Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XVIII, Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1964–1967

87. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Washington, August 10, 1964.

SUBJECT

• Meeting with UAR Ambassador, August 10, 1964

PARTICIPANTS

• UAR Ambassador Kamel
• Mr. McGeorge Bundy
• Asst. Secretary of State Phillips Talbot
• Mr. R. W. Komer

Mr. Bundy welcomed the Ambassador and asked if he’d care to summarize his discussion with the President.² Ambassador Kamel did so at some length. Highlights were that:

(1) Kamel stressed the value of good US/UAR relations, pointing out that US political and economic interests in the Middle East were quite adequately protected as a result of present US policy—not one Middle East country had gone Communist and none were likely to do so; (2) we were managing to keep the Israeli issue in the icebox; (3) the exchange of presidential correspondence was extremely valuable; and (4) Nasser’s latest letter made clear that the UAR did not intend to go nuclear. The Ambassador’s advice was that the US should now go back to the UAR with a specific program to build on the nuclear assurances received.

Mr. Bundy assured Kamel that President Johnson, like President Kennedy, wanted effective communication with Nasser. Such communication had broken down before 1961, with adverse results to both countries. As a further indication, President Johnson took a direct personal interest in finding a suitable successor to Badeau. In Bundy’s opinion he couldn’t have found a better man. LUKe Battle’s appointment would help to keep up the tradition of effective communication which had been built up over the past few years. Bundy reiterated the President’s great appreciation of Nasser’s nuclear assurances; we would now consider “next steps” as Kamel had suggested.

Kamel remarked that President Johnson had noted the upcoming Arab Summit and neutralist conferences in Cairo and expressed confidence that the UAR would play a constructive role in them. He hoped in turn that the US would be forthcoming in its attitude toward these conferences. Bundy’s rejoinder was that “conferences are as conferences do.” We had no bias whatsoever against conferences per se, but we naturally hoped they would avoid the pitfalls of bright words and excessive propagandizing. It was a little too much to expect us to be forthcoming in advance, when we didn’t know what the participants were going to say. However, Kamel could count on us not to bite unless we were bitten.

Bundy went on to say that the new Administration had tried “ever since we have been here” to develop better relations with the UAR. Bundy himself was a determined “icebox” man. He felt that for the first 2–1/2 years we had made considerable progress in US/UAR relations. In the last year, however, there were some signs that the “icebox” policy wasn’t quite so cool. The Jordanians, under some pressure from other Arabs, were talking about a new arms buildup. This would inevitably create counter-demands from other quarters. As for the Yemen problem, it was simply not moving very fast. So we saw a number of issues that made it harder for the US and UAR to move closer together.

Bundy stressed that what concerned us was giving even more concern in the country as a whole and to the Congress in particular, especially in an election year. Not everybody was as sophisticated in their view of US/UAR relations as those who dealt with them regularly. So Bundy asked the Ambassador to make sure that these dangers were understood in Cairo. When Kamel asked him to be more precise about what dangers, Bundy reiterated that they included Yemen, Arab arms, and apparent UAR support for that difficult man Makarios, who was complicating the UN’s task. Bundy assured Kamel that in dealing with UAR relations, our starting point was respect for Arab purposes and for the central role of the UAR in Arab policy. We too would like to see our relations closer and to avoid a drift away from the Kennedy/Johnson policy.

In response, Kamel urged that we distinguish between long-range matters and those which were non-essential (by implication Yemen and similar problems); the latter should not be permitted to stand in the way of good US/UAR relations. The important things were that Communists were being kept out of the ME, that Israel was in the “icebox,” and that US oil wasn’t being disturbed. Kamel then explained at some length his personal role, ever since he had come to the US, in working for good relations. The question as he saw it was how to keep up the momentum achieved over the last few years. For eight months the US hadn’t done any real business with the UAR. He—Kamel—understood this matter but the “impatient young men” who ran the government in Cairo were beginning to wonder. The multi-year PL–480 agreement³ had done great things for US/UAR relations. Kamel recommended that we begin negotiations on renewal to show our good intentions. He also stressed the importance of development loans. Cairo kept asking where the $20 million stabilization loan was. Third, Kamel felt it important to encourage US private capital to flow to the UAR.

Bundy felt that the causes of delay on the $20 million loan were not on our side. We had made clear that it could only be given in the environment of three conditions, which would permit us to defend the loan before our own people. He did not believe that the three conditions had been fully met. Kamel granted this, but said that Cairo was taking the loan as proof of whether the US would continue its present policy.

Kamel then said that the fourth thing he would like to discuss was a consortium to support UAR development. He described how Egyptian development was essential to stability. He had not been asked to raise the consortium question, but felt that such a device would help block extreme socialism or communism in the UAR. Bundy regarded the prospects for any consortium as affected by UAR dealings with the UK as a whipping boy. It was hard for the British to join in a consortium when the UAR was causing so much trouble over Aden, for example.

The Ambassador described the UK problem as “a matter of confidence.” The UAR had no confidence in UK intentions. The issue now was Yemen. Why couldn’t the British accept the YAR? Then all UK/UAR difficulties would disappear. Bundy’s view was that nothing would do more for US/UAR relations than some withdrawals of UAR forces which would establish Nasser’s intent to carry out the disengagement agreement. Kamel made a lengthy rejoinder the gist of which was why couldn’t the US, after the next UK election, use its good offices to get British recognition of the YAR. Present British policy served no useful purpose. In Kamel’s view, US policy toward Yemen was far wiser than that of the UK. Bundy granted that it might be difficult to achieve a UK/UAR understanding before October. We had indeed tried several times to bring the UAR and UK together, but neither side seemed inclined to give.

Summing up, Bundy said he was trying to explain that US/UAR relations must be regarded as a “two-way street.” It was just as important that the UAR not give disquieting signals to us as that the US make economic signals to Cairo. Kamel wondered whether the issue over Yemen was “troops or something else.” In Kamel’s view Nasser wanted to withdraw troops, but found it very difficult to do so because of British machinations against the YAR. Bundy thought that it was not just a matter of troop withdrawal per se, but of the damage to the UAR reputation from having agreed to disengagement and not performing. On Mr. Komer’s suggestion that we were not going to solve the Yemen matter that evening, the meeting broke up amicably.

RWK

1. Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, United Arab Republic, Kamel Visit, 8/64. Secret. Prepared by Komer on August 12. Copies were sent to Harriman, Bundy, Bell, and Talbot. Marginal notations in Bundy’s handwriting read: “Approved con amore. McGB.” and “You make me so much smarter than I am. McGB.”
2. Kamel met with the President on August 10 from 6:20 to 6:32 p.m. and delivered Nasser’s July 26 letter (see Document 86). (Johnson Library, President’s Daily Diary) The meeting is recorded in a memorandum for the record by Komer, dated August 11. (Ibid., National Security File, United Arab Republic, Kamel Visit, 8/64)
3. Reference is to an agricultural commodities agreement signed at Washington October 8, 1962, covering fiscal years 1963, 1964, and 1965. For text, see 13 UST 2166.