Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume II, Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

253. Memorandum for the Files¹

Washington, February 1, 1979

SUBJECT

• President’s Commission on World Hunger

The full Commission met January 31 from 9:30–5:00 under the chairmanship of Sol Linowitz. All Commission members were present with the exception of Bess Myerson and Jean Mayer.

The Commissioners first heard from James Grant, President of the Overseas Development Council. Mr. Grant’s presentation entitled “Overcoming Hunger and Malnutrition by 2000: How Doable? What Required of the U.S.” stressed that those countries that are considered development successes coupled economic development with provision of basic human needs of their poorest people. He used the examples of Sri Lanka, Taiwan, South Korea and China. He argued that economic development should not be looked at in terms of GNP growth rates but that a life quality index should be constructed and used as an indicator of how developed a country is. The U.S. and other donors must provide massive amounts of assistance to developing countries because for many countries it is politically impossible to divert domestic resources to the development process. He estimated that the volume of concessional aid necessary by the early 1980’s is $12–20 billion and the U.S. should provide one-third of that assistance. He said that the Commission’s task should be to develop the political will in the United States so that concessional aid from the U.S. would be more forthcoming than at present.

In his discussion, Grant said that 1979 was a watershed year since there were many important international conferences focusing on development and north/south relations such as the UNCTAD, WCARRD, UNCSTD and the preparations for the Third UN Development Decade. Harry Chapin picked this up and said that the Commissioners should be fully informed of these conferences and the U.S. position in them. Grant also suggested that as an alternative to the existing food aid program, there should be a global food stamp program. He estimated that this would cost about $5 billion.

The second agenda item was the discussion of an overview paper,² which had been prepared to highlight those areas that the Commissioners believed they should address. They accepted that their overriding priority is to work for the “amelioration and eradication of hunger as experienced by the poor”. Then there was quite a bit of talk about the appropriate definition of hunger and malnutrition and whether the Commission should categorically state that the “trickle down” theory of development has been a failure.

The paper mentioned that 20 million Americans were hungry. Some Commissioners noted this and stated that the Commission should investigate hunger in the US and what official programs were addressing the problem. Senator Dole and Orville Freeman agreed that dwelling on the hunger in the US would be counter-productive, that adequate programs are available and U.S. hunger is not as serious as it once was. It was generally agreed that the Commission maintain an international focus.

In its discussion of famine, the paper suggested that the U.S. establish an International Emergency Food Reserve. Most of the group was enthusiastic about this. Orville Freeman noted that famine would be averted in many cases if a pricing mechanism were in place that stabilized the price of wheat.

The issue of whether hunger can be eradicated at this point in time became quite contentious. John Denver said that there was enough food in the world and the American people deserve to know it. Norman Borlaug and Walter Falcon stressed that Denver was missing the point, the problem is to produce where hunger is prevalent.

The paper then broke the overall problem of hunger into 4 basic components: a) production, b) accessibility, c) consumption, and d) trade.

a) Production—Borlaug and Falcon both cited the need for more research on semi-arid growing conditions. Harry Chapin brought up the issue of land reform and argued that it was the basic step in increasing production. Freeman and Falcon cautioned him that land reform is only successful when there is a concurrent provision of supplementary services such as credit, roads, etc. Also the need for better extension service was noted.

b) Accessibility—They will focus on increasing the purchasing power of the poor and population growth rates.

c) Consumption—The paper states that the first goal is to ensure that everyone has enough calories to consume and then the Commission should worry about the nutritional make up of the diets of children followed by the nutritional make up of the diets of adults. The Commissioners agreed that quantity not quality was the first priority in eradication of hunger. This discussion went off in the direction of American companies marketing non-nutritious products in countries where there are severe hunger problems.

d) Trade—This was a very vague discussion and the Commissioners recognized that they needed a fully developed paper in this area.

The paper ended with a proposed Action Plan which the Commission would recommend to the President. As explained by Linowitz a consortia of multi and bilateral donors would be established for food aid and agricultural development assistance. An LDC would then be required to present the group with a development strategy, including the kind of investment the country itself was willing to make, and external assistance would then be tailored to the requirements of the country strategy.³ Linowitz was quite enthusiastic about this approach and said that it would give the USG flexibility to “tailor” program actions to the particular needs of the developing country. He said that they did this in the days of the Alliance for Progress and he felt that it worked very well. After several questions from other Commissioners, Linowitz said that the details still had to be “fleshed out” and that the Commission didn’t have to accept this type of program immediately but that it was very attractive to him.

The last item for the Commission’s consideration was the proposal that they issue two statements. One would urge the Congress to repeal the Helms Amendment⁴ and the other would encourage the Administration to upgrade the level of participation at international food and agricultural conferences such as the WCARRD and the FAO Conference. They would suggest that the US delegation be led by a cabinet level official. Orville Freeman called the FAO a “questionable agency” and said that the Director General was “demagoging unmercifully on the international scene” and “drove the ICP out of the FAO and the UN system”. He said the Director General was anti-private industry and Freeman could not support any statement that was supportive of the Director General. Steven Muller also criticized Saouma’s leadership in the FAO but said that the U.S. could be more effective there if we sent high level representatives to the larger meetings. Linowitz said that their opinion of the Director General was unimportant but they should think of the effect on the LDCs if the US sent higher level officials to the FAO meetings. The Commissioners agreed that Linowitz should scrap the idea of a statement and convey to the President the thought that a significant number of Commissioners believe the U.S. should upgrade its level of participation at international food conferences.

The Commissioners were very uncomfortable with the Helms Amendment statement. By this time the Congressional members of the Commission had departed and most of the Commissioners indicated that they would appreciate their view on this matter. Linowitz mentioned that Senator Dole had told him that the Commission should not try to lobby the Congress. Rep. Gilman’s assistant said that it was a very contentious issue in the House and that hearings on it would be held in late February or early March. He suggested that some of the Commissioners might want to testify at those hearings. It was decided that Linowitz should discuss the statement with the Congressional members of the Commission and forward their thoughts to the President.

Harry Chapin announced that the Public Participation Subcommittee would hold hearings in the month of February in Dallas, Denver and Atlanta. He expressed disappointment that no full Commission meetings would be held in locations other than Washington.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Bureau of International Organization Affairs/International Development Assistance/Agriculture Division, Subject Files of FAO, US Mission, International Food Organizations, Lot 88D305, Box 2, World Hunger, Presidential Commission on. No classification marking. Drafted by Pat McMahon, Office of Food Policy and Programs, International Resources and Food Policy, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs. Copies were sent to Kriesberg (USDA) and Brewin (IO). Attached but not printed is an October 17, 1978, memorandum for the files prepared by Edmund Parsons (EB/OFP/FPG) describing the World Hunger Commission’s mandate, organization, and membership.
2. Not found.
3. In a February 16 letter to Shaughnessy, Freeman endorsed this concept: “Finally, the action plan, that is to say, trying to go country by country and work out a kind of partnership arrangement, is, I think, excellent. I have had some discussion with our chairman as to whether we have the resources to do that. But if we succeed in laying on a plan of action by midyear 1979 and have a year to work at it, and if we could get the cooperation of some of the operating parts of our government, not only AID, but the Department of Agriculture and parts of other departments so far as expertise and inputs (maybe get people on special assignments), we might work wonders.” (Carter Library, RG 220, Presidential Commission on World Hunger, Linowitz’s Subject Files, Box 42, Members of the Commission [2])
4. In September 1978, Congress passed the FY 1979 omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 12934), which included the Department of State appropriation. The bill included an amendment authored by Senator Jesse Helms (R–North Carolina), which struck $27.7 million from the amount the United States was obligated to contribute to the UN specialized agencies and further specified that none of the funds appropriated could be used for technical assistance by the UN or its agencies. (Don Oberdorfer, “U.N. Dues From U.S. Imperiled,” The Washington Post, October 14, 1978, pp. A–1 and A–12) Although the President signed the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 1979 (H.R. 12934; P.L. 95–431; 92 Stat. 1021–1045) on October 10, he issued a statement critical of the amendment: “If allowed to stand, this action would cause the United States to violate its treaty obligations to support the organizations of the United Nations system. Withholding of, or assigning conditions to, U.S. contributions to assessed budgets of these organizations would make it virtually impossible for these organizations to accept such contributions, would seriously impair their financial and political viability, and is contrary to the policy of collective financial responsibility continuously advocated by this Government since the establishment of the United Nations system.” (Department of State Bulletin, January 1979, p. 48)