Canberra, 25 June 1968
U.N.D.P. Special Fund projects
Whilst I agree with the views expressed in the second part of para 2, folio 79,1 I am depressed by the negative philosophy on aid that it implies.
2. Surely our attitude should be—
(a) Let us integrate aid into our development programme
(b) Let us take advantage of aid where we can on the principle that there is no point in ourselves paying for something that can be readily financed from other sources.
3. There is, of course, a serious problem in connection with problem 2(a) above—we haven’t got a development programme. This is not merely an academic question; in seeking to obtain certain aid (particularly from the Revolving Fund and T/A2 Contingency Allocations) the first of a number of criteria laid down by the U.N.D.P. is—
‘The need must be urgent and documented in terms of the specific economic and social development plans of the country concerned.’
The best we can do at the moment is point to the World Bank Report as our general guide to development.
4. I am concerned that—
(a) the Administration’s general ineptitude on aid,
(b) its bad public relations on the Goroka project in particular and on dealings with experts in general, and
(c) our own apathy,
could lead to the drying up of aid, even at this early stage. The situation could easily be reached of our not being able to get aid that we badly need.3
[NAA: A452, 1968/1573]
1 Document 201.
2 Presumably, technical assistance.
3 In a marginal note of the same day, Galvin wrote to Besley: ‘Mr Rose and I should like to talk to you when convenient’. Besley replied on 26 June: ‘Gladly—next week. Para 2 is not meant to propound a “negative philosophy”. It is accepted by all who discussed aid that we need much more, our share at the moment being quite minute, but we need a specific project which has been well thought out, fully documented & which is slanted towards our area of maximum effort—ie economic development. I agree however that something needs to be done to stop the rot further’ (NAA: A452, 1968/1573).