Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volumes VII, VIII, IX, Arms Control; National Security Policy; Foreign Economic Policy, Microfiche Supplement

391. Note from Rusk to Bowles, September 1961¹

September 1961

Thanks. Go ahead — taking into account my comments this AM as a “regional” possibility

DR

Attachment

August 18, 1961

Dear Dean:

I am enclosing a memorandum which outlines the growing political importance of the rural population in underdeveloped areas and which proposes several steps to give emphasis and effectiveness to the interest of the United States Government in promoting integrated rural development in these areas. Among these steps is a proposal to establish a small unit of expert personnel within the new Agency for International Development to provide direction and stimulus to this coordinated and comprehensive approach to rural modernization.

You and I have discussed this matter from time to time. It has also been discussed with various people in the Department and in ICA as well as with experts outside the government.

I hope you will be able to read the memorandum while I am away and that immediately after my return we can move ahead to carry out its recommendations.

Sincerely,

Chester Bowles

Enclosure

SUBJECT

• A Coordinated Approach to Rural Development

The new emphasis on U.S. foreign aid stresses the importance of a coordinated country-wide approach to economic and social development.

As an important element of this approach, there is an urgent need for a more systematic, integrated attack on the problems of rural society in underdeveloped lands. This is true because:

a. During the next five to ten years the greatest single challenge to American vision and leadership is likely to come from the rural areas of the underdeveloped two-thirds of the world. The peasants who control the food supply and constitute a substantial majority of all underdeveloped countries are in a crucially important political position. While in many countries they are still the least politically aware class, in another decade they could form an irresistible revolutionary tide.

There is an irreversible trend in every country toward a wider understanding that life need not be one of misery and despair. Apathy is being replaced by a demand for justice, opportunity and security. Yet frustration in reaching these goals is inevitable unless positive steps are taken to alleviate the conditions which inhibit progress.

b. Rural poverty will be an increasingly focal point of Communist pressure, notably in Latin America where the pro-Castro forces, skillfully aided by the peasant-oriented Communist Chinese, are building on agrarian discontent.

The Stalinists never understood the peasantry. But Mao Tse-Tung does and everywhere in the underdeveloped world local Communists are adopting Communist Chinese methods to a rural poverty they find. In Cuba, the Castro approach rural problems, the real heart of the Cuban revolution, a truly comprehensive one, with the Instituto Nacional la Reforma Agraria active in every field of rural life.

c. Piecemeal approaches to rural problems usually fail to achieve results which generate continued sustained growth. Improvement in one respect, without parallel improvement in others, can easily lead to increasing rather than diminishing real discontent. Growing better crops without being able to market them can only yield frustration; teaching better [illegible in the original] making without making possible the building of better uses can sow new seeds of discontent.

d. In particular in recent years there seems to have been an inadequate understanding of the relationship between experts to expand productivity through new agricultural techniques, better health, more education, etc.—all that was embraced by the terms “community development” or “fundamentalization”—and approaches to complex problems of economic contribution and political power reflected in systems of land measure, taxation, credit, etc. The best intentioned efforts to improve the lot of the sharecropper will fail if he is able to keep a fair share of his increased productivity.

e. A coordinated attack on rural problems would be more likely to recognize the critical importance of building the Institutions on which continued progress depends by involving of the elements of society concerned with rural development.

Fortunately, there exists a substantial body of knowledge [illegible in the original] from United States’ (and others’) experience in assisting in the growth of successful rural societies abroad. Land reform in Japan, the Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction in China, Community Development in India, Pakistan, the Philippines, AIA’s “supervised credit” program in Latin America, all provide data of enormous value. There are skilled practitioners, in and out of government, such as Douglas [illegible in the original], Wolf Ladejinsky, Albert Mayer, Msgr. Luigi Ligutti, Carl Taylor, Clarence Senior, Robert Hudgens, and others.

Moreover, the United States in its own rural development has used a variety of valuable techniques to preserve and enrich family farm living. The land grant college, the extension service, soil conservation, rural electrification, assistance to farm housing, and many others, provide valuable experience on which to draw.

This knowledge is not being adequately utilized. Despite pioneer programs such as the comparative rural extension program at Cornell, our experience abroad and at home does not seem to have been systematically collected or made available to personnel working on similar problems in all parts of the world.

Nor has the United States made crystal clear to the entire world that it stands firmly on the side of deep-rooted rural reform—including changes in feudalistic land holding systems which concentrate great wealth in the hands of a few.

The over-riding importance of speeding up the evolutionary process by which rural people can find security on the land demands much more from the United States than a passive willingness to contribute to this process when requested. We should be prepared actively to persuade other nations to initiate comprehensive programs of agrarian betterment and to recommend the substance and procedures of such programs.

To emphasize the United States’ solid commitment to the fundamental regeneration of rural society, I therefore propose:

1. That the President issue a public directive, and re-emphasize it in public addresses overseas, that coordinated rural development, including land reform, is a major element of U.S. foreign policy and foreign operations.

2. That our representatives overseas and at international conferences make similar statements and initiate and support appropriate steps which demonstrate our concern.

3. That this government propose an International Conference on Rural Development (perhaps patterned on the Conference on World Land Tenure Problems held in 1951 at the University of Wisconsin with government sponsorship) to be held in 1962 in connection with the observance of the 100th anniversary of the Morrill Act.

4. That each regional operating bureau of the AID have a rural development and land reform specialist on the assistant administrator’s staff.

5. That a small but highly expert unit be established within the Office of Development Research and Assistance in the new AID to draw together and disseminate the wisdom and know-how in the total area of rural improvement.

This unit should be, or become, expert in such matters as:

a. Political procedures for inaugurating a multi-element approach to rural development, at national and community levels.

b. Stages of growth and the proper relationship at various stages among land reform (distribution of large holdings, consolidation of small holdings, etc.), improved credit, better marketing procedures, tax systems, crop diversification, rural industries, literacy, health and recreational services, etc.

c. How to create the permanent economic and political institutions of democratic rural society so as to preserve and defend the progress being made. Here the emphasis must be on the instruments of mutual help and self-government: cooperatives, village improvement associations, local militia, etc. Real rural development will bring a new sense of justice, of belonging to a community worth defending—and this new spirit must be mobilized to resist efforts to undermine or destroy what has been accomplished.

d. Cultural factors in rural development. A sensitive awareness of the cultural values which can and should be preserved amidst change, as well as those which are obstacles to effective progress, can greatly enhance our assistance to the process of rural modernization.

e. The relationship of rural progress to other fundamental questions, such as international commodity stabilization, population pressures, etc., as well as to the total country development program.

This unit could serve as a center for such activities as:

a. Providing expert advice to underdeveloped countries on comprehensive rural development. Working through the geographical operating bureaus of AID, a team of experts could make a survey of a country’s needs and prepare specific recommendations as to the financing, manpower and legislative requirements for an integrated program.

b. Assisting the operating bureaus of the foreign aid program on the rural development component of country plans and keeping in close touch with such programs as they grow.

c. Stimulating and guiding further research and publication in rural development problems.

d. Holding meetings on rural problems such as the international conference suggested above as well as regional meetings of land reform and rural development specialists.

e. Providing representatives for the U.S. (or back-stopping our representatives) in the UN and other multilateral bodies on rural development problems.

f. Developing training courses and materials, both within the government and in private institutions, for the orientation of present and prospective AID personnel in rural development problems.

g. Helping locate and recruit rural development experts for government service.

The need is urgent and the time is short. We must act promptly if we are to grasp the great opportunity truly to become the champion of a better life of hope for the millions of men and women now desperately seeking a way out of rural poverty and despair.

1. “Go ahead” guidance on coordinated approach to rural development. No classification marking. 7 pp. Two attachments provide background material. Yale University Library, Bowles Papers, Box 300, Folder 536.