November 26, 1963
PAGE 9978
APPLICATION OF THE ALLIANCE FOR PROGRESS TO MEXICO
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, one of the finest and most illuminating discussions of the Alliance for Progress which I have seen in some time appeared in a recent "Letter to Maine" prepared by the distinguished junior Senator from that State [Mr. MUSKIE].
The observations in the letter are the result of a visit Senator MUSKIE made to Mexico as a member of the Third Interparliamentary Conference between the United States and Mexico. The Senator follows a cogent summary of the general concepts of the Alliance with a penetrating analysis of their application in Mexico.
I ask unanimous consent that this clear and concise and very well written letter to Maine be printed in the RECORD, so it may be read all the way from Maine to Hawaii.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
LETTER TO MAINE FROM SENATOR MUSKIE, U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C.
April 8,1963.
DEAR FRIENDS: For the past several weeks, political events in Canada, culminating in the general election this week, have drawn our attention to the north. There we watched our friendly neighbors, entangled in domestic issues, reflecting their frustration over the economic and military impact of the dominating U.S. presence. Very similar frustrations influence our friends to the south in the Republic of Mexico. Both countries are basically friendly toward us. Nevertheless, even good friends can fall out unless there is continuing effort to resolve our differences.
From March 15 to 24, I was a member of the U.S. delegation to the Third Interparliamentary Conference between the United States and Mexico. We met with our Mexican counterparts in Guanajuato, located 230 miles northwest of Mexico City.
The agenda included: (1) An appraisal of the Alliance for Progress; (2) a perspective on the Alliance for Progress; (3) specific mutual problems including tourism, border trade, Mexican migratory farm workers, and cultural exchange; and (4) peace, disarmament, collective security and international relations. Separate committees were appointed to each of these four general areas. I served on the first committee. We were provided with an instantaneous translation of everything said by our Mexican counterparts so that the discussions moved along rapidly. The talks were friendly, but remarkably frank and even blunt on both sides.
The purpose of the Alliance for Progress, which my committee discussed, is to promote economic development in Latin America and to insure that the fruits of that development are equitably distributed. The concept of the Alliance was announced by President Kennedy. Subsequently it was formalized at Punta Del Este, Uruguay, on August 16, 1961. All Latin American countries, except Cuba, became partners in the Alliance. Thus, each of these countries has pledged itself to internal reforms which are needed if the fruits of economic growth are to be distributed equitably.
Why are the objectives of the Alliance for Progress important?
Poverty, ignorance, disease, oppression breed discontent and unrest, which undermine political stability and constitute an invitation to Communist infiltration. The turbulent and revolutionary history of Mexico is illustrative of the explosive forces which can be generated when the masses of the people are forced to live at less than subsistence levels without hope for improvement. The revolution of 1910-17 was the result of just such an explosion. The Government of Mexico ever since has devoted itself, with fluctuating success, toward the objective of closing the gap between the very rich and the very poor. In effect, it had been pursuing the objectives of the Alliance for the past century.
The economic growth of Mexico during the past 20 years has been phenomenal. Industrial production has gone up 160 percent, agricultural production up 180 percent, and real national income up 170 percent. Notwithstanding this growth, however, the lot of the very poor is still very poor. The average per capita income in rural Mexico today is $100 per year, and in urban Mexico is $400 per year.
Three objectives of the Mexican Government seem to me of particular importance in Mexico's future: (1) agrarian reform; (2) tax reform; and (3) educational reform.
Agrarian reform is the redistribution of land by breaking up the large feudal estates of old Mexico and making them available to the peasants. Since 1910, approximately 110 million acres of land have been distributed to 2 million peasants. Nevertheless, land hunger is still a potentially explosive political force. This is so, in part, because land redistribution has not been accompanied by sufficient increase in land productivity. Small peasant land holders do not have the technical know-how and the credit resources to attack this problem. Water is Mexico's great resource deficiency. Only 9 to 12 percent of the land is arable.
Both the Governments of Mexico and the United States are applying themselves to this problem under the Alliance for Progress.
Tax reform is a critical need in Mexico. The tremendous tasks which face the country are such as to strain the resources of Mexico at best. Yet, in 1958 only 700,000 of 7 million taxpayers were paying taxes. Income tax reform was introduced in 1962, and is the first order of business in the current session of the Mexican Congress.
Educational reform, to develop literacy and skills which are vital to the long-term progress of the country, is another important objective. In 1958, 42 percent of the children who should have been in the primary schools were not; and more than half of these were out because of lack of schools and teachers. The country is in the middle of the 11-year $581 million plan designed to double the number of teachers and classrooms for primary schools.
The Mexican participants advised us that their government is aware of these problems, that it is moving to solve them with determination and, that the results to date are a source of encouragement. The U.S. program of aid to Mexico has largely taken the form of loans, rather than grants, and the Mexicans want it that way. They have an excellent record of repayment. On the question of trade, the Mexicans hit hard, urging that U.S. policies toward Mexican exports to our country be liberalized.
In terms of exports and imports, the balance of trade between Mexico and the United States is favorable to us. However, American tourists in Mexico and Mexican agricultural workers employed in the United States are responsible for a flow of dollars into Mexico which more than offsets Mexico's unfavorable trade balance with us
I pointed out that the United States must have a favorable balance-of-payments situation if it is to continue to support the defense of the free world and its programs of assistance to underdeveloped countries. I emphasized the great burdens which the United States is carrying and tried to make it clear that, great as our resources are, they are not unlimited and must be used wisely. I also pointed out that unrestrained imports into the United States can be harmful to our domestic industrial structure.
The attitude of the U.S. delegates in the discussions was one of great interest in the problems of Mexico, of a desire to work together in our mutual interests, and of emphasis upon the fact that U.S. resources are not unlimited.
In closing, I would like to state some overall impressions:
1. Having been subjected to U.S. intervention in their affairs over so much of their history, Mexicans are instinctively anti-interventionist; and this view colors their attitude toward the Cuban situation.
2. The main thrust of Government policy is near the Mexican middle of the road, which is somewhat to the left of the American middle of the road, but a long way from being Communist leaning.
3. Mexico is committed to the objectives of the Alliance for Progress, is moving toward them and has achieved important progress, but has a long way to go.
4. The attitude of most Mexicans toward the United States is friendly, but there are mutual problems which need constant attention in a climate of mutual understanding.
5. Most Mexicans want no part of Fidel Castro and his works for themselves.
Sincerely,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE.