145. Letter From the Acting Secretary of State to the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Fulbright)1
Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to your request for the views of the Department of State with respect to the implications of the Douglas Amendment2 to the Mutual Security bill, I take this opportunity to set forth the following pertinent observations.
As we understand the intent of its 18 sponsors, the Douglas Amendment is designed to support efforts toward eliminating trade restrictions in the Middle East, particularly with respect to those practiced against the State of Israel. I am sure you are aware that this purpose is fully consistent with long-standing objectives of the United States Government. It is our conviction, however, that the inclusion of this Amendment in current Mutual Security legislation will in fact be [Page 316] counter-productive and will not achieve its intended purpose. In addition, such inclusion will in our view have harmful repercussions on United States interests in a wide area of the Middle East.
As you know, a resolution similar to the Douglas Amendment was passed in the House of Representatives at an earlier date. Fully sympathetic with the objective intended, the Department made the text available to our Embassies and Consulates in countries which would be affected by the amendment. In a unanimous expression of opinion our field posts from Morocco to Iraq reported that the adoption of an amendment of this type would clearly not be in the interest of the United States, nor for that matter of Israel.
Our posts abroad emphasized their concurrence with the objective sought by this amendment. They also stressed, however, that regardless of the effect which the amendment might have on the actual level of our assistance to the Middle Eastern states, the amendment would be widely interpreted as: a) demonstrating favoritism for the State of Israel—to the extent that it would render more difficult our efforts to bring about a relaxation of tensions between Israel and the Arab states; and b) an attempt to “tie strings” to our economic aid, and, by implication, to threaten the use of aid as an instrument of political coercion. Our posts pointed out, and the Department of State fully concurs, that incorporation of this amendment would without doubt have the effect of making the task of eliminating the Arab boycott of Israel more difficult and would play into the hands of the Soviet bloc which seeks to exacerbate Middle East tensions to further its penetration of the area.
Our Government has repeatedly made clear, publicly and through diplomatic channels, its support for freedom of transit through the Suez Canal, as well as our opposition to the Arab boycott against Israel. These undesirable restrictions, as you are aware, are an outgrowth of the Palestine problem, which continues to cause tensions between Israel and the Arab states and to perpetuate unfortunate circumstances such as those whereby nearly one million Arab refugees are not able to return to their homes. It is our Government’s firm conviction that an Arab-Israel settlement will one day come, not by coercion but by a spirit of accommodation on both sides. As progress is made in that direction, such problems as boycotts, restrictions and homeless refugees will disappear.
Incidentally, there appears to be considerable inaccurate information surrounding the Suez Canal transit question. For example, it is said that American ships are being “barred” from the Canal for having called at Israeli ports. As a matter of fact, not a single American ship has thus far been denied passage through the Canal. Out of a total United States maritime fleet of 498, only 23 ships have been placed on [Page 317] the so-called Arab blacklist, because of prior calls at Israeli ports. These 23 are denied entry at Arab ports but there has been no instance of denial of their transit of the Canal.
In this connection you may have read in the press that American labor unions in New York have set up picketing against the United Arab Republic ship Cleopatra. The purpose of the picketing is to impel the United Arab Republic to abandon its restrictions against Israel shipping. Unfortunately, this objective is not being served. Asserting their determination to resist such pressures, the Arab countries are establishing counter-picketing against American shipping. This reaction against coercion, which is not unnatural in young emerging states, means in effect that at least 20 American ships with 1,000 seamen aboard will be affected within the next month. It also means that for every Arab ship Americans may boycott some 30 American ships may be subjected to Arab boycott.
As can be seen, outside attempts, no matter how well intentioned, to compel one or more of the Middle Eastern countries to follow a certain behavior have wide repercussions. I might add that while resentments against such pressure in Arab-Israel matters have direct repercussions on our interests in 10 Arab countries from Morocco to the Persian Gulf, the sympathy for these 10 nations is inevitably widespread throughout Africa and Asia. This is a critical juncture in the history of those two continents. Just when the young Afro-Asian nations and particularly the Arab nations appear for the first time to be becoming aware of the fact that the Communists have been falsely posing as patriotic nationalists, it ill behooves us, through an appearance of placing “strings” on our aid, to incur the deep resentment or hostility not only of the 10 Arab nations but of their natural friends, the states of Africa and Asia. In fact, we do not believe it is in Israel’s long-range interest that such enmity be aroused and choosing of sides precipitated throughout the Afro-Asian region.
In our view, avoidance of coercive tactics against Israel’s neighbors is in Israel’s interest. In just over a decade, Israel has quadrupled its exports. Its unfavorable trade balance has steadily been reduced. Israel’s Gross National Product per capita is now more than twice that of any of its neighbors and even exceeds that of Netherlands and Italy. While foreign funds from various sources at an average rate of nearly $1,000,000 per day have been partly responsible, primary responsibility for this progress lies with the Israeli people themselves, their ingenuity, industriousness, and devotion to purpose. Parenthetically, I should note that our government has been consistent in its support to Israel. We have extended to Israel with its population of under 2,000,000 a sizeable total of various types of assistance, including PL–480. Such assistance, as you know, is continuing. Conditions have thus far been sufficiently favorable to allow Israel to make great [Page 318] strides. In our view it would be a grave mistake to have that progress disturbed by actions which can only stir up area tensions to Israel’s detriment.
As you know, it is the view of our Government that the tensions of the Middle East can more effectively be treated by concerted international action than by unilateral action on the part of the United States. That was the essence of President Eisenhower’s address before the United Nations General Assembly during the fateful Middle East crisis in the Summer of 1958.3 Such progress as has been recorded since that time has been in large measure due to such international agencies as the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization. With specific reference to the restrictions on Israel shipping in the Suez Canal, the United Nations Secretary General has actively sought a solution. Although his efforts have not succeeded and have in fact met with a number of setbacks, the Secretary General as recently as April 8 reported his continued interest in the problem and his unextinguished hope that a solution may yet be found. Our Government is giving these endeavors its fullest support.
Although this letter is somewhat lengthy, I hope it will prove helpful to you in facilitating understanding of these important questions. In particular I hope it will make clear the reasons why those of us who deal with these problems on a day-to-day basis feel strongly that no actions should be taken which will exacerbate tensions in the Middle East which are clearly harmful to the long-range interests of the United States, Israel and the entire Free World.
Sincerely yours,
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 700.5–MSP/5–260. No classification marking. Drafted by Meyer on April 30. Attached to a memorandum from the Director of the Executive Secretariat, Calhoun, to Goodpaster, May 2, stating that it was being transmitted for information and that copies of the letter had been released to the press.↩
- The Douglas amendment to the Mutual Security bill, which passed the Senate on April 28 despite the opposition of the Foreign Relations Committee, gave the President discretion to withhold aid from any State that obstructed free navigation of international waterways.↩
- For text of this address, August 13, 1958, see Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1958, pp. 606–616.↩
- Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.↩