Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XVIII, Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1964–1967

232. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Washington, August 3 and 10, 1965.

SUBJECT

• Luncheon Discussions on U.A.R.-U.S. Relations

PARTICIPANTS

• Ambassador Mostafa Kamel, Embassy of the United Arab Republic
• NE—Rodger P. Davies

The Ambassador “briefed” Mr. Davies on developments through July during the latter’s leave. He recounted details of his luncheon at the White House with Messrs. Valenti and Hand during which the President appeared,² and his two meetings with Secretary Rusk.³ He was immensely pleased with the results of these meetings and said that he had sent details of his discussions to President Nasser. He thought a trend toward improvement in U.S.-U.A.R. relations was definitely observable. There were dangers, however, in such things as the frustration of the army with the stalemate in Yemen, the growing belief in U.A.R. circles that the U.S. was contributing to the difficulties in Yemen through Saudi Arabia and Iran, and the Odell case which tended to confirm suspicions that the U.S.G. or CIA was attempting to overturn Nasser’s regime.⁴

Mr. Davies provided the Ambassador with that portion of the transcript of the Secretary’s press conference of August 2 which related to U.S.-U.A.R. relations. He noted that there was a genuine desire for improved relations with the U.A.R. within the United States government and that there was only one policy within the U.S.G. This was recommended by the Secretary of State, approved by the President, and was binding on all agencies and individual officials of the Government. The exaggerated accounts of CIA influence as pedalled in such books as “The Invisible Government” should not be taken at face value. The Ambassador in Cairo was the President’s personal representative and led a country team for whose actions he was directly responsible. If the UARG had any suspicions that an agency or an individual was not acting in accord with our stated policy, it should go to the Ambassador for reassurance. He would be pleased at any time to investigate and satisfy any question the UARG might have. Mr. Davies said he could state categorically that no element of the USG was attempting to subvert the Nasser regime.

Mr. Davies said the arrest of Mustafa Amin and charges against him were cause for concern. Amin was known to favor close U.S.-Egyptian relations, knew and saw many Americans, and had conducted his contacts openly. It raised the problem touched on by Mr. Symmes earlier as to who spoke for the U.A.R. We thought Amin reflected President Nasser’s views just as we think Hassanein Haykal reflects them in his current talks with Ambassador Battle. Will U.A.R. intelligence pick up Haykal one day because of these contacts? Ambassador Battle has continually made clear to Haykal that he cannot consider him an official channel. If the UARG, however, wishes us to use an Amin, Haykal or Sharaf as a channel of communication, it should so indicate. However, we repose complete confidence in our Ambassador and in the integrity and accuracy of Ambassador Kamel. We would prefer to accelerate the dialogue between our governments through them to the Foreign Ministry and Presidency.

Ambassador Kamel indicated his complete accord with these views and said he would convey them with his endorsement discreetly to President Nasser.

Mr. Davies noted that in January he had expressed concern to the Ambassador over indications that the Soviets were planting false intelligence with the UARG. Almost intuitively he felt that this process was a fact and that the Soviets were poisoning the well of U.S.-U.A.R. relations. He had seen the Soviets in action in Iraq under Kassem and, although the UARG was far more sophisticated, he felt the Soviets were succeeding in creating suspicion. In January he had mentioned specifically the Sudan where the Soviets sought to involve the U.S. in the southern dissidents movements. He felt that allegations made both by the Yemeni and the U.A.R. officials in Yemen that the U.S. was in fact encouraging Saudi and Iranian help to the Royalists stemmed from Soviet activities. Similarly, the alleged feeling in Cairo that the U.S. was operating against the Nasser regime was stimulated by the Soviets. The U.S.G. was not in any way operating against the U.A.R. and the record would show that we had consistently sought to be helpful in facilitating a solution to the Yemen problem.

The Ambassador said Nasser’s departure for Moscow August 28 could have dangerous consequences if Nasser at that time felt that there was “no hope for further U.S. PL 480 assistance.” He urged some kind of forward motion on negotiations. Mr. Davies replied that while the administration was anxious to improve relations he would be less than frank if he led the Ambassador to believe that the climate prevailing in the Congress would permit action leading to a new agreement. This did not mean that an agreement would not be possible in the future, provided some outstanding political differences could be resolved. Until this improvement could be demonstrated, however, he could not see any move toward new assistance.

August 10, 1965

Ambassador Kamel praised highly the August 9 televised interview with Secretaries Rusk and McNamara on Viet-Nam. He had sent a summary of points made to his government, which was extremely anxious to have full information on the U.S. position.

Ambassador Kamel said he sent a full report of his last conversation with Mr. Davies to the Presidency. He had made the points concerning the unity of U.S. policy and the need for the UARG to discuss frankly any suspicions it might have of U.S. intentions with Ambassador Battle, the desirability of defining more clearly the channels of communication between our governments, the U.S. concerns over possible U.A.R. pressure on Saudi Arabia, and the U.S.G. desire to see an improvement in relations. He had just received a reply on the question of U.A.R.-Saudi relations. He was instructed to assure his colleagues in the Department of the UARG desire to see peace restored in Yemen and for amicable relations with Saudi Arabia. President Nasser had dispatched Hassan Sabri al-Kholi to urge King Faisal to meet with President Nasser in order to determine conditions for peace in Yemen. As of the date of the telegram, Faisal had not responded. The UARG hoped that the U.S. would use its influence in Jidda to encourage Faisal to meet with the President. In the meantime, reports of alleged U.A.R. intentions of attacks on Saudi Arabia were false.

The Ambassador again raised the possibility of closer Soviet-U.A.R. relations if Nasser is not assured of U.S. interest in the U.A.R.’s future. He said the PL 480 program had been the basis on which U.S.-U.A.R. relations were conducted. The provision of foodstuff in fact had enabled the U.A.R. to pursue a non-aligned policy. Its termination could completely change the orientation of U.A.R. policy to the disadvantage of the West.

Mr. Davies said he could only repeat that the climate in Congress toward aid to the U.A.R. precluded any steps in this direction by the Administration. It was important first to clean up any irregularities in the carrying out of the past agreements. The U.S.G. position on this had been formulated and we would soon be discussing these matters in Cairo. Before the Administration could even discuss the possibility of a new agreement, it had to be protected from charges that it had failed to ensure compliance with provisions of the old agreement. He saw no possibility of assurances to Nasser of favorable consideration of a new agreement prior to August 28. He would recommend to his superiors, however, prior to Nasser’s departure, of an indication to him of our desire to have a full scale review of our relations either on his return from Moscow or on completion of the September Arab Summit Meeting. Hopefully, during the course of this period the situation would evolve so that the Yemen problem would be on its way to solution and the complex of Israeli problems could be put back on ice. One disturbing factor influencing Congressional attitudes was the U.A.R. press. Mr. Davies’ impression was that it was worse now than any time since November. He feared that the installation of Khalid Muhyi al Din in a position of influence had permitted him to staff most of the press with pro-Communists. The Ambassador interjected that he was certain that the situation was not as bad as described and he was certain that President Nasser was giving these people enough rope to hang themselves. He again lamented the practice of Embassies of sending summaries of unfavorable comment since the reporting itself distorted the picture. Mr. Davies noted that U.A.R. editorials and news stories were transmitted by the wire services and provided the ammunition used by the Congressional opponents of policy. If the UARG wished an improvement in climate, it would have to solve this problem.

Mr. Davies said that a further black cloud might be the situation in the Sudan. He noted allegations by the pro-U.A.R. and pro-Communist press in Khartoum that the “imperialists—U.S.-U.K.-Belgium-Israel and Tshombe” had promoted the uprising in the south and had armed it. This was a canard. The U.S.G. supported the integrity of Sudan and did not believe that the secession of the south was in its or anyone else’s interest. The brutal fact was that the arms in the south were supplied by the courtesy of the U.A.R. and Algeria. Some were siphoned off during the airlift to the Congo rebels and others were taken from the Simba as they were forced out of the Congo by the Nationalist army. Quite obviously unfriendly sources, most probably the Soviets, were encouraging the Sudanese to use the U.S. as a scapegoat. The fact that Soviet and U.A.R. propaganda coincided on this issue was indeed disturbing.

Ambassador Kamel said he had been following the news in al Ahram and had seen nothing of this and was certain that this allegation would not be supported by his government.

The Ambassador said he had a long letter from Kaissouni on the urgency for the need of U.S. assistance. Although it was confidential, he would make available a copy for the Department. He closed the conversation with renewed appeal for action to assure continued U.S. economic support for the U.A.R.

1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, POL UAR-US. Secret. Drafted by Davies.
2. The luncheon took place on July 23. (Telegram 591 to Cairo, July 26; ibid.) No record of the discussion has been found.
3. See Document 229.
4. Symmes wrote to Battle on July 27 that Department officials had been seeking a convincing explanation of what lay behind the UAR arrest of Amin and the linking of Odell and the CIA with it. They were trying to determine the policy implications of the affair and its lessons for future dealings [text not declassified]. Symmes stated that “we are quite concerned by evidence that the U.A.R. may believe (whether rightly or wrongly) that there has been a basic disagreement about U.A.R. policy within the U.S.G. [1 line of source text not declassified].” He noted that officers in NEA “have never felt certain that we have had a full picture” of [text not declassified] activities and stated that if the basic assumptions underlying U.S. policies toward the UAR were valid, “we cannot afford in the coming months the risk of having misleading signals transmitted to the U.A.R. by witting or unwitting policy deviations [less than 1 line of source text not declassified].” (Filed as an attachment to a July 31 letter from Charge David G. Nes in Cairo to Symmes; National Archives and Records Administration,RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, POL 29 UAR)