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

98. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Washington, October 6, 1964.

SUBJECT

• McCloy’s Impressions of His Meeting with President Nasser on September 28

PARTICIPANTS

• The Honorable John J. McCloy
• M—Governor Harriman
• NEA—Phillips Talbot
• NEA—John D. Jernegan
• M—Frederic Chapin
• NE—Francois Dickman

After summarizing briefly the high points of his meeting with President Nasser on September 28, Mr. McCloy said he had found Nasser this time to be less suspicious and more willing to talk about the arms problem than when the subject had first been raised in June 1963. While Nasser gave no indication that he would be able to do anything about keeping his missile strength at present levels, he did not reject our proposal. He was frank in pointing out the political problems, both internal and external, which he faced if he should take any action which could be interpreted as softness toward Israel. Asked if he gave any hint on the number of missiles he had, Mr. McCloy said he had not asked the question. However, Nasser had reiterated that he had started missile development because he could not rely on the Soviet Union for his full arsenal.

Mr. McCloy was not optimistic that Nasser could conform to the kind of proposal we had presented not to increase the present number of surface-to-surface missiles. We were asking him something that was very hard for him to do. Yet, there was a dividend for us in trying to maintain the arms dialogue with Nasser. If we kept working on Nasser, we might eventually get some results. He hoped Ambassador Battle would have an opportunity to review his meeting with Nasser whenever it was practical.

Mr. McCloy then noted that when he conveyed our assurances on Dimona, Nasser made no comment. He assumed this meant that this information confirmed other UAR intelligence on the subject. He also thought it significant that Nasser did not mention pre-emptive war to him during this visit—as he did in the last—in the event Israel obtained nuclear capability. Also interesting was Nasser’s lack of reaction to information that Israel was going in for its own SSM’s. There seemed to be an almost casual acceptance of this development.

Governor Harriman commented, in reading Mr. McCloy’s report, that Nasser had held out little encouragement for accepting the present status quo in the Near East. Mr. McCloy said Nasser had argued that a solution of the Palestine problem based on justice was fundamental. Nasser had volunteered that he himself had no solution. This seemed to imply that war was not a feasible way to resolve the problem. It also seemed to imply that Nasser did not feel he was strong enough with other Arabs to take any statesmanlike actions on this issue.

Mr. McCloy mentioned that his visit had come to the attention of the Cairo press because his name had been listed on Nasser’s register of visitors. He asked how he should respond in case any questions were raised. He noted parenthetically that Joux (sic) in the Quai d’Orsay had noticed his visit with Nasser as had Eric Warburg at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York. He had told them that he had gone to review several matters in connection with his business interests. Since the President knew of his friendship with Nasser, he had been asked to reiterate our interest in developments in the Near East and the need to tamp down tensions created by the arms race. Mr. Warburg had told Mr. McCloy that he thought this was a good development and hoped these efforts would continue.

It was agreed that Mr. McCloy should respond along these lines in case questions were raised again by responsible private individuals. Governor Harriman suggested that Mr. McCloy might usefully point out at the same time why it was desirable for the U.S. to maintain a dialogue with Nasser. The Governor then expressed his concern over recent statements by Senator Keating and Congressman Taft urging the Administration to submit an ultimatum to Nasser or otherwise stop all assistance. He instructed NEA to prepare a telegram to Ambassador Barbour in which the Ambassador would convey to Premier Eshkol the general tenor, but without the specifics, of Mr. McCloy’s meeting with Nasser and point to the utility of maintaining a dialogue. Governor Harriman thought that after the elections, the Department would have a job to try to get the Israeli Government to get its supporters to think of the long-range aspects of our policy and understand why it was desirable for us to continue frank discussions with Nasser. He thought Mr. McCloy might play a useful role in this connection.

At the close of the meeting, there was a brief discussion of the Chase boycott problem² and the Warren Commission Report.

1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, POL 15–1 UAR. Top Secret. Drafted by Dickman on October 7 and approved in M on October 22. McCloy also met briefly with Rusk on October 6; a memorandum of the conversation is ibid., POL UAR-US.
2. The Arab Central Boycott Office in Damascus had announced the blacklisting of Chase Manhattan Bank on July 9 and had given the bank 6 months to liquidate its affairs in Arab countries. McCloy raised this with Nasser on September 28, noting it as an example of the desirability of avoiding any action that might irritate U.S.-UAR relations, and discussed it with Hassouna and Kaissouni on September 29. (Telegram 1078 from Cairo, September 29; ibid., FT 11–2 ISR–ARAB)