Foreign Arms Aid Again

April 16, 1956

Many members of Congress are becoming increasingly skeptical about either the need or wisdom of further foreign “economic” aid. But most of them continue unhesitatingly to endorse further “military” aid. Is the difference very real?

The truth is that one kind of aid can easily act as a substitute for the other. When we relieve another nation of the need to pay for its own defense, we in effect give it just that much more funds to spend, say, on economic “welfare” schemes. Failure to recognize this substitutability of foreign aid has led to much mental confusion. “Military” aid is not in fact solely a military question. It is primarily an economic question. The chief question is not, How much defense does Ruritania need? but, Why can’t Ruritania afford to pay for its own defense? Why must that burden fall on the American taxpayer?

I present below a table showing the latest fiscal year’s armament expenditures of fifteen of our aid beneficiaries stated as a percentage of (1) their total central governmental expenditures and (2) of their gross national product. The record of these countries is compared with our own.

While such international comparisons cannot be precise, they are accurate enough to furnish much instruction. Comparing the overall dollar figures, for example, the United States alone is spending on national defense three times as much absolutely as these fifteen nations combined! (Some $39.7 billion against a total of $13.4 billion.) We are also spending much more relatively—10.2 percent of our gross national product against an average of 6.6 percent for these fifteen beneficiaries.

The United States, which is giving the defense aid, is spending some 62 percent of its total budget on defense, whereas these thirteen countries receiving aid (if we omit for the moment Formosa and Yugoslavia) are spending on the average only some 26 percent of their total central government budget on defense. This is another way of saying that while we in the United States can afford to spend only some 38 percent of our total budget on nondefense items, these thirteen beneficiaries of arms aid are spending some 74 percent of their total budgets on nondefense items.

DEFENSE EXPENDITURES

This relationship can hardly be excused on the plea of poverty. Among the countries that are spending relatively most on defense are Greece, Turkey, and Formosa. (It is only fair to add that they are doing this partly because of our defense aid.) The outstanding exception of Yugoslavia is not reassuring. It is frankly a Communist country. We are unlikely to find it on our side when the chips are down.

Is it a good idea for us to rob our own defense, in order to pay for part of the defense of countries that are comparatively indifferent about their defense or do not take the Communist military threat very seriously? Instead of our contributing nearly $3 billion to these countries for their defense, why wouldn’t it be a good idea simply to suggest to most of them that they transfer part of the total of $36.1 billion they now spend on non-defense items to their present modest $13.4 billion for defense?