Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Foreign Economic Policy, Volume IV

66. Memorandum From Secretary of Agriculture Benson to the President’s Assistant (Adams)⁰

CFEP 570/info

April 29, 1958.

SUBJECT

• Agricultural Surpluses as a Tool for Peace

You are aware from our earlier discussions that John H. Davis, formerly Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, has been engaged by the State Department to make a study of how U.S. farm surpluses can better serve American foreign policy. A copy of the study is attached.¹

I

The first part of this study has been completed. The cogent findings are these:

1. Our surplus production capacity in agriculture is likely to be of some duration.

2. Need for food in many countries outside the Soviet Bloc, above what can be produced in these countries or bought with foreign exchange, is likely to be large for some time to come. The maintenance of political stability in these countries will probably require that some share of this need be met by the United States.

3. This dual problem (our excess capacity and foreign need) can be alleviated by a two-sided 5-year program:

(a) Further adjustments in our programs for American agriculture, both administrative and legislative.

(b) A food-for-peace program based on P.L. 480, gradually phased out as the receiving nations are assisted to raise their own production levels.

II

To adopt a program such as Davis recommends would involve little change from what we are now doing except that:

• We would be positive instead of negative;
• We would recognize that the problem is of some duration rather than temporary;
• We would emphasize the helpful foreign policy aspects rather than to treat the operation as iniquitous surplus disposal.

III

The program proposed would have both advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages

1. Such an operation is likely to come into being in any case. The question is whether we give it leadership.

2. Such a step would maximize our greatest advantage over the Soviet Union. It would be agriculture’s share in our foreign policy.

3. Properly handled, it would lift production and living levels in the free world.

4. Much credit would be reflected to this country for good stewardship of our scientific know-how, for our compassion for the world’s needy and for our contribution to peace.

5. The farm policy focus would shift from the negative fight to reduce price supports to the more positive approach: “Use our abundance in the cause of peace.”

6. Such a program may increase support for the President’s legislative recommendations in the Agricultural Message of January 1958.²

Disadvantages

1. If production levels in the recipient countries should fail to rise sufficiently, these countries would become dependent upon us for continuing help. We would have created a group of more or less permanent relief clients.

2. Unwisely handled, such a program could antagonize other agricultural exporting nations.

3. Such a program might easily become an excuse to further postpone needed changes in farm legislation.

4. Some people would object to spending so much American effort in behalf of other nations.

5. We might be accused of embracing a proposal favored by Senator Humphrey and others from the opposition camp.

IV

We have reviewed the proposal in the Department of Agriculture. While we are not now ready to advocate the program proposed, we consider that it merits consideration. It is my understanding that this also is the attitude of the State Department. Therefore, I propose the following steps:

1. The attitude of the President should be ascertained as to whether he considers the proposal deserving of serious consideration.

2. If the President is so inclined, the proposal should be reviewed by the various Departments, in the Francis Committee on Agricultural Surplus Disposal,³ and in the Randall Commission on Foreign Economic Policy.

V

If the proposal receives approval in this review and if the White House approves, one or more of these steps could be taken:

1. The President could call an International Conference on Food for Peace. (A draft statement is attached, outlining what such a Conference might attempt.)⁴

2. The Secretary of Agriculture could launch the proposal in a series of speeches.

3. The proposal could be made a part of the Administration’s legislative program for 1959. (The actual legislative changes which would be required are not many. Public Law 480 in slightly modified form would be a suitable vehicle.)

I would be happy to confer with you on this matter as convenient.

E.T. Benson ⁵

0. Source: Washington National Records Center, CFEP Files: FRC 62 A 624, Agricultural Surpluses for Peace, CFEP 570. Official Use Only. Distributed as Tab A to a memorandum from Cullen to the CFEP, May 12.
1. Not found attached.
2. For text of Eisenhower’s January 16 special message to the Congress on agriculture, see Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1958, pp. 100–107.
3. President Eisenhower established the Interagency Committee on Agricultural Surplus Disposal on September 9, 1954, to coordinate the administration of P.L. 480. The Committee, headed by Clarence Francis, consisted of officials from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, the Treasury, and State; the International Cooperation Administration; and the Bureau of the Budget.
4. Not printed.
5. Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.