|
Foreign Relations,
1961-1963, Volume XVII, Near East, 1961-1962 Released by the Office of the Historian Documents 45-65 45. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in the United Arab Republic/1/
Washington, May 10, 1961, 2:29 p.m.
/1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.86B/5-1061. Top Secret; Niact. Drafted by Meyer, cleared by Manfull (S/S) and by Dungan at the White House, and approved and signed by Acting Secretary Bowles. Also sent to Beirut, Amman, Baghdad, and Jidda and repeated to Tel Aviv and Taiz. Attached to the source text is an earlier draft that shows handwritten changes made "in accordance WH wishes."
1953. In response to request for meeting at earliest feasible date, President has agreed see Israel Prime Minister Ben-Gurion in New York on May 30. President will be there for speech prior to departure following day for Paris. Ben-Gurion will arrive on May 28. He not scheduled to visit Washington.
Israelis have agreed no publicity prior to May 20. In announcing visit on May 20 Israelis will state that purpose of visit to meet with Jewish leaders in New York. At later date it may be disclosed that at his request Ben-Gurion will have talk with President while both are in New York.
President and Department fully aware repercussions which Ben-Gurion visit apt produce in Arab world, particularly at time when recent UNGA developments have already tended to cause Arabs to view new US administration as partial to Israel. However, President did not believe he should refuse request even as he would not wish refuse request should an Arab leader desire visit US unofficially. Moreover, President hopes capitalize on opportunity to emphasize USG views re need to move forward with respect to Arab refugees and also re Israel's nuclear reactor.
Before question of Ben-Gurion visit arose, Department had been considering letters from President to individual Arab leaders setting forth in broad terms desire of new US administration to deal with Near East problems in as fair and friendly manner as possible. It was hoped that letters would reassure Arab leaders of USG impartiality in Arab-Israel issue and USG's desire to maintain friendly and mutually beneficial relations with all Near Eastern states.
Also Department has independently reached conclusion that serious effort must be made between now and next UNGA with respect to Arab refugees. Present plans call for reconnaissance mission to Near Eastern capitals by distinguished non-American official as Special Representative of PCC. He would hear views of leaders and then recommend to PCC measures to resolve refugee impasse using UN resolutions as basis. While realizing intractability this problem, Department convinced that determined effort must be undertaken.
Department keenly interested in any measures which will minimize adverse reactions to Ben-Gurion visit in Arab world. It is hoped Presidential letters, cast in warm friendly tones, will be helpful. Department assumes such letters should be delivered well before news of Ben-Gurion visit becomes public. Department also assumes it preferable get PCC activity re refugees under way before Ben-Gurion talks with President, otherwise Arabs apt to allege PCC move "hatched" by Ben-Gurion and President in their talks.
Department wishes your comment on means for minimizing Arab reactions to Ben-Gurion visit and specifically whether it would be worthwhile to give key Arab leader in your country advance indication that Ben-Gurion visit will take place. This could be done by reference in President's letter along lines last two sentences of paragraph 2 above. It might alternatively be done orally on or about May 18.
Since President's letter will include support for PCC steps vis-à-vis refugee problem, it possible that if Ben-Gurion included among recipients of President's letter and if it is known to Arabs that he also a recipient, his visit might be interpreted by Arabs as prompted by unhappiness over PCC move. This would be one possibility for cushioning Arab reactions. Comment on this alternative also requested.
Reply Niact.
Bowles
(b) Advice should seldom be given to fire certain specified individual.
(c) Advice involving personal affairs or Shah's family is most delicate ground of all.
It is necessary bear in mind at all times that advice by foreigners difficult to receive. It is our opinion this is something which must be played by ear by Ambassador on spot.
4. /10/Question 7 reads: "Should US join CENTO? Should US increase contribution CENTO economic activities even if projects do not have importance in individual country development?" Question 8 reads: "Would US accession to CENTO or formal US treaty guarantee Iranian borders reduce pressure for military aid? What would help in this direction?"
Aside from problems which would be created in other parts of this area by formal US treaty guarantee Iranian borders, there is also problem of making clear to Iran's neighbors that we mean by such guarantee only Iran-Soviet borders and not those with Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan. We are not only unsure that US guarantee of Iran's borders would reduce pressures for military aid but we have doubts that offer plus ensuing debates here, in Washington, and elsewhere during ratification processes would be welcomed by Iranian people. They might well consider that economic and social problems far outweigh whatever security problems might be met by such guarantee. What will help in this connection is conviction on part of Shah that US remains as serious as it has ever been about defending this country against Soviet encroachments. His conviction in this regard has been shaken by what he has heard in recent months from other than US official sources about prospective US policies. It will probably be restored only with time, patience, and continued sincere demonstrations of good will on our part toward him and his regime.
Because they do not have sufficient political or military significance Emb does not recommend increased US contribution those CENTO econ activities lacking importance in individual country development. Believe telecommunications and VOR projects are sufficiently important for Iran's development to warrant adequate funding. Only other project important to Iran is Turkey-Iran rail link which we believe is not of sufficiently high priority on any grounds to justify large outlay at time when other Iranian demands on aid funds are apt to grow very large.
9. b)Remaining units are reorganized and trained so as increase proportion elite forces like First Infantry Brigade 111th Tank Battalion, and Special Forces.
Finally, we believe that Shah could be persuaded wholeheartedly to accept such program provided these remaining units, especially Air Force, were sufficiently streamlined and modernized so as enable them to make military posture described above patently real. We realize that such program might cost us more money rather than less but without it, it would be difficult persuade Shah decrease in size armed forces would not render Iran defenseless in face of enemies actual or potential.
10. 12. Re institutional changes, believe US when giving any substantial new aid should seek assurance from Amini govt on tax reforms, multi-year financial planning. He appears predisposed seriously to attempt such reforms. We particularly favor seeking major effort on taxation based on land values, which appears best way mobilize resources needed for financing development and other expenditures.
Wailes
Meanwhile, leaders responsive to the needs and aspirations of their peoples must, in my firm opinion, be alert to every possibility for advancing basic principles of political and economic justice. Thus, while since my inauguration on January 20 I have perforce been largely occupied with the several international crises of immediate concern, I have given considerable thought to other international issues that deserve the careful attention of us all.
My thoughts have often turned to the Middle East, an area which has contributed so much to the religious and cultural heritage of the world today, and whose potential for further rich contributions to civilization is great. As an American I am proud that the concepts of our founding patriots, of Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, have played so great a part in the emergence of vigorous, independent Arab states, respected as sovereign equals in the international community.
I am proud of the tangible encouragement which has been accorded by our government and people to the aspirations of you and your countrymen in the past, particularly during the critical days of 1956. The United States Government, itself the product of a union of several independent states, was pleased to recognize the formation of the United Arab Republic on February 22, 1958, the birthday anniversary of our own first President, Washington.
In recent weeks I have noted some speculation as to the direction of the policies of the new United States administration with respect to the Middle East. Let me assure you that the concepts inherited from the men mentioned above are part of the very fiber of this nation, and that as its President I intend to uphold them. You will find us at all times and all places active in the struggle for equality of opportunity; for government of the people, by the people and for the people; for freedom from want and fear; and for the application of justice in the settlement of international disputes.
Translating these great precepts into United States policy in the Middle East for the next few years, I want you to know that:
1. The United States will to the best of its ability lend every appropriate assistance to all Middle Eastern states that are determined to control their own destiny, to enhance the prosperity of their people, and to allow their neighbors to pursue the same fundamental aims.
2. The United States remains ever ready to contribute both within and outside the United Nations to the search for solutions to disputes which dissipate the precious energies of the Middle Eastern states and retard the economic progress which all free peoples rightly desire. 3. With a view toward improving the welfare of the people of the Middle East, the United States is prepared to continue to support national development programs which are effectively designed, to make available American commodities under the Food for Peace program, and to encourage educational exchanges designed to facilitate political and economic progress.
While tensions unfortunately have sharpened in certain other areas of the world, the Middle East during the past three years has been relatively tranquil. This has been due largely to statesmanship on the part of the area's leaders who have given priority to constructive programs of economic development. Secretary Rusk and I have been struck by the unanimity of views expressed to us by representatives of the various Middle Eastern states emphasizing that the present relative tranquility be preserved.
Underlying tensions do, however, remain, not the least of which is the unresolved Arab-Israel controversy. I know deep emotions are involved. No easy solution presents itself. The American government and people believe that an honorable and humane settlement can be found and are willing to share in the labors and burdens which so difficult an achievement must entail, if the parties concerned genuinely desire such participation. We are willing to help resolve the tragic Palestine refugee problem on the basis of the principle of repatriation or compensation for properties, to assist in finding an equitable answer to the question of Jordan River water resources development and to be helpful in making progress on other aspects of this complex problem.
I am pleased that the United Nations General Assembly recently underscored the necessity to implement more rapidly its previous recommendations on the refugee problem. In this connection, I wish to state unequivocally that this Government's position is anchored and will continue to be anchored in the firm bedrock of support for General Assembly recommendations concerning the refugees, and of active, impartial concern that those recommendations be implemented in a way most beneficial to the refugees.
The United States, as a member of the Palestine Conciliation Commission and a nation keenly interested in the long-range advancement of the peoples of the Middle East, takes seriously the task entrusted to the Commission by the United Nations. We are determined to use our influence to assure that the Commission intensify its efforts to promote progress toward a just and peaceful solution. What precise steps the Commission may be able to take are, of course, not yet clear, but I can assure you that there will be no lack of United States interest in seeing that effective action is taken. It is my sincere hope that all the parties directly concerned will cooperate fully with whatever program is undertaken by the Commission so that the best interests and welfare of all the Arab refugees of Palestine may be protected and advanced.
With reference to relations between the United Arab Republic and the United States, I recognize that our views on important problems do not always coincide. At the same time I am pleased that mutually beneficial relations continue to exist in many spheres and that United States assistance in significant quantities has played a role in your own thorough and detailed development program. As you know, I have recently made proposals to the Congress for aiding in the preservation of Nubian monuments. White House has no plans publish this text but has no objection should GUAR desire do so. SUBJECT President Nasser is a key Arab leader. The Department has periodically considered the possibility of an official visit by him to this country. Because of the Palestine problem and Egyptian dependence on the Soviets for military and economic assistance as well as sales of cotton, Nasser's political orientation has favored Moscow, which he has visited on several occasions. Privately, however, he retains great interest in, and respect for, the United States. An official visit here by Nasser might thus afford significant advantages, including (a) catering to Nasser's "dignity" (Sulzberger's column (enclosed) A particular problem is presented by outstanding invitations which Nasser has to visit Cuba, Mexico, Brazil and Venezuela. There are unofficial indications that Nasser may visit some of these countries in the fall, perhaps in connection with a trip to the next United Nations General Assembly. While Nasser might be reluctant to compromise the possibility of an official visit to the United States by visiting a Castro-ite Cuba at the same time, our new Ambassador, /3/President Kennedy appointed John S. Badeau as Ambassador to the United Arab Republic on May 29. He presented his credentials on July 19. Information relating to Badeau's appointment, which was recommended by Under Secretary Bowles, is in Department of State, Secretary's Staff Meetings: Lot 66 D 147, Chester Bowles' Telcons, February 1961 and March 1961.
Outside events continually arise which have an important impact on U.S.-U.A.R. relations. For this reason, it would be advisable not to extend Nasser a formal invitation for a visit here far in advance of the suggested time for the trip. Accordingly, we believe considerable latitude will be needed to assure that, in arranging a Nasser visit, we take advantage of special circumstances which may arise. At the same time, we believe it would be helpful for hints about such a visit to be dropped to Nasser in the near future. In this way, Nasser's desire to make an official visit here may be turned to our advantage by encouraging him to adopt a more moderate attitude on such questions as Cuba where extremism would obviously render an official visit out of the question.
In view of the foregoing considerations, we suggest that you approve the following preliminary recommendations with a view to an eventual visit here by Nasser:
1. That, in principle, a visit here by Nasser would be useful.
2. That such a visit be tentatively scheduled for the spring of 1962, although an earlier date would not be precluded if this proves feasible on political grounds and in the light of other commitments. The dates for an official visit would not be discussed with Nasser until a few weeks before the desired time.
3. That our new Ambassador to the U.A.R. be authorized orally to inform Nasser, when he presents his Letters of Credence (which we now estimate will be during the last week of June), that you are very much looking forward to inviting him to pay an official visit here as soon as both his schedule and yours will permit. Washington, May 17, 1961.
2. With regard to other recommendations of a military nature, specifically, paragraphs II.5, III.10, and III.11, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are ready to cooperate wholeheartedly in these proposed studies. However, it should be noted that the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for military reasons, have gone on record recommending the United States join CENTO. Further, the Joint Chiefs of Staff consider it timely to advise you that the present approved contingency plan for Iran (CINCNELM OPLAN 215-60) is based, in part, on the assumption that should US forces become overtly engaged with the armed forces of the USSR, general war will exist and general war plans will be invoked. Viewed in the context of the foregoing assumption, recommendations II.5a, and III.11 might be construed as major revisions of current military policy. Such a connotation is misleading without a detailed supporting military study. In the absence of such a study at the present time, the Joint Chiefs of Staff desire to withhold concurrence in so much of the recommendation in paragraph III.11 as pertains to the size and nature of the force to be employed. Subject to the foregoing remarks, the Joint Chiefs of Staff concur in the recommendations of the Presidential Task Force for Iran.
3. The Joint Chiefs of Staff suggest that all further studies and examinations of military concepts, plans and actions relating to strengths, types of forces and possible deployment, recommended by the Task Force for Iran, be undertaken with full participation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
4. Additionally, the Joint Chiefs of Staff request that in the future provisions be made for their timely participation in the formulation of Task Force positions on policy papers such as this and the one now under development by the Korean Task Force. L.L. Lemnitzer SUBJECT The thrust of this report is that we must vigorously support the new Amini government as the best, and perhaps last good chance of forestalling Iran's slippery slide into chaos. The demonstrations in Teheran on 2-4 May have made not only the Shah but the State Department face up at last to this alarming trend.
All Task Force members agree that Amini's moderate reformist program offers the only good alternative to an unpopular military dictatorship or a Mosadeqist revolution. Even the Shah claims to fervently support Amini for these reasons. Thus his advent provides an opportunity which we must seize.
However, the gut issue was how far we should really go in supporting Amini, and even risk the Shah's displeasure by pressing him to do the same. The Embassy, and some State officers, felt that Amini might represent just another reformist interlude, and that the Shah would begin to undercut him (as he has previous prime ministers) once the Shah had recovered from his case of nerves. State has perennially been reluctant to press the Shah very hard, with the result that not much has been accomplished.
But the Task Force consensus is that with Iran now pretty far down the road to chaos, we had better do everything feasible to give the Amini "experiment" a fighting chance, helping to protect him against pressures from both the Shah and the left. This represents a significant change in policy.
The Task Force has come up with a pretty good action program to this end. It is oriented more toward economic needs and social reform than toward paying the Shah military baksheesh again (see pp. 1-5 of Report):
a. Iran faces a "cash" crisis. Though it occurred largely through mismanagement, the Seven Year Plan Organization can't pay its current bills. Hence a prompt cash grant of the $15 million earmarked for FY '62 budgetary support of Iranian forces is recommended. We should be prepared to grant an additional $5 million if Amini needs it to pay for politically essential salary increases, etc.
b. In view of the urgency of the situation we must put aside the administrative obstacles which in the past have made us unable to disburse funds rapidly enough to meet Iranian needs.
c. We should reorient our longer-range economic aid toward support of the Iranian Seven Year Plans (as proposed by Labouisse Task Force).
d. We should back Amini's reform program positively but discreetly, and in a way which "so far as possible" does not arouse the Shah's active opposition; also seeking to forestall any military coup against Amini (e.g. from General Bakhtiar).
e. We should hold for the moment to current levels of military aid and not join CENTO, while urgently examining other ways of reassuring the Shah about the external threat.
Presidential Action Recommended. The potential weakness of the action program is a certain ambiguity as to how vigorously we should support Amini. Hence, besides approving the Task Force proposals, I recommend that you: 1. Make unmistakably clear that we must do everything possible to insure the success of the Amini "experiment", if necessary pushing both the Shah and Amini (and repeat this injunction to Ambassador Holmes).
2. Direct that we take special measures to advise both Amini and the Shah that we back Amini's reform program (e.g. a Presidential letter or special mission), but that continued US support will be conditional on prompt and effective Iranian action to carry out these and related measures to resolve Iran's basic political and economic problems.
3. Direct that the Task Force be kept in being (State was reluctant to so recommend) as a follow-through mechanism, charged specifically with:
a. Assuring that its action program receives full inter-agency support.
b. Contingency planning against possibility of Amini's failure or ouster.
c. Review of US role in CENTO, and other means of reassuring Iran against Soviet military threat (paras. 5 and 10 of Task Force Report). I would also recommend a review of MAP for Iran be added.
d. Review of US contingency plans for intervention in case of Soviet attack (para. 11).
R.W. Komer 1. That the U.S. make a major effort to back the new Government in Iran as the best instrument in sight for promoting orderly political, economic and social evolution in Iran, and for averting serious and damaging political developments.
2. That to this end the U.S. encourage Amini positively but discreetly in any serious efforts to solve Iran's immediate political and economic problems and to construct a broad political synthesis. This encouragement should be given in such a manner to avoid so far as possible arousing the Shah's active opposition. The U.S. should be prepared to tolerate certain seemingly anti-American actions by Amini which do not really damage any major American interest.
3. That the U.S. should not favor any military coup against the Amini Regime.
4. That the U.S. reorient its foreign aid program in Iran to put more emphasis on long-range economic developments as envisaged in the report of the Presidential Task Force on Foreign Economic Assistance, and in addition:
a. Inform the Government of Iran immediately of our intention to make a cash grant of $15 million payable as soon as required by the Iranians.
b. Be prepared to make an additional $5 million grant of FY 1962 funds to the Government of Iran for general budgetary purposes if, at a later date, the situation in Iran requires such action.
c. Modify U.S. executive procedures in order to assure the timely flow of development loan funds.
5. That the Departments of State and Defense, as a means of providing more substantial assurance to Iran and in an attempt to reduce Iranian pressure for military assistance, urgently examine:
a. The feasibility and political-military implications of deploying earmarked U.S. forces to locations that would permit more rapid assist-ance to Iran in the event of Soviet or Soviet-supported attack;
b. The desirability of informing the Government of Iran more specifically of U.S. unilateral plans for military action in Iran's support of any deployments determined to be feasible.
III. Recommendations for Further Action
The actions proposed above can do no more than help the new Iranian regime to grapple with the country's more urgent problems. These actions will have meaning only to the extent that the government moves effectively on political, economic, social, psychological, and military issues. We too must have a follow-through program for long-range developments to strengthen the fabric of Iranian society. To this end, the Task Force recommends further:
6. That the U.S., while supporting the Monarchy as the symbol of unity and a stabilizing influence in Iran, more actively encourage the Shah to move toward a more constitutional role.
7. That the U.S. encourage the formation and growth of broadly based political parties in Iran.
8. That the U.S., in keeping before responsible Iranian officials the risks which may be involved in an Iranian rapprochement with the Soviet Union, avoid giving the impression that the continuance of present tensions between Iran and the USSR is a U.S. goal.
9. That the U.S. continue for the present to support currently existing Iranian military forces up to the approximate level of 200,000 men. In this connection, we should adhere to those aspects of the 1958 Presidential letter to the Shah 11. That the U.S. make no present decision whether or how it would react militarily to Soviet attack on Iran, but as a means for identifying the key military and political considerations in reaching such a decision illustrative military plans should be developed for such action on the basis of at least the following alternatives: (a) the prompt introduction of U.S. conventional forces in a strength up to two divisions, and (b) the prompt deployment of nuclear striking power so that it could be brought to bear in the Soviet border areas of Iran. The military planning called for by this paragraph, and the joint State/Defense study called for under paragraph 5-a above, should include an assessment of the effect of such deployments or other action on the general war posture of the U.S., weighing such effects against an estimate of the likelihood that Soviet action against Iran would in fact lead to a general war on many fronts."
b. Agreed that NSC 6010, "U.S. Policy Toward Iran," Washington, May 23, 1961.
The Problem 3. Amini's most urgent problem will be to maintain this acceptability while achieving sufficient authority as Prime Minister to cope with the financial and administrative mess he has inherited and the touchy political and legal problems created by dissolution of the Majlis (Parliament) and pressures for early elections. He will also be confronted with greater public expressions of discontent made possible by certain concessions toward freedom of the press and assembly which he has made. Amini is an effective administrator and has a wide range of personal contacts among political and military leaders, though no organized political following. His character suggests that he will make a more serious effort than his predecessors to avoid subservience to the Shah and to carry out his program.
5. Barring a military coup which might oust either the Shah or Amini or both, it is highly probable that sooner or later their present uneasy collaboration will develop into a struggle for power between them. It is impossible at present to estimate the duration or outcome of such a struggle.
6. The Iranian military will be a crucial factor in future developments. However, it contains a number of conflicting factions and ideologies. Many of the junior and middle level officers, and probably a few of the top ranks, are sympathetic to the kind of reforms included in Amini's program. On the other hand, the upper echelons of the officer corps have a vested interest in the status quo, which is necessarily threatened by such reforms. Although they acquiesced in Amini's appointment, they are already apprehensive regarding the trend of events.
7. The nationalists, who have become increasingly active politically during the last year, will also be a key factor, although they too represent a variety of points of view. The more radical of them will almost certainly oppose Amini from the beginning. Some of the moderates may work with him as long as they retain hope that he will move toward their objectives. One of Amini's major problems will be to acquire enough support among urban nationalists to weaken their capability to apply pressure against the regime as they have done in the past eight months. A major source of friction in Amini's relations with the nationalists will be the timing and conduct of the elections.
8. The Iranian Communist Party (the Tudeh) is not now a major political factor. It has been hard hit by SAVAK and almost all of its leaders are in jail or exile. For the next year or so, at least, it is not likely to try to come out in the open as it did in 1953, but probably will become more active in trying to penetrate nationalist groups. In the event of sustained political disturbances, it would probably be able to reconstitute itself and might emerge as a major force.
9. External factors could also have a significant effect on the Iranian scene. US support will be an important asset for Amini, but only if it is given in such a way as to avoid his being widely labeled as "merely an American tool." Most military elements would probably seek to sound out US reaction to a takeover by them before acting.
10. Communist propaganda is already attacking the Amini government, claiming that it is merely a US creation designed to shore up the corrupt regime of the Shah. The Soviet Union probably feels that, if the Amini regime is quickly discredited and falls, the trend toward a revolutionary upset in Iran would be accelerated. However, should the Amini government show strength and staying power, the USSR might experiment with a softer line, offering economic aid and possibly some political concessions, such as a revision of the Irano-Soviet treaties, in return for a loosening of ties with the West.
11. One thing is clear to date: the appointment of Amini represents a significant step toward liberalization of the government. Should Amini be able to develop an independent position and implement a major reform program, the chances of evolutionary development toward more stable and representative government in Iran would be enhanced. If, on the other hand, the Shah should attempt to force Amini into a puppet's role, or should replace him with some politician subservient to the throne, the unrest which brought Amini to power would be likely to break out more violently than ever. Likewise, a sharp turn to the left by the Amini government would provoke a strong reaction from still powerful conservative forces.
12. In general, we think that the chances of a coup by military elements during the next year or so are greater than they appeared to be when NIE 34-61 was written (February 1961). However, we cannot predict whether or when such a coup will occur. A coup could take a number of forms: a movement against Amini by traditional conservative elements in the officer corps; a coup by more progressive senior officers against the Shah to support Amini; or a military coup simply to end indecisive squabbling among the Shah and civilian politicians. Such coups would not necessarily involve the elimination of the Shah, but might result in a major reduction in his personal powers, in which case he might abdicate. Any of these coup governments might stabilize the situation temporarily; however, they would probably lack popular support, would almost certainly be plagued by factionalism, and would be subject to increasing pressure from nationalists and the Tudeh.
13. There is the additional possibility of a radical nationalist government coming to power as the result of a coup based in the lower and middle officer ranks or of large-scale civil disturbances in which important army elements in effect joined the demonstrators. It too would probably be ridden with factionalism, and internal instability would be likely to continue. A swing toward radical social and economic measures at home and neutralism in foreign policy would be virtually certain.
Messrs. U.M. Staebler and J.W. Croach, the United States scientists permitted to visit Israel's Dimona reactor responsive to our suggestions that such a visit would be helpful in allaying international concern, have returned from their visit. On Thursday, May 25, they discussed their findings with officers of the Department of State.
Their written report will be available very soon. It might be desirable to bring the following tentative conclusions and opinions of the scientists to the President's attention, prior to his May 30 meeting with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion:
1. From the standpoint of keeping abreast of the reactor's development and ascertaining that its purpose continues to be non-military, a second visit would not be necessary before another year.
2. Israel's obsession with secrecy is regrettable, but perhaps understandable in view of Israel's physical and political circumstances. Israel's reasons for secrecy include: (a) a possible boycott by the Arabs of manufacturers on whom Israel depends, (b) proximity of the reactor to international borders with vulnerability to sabotage, and (c) conviction that Arab awareness of Israel's scientific capability would not be in Israel's national interest.
3. While, like others of its size and character, the reactor eventually will produce small quantities of plutonium suitable for weapons, there is no present evidence that the Israelis have weapon production in mind.
4. The Israelis report the reactor will not be completed before 1964, although this may be too conservative an estimate.
5. There is strong evidence of close French scientific collaboration and support.
6. The reactor and its complex of laboratories, storehouses, fuel dumps, water towers, general services, transient quarters for scientists, etc., occupies a square 750 meters to a side. The surrounding fenced security area, however, is much larger.
7. On United States scales, the reactor, when completed, might represent a $15 million investment, with the supporting plant another $20 million.
8. Even with the Great Power assistance they may have had from France, Israel's Dimona project is a most creditable accomplishment both in concept and execution.
Melvin L. Manfull Washington, May 26, 1961.
/1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, 711.11-KE/5-2661. Confidential. Drafted by Crawford on May 24.
SUBJECT The United Arab Republic: Initial reaction to the President's letter appears constructive. A confidant of Nasser informed our Chargé on May 20 that the President's letter is "very important", and opined cautiously that some measure of progress on Palestine might be envisaged provided the U.S. is really prepared to be firm and fair.
Lebanon: At the time of its delivery by Ambassador McClintock, President Chehab read the President's letter with careful attention. He remarked that the three most urgent problems affecting Israel-Arab relations are: the refugees, diversion of the Jordan River by Israel, and Arab fears of Israel's atomic research program. The usually moderate Lebanese President commented, however, that even if all these issues could be resolved, deep Arab hostility to Israel, a state established at Arab expense by armed force supported from abroad, would remain.
Jordan: King Hussein read the President's letter with obvious interest. He said he wished to give it thorough study before replying.
Iraq: The letter was delivered to Foreign Minister Jawad, who assured our Ambassador it would be discussed with Prime Minister Qasim the same day. No further reaction has been received.
Yemen: The Imam is still indisposed as a result of wounds received during the recent attempt on his life. Our Chargé delivered the letter on May 20 to Crown Prince Badr, the Foreign Minister.
Saudi Arabia: Upon receiving the President's letter, King Saud said he was glad to know of the President's interest in Near East problems and looked forward to learning his views, especially on Israel. According to press reports coming from the Middle East on May 23, King Saud has subsequently called in the Ambassadors of the other Arab countries in Saudi Arabia to acquaint them with the contents of the President's letter and to suggest that a meeting of the Arab League Council be convened to formulate replies. This information has not yet, however, been confirmed by our Embassy in Jidda.
Israel: On May 23 the Israel radio broadcast news that a letter had been sent from the President to King Saud in an effort to assuage Arab sensitivities over Prime Minister Ben-Gurion's forthcoming visit to the United States.
Melvin L. Manfull 1. Israel's security problem
Mr. Ben Gurion will stress the Arab military threat and evidence of a buildup along Israel's borders. He will probably request (a) a security declaration from us; and (b) substantial military aid, particularly a supply of ground-to-air missiles.
Our answer
The United States determination to assist small nations needs no formal declaration, and such a declaration would have more of a disturbing than a stabilizing effect. It might invite Arab approaches to the USSR. Moreover, it is doubtful that we could persuade either our allies or the Soviet Union to join in a multilateral declaration. With regard to the Hawk Missile, this would introduce a new, dangerous and very costly phase in an already desperate arms race. When Israel obtains the French Mirage Fighter it will have a combat plane superior to the MIG-19.
2. Regional disarmament
Mr. Ben Gurion will urge reduction of burdensome defense expenditures for all states in the Middle East, to be achieved by big power agreement not to introduce additional arms.
Our answer
We will examine the possibilities, but there seems to be little prospect of agreement with other major powers upon an arms control program. For the Soviets to join in such an arrangement, they would undoubtedly insist that the CENTO countries be included. This is not feasible from the United States point of view.
3. Israel's atomic energy activities
Mr. Ben Gurion has assured us that Israel's new reactor at Dimona is utilized solely for peaceful purposes. However, he may urge that the growing Arab threat would leave Israel with no alternative but to develop a nuclear military capability.
Our answer
Our findings, resulting from the visit of Dr. Croach and Dr. Staebler, confirm the peaceful purposes of the reactor advertised by the Israelis. But we should seek similar visits at frequent intervals. If the Israelis merely give the appearance of having decided to embark upon the production of fissionable material and weapons manufacture, it might set off violence resulting from an Arab mood of desperation. We must oppose concealment of Israeli intentions because of the unsettling effect of this reactor in a highly volatile part of the world.
4. Arab refugees
Mr. Ben Gurion is unlikely to raise this question, but this question is a major element in continuing Arab-Israeli tensions. The United States has contributed approximately $260 million to support the refugees and continues to pay about $25 million a year.
The United States position
If the refugee problem is solved, it could break the log-jam to general Arab-Israeli peace. We support the approach by the Palestine Conciliation Commission. This consists of (a) a reconnaissance mission by a PCC special representative; and (b) a practical, phased program of repatriation, resettlement and compensation which can be worked out without endangering Israel's security. Ultimately refugees would be offered 3 choices: (a) repatriation, (b) resettlement in special work projects in Arab countries, and (c) resettlement, with United Nations encouragement, in non-Arab countries. Mr. Ben Gurion would have difficulty with the repatriation alternative, but it should be explained that no one would be repatriated without a careful screening, so that Israel's security would be protected and only limited numbers would be repatriated annually under a careful phasing operation. If we can get Israeli assurances of acceptance of the principle of choice--either now or to the PCC special representative when he visits Israel--this would be a solid break-through toward peace in the Middle East.
5. Jordan Valley water development
Mr. Ben Gurion will point out that water for the Negev is the key to Israel's future and that Israel is planning to divert a portion of the Jordan River by 1963 along the lines of the Johnston Plan allocation. The Arabs are threatening both military action and diversion of the headwaters of the Jordan. Mr. Ben Gurion would urge that an equitable solution would allocate the Jordan River to Israel and the Yarmuk to Jordan.
Our answer
We believe the Jordan Valley's future lies with a unified development plan along the lines of the Eric Johnston recommendations. Substantial, largely unpublicized assistance has been given Israel for water development, $45 million since 1958. Jordan has received $6 million in the same period of time. We do not consider Johnston's effort implied a moral, political or financial obligation on the part of the United States. Rather, it is basically a responsibility of the riparians. We might suggest (a) an open statement by Israel of its intention to stay within the Johnston allocation to help reduce tensions, or (b) mediation by IBRD. The de facto solution suggested by Ben Gurion allocating the Jordan River to Israel and the Yarmuk to Jordan is not equitable. It would deprive down-stream Arab users of that portion of the Jordan River legitimately theirs.
6. The UAR's role in Middle Eastern problems
Mr. Ben Gurion will contend that Nasser is a Soviet tool seeking domination of the Middle East and Africa. He will argue that the Arab boycott of Israel and the restrictions on the Suez Canal prevent peaceful development of the area.
Our answer
We might point out that Nasser's efforts to establish influence over Africans and other Arabs is having a very limited success. The United States may have differences with Nasser but must seek a viable relationship as an alternative to forcing him to rely on the Soviet bloc. The United States opposition to the Arab boycott and UAR restrictions on Suez Canal transit is unequivocal, but we believe the United Nations is the most effective channel through which to seek solutions.
7. Israel's relations with non-Arab governments
Mr. Ben Gurion will seek support for Israel's Point 4 activities in Africa which influence these countries toward a Western orientation; he will seek support for Israel's efforts to improve relations with nations in a middle position between the Arabs and Israel, such as India; and he will seek United States influence to include Israel in regional groupings such as the Common Market.
Our answer
(a) The United States approves Israel's efforts with underdeveloped countries but questions the advisability of collaboration or subsidization. Such collaboration with the United States might deprive Israel of its most important asset-- freedom from the stigma of imperialism. But the United States would continue to provide Israel with large-scale aid so that Israeli funds could be freed for technical aid to Africa.
(b) Although we would not initiate any action with India or Pakistan in behalf of Israel, if they seek our position we would express sympathy for Israel's point of view.
8. Jordan
Mr. Ben Gurion would urge continued and even expanded political and economic support of Jordan and Hussein. If this is done, it will contribute to area stability and create jobs for refugees, thus facilitating their resettlement and integration into the economy. He feels that Hussein is in trouble due to his marriage to an English girl and the attacks upon him by the UAR.
Our answer
We would agree that Jordan is the key to stability in the area. We are now providing that country with assistance of between $50 million and $70 million a year. Increases are not feasible because Jordan is already receiving as much assistance as can be effectively utilized. Should something happen to Hussein, we would expect Israel to refrain from any precipitous action. His overthrow would not necessarily be followed by the installation of a Cairo dominated government.
This memorandum reflects the point of view of the Department of State in every respect.
Mike
SUBJECT 1. We have an agreement with Ben Gurion not to announce the visit of the scientists to the Israeli reactor without his approval. Talbot would be very pleased if you could get him to release us from this commitment, at least far enough for us to inform Arab leaders that you have made this successful investigation, when you next write them. It would be even better if he would allow the scientists to make their own public statement, and of course best of all would be if he would now authorize a visit by neutral scientist. Moreover, we want to press upon him our hope that visits of this kind may be conducted, because while the reactor is clean as a whistle today, it could be turned in a dirty direction at any time.
2. At the last count, Nasser was said to have about 36 MIGs, but this is not a hard figure and if we get better dope it will be sent on tomorrow.
3. I attach an important message from Diefenbaker and a memorandum of comment from the Department of State about Ben Gurion's visit. After an exchange of amenities, in which each expressed his pleasure at meeting the other, the President and Prime Minister Ben Gurion plunged into a discussion of Israel's Dimona reactor. The President said he was glad that two American scientists had had an opportunity to visit the reactor and had given him a good report of it. Since some nations are disturbed at the prospect of the construction in Israel of a large reactor, with plutonium producing capability, the President suggested that--"on the theory that a woman should not only be virtuous but also have the appearance of virtue"--our problem is how to disseminate information about the nature of the reactor in such a way as to remove any doubts other nations might have as to Israel's peaceful purposes.
The Prime Minister said he wanted to talk about the reactor in the context of Israel's problems.
The greatest of these problems, and an almost insoluble one, he described as Israel's serious shortage of fresh water. Even when the Jordan River is effectively tapped there will not be enough fresh water for the southern part of Israel, he added. The only solution to this continuing shortage that Israel could discern is desalinization of sea water, a process that is technically possible but would be economically practicable only if very cheap power were available. Israel hopes that atomic power, which is now expensive, will become much cheaper and will make possible the economic desalinization of sea water. It had therefore consulted with Dr. Bhabha of India and with scientists from England and had followed the suggestion that Israel should gain the necessary scientific knowledge to take full advantage of the coming age of nuclear power. In building the Dimona reactor for this purpose the Prime Minister acknowledged that Israel had received assistance from France.
Israel's main--and for the time being, only--purpose is this, the Prime Minister said, adding that "we do not know what will happen in the future; in three or four years we might have need for a plant to process plutonium". The President observed that while the Prime Minister's estimate might be correct, we do not want by our own actions to increase tensions in the Middle East. He explained that the United States is much involved with Israel in the Middle East and it is to our common interest that no country believe that Israel is contributing to the proliferation of atomic weapons. It is obvious, he added, that the UAR would not permit Israel to go ahead in this field without getting into it itself.
The President then asked again whether, as a matter of reassurance, the Arab states might be advised of findings of the American scientists who had viewed the Dimona reactor. In reply, the Prime Minister said, "You are absolutely free to do what you wish with the report. If you feel you should publish it, we have no objections."
The President expressed his appreciation of the Prime Minister's willingness to agree to this action. He added that of course the United States is sometimes suspect in matters dealing with Israel, "because we are close friends", and asked whether it would not be helpful to let neutral scientists also observe the reactor. Ben Gurion asked who are really neutrals these days? The President commented that although Khrushchev says that no man is neutral, there are, after all, such neutrals as the Scandinavians and the Swiss. The Prime Minister said he would have no objection to this. The President expressed his satisfaction at the Prime Minister's reply. He was pleased he could feel that Israel would agree to going ahead with this.
Prime Minister Ben Gurion then raised the question of Israel's security. The deficit is increasing in Israel's arms as compared to the UAR military equipment, he said; the UAR has more planes and tanks and now they have 200 Russian instructors. This means that while the gap in quantity is growing the gap in quality is being narrowed. Nasser's declared aim, the Prime Minister added, is to destroy not just to defeat Israel. "If they should defeat us they would do to the Jews what Hitler did". He asserted also that the Arabs do not value human life and that this makes the problem more difficult.
Prime Minister Ben Gurion referred to his visit last year with President Eisenhower. /4/Ben Gurion met with President Eisenhower on March 10, 1960, at the White House; see Foreign Relations, 1958-1960, vol. XIII, pp. 280-288.
The President commented that he had not found records which permit a firm conclusion about what had been committed by the previous Administration, but that the problem, as we see it, is that while the Hawk is a defensive weapon it is also a missile and should missiles come into the Middle Eastern area, military weaponry will escalate fast. This is a problem, he said, to which we will continue to address ourselves, because we do not want to see Israel at a disadvantage. But we are reluctant to introduce missiles into the Middle East; the other side might then introduce ground-to-ground missiles. He repeated that if Israel were faced with a critical break-through of weapons on the other side, we would have our views of what to do. But we will need a better understanding of the danger and we hesitate to be the ones to introduce missiles into the region.
The Prime Minister explained that he was not asking for these weapons on the basis of a commitment made by the previous Administration but on the merits of the case. Acknowledging this, the President observed again that what we are concerned about is introducing missiles into the region.
There followed a brief discussion of tanks and planes available to the UAR and to Israel, with figures taken from the briefing book that the President had at hand. The Prime Minister said that the UAR has 300 fighters, with 200 more they could call upon from other Arab nations. Israel has ordered 60 Mirages from the French. The first of these may be delivered by the end of this year but it will take more than 12 months for them to be delivered in full. Commenting on the performance capability of the MIG 19, the President observed that we cannot eliminate the hazard but we would not want Israel to get into such a position of inferiority that an attack on it would be encouraged. The Prime Minister again suggested that the Hawk, a defensive weapon, would be the best way to avoid this danger at the present time and that it could not threaten any other country.
Summing up this aspect of the conversation, the President said that the Hawk had been given to only a few other countries and that if it were introduced into Israel the next development on the other side might be an air-to-ground or ground-to-ground missile. He said we will watch this matter with care and added, "You don't feel that this is a satisfactory answer to your request, but you can be assured that we will continue to watch the situation."
Turning to another subject, Prime Minister Ben Gurion commented that now the President was going to see Premier Khrushchev. The President expressed interest in the Prime Minister's views of Nasser's relations with Russia. These are very close, Ben Gurion answered. "Nasser is not a Communist, but he relies on Russia and gets Russian support to get into Africa. The African leaders are not Communists either--even Sekou Toure--but they are pro-Communist. Nasser is working very hard in these countries. His efforts help bring the Russians into them also."
On a broader front, the Prime Minister said he does not believe there will be a hot war. The American people don't want war, nor do the Russian people. Agreeing, the President observed that nevertheless the danger is there. The Soviet Union wants to push us out of Berlin. We cannot permit the USSR to destroy the Atlantic Alliance and we cannot permit ourselves to be forced out of Berlin, he said. If we should be forced out of Berlin Europe would no longer associate itself with us in NATO. And then, the Prime Minister added, you would be forced out of Europe. Yes, the President said, and then back to our own shores. But we don't intend that to happen.
Prime Minister Ben Gurion pointed out the United States accepted the status quo but the Russians do not. "The Russians think you are doomed, and they say so." The President responded that one can argue that systems in many countries may be doomed but not the people, adding, "I can say that doom would be hastened if we were to be run out of Berlin. What interest would you have in a guarantee from us if we let ourselves be pushed out of Berlin?" The Prime Minister responded again that a guarantee of Middle East borders would provide a test case of Soviet intentions. To this the President replied that he was not sure our security problems are not as great as Israel's. The Prime Minister saw in the two situations the difference that "we are the only remnants of a people that have been fighting for survival for the past 4000 years. If Nasser defeats us, we are destroyed."
The President asked the Prime Minister for his estimate of current tensions in the area of Israel. The Prime Minister responded that the borders are more or less quiet; there has been a little worry about Aqaba but the Secretary General has reassured him that everything was quiet there. Nevertheless the dangers remain in such places as Jordan and Iraq where regimes depend upon the life of a single man. They are much more worried than we are, the Prime Minister said, because Nasser can send someone to assassinate one man whereas in a democracy everybody would fight. Even Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey are afraid of what might happen. Such a declaration as he had suggested would, in the Prime Minister's view, give more confidence to all the smaller Arab and other Middle East peoples.
The President asked the Prime Minister's views of the Palestine Conciliation Commission, explaining that as the Prime Minister knew, the PCC (of which the United States is a member) is obliged to make a report in the fall of 1961. The President expressed the hope that there may be an opportunity there and asked how the Prime Minister felt about it. The latter recalled that in 1953 President Eisenhower had sent a messenger named Anderson The Prime Minister said that all the people in the uncommitted world are watching the U.S. and other Western countries. For these people, freedom does not mean what it does to us. What makes an impression is better standards of living and health and education. It is not just money they want; they want to feel that they are treated as human beings. This is why Israel is working with Africans. "If you will succeed with the Peace Corps idea--with Americans going out not as superior human beings but to help others--this psychological factor will be more important than the large amounts of money you give away."
The Prime Minister then described how Israel has brought Asians and Africans into its population and has made its Army an educational institution, which is of great interest to other countries such as Ghana that are trying to develop themselves. He spoke of the Afro-Asian Institute in the University where Asians and Africans are taught cooperation and of other programs that attract many people to learn in Israel. Hundreds of Indians are also coming to Israel, he said, although Nehru will have no relations with Israel. He regretted Nehru's attitude on this point and said that his excuse is that he wants to make peace in the area. "It is not for me to judge him. He is a great man. I admire him. There is democracy in India; it is the only country in Asia which is democratic except Japan. If Nehru goes I am not sure what will happen; but now it has democracy."
Continuing his comments on the general world situation, the Prime Minister observed that the only imperialistic country that exists now is Russia, which keeps under its domination many Muslim countries in Asia, former parts of China and many countries in Europe. Yet in the war of propaganda they win because they go against the status quo in other countries. Unless the West can provide what other countries need, we will lose. Returning to the subject of the Palestine Conciliation Commission, the President stated that its new efforts need a sympathetic hearing because if they fail we may get a "Troika" commission. The United Nations is trying to get a neutral representative who will in turn make the proposal which will involve the three alternatives of repatriation or compensation with resettlement in the Arab countries or elsewhere.
In response, the Prime Minister commented that any commission would be likely to fail in this effort. "They--the UAR and any Arabs--don't care what happens to people. They regard the refugees as the best weapon at hand. If they could get hundreds of thousands of Arabs into Israel we would have those and still be surrounded by many millions of other Arabs." He then recapitulated the events immediately following Israel's independence when after several quiet days the Arabs left Israel in large number and in succeeding months Israel had to accept many hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from other countries. He also stated that Israel has absorbed as many Jewish refugees from Arab countries as they have absorbed Arab refugees from Israel.
The President observed that maybe the Arabs would not agree to any realistic plan than the PCC might put forward but if so we would rather have the responsibility of disagreement on them. We are likely to have our troubles with our Congress if the US continues paying 70% of the UNRWA costs for caring for refugees. If it appears that Israel is constructive, it will make the problem easier.
"Yes, it is always worth trying", the Prime Minister responded. "But until there is peace between Israel and the Arabs I don't see much chance of success."
The President said that although we had been attacked by the press in the UAR on Cuba and other matters, we want to do our best to see if this PCC effort can succeed. The Prime Minister recalled the recent Bandung Congress at which representatives of many states, including Communist China, attacked the U.S. He said that Israel had sent the U.S. information about this Congress about the way the people think and speak.
In summary, the President said that the conversation had covered several topics: on missiles, "I expressed a desire to continually review the missile situation. We are reluctant to give Israel missiles and you understand that, but we would be disturbed if Israel should get into a situation that would invite attack. We will keep the matter under continuing review in our Administration, I can assure you."
On the question of the security guaranty, "I'll see what the atmosphere is. We guess that Khrushchev will not wish to lessen the tension. We will have to feel our way through this. The problem probably will be that we won't get agreement on various issues. If we should, we might try to get an agreement limiting arms to all Africa also."
Before ending the conversation, the Prime Minister said he wished also to take note of the fact that Israel has good relations with Persia and Turkey. Turkey is the more stable and can take care of itself. In Persia there is a very difficult situation; while the people are monarchists, there is corruption and much difficulty. It would help if the U.S. could give them a little more help and encouragement. In response the President said that we and the previous administration have devoted more attention and effort to Iran than to almost any other country in that region. Iran has a large Army. During the recent riots some of our people had questioned whether the Army would support the Shah. There has been a good deal of corruption and there are even stories about the royal family. However, the President thought that this government represented the last best hope and we will do everything to support it. We are for this government and the new Prime Minister 100%. The Prime Minister said he was delighted to hear this.
In conclusion the President recalled his previous conversations with the Prime Minister. He wanted the Prime Minister to know that we wish relations between our two countries to be close and harmonious and that we want to be helpful in the Middle East. It was for this reason that he had recently written to Nasser. The President and the Prime Minister parted with mutual expressions of respect.
REFERENCE |
