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

296. Telegram From the Embassy in the United Arab Republic to the Department of State¹

Cairo, May 28, 1966, 1200Z.

3091. Re Embtel 3050 and Deptel 6537.²

1. Following general expression concern new US–UAR strains by Sadat, I made general statement US desires seek understanding and not confrontation which I suggested be theme of evening. I pointed out that we had all been delighted with Sadat visit and that it had in everyone’s judgment heralded new era good feeling between US and UAR. I then suggested that the main areas of their apparent concern today had existed prior Sadat visit. US guarantee territorial integrity Saudi Arabia which had been drug out publicly again as result bellicose statements here had, as the UAR knew, existed for some years. US arms sale to Israel had been known by UAR for over one year and I had informed UAR each step of way progress. Sale came as result great soul searching our part in framework US policy to refrain from becoming major supplier arms in area and represented very restrained step. Therefore elements particular UAR concern not new and resulted in part from UAR throwing into public arena matters that should be dealt with privately. Moreover, Al Ahram with full knowledge they were inaccurate had built up arms sales issue by charging US with much broader sales than actually the case. While visit King Feisal to Washington was new element visit had been scheduled some time ago for this year although date finally agreed to just before announcement. Difficult understand UAR actions in light their obvious past willingness work for improved relations when factors that now appeared of concern to them already existed.

2. Sadat then commented as follows with respect to subjects indicated:

A. Arms for Israel.

Made statement perfunctory objection not denying effect of Al Ahram story and admitting truth my statement that we had informed them at each stage development. Stated he wished express strong objection to sale but not to go into matter in depth. Little emphasis was placed on arms sale for remainder of evening.

B. Islamic Pact.

UAR is convinced British and Americans encouraging Islamic Pact. In fact, UAR has definite info US at CENTO meeting urged some countries join Pact. UAR convinced Pact anti-Nasser in design. I objected use word pact pointing out this nomenclature had, if not originated here, at least been repeated here with result general usage term around world when that not basic to idea as I understood it.

C. Havana Conference.

Nasser shocked Secretary Hare raised matter in recent meeting³ since UAR attitude such conferences consistent throughout revolution and UAR presence these conferences essentially moderating force. Obviously UAR had no subversive plans Latin America in which its interests limited. I pointed out Latin American countries with which UAR maintained relations could not be expected look with favor on resolutions inviting their overthrow and this concern inevitably resulted in US being drawn into issue which could cause difficulty in US–UAR relations. Sadat stated impossible change UAR policy and indicated 1968 conference would proceed on schedule. I predicted UAR could expect Latin American countries to reflect concern when specific intentions proceed conference became known. Sadat believed Latin American countries would and could wait until they saw nature of conference before they became unduly upset.

D. Yemen.

Confrontation between Nasser and Feisal already in existence. Feisal could not act as belligerent or confident as he does without US support. US appears completely on his side. Nasser’s speeches to which US had objected so strongly came after months UAR effort resolve issue and he emphasised certain actions were threatened only in certain contingencies. Door still open and always open and basic desire for peace unchanged. Sadat told Secretary Rusk UAR would wait two months for solution and then shift to new policy which is exactly what has happened. However, desire for peace still exists and UAR open to help from third parties. Ambassador Kamel then suggested US mediate situation to which Sadat nodded pleasantly; for rest of evening Kamel kept referring to Sadat’s desire for US mediation although only Kamel really pressed point. I stated one mediation effort already underway for which Sadat indicated little hope. I expressed doubt any country would wish enter mediation efforts unless it considered there was willingness both sides seek solution and all efforts at mediation not helped by public threats. Sadat warned President had speech scheduled June 15 at which time he expected to go beyond anything thus far in attack on Feisal. Speeches on Yemen had been popular in country and were essential in view loss Egyptian life and requirement to forestall charge Yemen operation had not been successful. Kamel again pressed mediation idea pointing out we were only ones concerned and only country with leverage on Feisal, therefore problem ours. I stated most emphatically Yemen war not our war and those directly involved must seek solution and not wait for outside help which they were hardly encouraging.

E. Aden.

Emphasis in dealing with South Arabian peninsula was placed subsidiary problem which could be solved if Yemen issue resolved. Deep distrust British expressed vehemently and we received no encouragement our urging for constructive help toward government Aden area reflective people’s wishes.

F. Aid.

US aid always too little, too late, too tied with strings, etc. Level of aid going India and elsewhere makes UAR wonder why we will not help them as much as we help others. UAR desperately needs our food and economic situation very difficult but under no circumstances will UAR accept aid with strings. If UAR not assisted by US, great pressure will be exerted on them toward increasing reliance Eastern bloc.

3. Comment: Conversation was useful as means [garble—maintaining?] channels and exchanging points of view. While I spoke at great length on US attitudes along established lines, I do not believe we changed any minds and certainly we uncovered no flexibility on Yemen or Aden. Israeli arms sale seemed to be minimized and obviously far greater concern now for “US support” Feisal than support of Israel. I find it difficult understand extent their professed fear of Islamic Pact and of Feisal’s Saudi Arabia given NE realities and its relative political-military weakness compared UAR. Great emotion attended exposition on Havana Conference which dealt with at great length out of proportion its relative importance compared to other items. There was shocking unawareness of the external effect President Nasser’s speeches and repeated statements UAR reacts but does not act. I suggested that they not react to the wrong thing, pointing out UAR had over-reacted to unofficial AP story subsequently denied by US. While they occasionally showed signs of emotion, at all times conversation friendly. It was agreed meet again from time to time over next weeks.

Battle

1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, POL UAR-US. Secret; Limdis.
2. Telegram 3050 from Cairo, May 25, reported that Battle had been invited to a working dinner on May 27 with Sadat and Kamel. (Ibid.) Telegram 6537 to Cairo, May 26, suggested that in Battle’s discussions with Sadat and Kamel, he should stress that the United States had made a sustained effort to seek good relations but that a number of disturbing developments had occurred recently, including the continued presence of UAR troops inYemen, attacks on U.S. policy in Vietnam, and distortion in the UAR press of U.S. arms sales to Israel. (Ibid.)
3. Hare met with Nasser on May 2 in Alexandria. Telegram 2820 from Cairo, May 3, reported that Nasser urged renewal of U.S. assistance; other subjects of discussion included Yemen and Vietnam. (Ibid.)