Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Near East: Jordan-Yemen, Volume XIII

132. Telegram From the Embassy in Lebanon to the Department of State ¹

Beirut , January 13, 1957—8 p.m.

1691. Joint Embassy-USIS message. Circr 592 January 8.² Despite variety of interests and pressures in small Moslem-Christian Republic of Lebanon, official GOL reaction to President’s January 5th Mid-East policy speech was forthright and favorable. President Chamoun told me he supported “Eisenhower Plan one hundred percent” and Embassy has heard virtually no reservations expressed by Prime Minister, Foreign Minister or other high officials of Foreign Office. Moreover official opinion is widely known rather than repressed as frequently happens in Lebanon for reasons involving the country’s relations with Moslem Arab neighbors. Foreign Minister Malik told press here Cairo and Rome that Lebanon desires cooperate US in new approach providing no infringement Lebanese sovereignty.

Reaction of press, which uncensored on this matter, as well as of influential political leaders in Christian and moderate Moslem segments community generally favorable. Outright opposition limited to Communist and pro-Communist newspapers. Leftist Socialist and extreme Moslem nationalists for most part criticize speech for its omissions rather than its content, pointing particularly to failure condemn recent aggression against Egypt or specifically contribute new ideas concerning Arab refugee and Palestine problems. Moslem extremists have given Eisenhower statement noticeably less negative reception than they gave Jordan Valley Plan or Dulles proposals of August 1955.

While more sophisticated observers believe speech may be turning point in ME history, few commentators see true significance vis-à-vis international Communist menace. Many moderate and pro-Western commentators who welcome mainlines new approach nevertheless observe that Palestine and Suez problems are the immediate threats to area’s security since they believed danger overt Soviet attack quite remote. In fact main burden of public and press criticism is that American guarantee would insure area against overt Communist aggression but fails provide against Zionist or colonialist aggression from non-Communist countries and does not go to heart of problems causing instability in area.

Embassy believes press generally reflects public reaction accurately. Newspaper comments perhaps more important as mirrors than as influence on opinion and should of course be read with careful attention to religious and political bias of individual papers and commentators. Press mirrors official opinion only somewhat murkily as Lebanese fears “anti-Arab” too pro-Western in this era of rampant Arab nationalism cause many leaders and politicians to temper their true beliefs in public statements. Egyptian and Syrian hostility to new plan may have some effect among Moslems here. This hostility is to date however strengthening favorable reaction of dominant Christian elements in country. Embassy notes that Foreign Minister Malik’s recent statements to press have yet to be editorially criticized.

In sum new policy will be subject continuing critical but not necessarily hostile debate in most circles. However Embassy believes policy will strengthen hold present Government and moderate pro-Western elements in country facilitating policy of close cooperation with US without compromising continued cooperation with Arab neighbors. It will tend to reduce susceptibility to Communist and Moslem extremist blandishments and help preserve generally favorable climate of relations with US now prevailing.

For additional comment and quotations see Joint Weeka 2 Embtel 1680³ and US information cables to USIA news room dated January 8, 9, 10 and 11.⁴

Heath

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.80/1–1357. Official Use Only. Repeated to Amman, Baghdad, Cairo, Damascus, Jidda, Ankara, Paris, London, and Tel Aviv.
2. In circular telegram 592, the Department requested Embassies to assess local reaction to President Eisenhower’s January 5 Mideast policy speech. (Ibid., 611.80/ 1–857)
3. In telegram 1680, January 10, the Embassy cited specific Lebanese press responses to Eisenhower’s January 5 message. (Ibid., 611.80/1–1057)
4. None printed.