266. Telegram From the Embassy in the United Arab Republic to the Department of State1
1141. In “Victory Day” speech in Port Said December 23 (assume text available via Department FBIS) Nasser attacked West and particularly US along broad front.
Speech began with standard historical buildup in which UAR pictured as having successfully thrown off yoke imperialism and now standing as shining example for other oppressed countries follow. For this reason imperialists continue view UAR as Enemy Number One. Imperialists have not slackened attempts divide Arabs into spheres influence, and toward this objective they continuing rely on their stooges in this part of world. Extended section on King Hussein, delivered in tone of heavy sarcasm, ridiculed Hussein for manic fears of plots against him and for constantly appealing to US and other supporters for help. “Thereupon Americans write Hussein check for $4 [Page 610] million”. Taking stronger line than he has in recent speeches, Nasser declared war on “imperialist agents in all parts of Arab nation”, and stressed more strongly than usual UAR’s duty to bring about unity of all Arabs.
Turning to reports that Israel had atom bomb, Nasser took line (previously taken in Haikal and Salah Salem editorials) bomb probably did not exist, but if Israel in future should obtain bomb, “UAR would get one, too, at any price”. “If it is established that Israel is making atom bomb, this would mean beginning of war between us because we will not allow Israel to work on producing bomb. We must attack base of aggression even if we have to mobilize four million men”. Nasser reminded readers that Western countries had refused him arms in 1955. “Did that mean we failed to get arms? It did not”.
Nasser also clearly warned that regardless of US campaign speeches, any attempt on part of “Washington or London” impose peace between Arabs and Israel doomed to failure. US hit for continuing to give financial support to Israel. “They (Americans) gave Israel $3000 million in ten years—every bullet fired to kill an Arab was paid for by America and by all the Western imperialists because they give money to Israel”.
NATO came under heavy attack in the context of Algeria. “Atlantic Pact, which supposed represent free world, represents only lust for slavery and domination. It is this pact which is helping France and it is France in turn which is said to be offering Israel help with atom bomb”. Accordingly NATO “would be our first enemy” because it supplies France with arms, and “It is this pact which supplies Israel with arms”. “Positive neutrality means that we are enemy of our enemies and friend of our friends. NATO is our enemy in Algeria. NATO is showing us enmity by helping and arming Israel. NATO, the Western states and Western imperialism are showing us enmity and fighting our principles; but we insist on our principles”. In later passage Nasser said US must share responsibility Algerian situation because US is supplying France with arms. “France’s strength emanates from the US”.
Discussing voting in UN, Nasser (evidently reacting to Assistant Secretary Hart’s remark to Ambassador Kamel last week)2 complained Americans say we are not neutral because we voted 14 times with USSR at UNGA. “This is true, but we vote in conformity with our principles”. “For example, how could we vote with US in case of Afro-Asian resolution against imperialism, which US did not support?” If [Page 611] we did not vote with US it’s because “they vote against principles of freedom.” If US still buys votes “from some semi-independent states”, this not true in our case. “Our votes are not for sale”.
Re Congo, Nasser stressed disappointment UN “allowed itself be used as vehicle by big colonialist powers”—carrying out colonialist policy “which stands for overthrow of national rule and make of Lumumba a lesson for whole African Continent”. Today anyone will hesitate to seek UN help “because one knows UN plays game of colonialism and carries out policy of USA”. UN has “become tool in hands of imperialism”. UN betrayed itself in Congo; imperialistic countries are responsible for this, “and I hold UN secretariat also responsible”. Congo events prove “administration system” of UN “requires a change”. If UN Secretariat submitted to imperialism, then imperialism would “represent power which attached to UN” and this would lead to UN collapse. When UAR struggles for sake of its principles in Congo “in order protect nationalist elements in Congo”, it is at same time working to protect UN as world organization commanding respect.
Speech was delivered in mixture of literary and colloquial Arabic which Nasser has perfected into flexible and effective oratorical tool. Nasser in particularly fine form during section on Hussein, where combination of mincing sarcasm and wit produced loud bursts derisive laughter.
US has not come in for such sharp and specific criticism for long time. Throughout speech it was clear that when Nasser spoke of “imperialists” he meant to include US in company. In Embassy view, speech (apart from concern over rumored Israeli atomic capability) reflects Nasser’s general exasperation with US policy, particularly as it has recently opposed his objectives in Congo and continued to support, in his eyes, French in Algeria. Nasser unquestionably in fighting mood; underneath general fulminations against West and US, there appear to be warnings on two specific points: (1) unless US stops backing wrong people in Congo, UAR may support USSR in its efforts fundamentally alter structure UN; (2) if West should provide Israel with atom bomb, or provide Israel with money and know how enable it produce bomb themselves, UAR would obtain bomb from Soviet Union at any cost even if it entailed loss of UAR’s “neutral” position in world affairs.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 786B.11/2–2460. Confidential. Repeated to London, Paris, Leopoldville, Brussels, Beirut, Baghdad, Damascus, Aleppo, Jidda, Tel Aviv, and Amman.↩
- In commenting on this conversation, which took place on December 16, the Department of State reported that it had discussed with Kamel a “number of disturbing recent developments which might adversely affect US–UAR relations.” (Podst 118, December 19; ibid., 700.00(S)/12–1960)↩