Bureaucracy seems to be catching on. Now it is proposed that a bureaucracy of international technical, financial and educational experts be created to help meet the problems of the newly developing nations of the world.

All too often American assistance programs have backfired on the donor nation because of the perfectly natural resentment of the receiving nation towards its benefactor. The very idea of aid implies inferiority and even pity, concepts repugnant to the boisterous nationalism of many backward areas.

Still these areas are undeniably in need of aid and the United States, Herman Talmadge to the contrary notwithstanding, is in a position to offer it. But America cannot be expected to react cordially when a nation she has tried to help turns on her. Her natural instinct is to cut off the aid, an action damaging to both nations.

To avoid the ill-feeling which results from nationally oriented assistance programs it has been suggested that an international foreign service be established to administer technical assistance programs throughout the world. This group of experts would staff organizations such as the International Development Authority or would direct regional--not national--projects for industrial, medical, educational, or scientific advancement.

Either under the control of the United Nations or of an independent, non-profit group, such an international civil service could attract the top men in diverse fields by offering them continuity in assistance programs and an esprit de corps comparable perhaps to the Foreign Legion. Of course, the concepts of an international group administering aid programs implies a loss of national control which is likely to be offensive to American officials. If the new corps is to gain American acceptance, it will probably have to sacrifice some of its desire for continuity in assistance projects by hiring itself out to various national programs. What it cannot afford to sacrifice is its freedom from the stigma of nationalistic policies which currently create such havoc in American programs.

The best conceivable set-up would involve a co-operative venture between the donor and recipient nations. The personnel of the former could be contributed to an independent pool on which the latter would draw for programs of their own creation. The pool itself would determine priorities. Though it would be financed jointly by the aid-giving countries, the administration of the finances should be as independent of these states' policies as possible.

The most one can say against the idea is that in the present belligerent mood of Congress it is idealistic. No one can expect a Congress which makes such a point of scrutinizing every expenditure for foreign aid to relinquish its control immediately. But UN Secretary-General Hammarskjold is very eager to get plans for such a pool of experts underway. If he can convince the State Department and if it can convince Capitol Hill, a valuable replacement for present unsatisfactory aid programs can be initiated.