212. Memorandum From the Administrator of the Agency for International Development (McPherson) to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (McFarlane)1

SUBJECT

  • National Security Study Directive (NSSD) on U.S. Third World Hunger Relief

I believe the terms of reference for the study should be narrowed. I recommend that the study focus on the U.S. response to conditions of serious food needs in the developing world, i.e., the emergency food aid provided under Title II of P.L. 480, and develop options for improving that response.

The draft terms of reference contemplate a comprehensive study, not only of the wide range of policy tools and financial resources available to the U.S. to address Third World hunger, but also of the profound and complex issues related to the causes of hunger. I do not think it necessary—nor would it be feasible within a period of two months—to produce a study of the issues.

As you know, the U.S. response to the challenges of hunger, poverty and underdevelopment was quite recently the subject of substantial scrutiny by a very prominent body. The Carlucci Commission considered how food aid, as well as other foreign assistance instruments, contributed to U.S. efforts to address serious problems of poverty and hunger, in the context of U.S. foreign policy, national security, economic and commercial interests.2 It recommended support for the development objectives of food aid, and the integration of PL 480 resources with other forms of economic assistance to maximize development impact. While the mandate of the Carlucci Commission was of course much broader, its study included careful consideration of PL 480 and its relationship to U.S. interests and other forms of foreign aid. I question the necessity of a similar review at this time.

I believe the members of the Development Coordination Committee Food Aid Subcommittee have worked rather well together in the last few years. Agreements have been reached on important budgetary, policy and programmatic issues.

[Page 588]

I propose an alternative, narrower scope for the study—one which focusses on the immediate needs of people who are threatened with severe malnutrition and starvation by virtue of natural disasters and civil strife. This is the matter which so concerns the American people. This proposal is timely, given the increasing concern in Congress and elsewhere about crisis conditions in Africa.3 It is limited in scope, and thus can be accomplished relatively quickly. Perhaps most important, it is directly related to the plight of hungry people, and not diluted in focus by considerations of complex trade, commercial and macroeconomic issues.

I feel the NSSD should be revised to establish the terms of reference for an action oriented program plan for Third World Hunger Relief based on an assessment of current U.S. policies and programs concerning emergency food assistance, and feasible new policies and programs to improve the U.S. response.

I believe the scope of the study would include:

—an examination of the need for emergency food relief, and the methods used to determine needs globally, regionally, nationally, and within countries.

—a study of how the emergency food program could be strengthened.

—an analysis of the current levels of U.S. emergency food aid.

—a review of the constraints to expanding U.S. food aid to meet emergency needs.

—a consideration of the appropriate roles of other developed nations and international organizations in identifying and responding to emergency needs.

As to the administration of such a study, I suggest that the interagency body be chaired by AID, given our paramount interest in and responsibility for international emergency food aid programs. Also, there is a clear interest in Congress and some vocal groups that disaster assistance not be a foreign policy matter but rather be treated as a humanitarian need. In short, a lead role for AID is important in the Administration’s dealing with Congress and the public. This suggestion is consistent with Ambassador Keating performing his role as Director of the study. Indeed, he and I have met and are off to a very good start.4

M. Peter McPherson
  1. Source: Reagan Library, Executive Secretariat, NSC NSSD File, NSSD 1–84 [US Third World Hunger Relief] (1 of 3). Secret.
  2. See Bernard Gwertzman, “Panel Suggests Combined Agency for U.S. Economic and Arms Aid,” New York Times, November 22, 1983, p. A1.
  3. See “Congressmen Say Famine Faces Millions in Africa,” Washington Post, December 20, 1983, p. A11.
  4. Below his signature McPherson wrote: “Bud Thanks for your time the other morning. I hope something can be worked out. P.”