128. Editorial Note
On August 8, President Eisenhower sent a special message to the Congress outlining legislation that needed to be enacted before the current session ended. Among the items the President mentioned was “a proposal to be presented in September before the General Assembly of the United Nations, whereby we and other fortunate nations can, together, make greater use of our combined agricultural abundance to help feed the hungry of the world. The United Nations provides a multilateral forum admirably suited to initiate consideration of this effort.
“I consider it important that Congress approve a resolution endorsing such a program before the United Nations Assembly convenes.” (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960–61, pages 612–619)
Three days later, George Willis, Director of the Office of International Finance at the Department of the Treasury, sent Treasury Secretary Anderson a memorandum delineating four points about the President’s proposal that concerned Anderson: [Page 265]
- “1. If United States agricultural commodities, even though surplus, are turned over to the United Nations this will involve a budgetary cost in order to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation. To the extent present United States programs were reduced as a result of channelling surpluses through the United Nations the net additional cost would be lessened, however.
- “2. If the United Nations carried out a program similar to that of Title I of P.L. 480 it would be involved in the handling and programming of foreign currencies for economic development proposals. This would be similar to the SUNFED proposals.
- “3. If the United Nations became a clearing house for the disposal of United States agricultural surpluses and that of other countries, pressure could well develop to utilize the United Nations for disposal of other commodities which some country had difficulty in disposing of commercially.
- “4. If United Nations channels are utilized for the disposal of United States surpluses these United States commodities could go to the U.S.S.R., its satellites, and through them even to Communist China.” (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 56, Records of the Office of the Secretary of the Treasury, Anderson Subject Files, St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (International Finance, Office of))
In a covering memorandum, Willis commented that Food for Peace Coordinator Paarlberg was considering several alternatives for implementing the proposal, ranging “from using the United Nations as a clearing house for information to using the United Nations as the distributor of surplus commodities.” Between these lay the option “of turning certain present United States programs over to the United Nations for administration.” The Department of State, he noted, favored using the United Nations as a source of information and continuing to administer programs bilaterally. (Memorandum from Willis to Anderson, August 11; ibid.)
Under Secretary Dillon presented the Department of State’s views on the proposal in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on August 25. For text of his statement, see Department of State Bulletin, September 19, 1960, pages 449–451. On August 26, the Committee reported S. Con. Res. 116 endorsing the President’s plan; for text, see S. Rept. 1922, Eighty-sixth Congress, Second Session. The Senate approved the resolution in a voice vote on August 27, but the House of Representatives took no action on it before Congress adjourned. On October 27, however, the U.N. General Assembly unanimously adopted a revised version of the proposal in Resolution 1496(XV); for text, see U.N. doc. A/4684.