programs.
The developing nations can no longer take



food supplies for granted, while they con-
centrate on industrial development alone, or
si>end vitally needed resources on unneces-
sary military equipment.

— Agriculttiral development must be
planned as part of a nation's overall eco-
nomic and social program. Achieving a bal-
ance between population and resources is as
important as achieving a balance between in-
dustrial and agricultural growth.

— Fertilizer, seed, and pesticides must be
provided in much greater quantities than
ever before. Their use increases food produc-
tion and permanently changes the productive
capability of farmers. A ton of fertilizer
properly used this year can mean several
tons of grain next year.

— All advanced nations — including those
which import food — must share the burden
of feeding the hungry and building their ca-
pacity to feed themselves.

— The War on Hunger is too big for gov-
ernments alone. Victory cannot come unless
businessmen, universities, foundations, vol-
untary agencies and cooperatives join the
battle.

— Developing nations with food deficits
mtist put more of their resources into volun-
tary family planning .programs.

These are the facts your Government has
been stressing throughout the world. Many
of them are unpleasant. But our lives are
pledged to the conviction that free people
meet their responsibilities when they face
the truth.

These facts draw into bold relief the two
main thrusts in the offensive against hun-
ger:

First, the hungry nations of the world
must be helped to achieve the capacity to
grow the food their people need or to buy
what they cannot grow.

Second, until they can achieve this goal,
the developed nations must help meet their
needs by food shipments on generous terms.

The level of food aid will decline as self-
help measures take hold. Until that point is
reached, food aid is an inescapable duty of
the world community.



296



DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN



III.

During the past year the advanced nations
have made progress in preparing the ground
for the international War on Hunger.

First, the pattern of international coopera-
tion has steadily improved.

Last July w.e were pleased to act as host
to a high-level meeting of the Development
Assistance Committee of the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development
which focused primarily on the world food
problem.^

We encouraged greater contributions to
the World Food Program by increasing our
pledge to that program and by offering to
match with commodities contributions in both
cash and commodities from other countries.

We co-sponsored a resolution in the United
Nations that launched a UN-Food and Agri-
culture Organization study of whether and
how to organize a multilateral food aid pro-
gram of vastly larger proportions.

In the Kennedy Round of trade negotia-
tions, we have advanced a proposal to make
available from all sources ten million tons
of food grains annually for food aid, to be
supported by grain exporters and importers
alike. This proposal is now being discussed
in Geneva as part of an International Ce-
reals Arrangement.

We are now participating in a study ini-
tiated by the Food and Agriculture Organi-
zation — in cooperation with the World Bank,
the UN and the OECD — to examine how
multilateral action might increase the avail-
ability and effective use of fertilizers and
other materials needed to speed up agricul-
tural production.

At the OECD Ministerial Meeting this
fall, we advanced a proposal to develop an
Agricultural Food Fund to encourage pri-
vate investment in the basic agricultural in-
dustries of the developing countries.^

Second, the United States encouraged a



*For background, see ibid., Aug. 8, 1966, p. 199.

* For U.S. statements and text of a communique
issued at the close of the meeting of the OECD
Ministerial Council on Nov. 25, 1966, see ibid., Jan.
2, 1967, p. 19.



multilateral response to last year's emer-
gency in India.

The worst drought of the century threat-
ened millions with starvation and countless
more with disease bom of malnutrition. As
a result, I recommended, and you in the
Congress, approved a program to send over
8 million tons of food grain to India. In an
unprecedented display of common concern,
governments, private organizations and in-
dividuals in 42 other nations joined in pro-
viding $180 million in food and other com-
modities to meet the needs of that country.
Over-all, India imported almost 11 million
tons of grain and used several million tons
from its own emergency food reserves.

The fact that India did not experience
famine ranks among the proudest chapters
in the history of international cooperation.
But last year's effort— heartening as it was
— ^was hasty and improvised. The world must
organize its response to famine — both today
and for the years ahead.

Third, this year's economic aid program
makes agricultural development a primary
objective.

The AID program which I will shortly
send to the Congress, includes funds to fi-
nance imports of fertilizer, irrigation pumps,
and other American equipment and know-
how necessary to improve agriculture in the
developing countries.

Fourth, I proposed and the Congress erv-
acte.d far-reaching legislation which provides
the strong foundation for the new Food for
Freedom program.

The central theme of the program is self-
help. The legislation authorized concessional
sales of food to countries which prove their
determination to expand their own food pro-
duction.

IV.

All of us know where the real battle is
fought. Whatever the efforts in world capi-
tals, the real tale is told on the land. It is
the man behind the mule — or the bullock —
or the water buffalo — who must be reached.
Only his own government and his own people
can reach him.



FEBRUARY 20, 1967



297



Thus, the most important progress of the
past year has occurred in the developing
countries themselves. And there is progress
to report.

India — the largest consumer of food aid —
perhaps provides the best example.

This has been a year of innovation in
Indian agriculture. Agricultural development
now has top priority in India's economic
plan. Much remains to be done. But the
evidence is unmistakable. India has started
on the right path. India has:

— Imposed a food rationing system to make
efficient use of existing supplies.

— Streamlined its transportation system to
improve distribution.

— Increased prices paid to the farmer, thus
providing new incentives to use fertilizer,
improved seeds and other modern materials.

— Begun large-scale operations with new
varieties of rice introduced from Taiwan and
with large quantities of high-yielding wheat
seed imported from Mexico.

— Approved plans to increase public in-
vestment in agriculture by more than 100%
during the new Five Year Plan.

— Started to expand rural credit, improve
water supply and accelerate the distribution
of fertilizer to remote areas.

—Stepped up family planning.

— Negotiated an agreement for the first of
several externally financed fertilizer plants
to expand India's supply of home-produced
fertilizers.

India is off to a good start. But it is only
a start. As Indian officials have warned, hard
work remains in reaching targets they have
set and in improving cooperation among
state governments. India's economic prob-
lems are enormous. But they can be solved.

What India has begun to do represents the
growing realization in the developing world
that long-term economic growth is dependent
on growth in agriculture. Not every country
has made an effort as great as India's. But
in some countries, production has improved
more rapidly.



Everywhere there is an air of change. No
longer does industrial development alone at-
tract the best minds and talents. Agricul-
ture is now attracting the young and more
enterprising economists, administrators and
entrepreneurs in the developing world.

This is the best measure of progress in the
War on Hunger and the best assurance of
success.



India's food problem requires a major
commitment of our resources and those of
other advanced countries. India's population
is equal to that of 66 members of the United
Nations.

Broad authority exists under our legisla-
tion for national action by Executive deci-
sion alone. But the issues presented here are



Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) → online text (page 53 of 90)