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

378. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Washington, January 12, 1967.

SUBJECT

• US–UAR Relations—Food

PARTICIPANTS

• H.E. Dr. Mostafa Kamel, Ambassador of the United Arab Republic
• The Secretary of State
• Mr. Rodger P. Davies, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for NEA
• Mr. Donald C. Bergus, Country Director NEA/UAR

The Secretary opened the conversation by stating we were not yet in a position to give a reply to Egypt’s outstanding request for food assistance. He had not had a chance to discuss the matter with the President. The Secretary adverted to Ambassador Kamel’s presentation of December 29.² We had thought about many of the points he had raised and felt it might be useful to go a little further in the present discussion.

As to the UAR’s request for food assistance, the Secretary said this problem raised large questions having to do with food supplies and specific questions in terms of applicable US legislation. He felt that in his previous conversation, Ambassador Kamel had tended to discount the large question. The Secretary referred to the Indian situation and said that we were disappointed at the limited responses of other countries to India’s needs. We must get out of the position of being held responsible on a bilateral basis for food supplies. In 18 months we had shipped over $1 billion worth of wheat to India. When it became apparent we could no longer maintain assistance at this level, there was an adverse reaction. We had sent Egypt a great deal of food. When it becomes difficult for us to continue we are accused of waging a war of starvation. We must get out of that context.

The Secretary referred to the problems created by the Findlay Amendment and Egypt’s trade with Cuba and the need for Presidential determinations.³ We had been disappointed in the UAR’s reaction to our request to exercise the option to purchase rice in accordance with the terms of the previous PL 480 agreement. The Egyptians seemed to feel that we had let them down by even asking that this be done.

The Secretary said we did not know how much or on what terms the Soviets were giving food assistance to Egypt, but we welcomed this kind of help. He hoped that the UAR would give him the necessary priorities to food production in relation to its total resources.

Ambassador Kamel said that this was an important meeting and that he wanted our help. He did not want to create a crisis in US–UAR relations. The Near East was now in a crisis situation and he wanted to work with us as a friend. He didn’t wish to leave the room until agreement could be reached as to what should be said to Cairo. He felt embarassed by imposing on the Secretary’s time but he felt most sincerely that the situation was very serious. He felt a deep sense of responsibility toward history. He had not come to ask for wheat in the pursuit of Egyptian or Arab interests but to participate in the protection of American and Western interests and the preservation of peace in the area. He said that prevention was better than cure.

The Ambassador said that for six months he had been giving tranquilizers to Cairo. His little pharmacy was now exhausted. President Nasser was following these discussions very closely. The Ambassador then reviewed his well-known list of actions taken by the UAR over the last year which he felt should be read as signals of Egyptian desire to improve relations with the United States. He went on to say that there could be no peace in the area in the absence of a workable relationship between Washington and Cairo. There could be no peace in the area and the cold war would never finish if Egypt lost its position of non-alignment. The Near East was more important and more dangerous than Vietnam. Egypt could not be non-aligned if the US didn’t do anything. Nasser had instructed him to say that the UAR’s wheat supplies were very limited. The 250,000 tons en route from the Russians would last for a short time and the additional 400,000 tons were not yet under active discussion. What would be the effect in Cairo if after a month the Egyptian people came to believe the US was exposing them to famine—not Nasser, not the government but the Egyptian people? If wheat did not flow, the cold war will flare up. The Ambassador said he must have an answer. Egypt must have wheat. Failure to get it would cause the greatest repercussions on all our relations and interests in the Near East and even on US relations with the Soviet Union. This was a more important matter than the Soviet arms to Egypt or the Aswan Dam. It was indeed the most important decision the US had faced with respect to the Near East since World War II.

The Secretary asked if he could pose a personal question. How could he interpret to his Cabinet colleagues or to Chairmen of Congressional committees the point that unless we provide food something bad would happen as anything but a threat? They would react strongly to threats. As to Egypt’s orientation or non-alignment wasn’t this something that Egypt could control?

Kamel countered by asking if we were talking in theoretical or practical terms. He believed that threats and blackmail were inelegant and improper. If he were asked this question by members of the Cabinet or Congressional chairmen he would reply by stating that it was in the American interest to keep the UAR non-aligned. This needed more than speeches. Otherwise there would be greater and intolerable pressure on Egypt from the USSR.

The Secretary asked why Egypt really needed so many arms from the USSR. Kamel replied because of Israel. Israel was there. Why would the US need more arms against the USSR? Only time would improve the Arab-Israel situation. Decades were needed and an essential element was good US–UAR relations. This would permit the UAR to build up its own confidence. Presently we were doing the contrary. If there were no wheat there would be more tension in the area.

The Secretary asked if the UAR’s military leaders were apprehensive of an attack from Israel, why was Egypt maintaining such large forces in Yemen? Kamel replied, “Who knows who brought us to Yemen and who knows who will bring us into other situations if you leave us?”

The Secretary asked how it happened that this responsibility for feeding Egypt had been concentrated on the United States.

Kamel said we should look upon our ability to give food aid to Egypt as a blessing. Egypt would not require any more help after two or three years. If we listened to him the USSR would disappear from the Middle East and an Israel settlement would become possible. There was no reason why Egypt should be forced to succumb to the pressure of a great power close to its borders.

There followed some discussion as to how the Ambassador should report the conversation to Cairo. It was agreed that something along the following lines could be said: Kamel saw Secretary for 70 minutes January 12. Most of discussion was taken up with wide-ranging exploratory and useful discussion current problems in NE, many of which had been raised by Kamel in his December 29 meeting with the Secretary. Re UAR wheat request, the Secretary informed Ambassador Kamel that pressure of business relating to opening of Congress, State of the Union message, and other matters had not permitted him complete necessary consultations. These consultations presently going forward. It was hoped that there could be another meeting with Ambassador within about ten days.

1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1967–69, POL UAR-US. Secret. Drafted by Bergus and approved in S on January 17. The memorandum is Part VI of VI. The other five memoranda of conversation are ibid.
2. A memorandum of the conversation is ibid.
3. Section 103 (d) of the Food for Peace Act of 1966 (Public Law 89–808, approved November 11, 1966; 80 Stat. 1526) forbade the sale under Title I of P.L. 480 to any nation trading with Cuba or North Vietnam except under certain circumstances if the President determined the sale was in the U.S. national interest, and forbade the sale under Title I of P.L. 480 to the United Arab Republic unless the President determined it was in the U.S. national interest.