Record of the Under Secretary’s Meeting, October 29, 1951, 10:15 a.m.
Point IV Program
1. In introducing the subject of the proposed reorganization of TCA, Mr. Webb explained that Mr. Heneman and his Management Staff are now assisting the Under Secretary as a specialized group of people who can make a study of a job to be done and come up with sound organizational and administrative proposals. In effect, A/MS is serving as a group of industrial engineers would in a large corporation. The proposed reorganization of TCA is a pilot model of that type of study which could take place in other areas of the Department.
2. Mr. Heneman reviewed the proposed reorganization of TCA and referred to an organization chart at hand to indicate the specific changes to be made. He pointed out that it was not until recent Congressional action had taken place that it could be decided how TCA should be organized and what job it had to do.2 One of the primary problems is to determine how to set up TCA, as well as the regional bureaus, to handle Point IV matters. TCA is to be set up as a focal point in the Department on Point IV matters, and within this organization there are specific points of contact for the regional bureaus and the other agencies on their problems at hand. Originally, TCA was set up on a functional basis, but now the emphasis has changed to a geographic organization with certain technical and general staff functions. Mr. Heneman explained that there are two development services—one for Latin America and one for the Near East, with the possible establishment of one at a later time for Asia and Africa. One problem which A/MS faced in making their current study was the integration of the IIAA into the TCA operation. He pointed out that [Page 1660] there would be duplication of staff and facilities, if IIAA were allowed to continue as is. Mr. Heneman pointed out that an effort had been made to keep the Washington organization as small as possible and only develop staff by responding to the needs from the field. With the Institute becoming a part of TCA, then the personnel and know-how already developed by the Institute could be utilized on a global basis. In other words, some of the people in the Institute would be utilized to assist in other areas.
3. Mr. Heneman pointed out that the Country Directors which would be set up in the field would be under the Ambassador. He also stated that the appointment of key people going to the field would be discussed with the responsible regional bureau. He stated that if TCA expands its procurement and supply functions, it would be necessary to set up an assistant administrator for this particular task, but at the present time the job does not warrant this position.
4. Mr. Heneman explained that this plan had been developed in consultation with the staffs of the regional bureaus, and it is hoped that the working relationships with the bureaus would be improved by this arrangement.
5. Dr. Bennett was asked to outline his ten-point program. He referred to the history of the development of the Point IV concept and his study of it within the Government and in the field. He listed the following ten points which form the basis for the Point IV program in under-developed areas:
- Greater food production—He pointed out that the U.S. has done extremely well in its food production problems, because of our extensive borrowing of better seeds from other countries.
- Better animal husbandry—Chickens to cattle can be improved by genetics and the prevention of disease.
- Fuel for cooking and heating—In this regard he pointed out how trees could be grown very quickly and under most conditions.
- Better farm tools and implements—Dr. Bennett stated that crop production could be increased 4 to 10 times with improved, simple hand tools. He pointed out how most of the food in the world is grown by the most primitive farm methods.
- Better use of land—For example, much land is wasted by poor drainage. This land, if properly utilized, could be placed into timber and pasture.
- Improvement of basic transportation.
- Improvement of water supply—He pointed out how inexpensively water supply could be made safe for drinking and cooking. He also suggested how water supply could be utilized for industrial purposes and irrigation.
- Better health—There are many specific remedies for the communicable diseases which affect vast areas.
- Basic literacy.
- Survey of natural resources.
In conclusion, he stated that these ten points offer the major emphasis for the Point IV program but do not necessarily serve as a pattern for each country. He pointed out that Liberia serves as an example of what an improved under-developed country can mean to us and to that country.
6. Mr. Rusk3 stated that there is one point which might be added to Dr. Bennett’s list, and that is improvement in the institutional structure of the country. Dr. Bennett agreed with this and stated that trainees now come to the U.S. to study our governmental techniques. In connection with this point, Mr. Webb added that much of the work which can be accomplished through the Point IV program must be through proper government leadership, and therefore the staffs for the government leaders should be developed as much as possible through our assistance. Dr. Bennett agreed and pointed out that bringing people to study our government departments and agencies is one way to do this.
7. Mr. McGhee stated that the Point IV program is an important tool in his area. Originally, the Point IV concept was not an adequate one to deal with the many problems, and so far it has not been effective. Starting about a year ago, we agreed to develop a larger economic assistance program for the NEA area. Because of recent Congressional action, we now have the means to carry this program out, and we must take advantage of it. Mr. McGhee felt that we must do this in order to avert a future catastrophe in his area, but the approach to the area must be from an integrated concept with a full understanding and appreciation of the political aims and problems at hand. We have the money, Mr. McGhee explained, to assume greater responsibility in the Middle East area, and we need to exercise this responsibility at once. He strongly urged that a Middle East Administrator be set up in the area, because each country can not be handled on an individual basis. He explained that this is the only area within NEA which needs such central control.
8. With respect to the IIAA, Mr. McGhee, because of his past experience with that organization, pointed out how effective it is in the field. He felt that its power and authority should not be diluted merely to achieve administrative consistency. Mr. Heneman assured Mr. McGhee that the IIAA as an organization was not being abolished but would be better utilized under the TCA reorganization.
9. Mr. Miller agreed with Mr. McGhee’s comments on the Institute. He pointed out that he had not heard of the proposal discussed by Mr. Heneman and took exception to it. He stated that the creation of TCA did not facilitate the work of the IIAA, and he is very apprehensive of the proposal made by Mr. Heneman. With respect to the Country Director proposal, Mr. Miller reserved his position on [Page 1662] this. He felt that in some cases a Country Director should report to the Counselor for Economic Affairs. The pattern for the Country Directors should not be the same for every country.
10. Dr. Bennett referred to his great respect for the IIAA and indicated his efforts to give the Institute freedom and to step up its program. He explained that the proposal was not to abolish the IIAA but was to reduce the Washington overhead by not duplicating staff. Thus, the top-flight people in IIAA could be utilized to help in other areas. Mr. Heneman emphasized that if the staff in IIAA is left intact, it would duplicate staff required in other areas. The value of the IIAA is recognized and the proposal made in the reorganization was not made merely for the sake of organizational neatness. Dr. Bennett assured Mr. Miller that the Institute would not suffer under his direction. Mr. Humelsine suggested that all of the “development services” be called “institutes”. Mr. McGhee agreed that this would be a good idea, and Mr. Miller added that the name of the IIAA is invaluable in Latin America. Mr. Heneman agreed that the “development services” could be called anything desired. Mr. Webb pointed out that the “development services” are not “institutes”. He pointed out that we cannot maintain separate corporations, such as the IIAA, because the tendency in government, in both the Executive and Legislative branches, is against this type of organization. Mr. McGhee agreed that it need not be a corporation but pointed out that an “institute” could serve as a focal point within the government for providing this type of aid to a certain area. In addition, he stated that it would be much easier to get a better man to become “president” of an “institute” than merely a “director” or “chief” of a “development service”. Mr. Webb pointed out that the decision on this question of the “institute” was not final.
11. Mr. McGhee asked what progress had been made on the establishment of a regional administrator in the Middle East area. He felt that this administrator was needed immediately, and that further discussion of this problem was in order. Mr. Webb stated that no final decision had been made on this problem, but he indicated his reservations on the establishment of the administrator, especially as it related to our long-range interests and its possible effect on our Mission Chiefs. Mr. McGhee emphasized that the Middle East area is threatened and we have the money to do a job in that area. He felt that an immediate decision would be necessary to carry out the program required there. Mr. Matthews agreed that the proposed Middle East Administrator was a good thing, including the long-range aspects. It was pointed out that at lower levels substantial agreement had been reached that a regional office should be established, headed by a roving ambassador working on general aid programs. This roving ambassador, however, would not have immediate line authority. Mr. Webb [Page 1663] agreed that some decision should be made on this question, but at this time he was not convinced of the merits of establishing a Middle East Administrator.
- The documentation relating to the Under Secretary’s Staff Meetings is contained in Boxes 1644–1646. For information on the meetings, see footnote 1, p. 1671.↩
- This is a reference to the enactment and approval of the Mutual Security Act on October 10 (65 Stat. 373). In fact, there was no explicit reference in the legislation to the question of the locus of the TCA function and organization; the matter appeared in the context of references to the Act for International Development and the Secretary of State’s powers and responsibilities relating thereto.↩
- Dean Rusk, Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs.↩