181. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in France1
2473. Paris pass to Perkins. This morning Secy called in British and French Ambassadors and outlined to them in general terms Administration’s plan to present to Congress program for military and economic cooperation in Middle East. Secy said plan not yet formulated in detail but was designed to permit US to play more effective role Middle East. He had given general indication of this in course of Ministerial meeting of NAC earlier this month.
Secy said Congressional authority would be requested to permit use of available FY 57 aid funds on more flexible basis in area and additional authorization would be sought for FY 58 and FY 59 for military and economic programs. On military side President would request discretionary authority to use military force in case of armed Communist aggression in area. We must not offer Soviets opportunity to move into present vacuum and Administration had decided that US must exert itself more vigorously in area than before. President and Secy would meet Congressional leaders next Tuesday to present this program and it was hoped authorization would be forthcoming from Congress in month or so after Congress convenes. In view of urgency [Page 431] situation it was considered desirable not to wait for general MSA legislation but to request priority this program. Secy pointed out authorization requested would enable military plan more intelligently in area. While President had made important declarations with respect to area, particularly Baghdad Pact countries, Secy said declarations did not provide basis for action without Congressional approval. It was felt that standby authority for use of military force should be requested now since postponement request for Congressional action until time when circumstances actually demand it might involve unacceptable delays.
Secy said in reply to question this action may make possible US participation in Military Committee of Baghdad Pact. He said program does not contemplate that military authorization will extend to Israel-Arab controversy unless aggression occurs as result direct Communist involvement. He said it is contemplated that any action taken under new authorization would come within Article 51 of UN Charter.2 He described collective defense arrangements around world to which US is party and emphasized “gap” which exists in Middle Eastern area. If this area is lost, North Atlantic Treaty Organization would be undermined. He felt it was not practicable at present to handle situation through US adherence to Baghdad Pact because (1) Saudi Arabia strongly opposed to Pact and we do not wish to alienate that country and (2) on domestic side proposal to join Pact would raise demand for similar measures with respect to Israel which might block any action. Secy recognized Congress might be reluctant to give discretionary authority to President and he was therefore unable to say what form Middle Eastern plan might finally take. He repeated that military authorization would not be used to take any offensive action but would only be employed to counter Soviet-inspired aggression.
Question of countering subversion was raised by Alphand. Secy said plan not designed for this purpose but announcement of support and interest by US Govt should allay present fears of certain governments in area and help them maintain themselves.
Secy made clear plan for economic cooperation in area concerned problems of Middle Eastern area only and not collateral problems of oil shortages in Europe, etc. Plan would not be finally crystallized until Congress has been consulted and he asked Ambassadors to caution their governments to avoid if possible any public reference to plan prior to such consultation and to official announcement here.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 780.5–MSP/12–2956. Secret; Limit Distribution. Drafted by Elbrick, cleared with Rountree, and approved by Secretary Dulles. Also sent to London.↩
- Article 51 of the U.N. Charter reads in part: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”↩