Dissatisfaction Down South

Deeply troubled by the disappointing start of the Alliance for Progress, the Organization of American States last fall appointed a committee of two to make a survey of what went wrong and what should be done about it. The roving critics were two of Latin America's most distinguished statesmen, temporarily out of work: Juscelino Kubitschek and Alberto Lleras Camargo, former Presidents of Brazil and Colombia. For three months, they went their independent ways, studying reports, conferring with Alliance officials, huddling with economists and politicians in Latin American capitals. Then they met in Rio de Janeiro to compare notes. They disagreed on some major points.*

Another Parliament? Kubitschek--the man who started Brasilia in the wilds, and mortgaged his country's present to its future--favors an emphasis on developing basic industries, with only a nod to immediate attempts to lift the standard of living for Latin America's masses. That, he argued, should come later, after the industrial base is secure. Lleras believes the reverse, argues for priority to short-term social projects such as housing, public health, roads and schools. "Our purposes are the same," said Kubitschek tactfully, "but our ways of looking at problems are sometimes different."

On one matter Kubitschek and Lleras had no difficulty in agreeing: the need for more Latin American participation in the Alliance if it is to succeed at all. In their formal report to the OAS, due later this month, they are expected to bring up the idea of a "parliament" of all nations participating in the Alliance, which would have authority to establish Alliance priorities, approve projects, coordinate with government spending, help arrange commodity agreements and currency stabilization. Advising the parliament would be a staff of experts, patterned after the European commission (now OECD) that coordinated Marshall Plan aid. "Without such a mechanism,'' said Lleras in Rio, "the Alliance becomes just a presentation of petitions to a sole financier, the U.S., which seems to reserve for itself the right to condition aid to special circumstances in its relations with interested countries."

Another View. A hemisphere-wide parliament may help, but recently another critic of the Alliance proclaimed that the Alliance's failings go deeper than mechanics. "The Alliance for Progress is dead," said Archbishop Dom Helder Camara, 54, of Rio de Janeiro. "But I desire its resurrection." The archbishop's appraisal, taped on TV for rebroadcast in the U.S., might be too harsh. The Alliance shows signs of life in several countries--notably Venezuela, Colombia, Chile and El Salvador. Nevertheless, he believes that progress throughout Latin America has been halted by both U.S. and Latin American governments' excessive bureaucracy, by anti-U.S. suspicion aroused by the U.S. use of government-to-government grants as a "political weapon," and by too little money spread too thinly. Above all, he complains about the lack of reform, and for that he blames the wealthy classes.

"Our rich in Latin America." said the archbishop, "talk much about basic reforms but call Communists those who decide to carry them out. They continue to hold 80% of the land; in many cases, they control Congress and have their degree of idealism and faith in the future measured by their deposits in U.S. and European banks." Until there is drastic reform, he concluded, pouring money into Latin America "is the same as throwing it in the ocean."

*Lleras suffered a cerebral hemorrhage in Rio, cut short his tour and flew to Baltimore's Johns Hopkins Hospital, where he was reported in good condition.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.