132. Telegram From the Embassy in the United Arab Republic to the Department of State1
2671. Department pass as necessary. I have just returned from approximately one hour meeting President Nasser. I thanked him warmly for receiving me on the night before the major holiday of the year and told him that I was grateful for an opportunity to have a talk since I had recently returned from Washington. I made small talk about the inauguration, snow, et cetera, mentioned that I had talked with a great many people both in the Executive Branch and the Congress including Secretary Rusk. I stated my principal meeting with President Johnson had unfortunately not developed due to his illness although it had been carefully scheduled for my last day in Washington. I stated that I had since received instructions and wanted to make several comments based on my talks and the instruction I had received from Washington. I then spoke as follows:
Our President and indeed everyone I talked with are very hopeful of maintaining good relations with the United Arab Republic if possible. We have a deep interest in a strong, independent, and prosperous Egypt. We also share major interests in the independence and strengthening of the Near Eastern States. We will continue to work for constructive relations with all these States and for impartiality in our policy and actions in the Middle Eastern area. The President respects the dignity of other nations and insists that US policy reflect this as well as the dignity of our own country.
At this point the President interrupted me and referred to the December 23 speech in a slightly embarrassed manner. He seemed to want to remove the speech from our relationship but without admission of error. He stated nothing personal was intended and that the report of the Stino conversation that he had received had indicated aid was conditioned on Egyptian manners and behavior. I said nothing of this sort was intended. I suggested we put the several incidents of the past behind us and look to the future hopefully. He stated we would do this but we must deal with the incident. He then spoke not about the speech but about aid, expressing gratitude for it and the hope that it would continue but with the expressed requirement that the UAR be independent in its actions.
[Page 295]I then continued stating as follows:
The President recognizes that differences have arisen between us particularly in the Congo. He hopes to resolve these differences by joint effort and mutual restraint. He believes that a positive effort on the part of both governments is necessary to prevent our differences from overriding our interests. The Congo is the most immediate issue now facing us. The President deplores the widespread misunderstanding of US motives there. He thinks that while the UAR and the US may disagree it would far better serve both our interests to help work out a political settlement than to let this problem escalate to a major confrontation in Africa. The President would welcome further discussions with the UAR on how to resolve this problem which has become a major obstacle in our bilateral relations. If Nasser agrees we would welcome any suggestions as to the form and place of any further talks. President Nasser nodded but made no comment. I continued, stating that under our form of government popular and Congressional sentiment must be taken into account. The extent to which developments in Africa and the Near East have stirred popular concern is clearly demonstrated in the recent effort in the House of Representatives to limit the President’s authority on foreign aid. The President is determined to oppose this limitation. I then stated I would like to be sure that President Nasser understood the situation within the Congress on this matter. I explained the nature of the amendment within the House. The fact that House action was not a final decision and that even as we spoke Mr. Ball was testifying in an effort to remove the limitation placed by the House. I stressed the delicacy of the situation and expressed the hope that the administration would succeed in its effort.
At this point the President returned to a reference at the December 23 speech. He said he had feared for some time there would be a cutoff of aid and that his speech was really the consequence of a cumulative effect of many concerns and statements. He threw up his hands and said “those speeches every year by your Congress and your press”. I said we had had some of the same problem here with respect to the press in the UAR.
He said, “it is much better now than it was five or six years ago but you may not believe it”. I said I had few complaints recently but that we had had difficulty during the first weeks of my stay here.
He then said “and I read all these articles by the correspondents.” He referred to a Hedrick Smith article (although not mentioning him by name) which stated that “Nasser himself had called off the press in an effort to prevent interference with Congressional action at this sensitive time.” He said “this just isn’t true”.
I then suggested that we talk for a moment about our major problem the Congo. Nasser said he had suggested to Gbenye that his Foreign [Page 296] Minister get in touch with the US, UK, and French Embassies in Cairo and meet with them. I said, “to what purpose?” He replied, “I believe that if you talk with him some of your concerns will be removed.” I stated that our policy was to support the Central Government of the Congo in accordance with the policy we had consistently followed and in accordance with various resolutions of the United Nations. He made no comment. I said I thought it important that we remove this problem from the military arena and seek a political solution. I pointed out that there were several steps coming up that gave flexibility to the situation—the Congo elections, the sub-committee’s travels, the Foreign Ministers meeting, etc., and hoped that there would be a new initiative which would offer hope. He made no comment. I asked him point blank whether he could see hope for an OAU initiative in the context of the present and forthcoming situation. He said, “if you could remove Tshombe it would help.” I referred to our last conversation and stated that we had not put Tshombe in; we could not take him out; and that we support the legitimate Government of the Congo where the problems are larger than any one personality. He then said we could tell Kasavubu to get rid of Tshombe. I said “we do not control the Central Government of the Congo any more than you control the rebels. It is a legitimate government and we must respect its status.” He said that someone other than Tshombe should be elected. I said this is up to the Congolese. They must decide. He waved his hands as though this could be taken care of with little difficulty.
There was then a pause after which I asked him if I might ask him the significance of the closing of the GDRC Embassy which I had noted in the press and which had followed Gbenye’s press conference stating that the UAR gave him full support. He said that the answer is that he did not know it was still here. “I thought it was closed at the same time our Embassy was closed in Leopoldville and it was not until Gbenye mentioned that I was aware it still existed here.” We both laughed very heartily at this point and he said, “the analysts will have a good time with that one.” He stated that if Tshombe could be removed it would make it easier for UAR and others aiding the rebels to withdraw support.
President Nasser alluded in a vague way to a Spaak-Gbenye meeting about two months ago in which Spaak had suggested some form of coalition government which Gbenye had rejected. He also referred to a meeting between Gbenye’s Foreign Minister Kanza and Attwood and to a proposal made by our Ambassador to Dar-es-Salaam. He made no comment on these proposals but referred to them as among the many things that had been suggested.
I returned to the Congo and stated again that we were flexible as long as the legitimate Congo Government was respected and we hoped [Page 297] for a political solution in an OAU context and I hoped he had the same flexibility and would assist us in achieving some solution to the problem. He nodded but was most noncommittal. I expressed the hope for further talks either with members of the government or between the two of us. He nodded to both suggestions and made no specific response.
The meeting ended most warmly. President Nasser stated he hoped I was enjoying Cairo. I stated I had been fairly busy and laughed. He also laughed and said he hoped things would quiet down for us. End of conversation.
Comments:
At no time did he directly mention aid except as noted. It is interesting that Nasser told the British Ambassador yesterday that the OAU had “failed.” He never got to this point with me although I led him into a discussion of the OAU several times. He seemed to want to dodge direct discussion of OAU activities and, when I mentioned the subcommittee visit to Leopoldville, Brazzaville and Burundi, he appeared to have no knowledge of the trip.
I had the impression that Nasser has no sense of direction re Congo. He may be open to concrete suggestion provided there is a clear face saver for him, but he does not see his way out at this point.
- Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, POL 1 UAR-US. Secret; Priority; Limdis. A copy was sent to the President with a February 3 note from Bromley Smith stating that it was sent at Feldman’s request. (Johnson Library, National Security File, Country File, UAR, Vol. III)↩