Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XXIV, Africa

9. Telegram From the Embassy in Algeria to the Department of State¹

Algiers, May 28, 1964, 7 p.m.

2374. Reference: Embassy telegrams 2356, 2358, 2360, 2364.² Following are general reactions to conversation with Ben Bella reported reference telegrams.

Department aware I have been observing Ben Bella for ten years and have been in close contact with him since his arrival in Algiers during summer of 1962. I doubt there is much he has said or done publicly in that period which has not been given my careful attention, as has considerable additional information about his private utterances and actions. Access to him has been easy and conversation with him frank and at times sharp. This has not affected our personal relationship which remains good.

It was with particular interest that I looked forward to seeing him after his return from the Soviet Union. While there he has created [omission] of type to evoke from him through word or manner enough signs to permit judgment as to degree Communist adulation and contact may have affected his outlook. Like most observers, I originally looked on him as a nationalist with a messianic complex who was determined to lead Algeria and Africa upward and onward toward an ill-defined but nevertheless anxiously desired socialism which would secure his own stature as a great African revolutionary. But developments in recent months, and now the trip to Moscow, raise doubts that this analysis goes far enough.

Our latest conversation permitted me put him under some pressure, and I was not reassured by what I observed. At present, I suspect that his relationship to Soviet Union probably goes beyond what he has admitted, or what was revealed by Moscow communique. His demeanor and statements since his return indicate that he may feel he has some kind of blank check or other assurance of support from Soviet Union in event of difficulty with France or US. Utterances such as “Soviet Union is our shield” and “French aid is important but not indispensable” and the surly confidence that he displayed to me that “now” nobody can prevent Algeria from pursuing its socialist experience, all contribute to my impression.

His evasiveness in most matters discussed was in sharp contrast to his earlier frankness, and while he has always been most difficult to budge from political concepts once adopted, he at least discussed his positions frankly. On this occasion he clearly refused to consider any evidence which might lead to refute ideas he expressed. Thus, when he complained that the American press constantly attacks him and I at once showed him several recent articles of entirely different tenor, he looked away and would not examine them. When I remarked, in connection with our aid, that I assumed I could appeal to his sense of justice, he said nothing. His was a closed mind, a rigid determination to look nowhere and consider nothing which might contradict his existing impressions. Of interest in this connection was brush-off he gave to my comments, with examples in hand, about anti-American tone of press just after he had informed the French Ambassador, who also complained about anti-French campaign, that latter had no cause for complaint on this score as French are not “the Americans” (see Embassy telegram 2346).³

His accusation that French are stirring up Touaregs had its counterpart in alleged American activities in Kabylie and there was clear allusion also to alleged American involvement in Algerian-Moroccan frontier dispute last autumn. Ben Bella has always been inclined to seek scapegoats as his problems become acute, and I consider these accusations along with his refusal or inability to produce evidence an ominous sign of line he may take publicly if and when pressures on him increase.

Contrary to his practice with some other Ambassadors, he usually receives me without anyone else present, as was case this time. Whether this due to frank nature of our conversations, I cannot say, but I would have been pleased had someone else, the Foreign Minister for example, been present to hear recent discussion. If Department is so inclined, I see no objection to telling Guellal exactly what occurred, adding that all this raises doubts in our minds which cannot be resolved by continuing innuendo without supporting evidence.

I took care before leaving him to talk for few minutes about other less controversial matters as it unwise to depart immediately after sharp discussion. He inquired about our rural program, offered to assist me in several minor matters locally, and escorted me with usual courtesy to door of his residence. We will of course report any signs of his reaction to our representations. Only one so far was complete lack of mention of interview in French language press, contrary to usual practice, though Arabic newspaper carried photo of two of us without comment.⁴

Porter

1. Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Country File, Algeria, Vol. I, 12/63–7/65. Confidential; Priority. Repeated to Paris and Moscow.
2. These telegrams report on Ambassador Porter’s May 26 conversation with Ben Bella. Telegram 2356, May 26, is in Department of State, Central Files, POL ALG–US; telegram 2358, May 27, is ibid.; telegram 2360, May 27, is ibid., DEF 18–9 MEDIT; and telegram 2364, May 27, is ibid., POL ALG–US.
3. Not found.
4. On June 2, Komer sent a copy of this telegram to McGeorge Bundy attached to a transmittal memorandum noting that the telegram underlined the desirability of a review of U.S. policy toward Algeria, and stating that the first step had to be to consult with the French, who were the only ones with enough assets in Algeria to force a change in policy or personalities. (Johnson Library, National Security File, Country File, Algeria, Vol. 1, 12/63–7/65)