257. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in the United Arab Republic0
3125. Please deliver following letter from President to Nasser soonest upon his return from Addis Ababa:1
“Dear President Nasser:
I have asked Ambassador Badeau to give you this letter and to talk it over with you. With the disengagement process in Yemen hopefully close to commencement it seems to me desirable to be in touch again in light of the developments of the past few weeks.
As I mentioned in my letter of 18 April,2 US policy has not changed, nor do I see any current reason to change it. Of course, the Congress also plays a major role in aid matters. However, it is my policy to continue our programs of economic assistance to the UAR and my hope that the Congress will continue to see it that way too.
I was struck, Mr. President, by several points in your long and thoughtful letter of 3 March.3 You said that the UAR does not consider her mission as being the random distribution of the revolution among the other peoples of the Arab world, and expressed your belief that the best the UAR could furnish with regard to her revolutionary mission toward the Arabs was for her to be a practical example of the Arab’s ability to evolve his life towards a better future. We sympathize with this belief and it is for this that we have sought and continue to seek to be of help to the UAR in creating a practical example.
In the meantime, however, I am sure you share my concern lest, in the current period of maneuver and flux in the Near East, untoward developments take place which will create acute problems for both of us. For this reason I want to express candidly why I am concerned.
[Page 557]First, I am deeply troubled that if Jordan becomes the cockpit of an Arab struggle the peace of the Near East might well be destroyed by Israel’s intervention in Jordan, using the argument of its own security interest. We might be faced with a fait accompli. Should the other Arab states feel compelled to react in such a situation a major conflict might ensue—and one in which our assessment indicates that the Arab forces might not be at any advantage.
The arms race holds the seeds of disaster, too, for all of us. We are gratified that no Near Eastern state has undertaken development of nuclear weapons, and we will continue to counsel against such a policy. The progress being made by Israel and the UAR in the application of nuclear energy to peaceful purposes bears promise for the welfare of the people of the area. Without proper safeguards, however, power reactors can be diverted to military objectives. Thus, Israel could have the capability to develop nuclear weapons in the next few years if it were to divert its efforts in that direction. Offensive missiles now under development both in Israel and in the UAR would also add a new and dangerous dimension. Somehow, these dangers must be averted.
The US is urgently studying what we might do to help avoid serious trouble in the area. In this effort we are keeping Arab views and interests very much in mind. The fact that the security and integrity of Israel are of deep and lasting concern to the US is not a matter which has up to this point prevented the growth of friendly US-UAR relations, and I hope it will not do so in the future. Whatever measures we explore or restatements of our policy we feel compelled to make as a result of the developing situation will not be hostile to the UAR. Nor, as I indicated in my last message, are we against freely chosen Arab unity. As I believe we demonstrated in Yemen, we support the process of modernization in the Arab world. We are naturally concerned, however, that these movements not be at the expense of the security of Israel or of Arab states which, while themselves modernizing, choose to retain their present systems of government. By the same token, if we are opposed to aggression by one state against another in the area, we mean not only any Arab aggression against Israel but any Israeli aggression as well. We showed this in 1956, and mean it just as much today.
In sum, we will carefully measure our words and actions, insofar as these seem necessary, to make clear the basic principles of our policy. We want to steer an even course with all of our friends, and we hope it will not be made unduly difficult for us. With your concurrence, I should like to send a trusted associate to see you shortly on certain of these matters.
Sincerely, John F. Kennedy”
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 15–1 UAR. Secret; Eyes Only Cane for Ambassador. Drafted by McGeorge Bundy and approved by Brubeck. On May 24, the Department of State instituted the codeword Cane for documents relating to the proposed Near East arms limitation initiative. A May 24 memorandum for the record indicated that all communications designated Cane would be handled as Eyes Only unless they required Roger Channel handling. Within the Executive Secretariat, Cane traffic was to be restricted to Brubeck, Little, Read, and Jensen. One copy of each message was to be sent to Bromley Smith at the White House and a second copy sent to Grant in NEA. There was to be no additional distribution. (Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Countries Series, United Arab Republic, UAR/Israel Arms Limitation, 5/01/63–06/15/63)↩
- A copy of this letter with the last sentence deleted for security reasons was given to Ambassador Kamel on June 4. (Telegram 3232 to Cairo, June 4; Department of State, Central Files, POL 15–1 UAR)↩
- See Document 215.↩
- See Document 186.↩