Skip Links
U.S. Department of State
G8 Summit 2008  |  Daily Press Briefing | What's NewU.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of State
SEARCHU.S. Department of State
Subject IndexBookmark and Share
U.S. Department of State
HomeHot Topics, press releases, publications, info for journalists, and morepassports, visas, hotline, business support, trade, and morecountry names, regions, embassies, and morestudy abroad, Fulbright, students, teachers, history, and moreforeign service, civil servants, interns, exammission, contact us, the Secretary, org chart, biographies, and more
Video
 You are in: Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs > Bureau of Public Affairs > Bureau of Public Affairs: Office of the Historian > Foreign Relations of the United States > Kennedy Administration > Volume XVII 
Foreign Relations, 1961-1963, Volume XVII, Near East, 1961-1962
Released by the Office of the Historian
Documents 66-97

66. Memorandum From Robert B. Elwood of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research to the Director of the Office of Near Eastern Affairs (Strong)/1/

Washington, June 26, 1961.

/1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, 686D.87/6-2661. Unclassified. Drafted by Morehouse. Elwood was the Director of the Office of Research and Analysis for the Middle East.

SUBJECT
Iraqi Claim to Kuwait

In response to an urgent telephone request from Mr. Blackiston we are forwarding a brief account of the background of Iraq's assertion of sovereignty over Kuwait.

Qasim Announcement

Prime Minister Qasim of Iraq in a press conference June 25 asserted old Iraqi claims to Kuwaiti territory and offered to "liberate" the inhabitants of Kuwait. The statement as read over Baghdad Radio referred to Kuwait several times as "an indivisible part of Iraq" and asserted, ". . . it is the Iraqi Republic and no one else which signs agreements for Kuwait." He further announced the intent to issue a Republican Decree appointing the Shaykh of Kuwait qa' immaqam (district or sub-provincial governor) under the Iraqi province of Basra. Qasim's move was obviously in response to the termination on June 19 of an Anglo-Kuwaiti treaty,/2/ and the assumption by the Shaykh of the full conduct of Kuwaiti foreign affairs. Qasim's message to the Kuwaiti ruler on that occasion was grudging to the point of rudeness. Kuwaitis, although annoyed by the Iraqi attitude, have publicly ignored the incident. The UK promptly reaffirmed its continued readiness to assist Kuwait on request, by force if necessary./3/

/2/On June 19, the Ruler of Kuwait and the U.K. Political Resident, Persian Gulf, Sir William Luce, signed letters terminating the Anglo-Kuwaiti Treaty of 1899, thereby providing for Kuwaiti independence. For text, see Exchange of Notes Regarding Relations Between the United Kingdom and Kuwait, 19th June 1961, British and Foreign State Papers, vol. 166, pp. 112-113.

/3/On June 26, the Iraqi Government issued a note to the Diplomatic Corps in Baghdad conveying a memorandum summarizing Iraq's position with regard to the U.K.-Kuwaiti agreement of June 19, which the Iraqi Government considered to be contrary to its assertion that "Kuwait was and still is an indivisible part of Iraq." The text of the note and the attached memorandum, delivered to the Embassy in Baghdad, were transmitted to the Department in despatch 1260 from Baghdad, June 27. (Department of State, Central Files, 686D.87/6-2761)

Background of Kuwait Ruling House

Ancestors of the al-Subah family, the ruling dynasty of Kuwait, emigrated from central Saudi Arabia (Najd province) in the 17th century and first settled at Umm Qasr (now the site of a proposed Iraqi port development, access to which has been at issue for some time between Iraq and Kuwait). Driven from this location by the Turks, the family established itself at Kuwait in the 18th century. From then until World War I, these minor rulers shifted allegiance according to the exigencies of local dynastic wars and pressures by larger powers.

In the later years of the 18th century, the family and town were under Persian suzerainty, and Kuwait rivalled Basra as a port for the interior of Mesopotamia up to Damascus. However, in 1829 the then ruler had to acknowledge the suzerainty of Turkey and pay tribute to the Ottoman Porte. In return for a subsidy, the Kuwaiti navy protected the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab in the name of the Porte. In 1869-70, the Kuwaiti Ruler joined energetic Turkish Sultan Midhat Pasha in a military campaign into Arabia that conquered al-Hasa province, which, for a time, was governed from Basra as the Turkish province of Najd. Thereafter, the Shaykh of Kuwait formally accepted the Turkish definition of his position and was accepted by the Porte as de jure ruler of Kuwait.

British Interest and Kuwaiti Independence

By 1897, the then Shaykh of Kuwait was paying little attention to his nominal superiors in Basra. At this time, Kuwait was being considered as the terminus of the proposed Berlin-Baghdad Railway. The UK, which had not formally accepted the Ottoman right to speak for Kuwait, therefore interested itself, and the English Resident at Bushire, Col. Meade, was authorized by London to contact the Shaykh of Kuwait directly. The Shaykh was interested not only in asserting his independence vis-à-vis Turkey, but also in British help with the perennial skirmishing going on since 1895 between himself and the Rashidi family, head of the powerful Shammar tribe in Saudi Arabia, and later with their conqueror, King Abdul Aziz Ibn Sa'ud.

On January 23, 1899, therefore, the Kuwaiti Shaykh agreed not to let or cede any part of his territory to other governments or subjects of governments other than England, and to receive no representatives of foreign powers without British authorization. In return, the Shaykh received an annual subsidy and British and Indian protection as needed against the Wahhabi incursions from Saudi Arabia. This is the treaty just denounced by the Iraqi government./4/ From 1903, a British Political Resident was established in Kuwait; a second treaty with the UK was signed in 1907.

/4/Agreement between Great Britain and Kuwait providing for non-cession of territory within the Sheikdom, 23rd January 1899; for text, see British and Foreign State Papers, vol. 166, pp. 112-113.

On July 29, 1913, agreement was reached between the UK and Turkey, by which the boundaries of Kuwait were defined, and its status was established as that of an autonomous qadha (sub-province). At the same time, the treaty relationship with the UK was confirmed by Turkey, and Turkish representation was to be permitted at Kuwait. The outbreak of World War I prevented ratification of this instrument. Instead, England declared Kuwait to be an independent kingdom under British protection. On December 26, 1915, King Ibn Sa'ud concluded an agreement with the Shaykh and the UK by which the Kuwait-Saudi boundaries were defined (they have never been demarcated), and any Saudi claims to the territory of Kuwait were conceded.

Previous Iraqi Claims to Kuwait

During the First World War and subsequent British Mandate over Iraq, Iraqi relations with Kuwait were not a problem. After Iraq achieved independence in 1932, however, anti-British Iraqi nationalists occasionally agitated an Iraqi claim to the territory of Kuwait based on the old Ottoman jurisdiction. In 1937, Iraq extended its protection to Kuwait in a minor row with Saudi Arabia. In 1938, Iraq's second ruler, the young King Ghazi, loudly demanded annexation of Kuwait and broadcast Iraq's claims on Baghdad radio. In that year, the Iraqi government invited Kuwaiti students to study in Baghdad at the Iraqi government's expense, a move which drew both Kuwaiti and British objections. Early in 1939, when a legislative council in Kuwait was preparing a new constitution which was being so drafted as to guarantee the continuance of special British treaty rights, anti-British riots broke out in Kuwait objecting to the constitution and demanding, among other things, union with Iraq. The disturbance was short-lived, although serious enough to require application of emergency law in Kuwait. Baghdad press and radio, as well as the nationalist Arab Office in Damascus, backed the Kuwaiti dissidents, and there were rumors of Iraqi complicity in rousing the demonstrations. The furor quieted somewhat following the death of King Ghazi in an automobile accident in April 1939.

Thereafter, the Iraqi government tacitly accepted the status quo. For the last several years of the monarchy, the government of Nuri al-Sa'id was at pains to court good relations with the Kuwaiti ruling family, welcomed its members' frequent visits to relatives and properties in the Basra area, and discussed off-and-on the provision to Kuwait of sweet water from the Shatt al-Arab.

However, in 1958, following the uniting of Iraq and Jordan in the short-lived Arab Union, Nuri al-Sa'id again revived the claim. This was not a forceful public assertion, but rather a series of quiet diplomatic démarches in an attempt to persuade the Kuwaiti Ruler and the UK of the desirability of Kuwaiti adherence to the new Union. Nuri had in mind popularizing the Union with the Iraqi public through the acquisition of Kuwaiti wealth to offset the budgetary drain of Jordan, and at the same time hoped to create a psychology of momentum toward joining the Baghdad-based rather than the Cairo-Damascus union. Neither the Kuwaitis nor the UK evinced any interest, and the suggestion did not receive a great deal of publicity at the time. It was still being advanced by the Iraqi monarchy up to the time of the July 1958 revolution.

The Qasim regime is therefore advancing an old Iraqi claim, but one that has not in the past received much support from other Arab states and has had no recognition from the world at large. Aside from Qasim's extreme sensitivity to any manifestation of continued foreign presence in the Arab area, he is probably motivated by his current irritation with the UK over the stalled renegotiation of the IPC concession./5/ Qasim probably also sees in this a potentially popular issue at a time when popular enthusiasm for his regime is waning at home./6/

/5/Documentation is in Department of State, Central File 887.2553.

/6/A handwritten note on the source text, presumably by Charlotte Morehouse, reads: "In my 4 years, there was never any deep Iraqi feeling re Kuwait--as there was for example on such issues as Palestine or anti-UK issues."


67. Telegram From the Department of State to the Consulate in Kuwait
/1/

Washington, June 27, 1961, 8:38 p.m.

/1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, 686D.87/6-2661. Confidential; Niact. Drafted by Eilts; cleared in draft by Strong, Kerley, Ludlow, Murnighan, Bevans, Wallner, and Stora; and approved by Talbot who initialed for Rusk. Repeated to London, Baghdad, and USUN.

257. Contel 216./2/ Qasim claim to Kuwait is basically inter-Arab controversy and there is clearly some value keeping it that context. Dept sees no advantage gratuitous USG entry into lists which might only (a) shift focus of problem (b) be detrimental to recent favorable trend in Iraq and (c) goad Qasim to new intemperance which will exacerbate problem. In any case we understand Kuwatis are in close touch with UK which is advising them how handle matter./3/

/2Telegram 216, June 26, reported that the Ruler of Kuwait had asked urgently to receive both a public and private U.S. reaction to Iraq's claim to Kuwait and that the Ruler would apparently like a statement from a high U.S. Government official supporting Kuwait's independence in the context of Qasim's threat. (Ibid.)

/3/On June 26, according to the record of the meeting, Talbot told the Secretary's staff meeting that "the British will take primary responsibility for dealing with the problem of Iraq's claim to Kuwait and that he expects Kuwait to seek UN membership this fall without special urging from the US." (Ibid., Secretary's Staff Meetings: Lot 66 D 147)

In response Kuwaiti request you may tell Kuwait Secretariat orally that USG sees no need comment on Iraqi PriMin statement. As far as Kuwait is concerned, USG recognition of Kuwait as a sovereign state evident from establishment Consulate in 1950, conclusion visa agreement directly with Kuwait in 1960,/4/ and USG support of Kuwaiti admission to UNESCO, UPU and other international bodies. US as depositary International Civil Aviation Convention has accepted adherence Kuwait as "State associated with them (Members of UN)." As indicated Secretary's message to Ruler June 19, USG has enjoyed cordial relations with Kuwait and expects these continue. You may add that USG would of course support Kuwaiti application membership in UN.

/4/Agreement relating to the reciprocal granting of nonimmigrant passport visas; exchange of notes at Kuwait December 11 and 27, 1960, entered into force on December 27, 1960, and operative on January 26, 1961. (11 UST 2650)

We would prefer avoiding USG public statement on matter but if questioned by press, appropriate Dept spokesman will speak along above lines. We believe British clearly willing and able advise Kuwaitis re handling problem and USG advice neither necessary nor desirable as of now. In general however we incline to view problem likely subside soonest if Kuwaiti reaction to Qasim statement though firm remains dignified, calm and low key.

Above generally consistent with Baghdad's 914 rpt Kuwait 38/5/ which just received.

/5/In telegram 914, June 27, the Embassy in Baghdad advised against issuing a U.S. Government statement at this time, as Qasim would publicly interpret it as further evidence of an "imperialist plot" against Kuwait. (Department of State, Central Files, 686D.87/6-2761)

Rusk


68. National Intelligence Estimate
/1/

NIE 36-61

Washington, June 27, 1961.

/1/Source: Central Intelligence Agency Files. Secret. According to a note on the cover sheet: "The following intelligence organizations participated in the preparation of this estimate: The Central Intelligence Agency and the intelligence organizations of the Departments of State, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and The Joint Staff." All members of the U.S. Intelligence Board concurred in the estimate except for the Atomic Energy Commission representative and the Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, who abstained because the subject was outside their jurisdiction.

NASSER AND THE FUTURE OF ARAB NATIONALISM

The Problem


To estimate the outlook for Arab nationalism generally and to assess the problems and prospects of Nasser and the UAR in particular.

Conclusions

1. Militant nationalism will continue to be the most dynamic force in Arab political affairs, and Nasser is very likely to remain its foremost leader and symbol for the foreseeable future. The long-term outlook for the conservative and Western-aligned regimes is bleak. Despite important differences between competing brands of Arab nationalism, the significant ones all reflect desires for independence and neutralism, social and economic reform and varying degrees of Arab unity. (Paras. 10-11, 13, 29)

2. We do not believe that the appeal of Arab unity, strong as it is to most Arab nationalists, will overcome the host of divisive and particularist interests which work against the creation of a union of Arab states. Nasser probably now appreciates the practical obstacles involved in seeking to establish such a union. He is likely to settle for more limited means of trying to assert paramountcy. (Paras. 28, 30, 36-38)

3. The UAR will make strong efforts to achieve progress in economic development, but neither the Egyptian nor Syrian region is likely to attain significant economic growth without substantial and continued foreign aid. (Paras. 15, 20-35)

4. Nasser will probably continue to work for consolidation of unity between the Egyptian and Syrian regions through a fairly pragmatic combination of authoritarian control and tactical concessions to Syrian sensibilities. In most respects, such consolidation involves a high degree of Egyptian domination of Syria. We believe that Nasser has a good chance of avoiding a breakup of the union. However, striking successes are unlikely, and serious setbacks remain constantly possible. (Paras. 14-24)

5. Nasser's control of the UAR--as well as his position in the Arab world generally--will be helped by Arab fear and hatred of Israel. Israel's nuclear potential and Israeli plans to divert Jordan waters will intensify Arab apprehensions. The UAR has the only Arab armed forces with any significant potential against Israel, which gives Nasser a unique claim to Arab leadership. (Paras. 19, 37-38)

6. This claim is further buttressed by Nasser's accepted position as the leading exponent of Arab reformism, and by his demonstrated readiness to assume leadership in defending Arab nationalism against communism. Despite his dependence on the Bloc, he is not neutral in the conflict between Arab nationalism and communism. (Paras. 10-11, 19, 46-50)

7. It is highly unlikely that Nasser will abandon his broad foreign policy of "positive neutralism." He has a basic belief that either of the great power blocs, if given free rein, would move to dominate or destroy him; he believes that neither can get free rein because of the determination of the other to prevent it. He will thus seek to avoid both total dependence on, and total alienation from, the Bloc as well as the West. Although in practice this strategy leads him to side more often with the Bloc than with the West, he has shown himself ready to respond vigorously to Soviet attacks. (Paras. 48-51)

8. It is probable that with the passage of time the inherent incompatibility between ultimate Soviet ambitions in the Middle East and the aspirations of Nasser and the Arab nationalists to preserve and strengthen their independent position will become increasingly manifest. If the Soviets should decide to abandon support of the Nasser regime in favor of increasingly heavy-handed pressure and subversion, the result would probably be a fundamental breach between Nasser and the USSR. However, such a breach may not come for years. (Para. 52)

9. Nasser's efforts to play a leading role among neutralists and Afro-Asians confront him with complex problems. Almost all African leaders, for example, are unwilling to see him play a dominant role on that continent. Moreover, matters like the forthcoming conference of nonaligned states and the future structure of the UN involve him in conflicting pressures from the Sino-Soviet Bloc and the neutralists. (Paras. 41-42, 45, 53)

[Here follows the 8-page Discussion section. See Supplement, the United Arab Republic compilation.]


69. Memorandum From the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Secretary of Defense McNamara
/1/

JCSM-443-61

Washington, June 28, 1961.

/1/Source: Washington National Records Center, RG 330, OSD Files: FRC 64 A 2382, Iran 000.1--1961. Top Secret.

SUBJECT
Military Advice Pursuant to US Policy Towards Iran (U)

1. Reference is made to the memorandum from the Deputy Secretary of Defense, dated 29 May 1961,/2/ subject as above, in which the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were requested on specific aspects of the new "US Policy Toward Iran" as set forth in National Security Council Action 2427./3/

/2/Not printed. (Ibid.)

/3/Document 51.

2. In your examination of political-military implications of NSC Action 2427 with the Department of State, it is recommended that you consider the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as summarized below and as supplemented in the Appendix hereto:/4/

/4/Not printed.

a. The strategic importance of Iran to the United States and her allies, especially NATO, cannot be overemphasized. However, the United States does not have sufficient military assets to station permanently significant additional forces in Iran or adjacent areas and meet current worldwide security commitments.

b. Temporary deployment of "show of force" or "token" forces additional to forces permanently deployed to the area is feasible. Pre-positioning of some material and equipment in the general area will assist in the attainment of a more rapid reaction to an emergency and will assist in support of temporary deployments. However, inherent delays in obtaining clearances for transit of forces and timely availability of base facilities could restrict immediate actions to temporary deployments of naval forces to international waters adjacent to Iran.

c. Periodic dispatching of US forces on an exercise or maneuver basis to Iran, preferably in coordination with CENTO, is desirable and feasible.

d. Further detailed identification (earmarking) of existing US units allocated for possible deployment to Iran in current contingency plans is militarily impractical.

e. It is militarily undesirable to inform the Iranian Government more specifically of US unilateral plans for military action in support of Iran.

f. Current military plans provide for the possible use of US forces in excess of two divisions in Iran, with either conventional or nuclear capability, or both; therefore, preparation of additional plans for illustrative purposes as a basis for identifying key military and political considerations appears unnecessary.

g. The decision to deploy sizeable forces to the Middle East area to assist Iran against a Soviet attack must consider the possibility of the conflict escalating into general war and the effect of the decision on US general war posture. It is envisaged that in general war defense of the Middle East area would be undertaken primarily by indigenous forces. Within present military strategy, it is not contemplated that sizeable US combat forces will be deployed to the Middle East area, at least initially. Many advantages would accrue to the area from the Allied strategic offensive.

For the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

L. L. Lemnitzer/5/
Chairman
Joint Chiefs of Staff

/5/Printed from a copy that indicates Lemnitzer signed the original.


70. Message From Foreign Secretary Home to Secretary of State Rusk
/1/

London, June 28, 1961.

/1/Source: Department of State, Presidential Correspondence: Lot 66 D 204, UK Officials Correspondence with Secretary Rusk vol. 2. Top Secret. Transmitted under cover of a note from Lord Hood, Minister of the British Embassy, to Secretary Rusk.

I have not communicated with you before about the Kuwait crisis because we had been hoping to get some clearer indications of whether an Iraqi military move is likely. Kassem is so nearly mad that military action cannot be excluded, but we have no evidence that preparations are taking place.

As you know, last time that our two Governments were preparing military movements in the area, after the Iraqi revolution in July 1958, Foster Dulles and Selwyn Lloyd were in the closest touch about the action which we might take separately or together. Caccia will no doubt discuss all this with you and give you our information. We have an absolute obligation to help the Ruler if Kuwait is attacked and, as this is an area the security of which is of immense importance to both of us, I hope we could act with the closest cooperation.

What a world it is!/2/

/2/After delivering this message, First Secretary of the British Embassy Denis J. Speares met with Meyer and elaborated upon what the United Kingdom was seeking from the United States regarding Kuwait as follows: "such public and moral support as might be required should the UK feel required to support Kuwait militarily; and b) possible US association with a military move in Kuwait along the lines of a US-UK 'study' of two years ago which envisaged roughly 90 per cent UK participation and 10 per cent US participation." (Ibid., Central Files, 786D.5/6-2861)


71. Memorandum of Conversation
/1/

Washington, June 29, 1961, 11:55 a.m.

/1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, 786D.022/6-2961. Secret. Drafted by Hart. The time of the meeting is from the President's Appointment Book. (Kennedy Library)

SUBJECT
Ambassador Hart's Call on the President

PARTICIPANTS
The President
The Honorable John M. Cabot, Ambassador to Brazil
The Honorable Mercer Cook, Ambassador Designate to Niger
The Honorable Parker T. Hart, Ambassador Designate to Saudi Arabia
The Honorable Philip M. Kaiser, Ambassador Designate to Senegal and Islamic Republic of Mauritania
The Honorable John J. Muccio, Ambassador to Guatemala
The Honorable Edward T. Wailes, Ambassador Designate to Czechoslovakia

The President received us as a group and queried each Ambassador Designate for his views with respect to the area to which he was accredited. When my turn came, he asked me about the crisis over Kuwait, asking whether it was true that the Saudi Arabian Government was moving troops toward that area. When I responded that this was confirmed, he asked whether or not it was the intention of the Saudi Arabian Government to forestall Iraq by taking over Kuwait. I said no; I believed the object of the Saudi move was to defend Kuwait's independence against the Iraqi threat.

In response to a query as to how serious the threat was, I said that Sir Humphrey Trevelyan had advised London that the U.K. should be prepared to move troops in the direction of Kuwait to defend it, indicating Sir Humphrey's fear that the Iraqi Government might make a quick military move. The President said this tallied with information he had received this morning. He asked whether any other Arab countries were taking a position on Kuwait's side, as was Saudi Arabia. I said yes, the U.A.R. had come out flatfooted for Kuwait's independence. To his question whether there were any Arab countries that might support Iraq in its claims, I said that I could think of none likely to do so. He asked about the U.S.S.R. I said that it had not expressed itself. I was not quite so sure about the position of Iran--possibly Ambassador Wailes might have a comment--inasmuch as Iran had claims on Bahrain; and if Persian Gulf shaikhdoms were going to break loose from their traditional association with the U.K., in a sense it became "open season" for larger neighboring powers to assert such claims that they might have. Ambassador Wailes made no comment on this point.

The President turned to converse with the remaining Ambassadors in turn, then concluded the meeting by commenting on the centralized responsibilities of U.S. Ambassadors abroad, referring to the letter which he had written with regard to their proper role as coordinators of all American activities within their jurisdictions./2/ He added that all of our countries were very important and he hoped that each of us would make it a point to broaden as far as possible his contacts with the people of the countries to which he was accredited. During his own Presidential campaign, he remarked, very few foreign ambassadors in the United States had sought him out and he had met most of them since the inauguration. In a country such as ours it hardly mattered, but in the countries to which we were going it was necessary to develop contacts on every possible level, including the opposition. At this point, I commented that his thoughts had particular relevance to the situation in Saudi Arabia where the United States has enjoyed through its Military Training Mission unusually close contacts with leaders of the Saudi military. These contacts are of great potential value as the regime in Saudi Arabia must surely change and new leadership is most likely to come from this element. The President asked the status of the Military Training Mission. I said that since Saudi Arabia had given notice of its intention not to renew the Dhahran Airfield Agreement when it expired next April 1, there was a question regarding the continuation of the USMTM. Actually, two separate agreements were involved, one for the Airfield and the other for the USMTM, but they had always been regarded as in the nature of quid pro quo. Many of us felt that the USMTM was a positive political asset and if asked by the Saudi Government to continue it--as I expected we would be--I hoped we would be receptive. The President responded that it was indeed very important to maintain our relationship with the military./3/ He said that criticisms were frequently heard on Capitol Hill of military aid to such countries but it was essential nevertheless to keep these contacts in American hands. He inquired whether the Pentagon felt differently from myself on this matter, and I responded that I thought not, that the Pentagon supported this view as far as I could determine.

/2/For text of this May 29 letter, see Department of State Bulletin, December 11, 1961, p. 993.

/3/He added that our officers so assigned should consider this an important duty. [Footnote in the source text.]

Action

He then instructed me to convey the following message to Assistant Secretary Talbot: That Mr. Talbot inform him of the decision which might be made with respect to the USMTM in Saudi Arabia before such decision was final.

As we shook hands on my departure, I said that I intended, if he agreed, to convey his personal regards to the King of Saudi Arabia and to the King of the Yemen. He nodded assent and remarked he had recently met one of the Saudi princes in the hospital.


72. Message From Foreign Secretary Home to Secretary of State Rusk
/1/

London, June 29, 1961.

/1/Source: Department of State, Presidential Correspondence: Lot 66 D 204, UK Officials Correspondence with Secretary Rusk vol. 2. Secret.

There are now indications, still somewhat tenuous but pointing unmistakeably at preparations by Qasim to reinforce his troops near Basra with a tank regiment. Our appreciation is that the Iraqis might be ready from July 1 to send a small force with armour across the Kuwait border which could occupy the territory in a few hours. Once the force was poised in the Basra area, we might have virtually no warning of an attack. We are bringing our own units in the area to a state of readiness./2/ We are in constant touch with the Ruler and are telling him that if he wishes us to defend him the moment has come to invoke our recent exchange of letters with him and request military assistance to meet Iraqi threat. In this event we would try to keep any action in Kuwait itself as unobtrusive as possible but if there were danger of imminent Iraqi attack we would have no alternative but to put forces openly into Kuwait to defend it. If we did not do this and waited for the Iraqis to move first, we might be too late.

/2/At 5 p.m. on June 29 in the United Kingdom, British Admiral Lord Mountbatten asked Admiral Smith of CINCNELM to inform General Lemnitzer that the United Kingdom had ordered 12-hour readiness for all forces involved in the Kuwait plan with forward advance forces to arrive off Kuwait on July 1 and others to head toward Bahrain. (Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Country Series, Kuwait, 6/61-7/61)

2. If we put forces into Kuwait at the Ruler's request in these circumstances, I hope that we can count on full political support from the United States Government. It would be absolutely essential. You know full well that we shall not do this unless we have to and that forces will remain no longer than is necessary. The importance of Kuwait to the Western world is such, however, that we cannot take the risk of allowing Qasim to seize it unopposed.

3. Naturally we hope that things will not come to this pass, and it may be that the influence of the Arab Governments and of other friendly countries will restrain Qasim. We are sending an immediate message to the Arab Governments of the area and to those of India, Pakistan and Turkey asking them to use any influence they have to restrain Qasim. As we have no relations with Saudi Arabia, would you please urge King Saud to throw his weight in also in favour of restraint?

4. We are very conscious of the United Nations angle on this and the Security Council will clearly have to be seized of the matter if the Iraqi threat develops further. Kuwait is not yet a member of the United Nations and there might be advantage in action being initiated by another Arab Government. We have been wondering whether Saudi Arabia would be the right one for this role. We may consult the Ruler of Kuwait about this. There may be an awkward problem of timing in this connection, since we would not wish an approach to the Security Council to prevent us from taking the necessary precautionary action in Kuwait. We are consulting our mission in New York on this question, and no doubt they will consult yours.


73. Editorial Note

The Record of Actions for the 486th meeting of the National Security Council on June 29, 1961, "noted the President's approval of the Secretary of State's recommendation that the U.S. give full political and logistic support, if required, to the United Kingdom in connection with certain actions it is taking to forestall any Iraq attempt to take over Kuwait by force." (Department of State, S/S-NSC (Miscellaneous) Files: Lot 66 D 95, Records of Action by the National Security Council)

Rusk sent the following message to Lord Home following the meeting: "Thank you for your messages of yesterday and today. Your thinking coincides with ours. We understand the depth of your obligation, we agree that the independence of Kuwait must not be destroyed by force and we are prepared to render the full political support you request. We are communicating with Saud and we are considering the Security Council angle. While Qasim is, to say the least, unpredictable, we are hopeful that given time to work political forces among the Arabs will dissuade Qasim from committing himself to an unfortunate course of action with unpredictable consequences. We shall be very happy to keep in close touch with you on this." (Transmitted in telegram 6138 to London, June 29; ibid., Central Files, 686D.87/6-2961)


74. Memorandum From Robert W. Komer of the National Security Council Staff to the President's Deputy Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Rostow)
/1/

Washington, June 30, 1961.

/1/Source: Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Country Series, United Arab Republic, 7/61-10/61. Secret.

Walt--

The attached Conclusions of NIE 36-61: Nasser and the Future of Arab Nationalism/2/ supported as cogently as I have ever seen the case for the US seeking a limited accommodation with Nasser:

/2/Document 68.

Nationalism will remain the most dynamic force in the Arab world and Nasser will remain its foremost leader. His influence is likely to grow rather than decline. Meanwhile, he is seeking to balance off the two great power blocs. However, over the years "the inherent incompatibility between ultimate Soviet ambitions in the Middle East and the aspirations of Nasser and the Arab nationalists to preserve and strengthen their independent position will become increasingly manifest."

Here is the case for our attempting to stay in the game with Nasser, not trying to outbid the Soviets, not deluding ourselves with any idea that we can bring him into the Western camp but merely that we must live with him and he must live with us. Ergo, are there not areas where we can cooperate, thus providing him confidence in Western support if he runs afoul eventually of the Soviets?

As you have pointed out, one of the key things we have to offer is assistance in economic development. In turn, however, we must let Nasser know that we expect a compensatory quid pro quo in a less antagonistic policy on his part. A rapprochement along these lines may take years and involve numerous zigs and zags. Only time, for example, is likely to make the Arabs willing to live with Israel. But the many pitfalls which lie ahead are no excuse for not deciding now whether to move in the direction of a long-term policy of this sort.

Bob K.


75. Circular Telegram From the Department of State to Certain Consular and Diplomatic Posts
/1/

Washington, June 30, 1961, 9:19 p.m.

/1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, 786D.022/6-3061. Secret. Drafted by Thacher, cleared by Davis, and approved by Talbot who initialed for Rusk. Sent to Amman, Ankara, Beirut, Bonn, Jidda, Karachi, Khartoum, New Delhi, Paris, Rabat, Rome, Tripoli, Tokyo, Tehran, Tunis, Aden, Damascus, Dhahran, and Nairobi and repeated to Baghdad, Cairo, Kuwait, London, Basra, Colombo, and Monrovia.

2138. Following background summary Kuwait situation:

Subsequent to announcement June 19 UK-Kuwait exchange letters which redefines UK-Kuwait relationship and abrogates 1899 Agreement, Iraq Prime Minister dispatched message to Ruler of Kuwait which omitted reference Kuwait independence and raised question legality Kuwait's existence separate from Iraq. In press conference June 25 Qasim denounced UK-Kuwait relationship and asserted Kuwait part of Iraq since Sheikhdom had been illegally separated in Ottoman times from Province of Basra. Iraqi claim embodied in memorandum circulated to foreign governments.

Reactions to Qasim's statements have included expression deep concern from Saudi Arabia where Cabinet has met in emergency session and King dispatched Chief of Staff General al-Tassan to Kuwait for consultation with Kuwait leaders. Statement by King Saud affirmed Kuwait and Saudi Arabia "as one country" and he has sent message to other Arab heads state urging support Kuwait's independence. UAR Minister of State reflected UARG concern in statement June 25 deploring situation that has arisen and upholding principle of Arab unity. In Baghdad idea of Kuwait's absorption long popular but politically conscious Iraqis and Qasim's many detractors probably view his posture as risky and perhaps absurd. At same time danger exists he may be committed to choice between eventual resort to force or heavy loss of prestige. Officially Iraqi Foreign Minister has assured us Iraq has no intention using force. In Kuwait, Ruler enjoying full popular support in his professed determination preserve Kuwait's independence.

In past 24 hours there have been rumors of threatening Iraqi troop movements. While these not confirmed, British now deeply concerned and feel obliged take steps preparatory meeting their obligations to Kuwait. British spokesman has now admitted publicly Britain taking precautionary steps. British vessels and military equipment moving to Persian Gulf area, although British anxious to limit insofar as possible knowledge these movements.

US and UK in close consultation. US continues hope Arab states may play leading role in deterring Iraqis. Both UAR and Saudi Arabia obviously concerned prospect Iraqi absorption Kuwait and possible pre-emption Kuwaiti oil income, now approximately $400 million per annum. Consequently we have requested our Charge Jidda to consult immediately with King Saud and our Charge Cairo seek elucidation GUAR views at high level./2/ British Ambassador Baghdad has suggested his Indian, Turk and Pakistani colleagues seek cooperation their governments in despatch of messages to Qasim urging restraint.

/2/The Department sent instructions to the Embassy in Jidda in telegram 478, June 29 (ibid., 786D.00/6-2861), and to the Embassy in Cairo in telegram 2220, June 29 (ibid., 686D.87/6-2961).

For moment Dept suggests addressee posts make no approaches to host governments. Should topic arise in informal discussion you should stress our deep interest in preservation Near Eastern peace, US recognition Kuwait's sovereignty, our concern with maintaining world wide respect for freedom and independence of small states, and our hope Arab efforts toward restraint of Iraq will be fruitful. You may note also that US and UK governments in close consultation and that US fully sympathetic to UK desire fulfill its responsibilities to Ruler of Kuwait.

Rusk


76. Message From the National Security Council Executive Secretary (Smith) to the President's Military Aide (Clifton)
/1/

Washington, June 30, 1961.

/1/Source: Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Country Series, Kuwait, 6/61- 7/61. Top Secret; Operational Immediate.

CAP 5153-61. UK Foreign Minister told Bruce this afternoon:

(1) Ruler of Kuwait has asked for UK military support.

(2) In response, UK making extensive deployments and by tomorrow expects to have forces in Kuwait or nearby capable of handling any Iraq move./2/

/2/The British Foreign Office during the morning of July 1 issued the following statement: "In accordance with H.M.G.'s obligations to the Ruler of Kuwait and at his urgent and formal request, a British force was today moved into the State of Kuwait and placed at the Ruler's disposal. It is to afford him such assistance as he may consider necessary for the preservation of the independence of Kuwait in the face of recent developments in Iraq.

"The Secretary-General of the United Nations is being informed.

"H.M.G. earnestly hope that the necessity to make use of its force will not arise. It is intended that it should be withdrawn as soon as the Ruler considers that the threat to the independence of Kuwait is over." (Telegram 2 from London, July 1; Department of State, Central Files, 686D.87/7-161)

(3) British action dictated by feeling UK Government had no option other than to accede to Kuwait's request for support. UK regrets that it was not practicable to leave Kuwait affair to be settled between Arabs, but decided this course would have been too risky.

Mountbatten told Admiral Smith UK proposes to inform UN Security Council when first troops go ashore. Utmost secrecy requested prior public announcement.

CINCNELM staff contacts indicate UK planners foresee no request for U.S. support initially, but a possible request for air logistic support in latter phases.

CINCNELM reaffirms previous recommendation that U.S. make no military deployment until assistance requested by UK.

Note: Additional deployment details available if desired tomorrow.


77. Message From Foreign Secretary Home to Secretary of State Rusk
/1/

London, July 2, 1961.

/1/Source: Department of State, Presidential Correspondence: Lot 66 D 204, UK Officials Correspondence with Secretary Rusk vol. 2. Secret; Eyes Only. A paragraph at the top of the source text, presumably typed at the White House, reads: "The following message from Lord Home was handed to the Secretary by Ambassador Caccia during his call on the Secretary at 2:00 p.m., July 2, 1961."

1. Mr. Rusk's message/2/ was discussed by the Prime Minister this morning and you should now tell Mr. Rusk how grateful we are that U.S. Govt., in addition to public support it has already given us, has put this proposal to us and the comfort which we draw from the knowledge that the U.S. has forces in the area.

/2/Presumably that quoted in Document 73.

2. As you will see Kasim has a balanced force including armour poised for attack if he means to make it./3/ Although the balance is moving against him as our reinforcements arrive, and the position has greatly improved, we are still faced with the possibility within the next day or two of an attack by a force of at least numerically greater strength. The question whether Kasim will risk such an attack seems to be dependent on events in the next 24 or 48 hours.

/3/An assessment of the military situation prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff is in a memorandum from JCS Director Wheeler to NEA Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Meyer, July 1. (Washington National Records Center, RG 330, OSD Files: FRC 64 A 2382, Kuwait 000.1--1961) See Supplement, the compilation on Kuwait.

3. If such an attack were made and a battle ensued, it might be very useful indeed to have these American forces at Bahrain. If, on the other hand, the attack does not take place, we are likely to be faced with a political problem, the immediate military threat having diminished.

4. In the latter case, the presence in the area of "Solant Amity"/4/ might cut both ways. It would show the world the solidarity of American support in a manner which we would greatly welcome, even though that solidarity has already been demonstrated in a most gratifying fashion. On the other hand, the Kuwaiti case will already be formally before the United Nations and the addition of an American force which will be regarded as having been sent to the gulf for this particular purpose (as opposed to the U.S. destroyers which are already in the area) might make it easier for the Arabs and Russians to argue that this was a joint imperialist manoeuvre. The considerations are nicely balanced.

/4/On June 29, CINCLANT directed the Solant Amity naval force, consisting of two destroyers, three amphibious vessels, and 463 Marines, then in the Mozambique channel en route to Cape Town, to reverse course and proceed north toward Bahrain to be available, if requested, to assist the British in the Kuwait crisis. (Operations/Military Policy Matters, J-3/J-5 Directorates, July 3; Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Country Series, Kuwait, 6/61-7/61)

5. My colleagues and I hope therefore that the American Govt. would agree that "Solant Amity" should continue in the meantime to steam North and that we should have an opportunity of reviewing the situation in 24 hours or so and, in any case, before the force reaches Bahrain. (The fact that this force has altered its plans and is proceeding towards the gulf has already appeared in the press which in itself has probably had a good effect.)

6. It emerged from the discussion this morning that the most useful help which the U.S. Navy could give us at the present moment would be if the U.S. destroyer at Bahrain (the other is believed to be at Aden) could proceed to the north of the gulf and make a reconnaissance to see whether there are any signs of Iraqi maritime activities. The reason for this is that there are twelve motor torpedo boats, some with partly Russian crews, at Basra at the moment and reports of Iraqi troops being sent to Fao which may indicate the intention of the Iraqis to embark on some maritime adventure. Our own naval forces in the area are still rather thin and reconnaissance by the U.S. destroyer could be of great help--particularly if at the same time the second destroyer were to be moved round to Bahrain from Aden. Unless you see objection please mention this matter to Mr. Rusk and suggest that if the U.S. authorities were agreeable, the U.S. naval authorities on the spot should discuss the matter with flag officer Middle East at Bahrain.


78. Editorial Note

After receipt of the message from Lord Home (Document 77), at 5 p.m. on July 2, 1961, Washington time, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Burke directed a 24-hour delay on any new orders for the Solant Amity forces and specifically ordered no patrol or other commitment for any U.S. ships. (Operations/Military Policy Matters, J-3/J-5 Directorates, July 3; Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Country Series, Kuwait, 6/61-7/61) At 12:52 p.m. on July 3, Secretary Rusk told British Ambassador Caccia over the telephone that in view of the British military buildup and developments in the area, the United States was inclined to disengage U.S. forces headed for Kuwait. At 2:20 p.m. that day, Rusk told Deputy Defense Secretary Gilpatric during a telephone conversation that chances were high that the United States would suggest to the British that the United States stand down Solant Amity because of the British military buildup and Iraqi statements regarding a peaceful settlement. At 4:02 p.m., Caccia thanked Rusk over the telephone for all the United States had done and said that because of the improved situation the United Kingdom no longer considered it necessary for Solant Amity to continue toward Bahrain. At 4:19 p.m., Rusk telephoned Clifton to inform President Kennedy that Solant Amity had been turned around in full coordination with the British Government. (Memoranda of telephone conversations; Department of State, Rusk Files: Lot 72 D 192, Telephone Conversations)


79. Memorandum of Conversation
/1/

Washington, July 7, 1961, 4:05 p.m.

/1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, 786D.022/7-761. Secret. Drafted by Tyler and approved in S on July 17. The time of the meeting is from Secretary Rusk's Appointment Book. (Johnson Library)

SUBJECT
Kuwait

PARTICIPANTS
The Secretary of State
Sir Harold Caccia, British Ambassador
Herve Alphand, French Ambassador
Lord Hood, Minister of British Embassy
Pierre Pelen, Counselor of French Embassy
Denis Greenhill, Counselor of British Embassy
Jean-Claude Winckler, Counselor of French Embassy
Wiliam R. Tyler, Acting Assistant Secretary

The Secretary asked Ambassador Caccia about the situation in Kuwait. The Ambassador said the UK has an interest in leaving Kuwait as soon as the Ruler of Kuwait feels that he is safe. He said it was going to be difficult to find a means of creating a secure situation permitting withdrawal, at any rate before the Iraq national holiday (July 14). Ambassador Alphand suggested the possibility that Kassim might nationalize the IPC. Ambassador Caccia expressed appreciation for United States support in the UN on the Kuwait issue.


80. Editorial Note

Between July 2 and 7, 1961, the U.N. Security Council met to consider a July 1 Kuwaiti complaint to the Security Council that Iraq was threatening Kuwait's territorial independence and an Iraqi complaint delivered on July 2 that the United Kingdom posed an armed threat to Iraq's independence and security. After a discussion of the issues involved, the United Kingdom on July 6 submitted a draft resolution that called upon all states to respect Kuwait's independence and territorial integrity, urged that all concerned work for peace and tranquility in the area, and agreed to keep the situation under review. The United Arab Republic objected to the United Kingdom's draft on the basis that it did not provide for the withdrawal of British forces, and consequently submitted its own draft resolution urging that the question be solved by peaceful means and calling for an immediate withdrawal of British forces from Kuwait.

On July 7, the Council voted 7 in favor, 1 opposed, with 3 abstentions on the U.K. draft resolution. Because the negative vote came from the Soviet Union, a permanent member of the Security Council, the draft resolution failed of adoption. The Council then voted on the draft of the United Arab Republic, 3 in favor, 0 against, with 8 abstentions. This draft resolution also failed of adoption because it did not obtain the required 7 affirmative votes. The United States voted in favor of the United Kingdom's draft resolution and abstained on that of the United Arab Republic.

During the discussion, the U.S. Representative affirmed that the United States regarded Kuwait as a sovereign independent state and supported Kuwait's desire to remain free and independent. Documentation relating to U.S. involvement in the Security Council debate, including instructions sent to the Mission to the United Nations, negotiations relating to the draft resolutions, and texts of U.S. statements are in Department of State, Central Files 786D.00, 786D.022, and 686D.87. See also Supplement, the compilation on Kuwait.


81. Memorandum of Conversation
/1/

Washington, July 7, 1961, 11:57 a.m.

/1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, 601.86A11/7-761. Secret. Drafted by Talbot and approved by the White House on July 21. The time of the meeting is from the President's Appointment Book. (Kennedy Library)

SUBJECT
Meeting between the President and the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia

PARTICIPANTS
The President
His Excellency Sheikh Abdullah Al-Khayyal, Ambassador of Saudi Arabia
NEA--Assistant Secretary Phillips Talbot
Major Badawi, Military Attaché, Embassy of Saudi Arabia

The Saudi Ambassador reminded the President that they had met on two previous occasions, at a hospital in New York when Prince Faisal was a patient and then in the Senate after Mr. Kennedy had made a speech favoring negotiations for Algerian independence. The President recalled both occasions and commented he had been particularly grateful for the Saudi King's message after his Algerian speech as one of the few really cordial responses to what had not been a very popular speech here.

The Ambassador informed the President that he had just received the reply of His Majesty the King of Saudi Arabia to the President's letter which had been written in May,/2/ and he presented to the President the Arab original and an unofficial English translation./3/ When the President had read the letter carefully and intently, the Ambassador, speaking in Arabic which was translated into English by Major Badawi, said that he was sure the President understood that in the Saudi Government's view there are good relations and not many difficulties between his country and the United States. The problems that do arise are mainly those related to a third state, and the President would know to what he was referring.

/2/Kennedy's May 11 letter to Saud is the same as the letter to Nasser (see Document 47) except that the fourth paragraph reads: "I recall the very useful and constructive meeting of President Roosevelt with Your Majesty's illustrious father, the late King Abdul Aziz, which still stands as a symbol of the community of interest and the common aspirations of our two great peoples"; and the penultimate paragraph reads: "With respect to relationships between Saudi Arabia and the United States, I share Your Majesty's desire that the close ties which have so happily existed between our two great countries should continue to flourish. Ambassador Heath has kept us fully informed concerning matters of mutual interest and I am indeed grateful for the many kindnesses which you and your government have accorded him as the representative of the United States government and people." (Telegram 430 to Jidda, May 11; Department of State, Central Files, 611.80/5-1161)

/3/After a cordial opening, most of King Saud's lengthy letter, dated June 25, strongly criticized U.S. support for Israel and the U.S. position on the Arab-Israeli dispute, particularly that taken during the recent U.N. General Assembly debate on the Palestinian refugees. (See Documents 34 and 36) Saud insisted that the only basis for considering the Palestine question was that the Arabs were the legal possessors of Palestine and had a right to live there. To Saud, Israel was a usurper and aggressor established with the political assistance of the United States. (Department of State, Central Files, 786A.00/6-2591)

Commenting on the letter, the President said the United States had hoped that, whatever the history of the situation might be, it would be possible to face the problems that exist today and to make some progress toward solving them. This would, of course, depend upon the willingness and desire of the people and governments of the area. The United States had advanced some suggestions in the hope that they might be helpful. Now this reply had come with some comments that were very critical of the policies of his Government. If there were no agreement to proceed with trying to find solutions, then of course we would not proceed.

Referring to other aspects of relations between Saudi Arabia and the United States the President said he understood that the Ambassador had been informed of United States' readiness to fulfill the conditions of the agreement for sale of United States military equipment to Saudi Arabia. Mr. Talbot confirmed that the Ambassador had met with the Secretary yesterday/4/ and had been told that the United States would provide this equipment, subject to the force levels agreed upon under the "1380 Plan" and subject also to availabilities. The Ambassador explained that these two conditions were indeed the uncertainties. He was leaving for home next Tuesday and hoped that he could carry a definite reply to his Government. Mr. Talbot further explained that the Defense Department is now examining the Saudi requests in the light of the "1380 Plan" and of availabilities and he hoped to be able to inform the Ambassador before the latter's departure of the date by which a firm reply to the Saudi Government's request could be expected. The Ambassador again suggested that he really hoped for explicit answers to take home with him. The President then instructed Mr. Talbot to inform him by Tuesday of what could be told the Ambassador before his departure. The President added that the Ambassador before he left would have opportunity for specific discussions with the Department on other questions as well, including the Dhahran airfield and the Military Training Mission. In response Mr. Talbot informed the President, with the Ambassador's assent, that the subjects had already been discussed with the Ambassador and that we would be glad to answer any of the Ambassador's further questions.

/4/The memorandum of conversation is ibid., 611.86A/7-661. For text, see Supplement, the compilation on Saudi Arabia.

The President asked the Ambassador for his judgment of the Kuwait situation. Giving his personal views, the Ambassador replied that he thought there was not now any likelihood that the Iraqi Government would use force against Kuwait although it would continue to make its claim that Kuwait is part of Iraq. He did not believe that there would be a resort to violence there.


82. Memorandum From the Department of State Executive Secretary (Battle) to the President's Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Bundy)
/1/

Washington, July 10, 1961.

/1/Source: Department of State, NSAM Files: Lot 72 D 316, NSAM 73. Confidential. Drafted by Eilts.

SUBJECT
Status of Saudi Arabian Arms Purchase Request

When the President saw the Saudi Arabian Ambassador on Friday, July 7, the Ambassador asked about availabilities of various items of military equipment included in two recently submitted Saudi Arabian arms purchase requests. The President told the Ambassador that we would try to give him an answer before the Ambassador leaves on July 11.

Secretary Rusk had earlier told the Ambassador that the United States was prepared to sell to Saudi Arabia, in accordance with the 1957 Dhahran Airfield arrangements, those items on the Saudi Arabian arms purchase lists which were consistent with the jointly developed force goals plan for Saudi Arabia known as the "1380 Plan" and subject to availabilities. Following the President's discussion with the Ambassador, the Department of State discussed the lists further with appropriate officers of the Department of Defense. A message was subsequently sent to the Chief of the United States Military Training Mission in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, requesting his determination on the compatibility of the items included in the Saudi Arabian lists with the Tables of Organization and Equipment of the "1380 Plan." Such a determination is necessary in order to allow the Department of Defense to process the lists. A reply is now being awaited.

A preliminary examination of the lists by Departments of State and Defense officials suggests that most of the land forces equipment included thereon is compatible with the "1380 Plan." The Plan is vague with respect to Air Force equipment, however, and there is some question whether the F-100's and the B-57's which the Saudi Arabians wish to purchase may be regarded as compatible. The views of the Chief of the United States Military Training Mission have also been sought on this matter.

The Department of Defense was unable to state which items on the lists are in fact available, and indicated that the lists would have to be sent to the respective military services which would in turn determine availabilities. The Department of Defense estimated that it may take from six weeks to six months to determine definitively which items on the very extensive Saudi Arabian arms purchase lists are available and to send the customary Letters of Offer to the Saudi Arabian Embassy. Deliveries will vary with the equipment, but it is estimated they will take a minimum of eight months and in some cases longer.

Assistant Secretary Talbot has today conveyed this information to the Saudi Arabian Ambassador./2/

/2/The memorandum of conversation is in Department of State, Central Files, 711.5622/7-1061.

F.A. Mau/3/

/3/Mau signed for Battle above Battle's typed signature.


83. Memorandum From President Kennedy to His Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Bundy)
/1/

Washington, July 10, 1961.

/1/Source: Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Country Series, Palestine, Refugees, Vol. I, 4/61-11/61. No classification marking.

I want a report from the State Department, I asked Secretary Rusk about this, on whose idea it was for me to send the letters to the Middle Eastern Arab leaders./2/ The reaction has been so sour I would like to know whose idea it was, what they hoped to accomplish and what they think we have now accomplished.

/2/See Document 42.

JFK


84. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom
/1/

Washington, July 12, 1961, 7:35 p.m.

/1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, 686D.87/7-1261. Secret. Drafted by Strong, cleared by Sisco and Rewinkel (BNA), and approved by Strong who initialed for Rusk. Also sent to Baghdad, Cairo, Jidda, USUN, and Kuwait.

165. Department Officers met July 11 with Dean of UKUN and Greenhill of British Embassy to continue earlier US-UK contacts at higher level on Kuwait crisis./2/ Purpose of meeting to sound out British thinking on the political aspects of current situation and of problem of disengagement.

/2/The memorandum of conversation is ibid., 786D.00/7-1161.

Dean carried bulk of conversation for UK side. Lacking confidence in Arab League or "Arab presence" ability to assure Kuwait independence his thinking centered on an UNTSO-type presence of forty or fifty observers possibly on both sides Iraq-Kuwait frontier and including an Arab element. As seen by Dean such arrangement would permit UK maintain its agreement with Ruler, would act as deterrent at low cost with few administrative problems and probably escape Soviet veto if UAR acquiesces. Would not be pursued unless Ruler and US satisfied arrangement adequate. Successful negotiation in New York very unlikely hence negotiation bilaterally with members of SC required; would be up to US to deal with Saudis. After bilateral negotiation SC might apply rubber stamp. Spinelli-type UN presence inadequate in Dean's opinion.

Department officers observed Iraq most unlikely agree to UN observers on its territory, Soviets and possibly UAR might support Iraqi objection, and if this element included in eventual proposal to SC it would probably be regarded as "gimmick" designed insure defeat UN presence plan.

Other possibilities canvassed by Dean were replacement of UK forces by a strong UN contingent or a political settlement, neither of which seemed practicable to him. According to Dean, London has not yet reacted to his proposals.

Dean considers Cairo may be key to Kuwait problem. Question is whether UK can get UAR agreement to satisfactory arrangement. British intend reduce forces in Kuwait substantially but still uncertain to what level. Dean of personal opinion retention of small symbolic force would be adequate but he uncertain of London's view.

Your comments welcome.

FYI. Apparent from conversation that UK concerned at political, military and financial problems created by move into Kuwait and anxious find way out, at same time retaining freedom of action to protect Kuwaiti independence in future. We have been quietly encouraging UN presence idea. USG continues full political support to UK on this issue, but desires avoid sharing responsibility as well as role of go-between with Arabs (except Saudi Arabia) on behalf of UK. End FYI.

Rusk


85. Telegram From the Embassy in Israel to the Department of State
/1/

Tel Aviv, July 12, 1961, 4 p.m.

/1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, 886.411/7-1261. Secret. Received at 3:33 a.m. on July 13.

25. I had three hours of conversation with Mrs. Meir the Foreign Minister yesterday in addition to a social lunch. While I had intended to seek her thinking generally on a number of subjects discussion in fact became confined essentially to sole topic of refugee problem.

Referring at the outset to the current tenor of Arab public comment on refugees, excerpts from some of the most vitriolic and unyielding of which she had listed on a piece of paper and handed me, Mrs. Meir took the line that in the circumstances the Israelis did not anticipate that any gesture or initiative they might be prepared to take at this time would elicit any useful Arab response. Mrs. Meir went on to say that she had hoped that the President's letters to the Arab leaders and the latters' response might reveal some reason to anticipate Arab cooperation on this problem and that in that event or if we were in a position on the basis of other information to tell the Israelis that we had reason to divine some movement in the Arab position then Israel would be disposed to be helpful. In its absence the Israelis are reluctant at the moment to envisage any step which would only be rebuffed in this matter which is of such vital security concern to Israel.

There followed a long exposition of the steps Israel feels it has already taken in the past to solve the refugee problem notably that she originally permitted some 40,000 Arabs to return to Israel in 1949, that she has subsequently made an offer to accept another large number in the context of a peace settlement and finally that despite the absence of such a settlement and the fact that the Arabs still consider themselves at war the Israelis have released to the refugees a number of blocked financial accounts. Emphasizing Israel's critical defense position and the security aspects of the admission of any appreciable number of refugees, Mrs. Meir noted that the Arab population here now amounts to some 12 per cent of the total. She also professed to be apprehensive that the return flow of refugees could not effectively be stopped at any given figure and that pressures would arise to increase any number agreed upon. She made a major point of the uncertainties involved in the phrase "free choice" which she said Israel is being urged to offer the refugees. She was unable to accept the theory that any choice could really be free in the absence of a change in the Arab point of view which in her opinion meant in the absence of a peace settlement. She appreciated that the President in his conversation with Ben-Gurion had been fully cognizant of the necessity to safeguard Israel's security but could not see how that could be accomplished.

I argued along line of the Department's thinking emphasizing the psychological contribution of some initiative at an appropriate time to demonstrate again Israel's reasonableness on this issue with a view to the coming General Assembly and more generally to improve Israel's image in this respect world-wide. I similarly confirmed our concern for Israel's security problem and the fact that we are fully conscious that any steps taken should not prejudice Israel's justifiable security apprehensions.

The essence of Mrs. Meir's thought and that of her colleagues did not emerge from the matter of argumentation with complete clarity. However, she seemed to me to place major store by the necessity for Israel of having a complete scenario as to where an initiative would lead in the end before Israel would consider embarking on such a course. She was deaf to suggestions that a small step might lead in a desirable direction and could be safe-guarded against damaging Israel's position in the absence of Arab responsiveness. She reverted as a basic concept to the theory that the correct procedure is still to endeavor to negotiate a peace settlement as a whole after which or as a part of which the refugee problem would solve itself. She repeatedly reiterated Israel's willingness to sit down at the conference table with Arabs which she felt is sufficiently demonstrative of Israel's good will.

I appreciate that this conversation probably served little to advance us in the desirable direction of this problem and I do not believe that the attitude expressed can be described as encouraging, perhaps [garble] because it is my understanding that the cabinet had considered the problem at length the day before and the Foreign Minister's thinking no doubt reflects the government's current view. However, as indicated previously I think it unrealistic to anticipate any important progress until after the elections and I am consequently not particularly surprised at the views expressed on this occasion./2/

/2/Israeli Ambassador Harman also held a lengthy discussion on the refugee question with Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Cleveland on July 14. (Ibid., 325.84/7-1461)

Barbour


86. Memorandum From Secretary of State Rusk to President Kennedy
/1/

Washington, July 13, 1961.

/1/Source: Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Country Series, United Arab Republic, 7/61-10/61. No classification marking. Bundy forwarded the memorandum to President Kennedy on July 14.

SUBJECT
The Letters to Arab Leaders

Pursuant to our conversation on July 10,/2/ you will be interested in the following outline of the rationale behind the letters from you to the Arab leaders and our assessment as to the usefulness of the letters.

/2/See Document 83.

1. Arab Forebodings. It was with considerable concern that the Arab world viewed the incoming of the new United States administration. Not only have the Arabs considered former President Truman as largely responsible for the partitioning of Palestine and the creation of Israel, but they were disturbed by 1960 campaign statements which they thought suggested that a Democratic administration would seek to coerce the Arab states to make peace with Israel.

2. Tranquility Urged. Partly in an effort to forestall United States initiatives, Arab representatives in their contacts with officials of the new administration urged that the relative tranquility which has prevailed in the Near East during the past two or three years should be preserved. Israeli representatives made similar recommendations, based largely on the fact that under conditions of calm Israel has been making tremendous economic strides. For our part, we were preoccupied with the Congo, Cuba and Laos. We thus happily concurred in not stirring up the Near East.

3. Disquieting Developments. In March and April three developments disturbed Arabs:

a. Loan to Israel. At a Presidential press conference on March 15 it was announced that Israel was receiving a $25,000,000 Eximbank line of credit./3/ Sums more than twice this amount have been extended to Israel in each of recent years with no Arab reactions. However, announcement at the Presidential level, rather than routinely as previously, was construed by the Arabs as indication of a pro-Israeli trend.

/3/For the transcript of the news conference, see Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy, 1961, pp. 182-190.

b. Jerusalem Parade. Despite a ruling by UN authorities that such action would be a violation of the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement, Israel displayed heavy military equipment in an Independence Day parade in Jerusalem on April 20. Jordan brought the matter to the UN Security Council. While supporting two operative paragraphs condemning Israel, we were instrumental in adding a third paragraph stressing the importance of all parties respecting the armistice agreements and machinery. This addition was fully in accord with previous UN actions, but the Arabs chose to consider this a pro-Israeli move.

c. UNRWA Debate. Inconsistent with their exhortations to us not to take any initiatives, the Arabs sought at the General Assembly this spring to inject a highly controversial concept in a UN resolution concerning the Arab refugees, i.e. the establishment of a UN custodian for Arab properties left in Israel. Arab representatives obviously wished to make a test case of their voting strength in the expanded General Assembly. Had they succeeded a whole series of anti-Israel moves could be expected. Despite our urgings that new controversial elements should be deferred to the general review of the refugee problem scheduled at the General Assembly this fall, the Arabs pressed for a vote. They did not achieve the required two-thirds UNGA majority. Their defeat was naturally, and with good reason, attributed to United States opposition.

4. Refugee Approach. In a memorandum dated May 2 [April 28]/4/ which you approved on May 4 the Department outlined its view that an approach be made to the Arab refugee problem under the auspices of the Palestine Conciliation Commission (US, UK, and Turkey). Essentially the reasons were:

/4/Document 38.

a. Arab-Israel peace. While recognizing that a permanent overall Arab-Israel settlement is remote, progress on the refugee problem might well be the key to an Arab-Israeli modus vivendi.

b. UNGA Wrangling. The more than one million Arab refugees are being cared for by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). Inevitably the annual discussion of the UNRWA report at UNGA results in Arab-Israel wrangling, as it did this past spring. Inevitably too the United States is a scapegoat. Ambassador Stevenson was particularly concerned this spring when Arab displeasure produced anti-American votes on major issues such as Cuba.

c. XVIth UNGA. Pursuant to a resolution of two years ago, the UNGA will this fall review the whole refugee problem with a view to deciding on the future of UNRWA. Progress on the refugee problem before this fall's debate would assist greatly in reducing acrimony.

d. Reconstitution of PCC. Unless some progress is made on the refugee problem, it is almost a foregone conclusion that the Arabs will seek to promote a reconstitution of the Palestine Conciliation Commission. Some Arab spokesmen are advocating reconstitution along "troika" lines. By the very nature of things a Commission less friendly to Israel is apt to recommend proposals unpleasant to Israel and difficult for us.

e. Congress. In the absence of progress toward a solution of the refugee problem, Congress is apt to curtail funds for UNRWA which depends on us for 70 per cent of its governmental contributions. The collapse of UNRWA could easily result in political turmoil in the Near East, including perhaps an upheaval in Jordan. This would be to the detriment of United States interests and to the benefit of Soviet interests.

f. Domestic Expectations. Inasmuch as Israel's many friends in this country were expecting specific action by the new administration, the approach to the Arab refugee problem could be cited as a step toward tackling the key obstacle to an Arab-Israel settlement.

5. Ben Gurion Complication. It was at a critical juncture that President Ben Gurion decided to visit the United States. The Department feared the visit would clinch Arab suspicions that the new administration was pro-Israeli. Our effectiveness would accordingly be limited in dealing with the Arab world. More specifically, the Arabs would suspect any approach to the refugee problem to be the product of alleged collusion with Israel on the part of the new administration. For these reasons the Department opposed the timing of the Ben Gurion visit. When it was decided that the visit would take place, the Department hoped to convert a potential minus into a plus, e.g. your speaking to Ben Gurion about Israel's cooperation with the refugee approach.

6. The Letters. It was at this point that the Department, after obtaining the concurrence of our posts abroad, proposed the letters to Arab leaders. As suggested in a covering memorandum to you dated May 6,/5/ the letters were designed:

/5/Document 42.

a. To set forth, as had previously been done with respect to Latin America, the broad lines of our policy of friendship for all the countries of the Middle East,

b. To make clear our impartiality in Arab-Israel matters,

c. To demonstrate our support for the PCC refugee approach, and

d. To cushion the effects of the Ben Gurion visit.

7. Arab Reactions. Because of deep Arab bitterness over Palestine and because Arab leaders would assume that replies to your letters would eventually be published, it was not unexpected that the Arab responses would feature restatement of Arab grievances against Israel. It was significant, however, that in general the public reaction in the Arab countries was mild and moderate, obviously in accordance with government wishes. Furthermore, we have reports that at a conference of Arab Foreign Ministers in Cairo it was decided that: a) propaganda replies would be sent, but b) the Arabs would see what the PCC approach had to offer. While varying in tone and in content, Arab responses to date bear out these reports.

8. Iraq's Qassim. Among President Qassim's eccentricities is his attitude toward Israel. A veteran of the Palestine war, he is reported to have shown a visitor as long as two years ago a medal which he has had struck for bestowal on future Iraqi heroes recovering Palestine from the Israelis. With regard to your letter, he has indicated publicly that no reply was requested and none will be sent. He obviously realizes that accepting the PCC approach implies an Arab willingness to coexist with Israel. Fortunately, he is alone thus far in taking this totally uncooperative position.

9. Jordan's Hussein. In his lengthy and rambling reply King Hussein condemns both Communism and what the Arabs describe as the Palestine "injustice"./6/ His tone is relatively friendly, however, and he leaves the door open for the PCC effort. A number of moves he has recently made, including his dwelling on the Palestine problem in his reply to you, are no doubt efforts to compensate for the political handicap he recently acquired in marrying a British girl.

/6/A June 14 memorandum from Battle to Bundy summarizing the contents of Hussein's reply of June 12 is in Department of State, Central Files, 684A.86/6-1461. The text of Hussein's letter as transmitted in telegram 1154 from Amman, June 12, is ibid., 611.80/6-1261. For Battle's memorandum, see Supplement, the compilation on the Arab-Israeli dispute.

10. Lebanon's Chehab. President Chehab's letter speaks warmly of US-Lebanon relations but also restates Arab views regarding Israel./7/ While he does not foreclose the PCC refugee approach, President Chehab suggests using the Lausanne Protocol of 1949/8/ as a basis for discussions leading to an Arab-Israel settlement. It is probably the Lebanese view that this Protocol might lead to a recovery of Western Galilee from Israel, thus opening a convenient area for settling the Moslem refugees who now threaten Lebanon's delicate confessional balance.

/7/A July 12 memorandum from Battle to Bundy summarizing the contents of Chebab's reply of June 24 is in Department of State, Central Files, 611.80/7-161. The text of Chebab's letter as transmitted in telegram 4 from Beirut, July 1, is ibid. For Battle's memorandum, see Supplement, the compilation on the Arab-Israeli dispute.

/8/Reference is to the protocol signed at Lausanne on May 12, 1949, by the Governments of Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. The protocol provided that talks with the Palestine Conciliation Commission commence based upon a map showing the 1947 partition lines. For text, see Foreign Relations, 1949, vol. VI, p. 998.

11. King Saud. King Saud's reply is undiplomatic to the point of being insulting./9/ It was no doubt written largely by his UN delegate, Ahmed Shuqairi who is a notoriously venomous former Palestinian. The letter reflects the King's increasing insecurity, which was also evidenced by the precipitousness with which he recently announced the non-renewal of our Dhahran Airfield agreement. The King's chief rival is Crown Prince Faisal. The latter in great anger stalked out of the UN Assembly when the partition resolution was passed in 1947. He has since that time harbored and frequently manifested deep resentment. The King's letter no doubt was designed to show himself as patriotic as his fraternal rival. The only redeeming feature in the letter is a brief paragraph in which he agrees that the PCC should have a "final chance" to work on the refugee problem. In the devious Arab mind this green-light to the PCC refugee approach could well require as a counterweight seven pages of vitriolic anti-Israel haranguing.

/9/See footnote 3, Document 81.

12. UAR's Nasser. Your letter to Nasser arrived in the midst of the recent propaganda exchanges between the UAR and the Soviet Union. While we have no explanation of Nasser's failure so far to respond, he may feel that a rigid pro-Arab reply might prejudice his improving relations with the US, while a more forthcoming answer would be politically unwise in the light of the inter-Arab consultations referred to above. Nasser's failure so far to reply may therefore have some slight significance.

13. Israeli Reactions. Just prior to President Ben Gurion's arrival we informed Ambassador Harman of the gist of your letters to the Arab leaders./10/ This has helped restrain Israeli reactions. In fact, the Israelis appeared pleased that in your letters you made clear to the Arab leaders that we believed in the integrity and independence of all the Near East states (in effect the Tri-Partite Declaration of 1950). It should be noted, however, that upon his departure from Idlewild, President Ben Gurion disclosed to the press the gist of your conversation with him about a possible "solution" to the refugee problem. This disclosure and similar subsequent publicity from Israeli sources concerning a "Kennedy Plan" have been very unhelpful. They have deepened Arab suspicions and have caused Secretary General Hammarskjold to be very cautious about the PCC approach for fear that the United States is seeking to employ the UN as a front for its own plans with respect to the refugees.

/10/See footnote 5, Document 47.

14. Results. While no one can condone harshness such as that expressed in King Saud's reply, it is our view that your letters have definitely served a useful purpose. No communication other than one from you would have been able to achieve the following results:

a. US Policy. You have placed clearly on the record the desire of this government to maintain friendly and fruitful relations with the Arab states. While because of their sensitivities and suspicions, they were bound to emphasize their views concerning Palestine, there can be little doubt that they inwardly welcome the broad outline of our policies as set forth in your letter. Moreover, it will be possible for us at all times in the future to indicate that early in your administration the hand of friendship was extended to the Arabs.

b. Impartiality. While some needling of the United States for its role in the creation of Israel was to be expected, the Arab leaders undoubtedly are now aware of our desire to be impartial in Arab-Israel matters. Certainly the trend of this past March and April when the Arabs were rapidly concluding that we were hopelessly pro-Israel, has been arrested. This means that opportunity for our working with the Arabs has been preserved.

c. Refugee Approach. Had your letters not been sent, it is likely that the Ben Gurion visit would have wrecked all chances for success of the PCC refugee approach. There is general agreement that prospects are slim at best and only limited progress may be achieved. By showing that the United States is prepared to back efforts along lines which include Arab hopes for some repatriation, the United States places on the Arab leaders the onus for the lack of progress. Unless they act responsibly, their position in future UN debates will be awkward.

d. Cushion. There is no doubt your letters helped to forestall a major Arab uproar over the Ben Gurion visit. When the Israeli Prime Minister came here a year ago, the press in the Middle East was extremely hostile to the United States and Arab diplomats came to the Department en bloc to voice their concern that his visit would impair Arab-US relations. In large part because of your letters, the Ben Gurion visit passed this year with almost unbelievably mild reactions in the Near East and without damage to basic US-Arab relationships.

15. Whither? We see no need for further exchanges with the Arab leaders at this time. In view of the harshness of King Saud's letter, you and we have already spoken rather sternly to the Saudi Ambassador. Assistant Secretary Talbot on July 10/11/ reiterated your views that it would behoove the Arabs to look ahead instead of backward and that if our well-intended efforts to be helpful to their interests were unwelcome we would certainly not press them. This attitude should in itself have a salutary effect.

/11/The memorandum of conversation is in Department of State, Central Files, 711.5622/7-1061.

In our view, a major effort with regard to the refugees is still of first importance. Since the Arab replies do not foreclose this approach, we are renewing our endeavors through the Palestine Conciliation Commission to undertake a reconnaissance mission of the refugee situation in the Near East. The minimal objective is to enable the formulation of constructive recommendations to the General Assembly this fall for inclusion in the important resolution on the refugees. We believe that a large majority of UN members will welcome such a constructive approach. Our Congress will also welcome such initiative by us. If nothing else such an approach may forestall the successful implementation of increasingly extremist moves by the Arabs in their continuing dispute with Israel. Meanwhile because of your letters to the Arab leaders and our sincere support for PCC efforts with regard to the refugees, our own posture will be such as to permit our maximum maneuverability with regard to the future of the refugees and with respect to our general relationships with the Arab world.

Dean Rusk


87. Editorial Note

On July 14, 1961, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Armin Meyer transmitted to Myer Feldman a list of "Incentives for Movement on the Palestine Refugee Problem," under cover of a transmittal note that reads: "Pursuant to our telephone conversation of July 14, I hope the attached list of incentives, from the Israeli standpoint, will be helpful to you and to the President in persuading Israel's friends of the importance of making progress on the Arab refugee problem." (Department of State, Central Files, 325.84/7-1861)

The list reads as follows:

"1. Dispose of issue re which Israel is most vulnerable to criticism.

"2. Solution of refugee problem is sine qua non for Israel's acceptance in Middle East.

"3. Eliminate annual hassle at UNGA, detrimental to Israel (and U.S.).

"4. Ward off reconstitution of PCC (troika or otherwise unfavorable).

"5. Forestall series of increasingly anti-Israel moves at UNGA (cf. Algeria).

"6. Forestall, specifically, acrimonious debate at forthcoming XVI UNGA.

"7. Dramatize Israel's peace protestations.

"8. Improve Israel's international image especially vis-à-vis Afro-Asian states.

"9. Take edge off atomic reactor, rocket and Jordan water issues.

"10. Reduce Near East tension and hopefully arms burden.

"11. Avoid area turmoil if UNRWA collapses.

"12. Place onus of failure on Arabs.

"13. Show cooperation with new U.S. administration.

"14. Take advantage of U.S. willingness to finance refugee solution."

A copy of the list was also transmitted to McGeorge Bundy under cover of a July 18 memorandum from Battle. (Department of State, Central Files, 325.84/7-1861)


88. Memorandum of Conversation
/1/

Washington, July 20, 1961.

/1/Source: Department of State, S/S Files: Lot 67 D 396, Policy Guidelines, Near East. Secret. Drafted by Wriggins.

Highlights of Discussion at Secretary's Planning Meeting
on the Policy Guidelines Paper on the Near East
/2/

/2/Regarding the Policy Guidelines series, see Document 13. A copy of the draft guidelines paper under discussion at the July 20 meeting is in Department of State, S/S Files: Lot 67 D 396, Policy Guidelines Near East. It is attached to a transmittal slip from Morgan to Secretary Rusk that indicates that the paper would be discussed at the Policy Planning Council meeting on July 20. The final Policy Guidelines paper for the Near East and a separate memorandum of conversation for this meeting, drafted by Strong, are ibid.

The Under Secretary chaired the meeting.

Others present were:

G--Mr. Johnson
NEA--Mr. Talbot
NE--Mr. Strong
ARA--Mr. Braddock
FE--Colonel Brannon
EUR--Mr. Tyler
AF--Mr. Witman
IO--Mr. Jones
L--Mr. Meeker
E--Mr. Martin
S/P--Mr. Morgan
S/P--Mr. Wriggins

In a brief introduction, Mr. Talbot identified the principal elements in the Rationale, including the strategic role of the Near East, the emotional drive toward Arab unity, the problems of orderly economic and social development in a feudal society in transition, etc. He warned that the present calm of the Near East was more apparent than real, since within the next two years Israel will have the capacity to draw Jordan waters, its technical advance will further disturb the Arabs and the refugee problem will call for major review.

The more important points raised in the wide ranging discussion that followed were these:

(1) Our bargaining power with the Arabs is increasing as world supplies of oil are growing and alternative sources of fuel develop. But this will pose serious problems of readjustment within the Arab states and in our future relations with them.

(2) Although the continuing tribal and quasi-feudal social structure in the Near East differentiates it from Latin America, it cannot be ruled out that soon we will have to develop a policy less exclusively concerned with government and more designed to identify us with popular demands.

(3) The paragraphs concerning the use of force/3/ were criticized as being unnecessarily general and not responsive to the contingency of disruption of Near East states from within. Some comfort was provided by vivid comments concerning the purely indigenous tradition of clandestinity, secretive plotting and Arab mutual infiltration which had developed a certain immunity to exotic Communist forms of the malady. But the Soviet leap frogging strategy, perhaps, deserved more specific reference.

/3/Under the section entitled "Military," the draft paper indicated that the United States should "Be prepared to use force or to support the use of force to ensure the independence of each state of the area from the Soviet Bloc." Under the section entitled "Contingency," the paper hypothesized that, in the event of Arab-Israel hostilities, the United States should take a variety of steps including trade and financial embargoes; and, "Should these actions be inadequate to end hostilities promptly, be prepared to take appropriate military actions. Such measures should be carried out through the United Nations, if feasible, although unilateral action by the U.S. or bilateral action with the UK should, if necessary, be initiated."

(4) These paragraphs were insufficiently explicit about the unfortunate side effects of using force in the contingencies mentioned.

(5) The anomalous position of Israel was commented upon, a country receiving DLF and other forms of assistance even though its per capita income is higher than that of many parts of Europe. Disparities in income within the area as between Israel and Jordan or the oil-producing states and the UAR were important sources of regional tensions. It was suggested that regional economic organization might help reduce these disparities. Pressure may have to be put on Israel to cause her to act in a responsible way. We should bear in mind that the freedom of action of the USG is not as limited by the supporters of Israel in this country as we sometimes think and we should act accordingly.

(6) Arab neutralism was seen as a short run nuisance but a long run asset, with much flexibility within it which might be utilized to our advantage.


89. Memorandum From the Director of the Office of Near Eastern Affairs (Strong) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs (Talbot)
/1/

Washington, July 24, 1961.

/1/Source: Department of State, NEA/NE Files: Lot 63 D 33, Chron. Asst Secretary NEA Correspondence. Confidential. Drafted by Eilts. A copy was sent to Cleveland.

SUBJECT
Status Report on Kuwait Situation

On July 20, 1961, the Arab League Council passed a Saudi-proposed resolution on Kuwait. Its principal points include: (a) Kuwait will ask for the withdrawal of British troops as soon as possible, (b) Iraq should undertake not to use force in connection with Kuwait, (c) any Kuwait desire to unite or federate with Arab League member states should be supported, (d) welcoming Kuwait's membership in the Arab League and (e) promising Arab states' support for Kuwait's application for UN membership, and (f) stating that the Arab League will take "practical assistance" to safeguard Kuwait's independence. The Iraqi delegate stalked out of the Arab League meeting when Kuwait was admitted. There is no indication, however, that Iraq will withdraw permanently from the League, although it may keep its participation in suspense for a time.

With respect to the "practical assistance" cited above, Secretary General Hassouna is reportedly planning to explore this matter and will shortly visit Arab capitals with a view to ascertaining the possibility of obtaining Arab troop contingents to replace the British troops in Kuwait. Thus, the search for an "Arab solution" to the Kuwait problem appears to be progressing satisfactorily. Such a solution should provide the British with a convenient peg on which to hang troop withdrawal. While Kuwaiti membership in the Arab League has not caused Iraq to drop its claim and is not likely to do so, it should prevent any overt action by Iraq.

The foregoing developments are in line with the view expressed by the American Consul in Kuwait (Kuwait's 26)/2/ that a combination of Kuwaiti membership in the Arab League and in the UN, coupled with the British readiness and capability to respond with military forces to the Ruler's request for aid, is probably sufficient protection for Kuwait. This might be supplemented further by a UK military training mission in Kuwait.

/2/Not printed. (Ibid., Central Files, 686D.87/7-1761)

It is also consistent with Jidda's assessment (Jidda's 32)/3/ that Saudi Arabia would participate in Arab League efforts to find an "Arab solution" to the problem of assuring Kuwaiti independence and would probably not be adverse to replacing British with troops from Arab League member states. The present Saudi contingent might even be incorporated into an Arab League contingent, and Saudi Arabia would most likely wish to participate in such a mixed force in order to counter UAR participation.

/3/Not printed. (Ibid.)

Our Embassy in Baghdad, though stressing the need for a face-saving device for Iraq, believes (Baghdad's 37)/4/ that a mixed Arab contingent in Kuwait, once Kuwait has been admitted to the Arab League, should provide a moral deterrent against Iraqi aggression and that Iraq would not attack such Arab forces. This is clearly also consistent with UAR thinking, although it is highly doubtful whether the UAR would wish to provide troops or, for that matter, whether Kuwait would welcome UAR participation. There are reports of Lebanese willingness to provide troops for Kuwait, and the Sudan has also been mentioned as a possibility.

/4/Not printed. (Ibid., 686D.87/7-1661)

All in all, we believe the need for any sort of a UN presence in Kuwait is receding, although Kuwaiti membership in the UN is still an early desideratum. Our Consul in Kuwait opines that a UN commission in Kuwait is neither "necessary or workable." Although USUN (USUN's 105)/5/ has expressed itself in favor of a UN rather than an Arab League umbrella, without producing any strong arguments for this, our posts at Baghdad, Jidda and Cairo show little enthusiasm for a UN presence.

/5/Not printed. (Ibid., 786D.00/7-1461)

The most auspicious feature in the Kuwaiti situation, as it has developed in the last few days, is that it appears to be returning to an Arab context, in which it could probably have been resolved from the beginning. The UK is already reducing its troops in Kuwait. It would now appear to be feasible and in the British interest to recognize that Kuwaiti admission to the Arab League and the Arab League's attendant moral commitment to look after Kuwait's independence, with the UK-Kuwaiti Treaty of June 19 still conveniently situated in the background, offer reasonable assurances that Kuwait's independence will be protected. In the circumstances, the U.K. would be well advised to attempt to persuade the Ruler, if Arab League action has not already done so, to indicate that the British may now, with his blessing and thanks, withdraw the balance of their forces or at least all but a token company or so.

You may wish to explore the foregoing with the British (Greenhill) in the next few days./6/

/6/On July 31, the Embassy in London reported that the British Cabinet had approved an approach to the Ruler of Kuwait that would provide for a Britis