83. Letter From Secretary of State Rusk to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget (Zwick)1
Dear Charlie:
I have read Bill Gaud’s appeal2 and, although I understand that you and he are now not very far apart, I would like to underline the foreign policy implications of these budget figures.
The real issue is not the merit of particular projects—there is not, as I understand it, a serious disagreement here—but whether the level of the President’s request signifies a change in Administration policy. This is a judgment the President might well be hesitant to make in his final budget. Bill Gaud’s reduced proposal of $2,348 million—some $150 million [Page 237] less than the request of the Congress last year and $280 million below that of the previous year—comes very close to being such a signal. Let me illustrate what I mean in one important area.
A drop in the President’s request for the Alliance to a total significantly and obviously below the level that President Kennedy and he have proposed in the past cannot help but be viewed as an abandonment of a policy this Administration has pursued for 8 years. To Latin American leaders this will mean that the United States no longer feels that it has a special relationship with them. If figures at this level were to come out of the Congressional process, it would force the Administration to concentrate in the larger countries of Latin America and abandon programs in many of the small countries. This action would, of course, be significant, but far less significant than if this were to be proposed by the President in the first instance.
The same argument can be made with equal validity for other areas where the lower level will show a significant cut in Administration requests for key countries where we have previously indicated vital political interest.
It is true that despite his strong leadership the President has been unable to convince the Congress that strong support for economic development is in our over-riding security and foreign policy interest. At the same time, his advocacy of these objectives has had a great impact abroad both in terms of our foreign policy and in terms of his personal prestige. In light of these actions, proposals for significantly lower levels of assistance would have effects multiplied many times in terms of political impact over any real economic impact. These proposals would be regarded as a policy change that is bound to affect more than our aid relationship.
I am well aware of the necessity for a tight budget. And I certainly do not underestimate the seriousness of the general budgetary situation. But I do believe that in making your budget recommendations you should be aware of the crucial nature at the margin of these proposals both in terms of our foreign policy and in terms of the objectives President Johnson has tried so hard to achieve.
I understand that many of these considerations were raised by Nick Katzenbach in a meeting of the SIG and that the views I am presenting were strongly supported by other members.
Sincerely,
- Source: Washington National Records Center, RG 286, AID Administrator Files: FRC 73 A 518, FY 67 and FY 69, BUD Budget (October–December) FY 1969. No classification marking. Drafted by Arthur A. Hartman (U).↩
- Document 82.↩