29 MAY 1964, Page 11


The Two Worlds Professor Ritchie Calder, Sir Herbert Broadley, Olwen Battersby Catholics and Birth Control Bruce M. Cooper Freedom of the Air E. W. Ives, Lord kilmuir's Memoirs Old and New Wines Sawdust Caesar The Monarchy of Ben An Excuse for Rage Capital Punishment `God Strafe England' THE TWO WORLDS

SIR.—Everyone connected with Freedom From Hunger should be gratified that, in two years, over £3,000,000 has been raised from voluntary givers, while remembering that Paul Hoffman has estimated that a minimum of £5,000,000,000 of 'critical capital' per annum is required for the transformation of the One hundred poor countries.

This reminder is not intended to diminish the magnificent response, but, after all, the object of the Campaign which the Duke of Edinburgh launched was not confined to fund-raising; it was intended to make the British people aware of the enormous problems and of the equally enormous opportunities.

T. Vt P. Bliss, John Corsi Kenneth MacGowan William Telischer Arthur Moyse G. R. Woodward Katharine M. R. Kenyon R. L. Travers F. D. Gardom

Yes, 'opportunities,' because world development is not just charity (the benign 'Haves' being compas- sionate towards the 'Have-nots'), but enlightened self-interest on which the future prosperity of this and other advanced countries depends.

The Freedom From Hunger Campaign has been extended into 'Freedom From Hunger, Disease and Ignorance' to make meaningful the second half of the Development Decade. It is important, therefore, that the momentum should not be lost, even when the fund-raising efforts arc completed next year. I would invert Mr. Longbottom's dictum that 'Government assistance is not enough. Non-govern- mental organisations must have an important role.' What voluntary fund-raising can do is much less than what the Government must do—not just in terms of money, but by the conscious redirection of this nation's efforts and transfer of our knowledge and skills. There should be no departmental ham pering of 'action, with speed and urgency.' Any Standing Council of the organisations which have had the insight and experience of the Freedom From Hunger Campaign should make it a concern to see that the British Government gives a vigorous lead in closing the gap between the prosperity of the industrially-endowed and the impoverishment of the Other two-thirds of the world.

This is not philanthropy. With predictable cer- tainty, the standard of living of the people of this country will not be maintained unless we can share the resources of a developed world.


Rand ,l ph Place, Edinburgh, 3


SIIt: All of us who have been associated with,the Freedom From Hunger Campaign in this country Will welcome Mr. Longbottom's .article, 'The Two Worlds,' in your issue of May 22. The very success Of the Campaign is justification for looking ahead. At the same time, we cannot contemplate continuing indefinitely the intense drive on the present lines to appeal centrally for funds to increase food pro- . duetion and raise standards of nutrition which has marked the last few years. Nevertheless. the problem of hunger is far from solved. We have only begun to contribute some assistance towards its solution The time has come, as Mr. Longbottom em- phasises, to build upon the success of the Freedom From Hunger Campaign and broaden the basis and character of its appeal to take into account all the needs of the developing countrieseconomic and social alike—and plan a continuing campaign to awaken and maintain support in our own country for the contribution which we can and must make to help in meeting these needs.

One of the troubles about the enthusiasts who are anxious to assist-in this movement is their in- clination to create more and more organisations, movements, campaigns to further the particular causes they have at heart. At the moment an in- creasing number of appeals are jostling with each other to put their story across the footlights. We already have:

The indefinite continuation of the Freedom From Hunger Campaign recommended by the World Food Conference and adopted by the Food and Agriculture Organisation.

The International Co-operation Year, proposed by Mr. Nehru and adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

The World Campaign against Hunger. Disease and Ignorance .sponsored by the United Nations General Assembly.

The Campaign against World Illiteracy adopted by UNESCO.

From Hunger Committees. if they decided to con- tinue in being, would call for review. Its educational and publicity work, regarding all the needs of the developing countries, would call for reorientation and development— mainly as background and source of material for the more specific appeals of indi- vidual organisations.

The needs of the developing countries are so great and so diverse that the time has come for the people of our own country to be made much more aware of them as a coherent whole and of the help which we ought to provide, so that we can play a steadily increasing part in the progress of these countries consonant with our traditions, responsi- bilities and our own long-term interests.


UNICEF Representative for the United Kingdom United Nations Children's fund, • 14-15 Stratford Place, W1

Sta,—Congratulations on the excellent article by Mr. Charles Longbottom, MP. He did not, however, mention one step, easily within Britain's reach, which might well spark off an immediate world response.

The General Assembly of the United Nations, when proclaiming the 1960s as the UN Develop- ment Decade, asked only that the wealthier nations should donate I per cent of their gross national income for overseas aid (grants not loans), thus adding $4-5 billion to the net flow, and more than doubling present aid (U Thant). Since the national income of Britain and the United States has been increasing at the rate of 2.5 per cent, Germany's by 6 per cent, and France's by at least 4 per cent during the last decade, it is clear that merely to slacken the rate of progress for the wealthier nations would be to revolutionise life for the 'other world.' But Britain during 1963 gave only £147.9 million, 0.6 of the national income, and more than half of this was in the form of loans. Can we possibly say that Britain cannot afford to give away this I per cent: about £255 million, f4 10s. per head annually. or 24d. in the f. Did we not agree to 'give away' £2000 million on the weapons which must never be used?