136. Memorandum of a Conversation, White House, Washington, February 6, 19571

SUBJECT

  • The Lebanese Foreign Minister’s Call on The President

PARTICIPANTS

  • Dr. Charles Malik, Lebanese Foreign Minister
  • Dr. Victor A. Khouri, Lebanese Ambassador
  • The President
  • Mr. Fraser Wilkins, Director, NE

The President welcomed the Lebanese Foreign Minister, Dr. Malik and the Lebanese Ambassador, Dr. Khouri, at the White House this morning. He said he was glad to see them both again. He had just come from his weekly press conference and it was of interest that more than half of the questions put to him had related to the Middle East. This fact was evidence of the great interest in Middle Eastern affairs in this country.

The President said that we continued to give strong support to the United Nations. We felt that there should be compliance with its resolutions. It was our belief that Israel should heed the recent General Assembly Resolution on withdrawal which had been adopted by an overwhelming vote.2 It seemed to us Israel would wish to have a decent respect for the opinion of other countries. It was also our view that Israeli shipping should be able to pass through the Suez Canal in accordance with the provisions of the Convention of 1888.

Dr. Malik said Lebanon greatly admired the leading role which the United States, under President Eisenhower, was playing in the United Nations and which it was taking with respect to many Middle Eastern problems. The President of the Lebanon had asked him to bring a letter to the President and, with his permission, he would hand it to him now.3 The President thanked Dr. Malik and said he would like to scan it briefly.

[Page 205]

The President remarked that it was a very fine letter and that he was especially interested in the very eloquent next-to-last paragraph. The President agreed there was a great struggle going on in the world between those who supported independence, freedom and progress and those who were guilty of intolerance, distrust and greed. The President of Lebanon had well expressed views which he himself held. The President said that he would keep the letter and study it and reply shortly.

The President said that we in the United States were greatly concerned with present developments in the Near East for two principal reasons: We were concerned because of difficulties among the Near Eastern states themselves and because of the threat of international Communist aggression and subversion in the area.

The President said that last November when the United Nations General Assembly had been debating the resolution relating to cease fire and withdrawal of foreign forces from Egypt, we had given serious consideration to the possibility of broadening the resolution to include basic problems existing between Israel and the Arab states. It was our belief that until these basic problems were solved no lasting solution for current problems could be found. It was decided, however, that the moment was not propitious for this action and it would be preferable to defer action on such a resolution for the time being. It, nevertheless, remained our long-term objective to seek a long-range solution for the Arab-Israeli problem. In moving from point to point, as was the case with ships, it was sometimes necessary to tack.

The second problem affecting the Middle East was the threat of international Communism. It was for this reason we had advanced a new policy relating to the Middle East and the statement which he had made before the Congress on January 5. It was sometimes called the Eisenhower Doctrine. The President preferred that it should not be described in this way because he wanted it known as American policy for the Middle East. Dr. Malik said that, as he had already stated publicly, Lebanon welcomed the initiative taken by the President. Dr. Malik thought the President’s leadership had been urgently required and had been extremely timely.

Dr. Malik said many of his countrymen and others in the Near East held similar views. The President said he was interested in these comments because he had had the impression that there had been some opposition to his proposals. The President suggested that, since Dr. Malik had lived in the United States for many years as the representative of Lebanon, he might wish to bring this information regarding Near Eastern attitudes to the attention of his friends among members of Congress.

[Page 206]

The President said he had spoken with King Saud about his proposals of January 5. He said there was no doubt the King was opposed to Communism and would have nothing to do with it, but that he did not seem to realize the extent to which the Communists were gaining greater and greater control in Syria and in Egypt. He did not seem to have full information as to the ways and means in which the Communists were working in the Middle East. For example, many of the Arabs seemed to think that they could accept Russian arms and Russian “volunteers” for the time being and could break off their dependence upon Russian sources of supply and could get rid of the Russian “volunteers” when they wanted to. It was the President’s belief they were very much mistaken if they thought such relations with the Soviet Bloc could be so easily terminated. Czechoslovakia’s sad experience was the proof of his conclusions.

Dr. Malik said he agreed with the President completely and that Lebanon and its officials were fully conscious of the threat of Communist subversion and were exerting every effort to combat it. Dr. Malik thought Syria and Egypt were gradually falling under Communist domination. It was essential political change take place in Syria and Egypt. The Communists were endeavoring to penetrate Arab nationalism and should be repulsed. Meanwhile, Syria and Egypt and even Saudi Arabia were intervening in Lebanese internal affairs. They were proving especially active at the present time because of the forthcoming Lebanese Parliamentary elections. If these elections went against those Lebanese representatives who favored the West, the future of Lebanon would be affected because the Parliament would later be called upon to select a new President. Dr. Malik hoped we could find some way of assisting Lebanon in preventing these developments.

The President said he had not realized before that Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia were intervening in this way in Lebanon’s affairs. He said this type of activity raised a new spectre and asked if Dr. Malik had mentioned it to the Secretary of State. Dr. Malik said he had spoken of it in his conversation with the Secretary on February 5. Dr. Malik continued that he did not know whether King Saud himself was fully aware of these activities, but that he must be informed about some of them. Some of King Saud’s counselors, on the other hand, were known to have no scruples.

The President said we had high hopes for King Saud and that he would prove to be a force for stability and peace in Saudi Arabia. Each of the countries should develop and strengthen itself. We generally thought first of Lebanon and of Iraq and fanned out from there. It seemed to us we should avoid a situation in which only one [Page 207] man such as Nasser could be regarded as the leader of the Arab world.

The President said relations between the United States and Lebanon were of especial interest to us because of ties with that country and because our policies had similar objectives of opposition to Communism and of efforts to resolve Middle Eastern problems.

Dr. Malik referred to rumors that the United States planned to take the place of the British and the French and to fill the power vacuum in the Middle East. The President said this was absolutely incorrect and he wanted to make clear that the British and French continued to be close friends of the United States, that our policies were not designed to replace them, and that we thought they had a future role to play in Middle Eastern matters when tempers cooled. The President noted he had long been an advocate of cooperation with the British and the French and had many personal friends in both countries. He was confident good relations would eventually be restored between Britain, France and the Middle East. Dr. Malik said he was in entire agreement.

Dr. Malik said he had no [one] final point relating to Lebanese internal security forces. Lebanon had a small, efficient, loyal army and wished to keep it so. He hoped the United States would, as possible, be able to assist Lebanon in this task.

The President repeated his thanks for the letter which Dr. Malik had brought from the President of Lebanon to which he would reply soon.4 He had been most interested in Dr. Malik’s views and thanked him for them.

  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.83A/2–657. Confidential. Drafted by Wilkins.
  2. On February 2, by a vote of 74 to 2, the General Assembly called upon Israel to withdraw immediately behind the armistice demarcation line. (Resolution 1124(XI); for text, see Department of State Bulletin, February 25, 1957, p. 327)
  3. In this letter, January 1, Chamoun expressed his wishes for American and Lebanese happiness and prosperity, his certainty that the United States would discharge its “historic tasks” in the Middle East with humility, and his hope for peace, prosperity, and the defeat of the forces of evil. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.83A/2–657)
  4. At 11:55 a.m. on February 6, Eisenhower telephoned Dulles and informed him of the letter from Chamoun and the conversation with Malik. (Memorandum of conversation transcribed by Phyllis D. Bernau; Eisenhower Library, Dulles Papers, General Telephone Conversations)

    Also on February 6, Eisenhower asked Dulles in a memorandum to have a staff officer “whip up a draft” reply “in a sympathetic vein” to Chamoun’s letter. Eisenhower stated that, “While I should like to generalize a bit on our readiness and anxiety to help, I don’t, of course, want to be specific or say anything that might tie our hands later.” (Memorandum from Eisenhower to Dulles; Department of State, Central Files, 611.83A/2–657)

    In his reply, February 11, Eisenhower returned Chamoun’s wishes for a peaceful and prosperous New Year, thanked him for Lebanon’s favorable reaction to the Eisenhower Doctrine, and assured him that freedom and noble ideas would prevail. (Eisenhower Library, White House Central Files)