Advantages Of Giving Aid To Under-developed Countries

Press, Volume C, Issue 29499, 28 April 1961, Page 14

Advantages Of Giving Aid To Under-developed Countries

(New Zealand Press Association

WELLINGTON, April 27. No two countries in the world stood to gain more than Australia and New Zealand from the provision of aid to under-developed countries, said Sir Douglas Copland in a public address in Wellington today. His subject was “The Challenge of the Under-developed World.” The whole operation of aid had two defects. Sir Douglas Copland said. Good and constructive though it was, it was, in the first place, not enough, and, in the second place, too Scattered in its organisation and scope to be as effective as it should be. The Western world was moving perhaps a little way towards solving the problem, but ideas and imagination lagged behind events, he said. President Kennedy had recently suggested that contributing nations should give 1 per cent, of their national incomes to an aid fund, and that the Communist countries should also be invited to contribute, he said. This would give the initiative to the West, and be a blow to the cold war.

President Kennedy had also suggested that the underdeveloped countries should themselves seek to reorganise their administrative structures and expenditure, so as to be in a position to use the funds provided, and profit by the increased economic efficiency new techniques could give. Partnership , This would provide ' a partnership that could be developed on an international basis through an agency with no axe to grind. It would require great imagination, courage, and leadership and the willingness of people to abide by the decision of their Government in implementing such a scheme.

The world at present spent 120 billion dollars a year on armaments, many of which were out of date. The armed forces of the world contained 12 million persons, and for

every one of them, four were needed in civilian life to provide their requirements. This meant that 50 to 60 million persons devoted their work to armaments or defence. The United States spent about 7j per cent, of its income on defence and Russia about 10 per cent. The money available from a slight reduction in armaments, say one tenth, would provide 12 billion dollars for a fund to aid the underdeveloped countries, and this happened to be nearly 1 per cent, of the production of the contributing countries. “I say we can cut expenditure on armaments without impairing efficiency," Sir Douglas Copland said. “If we could get some agreement with the Communist countries we would go forward with greater progress.” Problems Faced No countries in the Western world were nearer the masses of the under-developed world than Australia and New Zealand, both of which faced problems of unparalleled magnitude they could not ignore. The people of Australia and New Zealand had to live with their neighbours, and gain their respect, as they were doing in the Colombo Plan.

“But I regard the Colombo Plan as a pilot project pointing the way to the ultimate goal,” Sir Douglas Copland said. “It is not an end in itself.”

The plan had the great merit of establishing a partnership between the contributing and receiving countries. It was not a cost, but an investment of great value, because it built new human relations at a time when human relations had never been more important. However, it was not merely a question of human relations, but of economic development. Suppose Australia and New Zealand were able, with others, to help modernise those ancient economies. What a demand there would be for material and equipment, and what an increase in international trade. For countries which depended on a thriving export trade nothing could be more vital.

“If we go forward with conviction, we shall not only meet the challenge of the under-developed countries—a virtuous challenge—but we shall also meet the less noble, but nevertheless real, challenge of the Communists, and place on them the onus of co-operating or going alone,” Sir Douglas Copland said.