AN AMERICAN-ARAB DIALOG

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290002-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 7, 2001
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: November 6, 1967
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved FoK-Release-2001/11/01 ' CIA-RDP69BO0169RO90200290002=1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE - November 6, 1967
efforts, our government has continually pro-
posed more and more of the same old thing.
We are trying to build success on proven
failure. Our medicine has not worked, so we
are asked to double or triple the dose. More,
more, the Administration asks.' It is time
for the people to rise up and say, less, less,
no more, no more. For example, Robert W.
Smith, executive editor of the Minenapolis
Star, returned from Vietnam in June and
reported that the United States wanted to
assign 60 percent more advisers to Viet-
namese army units, But what can, more
advisers achieve that earlier advisers failed
to do. The problem is a lack of will to fight
by the South Vietnamese, it is not a lack
of advice.
Our policies have thus far failed in Viet-
nam, but even If they had succeeded we need
to ask ourselves whether the price is not too
high. Sensible and rational people should
place their aims and objectives over against
the cost in American lives and dollars. Is the
difference between a friendly or unfriendly
Vietnam worth more _to the United States
than 12,600 brave fighting men and as much
as $50 to $100 billion dollars-and the pro-
war advocates would raise the cost even
higher. Does the kind of government Viet-
nam has made this much difference to the
United States? Scores of countries around
the world-much more powerful than tiny,
poverty-ridden Vietnam--are unfriendly to
the United States, but we are not spending
blood and treasure to force them to main-
tain a government friendly to us, or to guar-
antee elections. It is clear that we stumbled
into Vietnam inadvertently, a step at a time,
and that the cost of this intervention In a
civil war is much greater than we antici-
pated, But we have been unwilling to admit
our mistake after seeing that no possible
achievement in Vietnam would be worth the
price we are having to pay,
The American people should insist that
their government explore alternative policies
In Vietnam. Many distinguished and patrl-
otlo Americans, including military experts
Such as General Gavin and General Shoup,
have advocated for many months that we de-
escaigte the war. As Senator Thruston Mor-
ton said on Aug. 14, we should seek "honor-
able disengagement." Indeed, this is the first
step toward getting any kind of peace. As an
initial move, the United States should im-
mediately reduce its aggressive air and
ground activity and maintain a holding ac-
tion. Of course our troops should defend
themselves and we should support them with
everything necessary to do that. One reason
we should cease our search and destroy oper-
ations is that they have been very expensive
in terms of lives, and they have been a failure
militarily. But the broader-and more signifi-
cant reason to reduce military activity is to
provide a proper climate for peace negotia-
tions.
Next, we should make it known that the
U.S. Is willing to negotiate a gradual with-
drawal from Vietnam and leave the country
to the Vietnamese. Rather than us taking
the lead in negotiations, we should urge the
Asian powers, the U.N., and especially U
Thant, to develop policies which would be
acceptable to the various interests and
groups. If.we let nearby Asian countries work
out a solution it is much more likely to last
than if we try. to force some kind of settle-
ment on the region. After all, this Is an
Asian problem, not an American problem, ex-
cept as we have made it one.
Moreover, if it appears that the leaders
who have supported us in the war ? are
endangered, we should offer them asylum.
Most Important of all, the United States
should outline a policy which would gradu-
ally withdraw American troops from a land
war which every knowledgeable civilian and
military leader warned us against a decade
ago, and main t i6 ~ iz h3r~'Ab 21F-
namely main our 1 ne of
Tenses just off the mainland of Asia. With
complete air and sea superiority in the west-
ern Pacific, no nation can successfully chal-
lenge us; and the United States will be in a
position to defend its vital interests of trade
or defense without getting mired down in an
unending land war.
Many Americans have strong objections to
concentrating our efforts on a political and
diplomatic settlement in Vietnam-one in
which the Vietnamese and other Asian coun-
tries would be permitted to work out the
problems-because they feel we must "win"
the war as a kind of atonement for those
who have already died in Vietnam. This is
strange reasoning. We have achieved no
worthwhile goals or objectives in the na-
tional Interest with the death of approxi-
mately 12,500 American troops, so the pro-
war advocates urge sending more and more
brave Americans boys to their deaths for
equally unsound policies. Every American
should, I believe, support the men in Viet-
nam, most of whom are there against their
will, with everything they need. If this means
higher taxes, or anything else, we must bear
that cost. But we will serve our troops best
if we help reverse the policies which have
sent them there. The most loyal backing
give our men in Vietnam is to bring
We can
them home, and our best chance of bringing
them home is not in enlarging the war, but
in negotiation and gradual withdrawal.
This is indeed a curious and paradoxical
war. Many of the most vociferous supporters
the war have no sons in Vietnam. They,
keep their sons in college as long as possible
and thank God when en they fail to pass the
physical examination for military service.
They also oppose tax increases es to to pay for the
war. In other words, the war has millions of
supporters who think it is fine to keep fight-
expand the, war-so long as some-
one else's sons are fighting it and they can
pass the cost on to the next generation. There
is a basic dishonesty here which is not in
the best American tradition.
the pro-war advocates have not at
any time shown what benefits will scours
to the United States as a result of all the
which we have made and continue
make in Vietnam, They have not shown
what the United States can. get out of the
war which is of value to us as a people and
as a nation. How is our national interest
by elections in South Vietnam? No one
has told us. How have we strengthened our
defenses by losing thousands of men in a
small country which could not possibly
threaten or attack the United States? No
has told us. How have we helped our
country by spending billions killing Viet-
namese-this may provide psychic satisfac-
to some people while. poverty, unrest,
riots occur here at home? No one has
told us. The truth of the matter 1s that we
have nothing to gain and everything to lose
by further military involvement in Vietnam.
Let us practice what we preach about sel
determination and let the Vietnamese solve
their own problems. Let us do what Senator
has proposed and seek an "honorable
disengagement" by negotiation. We have tried
military force and It has failed. Honest and
imaginative diplomacy deserves a try.
I agree that such a dialog would be
most valuable. I well recognize that we
in America know all too little about the
strong urge now being felt in the Arab
world for nationhood built on freedom
and justice, and I am sure that many
Arabs misunderstand our efforts in Viet-
nam and elsewhere to help establish free
and independent countries. I am sure
that they all too often equate these
efforts with imperialism.
But valuable as I know a wider Amer-
lean-Arab dialog could be, I feel also that
the American attitude toward the Arab
will never change deeply until there is
meaningful dialog between the Arabs and
the Isarelis, as well. Perhaps the dialog
could be a three way one-Arabs, Israelis,
and Americans.
I ask that Dr. Saab's well written and
eloquent letter be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
FOR AN AMERICAN-ARAB DIALOG
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
THE
Salt ,
Lake City, September 291967.
SIR: I take pleasure in writing
MY DEAR
of Utah, which I
to you from the University
for the fall quarter of 1967 as a visit-
joined
professor of Political Science. I left Leba-
ing
, hoping that
non in these critical moments,
the United States would allow
my visit to
my Ameri-
me to communicate directly with
the present grave situation
can friends about
Middle East.
in the
of us, Americans and Arabs, ought to
All
deeply Concerned with all the aspects of
c
be
the Arab-Israeli conflict. We must do our
utmost to prevent the resumption of hostil-
. We must.spare no effort in
ities in the area.
a peaceful and just solution to this
finding
. Nonetheless, its impact on
tragic conflict.
-American-Arab relations deserves more at.
it has received.
tention than
, the United States of
This great country,
, has every reason and every possi-
America,
, freedom, justice
bility of building in dignity
peace, a creative partnership with the
and
from Morocco to Iraq. The
whole Arab world
-
Arab world has its weaknesses and short-
, but it has also all the thrilling
comings,
comings
of a developing society. The United
promises
excesses of affluence, but it
States has the
a de-
has also the resourceful abilities of
. American-Arab partnership
veloped society.
should be"
ly for the mutual good of the American and
.
the Arab people.
, have been many obstacles which
There,
have hampered the emergence of such a part-
nership. The Arab-Israeli conflict has been
the greatest of these obstacles. Therefore,
f-
there
to this conflict, which would
its catastrophic effects on American-
limit
. A new free dialogue must im-
Arab relations.
mediately begin, which should enable Amerf-
cans and Arabs to reassess their relations in
terms of common ideals and mutual interests
more than in terms of power politics or of
do- mestic pressures. Truth, Reason, Wisdom,
A AMERICAN-ARAB DIALOG Statesmanship, and Farsightedness should
guide this dialogue rather than prejudice,
-Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, a visiting emotion, violence, politics and short-sighted-
Lebanese professor of political science- ness.
Dr. Hassan Saab--now teaching at the Americans and Arabs must not allow any
University of Utah, in Salt Lake City, has "third party" to stand in the way of such a
written a most interesting letter recom- free, direct and creative dialogue. From 1047
mending a new, free dialog between to 1967, there has often been a "third party",
Americans and Arabs so that their rela- such as Europe, Israel, or Communism, lying
tionship may be assessed in terms of behind the deterioration of American-Arab
"common ideals and Interests," rather relations. There has never been a genuine and
direct confrontation between the American
than of "power politics and domestic and the Arab people, nor an authentic meet-
2 .C e& 1n feftP8M6M ] ,,tp~ gtyveq~otlao?ADierican and the Arab
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290002-1
November 6, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
Under. the impact of the Cold War, Ameri-
cans see the Arabs In the shadow of a "third
party": world Communism. Under the im-
pact of three hot wars with Israel, the Arabs
see the United States dominated by another
"third party": world Zionism, To Americans,
the Arabs are obsessed only with the destruc-
tion of Israel. To Arabs, Americans are ob-
sessed only with the destruction of Com-
munism. Thus, each party thinks that it
knows all about what the other party stands
against, but does not seem to care about
what it stands for.
In the Arab mind, the prevailing image
of America is the image of a stronghold for
world Zionism rather than that of a new
continent blessed with unlimited opportuni-
ties for human beings. In the American mind,
the disturbing image of the Arab world is
the Image of a stronghold for world Com-
munism rather than that of a land bursting
with the restless aspirations of its people for
a new renaissance. Americans equate Arab na-
tionalism with fanaticism. They mistake
Arab socialism for communism. Islam is
judged through the utterances of its reac-
tionary mullahs rather than through the bold
achievements of its modernist leaders,
The Arabs equate American world leader-
ship with imperialism. They Identify Amer..
,
lean democracy with Zionist pressure groups.
Americans ignore the Arabs' deep urge for a
new nationhood built on concrete freedom.
They do not properly appreciate the Arabs'
sincere longing for a,new society founded on
justice. Arabs overlook American striving for
a new world order governed by freedom and
justice.
This basic mutual misunderstanding deep-
ened during the tragic events of the Fifth of
June, which conveyed to the Arabs the im-
pression that Americans were feasting over
their military debacle. Technological supe-
riority and swift victory seemed to justify all
the unhuman means and effects of this vic-
tory. The facts about the crisis, before, dur-
ing and after the so-called "six Days War",
were reported by American mass-media of
Information. in an utterly one-sided manner,
which made every Arab question American
objectivity, and led him even to wonder
about the American sense of fairness.
While statesmen and diplomats are seek-
ing at the United Nations a political settle-
ment of the Arab-Israeli conflict, American
and Arab thinkers and intellectuals must
attend urgently to the more obvious task,
of shortening the widening gap between the
American and the Arab mind. They should
not allow power alone to determine the fu-
ture of American-Arab relations. Man should
be the master of power, not its slave.
The United States cannot rely on power
alone for the preservation of her interests in
the Arab world. She cannot continue to view
her relations with the Arab world only as one
aspect of a power game with the Soviet
Union or Red China, The greatest human
asset in the world contest for power in the
Middle East is the good will of one hundred
million Arabs, who live at the crossroad of
the world continents, command the world's
greatest reserves in oil, and who are the
heirs to some of the world's greatest civiliza-
tions and religions. The Arab world can de-
velop better and faster with American under-
standing, assistance and friendship. .
American intellectuals are called upon to
free themselves from the complexes of in-
difference, isolationism, condescendence or
onesidedness which have determined their-
approach to the Arab world. Arab intellec-
tuals should overcome the feelings of mis-
trust, grudging, suspicion, bitterness and re-
sentment which have governed their ap-
proach to the United States of America,
American and Arab intellectuals must lead
the way In challenging national prejudices.
They ought to remind their countrymen that
the people of another nationality are men,
who may commit the greatest blunders but
may also pursue the greatest achievements.
They ought to show them how to engage in
the search for a better future rather than to
Indulge in recriminations about a vanish-
ing past. Our love for Mankind, our trust
in Man, and our concern with a better fu-
ture for all Men must be deep enough to set
our minds free from- all the ingrained ha-
treds of the past.
An association, a university, a foundation,
any responsible Institution should immedi-
ately take the initiative in bringing together,
outside of any governmental influence, a
group of American and Arab thinkers, who
may be capable of starting the overdue dia-
logue between American and Arab thought.
I hope that this letter will stimulate the
reader into more thinking about American-
Arab relations, and will encourage all those
who have considered any proposal for the
betterment of these relations to come out
with their ideas and suggestions.
My little, country, Lebanon, has always be-
lieved in free and rational dialogue as the
proper way for communication between men.
Faithful to their role as mediators between
the Western and the Arab mind, our intel-
lectuals will be happy to make their humble
but active and creative contribution to the
opening of a new dialogue between Ameri-
can and Arab thinkers.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. HASSAN SAAR,
Professor of Political Science at the
Lebanese University and the Saint
Joseph University of Beirut.
ure is expected to face a tough light on the
House floor. The Commission's work has be-
come embroiled in a separate dispute over
three newly drafted treaties with Panama."
The aim of my enclosed article is to pre-
sent a comprehensive analysis of the proposed
treaties and the status of the Canal Studies.
In view of the current situation, it would
appear to be a most appropriate time to
place this article In the Congressional Rec-
ord.
Should you consider It advisable for me
to make some revisions, I will be happy to
do so.
Estoy muy agradecido.
Sincerely,
PROPOSED CANAL TREATIES AND SEA LEVEL
PROJECT
(By Carl Svarverud)
Speculation concerning the prospects for
joint signing and ratification, in the near
future, of the proposed canal treaties be-
tween the United States and Panama on the
status, defense and replacement of the
Panama Canal was put to rest by President
Robles of Panama, October 1, 1967.
At the opening of the Panama National
Assembly, President Robles "reiterated his
government's stand on renegotiating the pro-
posed treaties with the United States. Only
after changes, alterations and clarifications
were approved would his government decide
on the best course for Panama."
Announcement had been made simultane-
ously in Panama and Washington, last June
26
that
r
t h
d b
h
d
th
,
ag
eemen
a
een reac
e
qn
e
ISTHMIAN CANAL TRAF'F'IC
three proposed treaties. Signing was tenta-
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, a constitu- tively set for July 24, in Washington by the
ent of mine, Mr. Carl Svarverud, of Eu- two Presidents, Johnson and Robles. Ex-
gene, Oreg., has for many years been President Eisenhower was expected to wit-
president of the Nicaraguan Strait De- ness the signing.
? These plans were upset because quite ob-
velopment Co., Nicaragua. He is an ex- viously neither government anticipated the
perienced engineer with many insights almost vicious opposition to the proposed
into the political and economic problems treaties by just about every segment of So-
and relations involved in canal construe- ciety in Panama. This included eight polit-
tion in the isthmus of Central America. ical parties, lawyers association, professors,
After talking to him recently in Eu- 8,000 member University Student Body,
gene, I asked that he prepare a written Labor leaders, et. al. With a Presidential
account of the points that he had brought Campaign and election coming up in
Spring,
veobles has
to my attention. Since the subject of Panama next
Isthmian Canal traffic is of so much in- prudently bowed d to to the overwhelming public
terest and importance to many Ameri- in opposition to the proposed treaties, s, at least
present form.
cans, I feel that his paper should be The rude and adverse reception of the
shared and therefore I ask unanimous proposed treaties in Panama, which would,
consent that it appear In the RECORD at if ratified, grant Panama undreamed of con-
the conclusion of these remarks. cessions, was met with discreet silence by
the
I should make clear that Mr. Svarverud Administration' in Washington.
Panama's s opposition to the proposed
speaks for .himself; but I do agree with treaties demonstrates that no amount of
his general conclusion that far more at- concessions and . sugar-coating will ever
tention should be given by our country to make palatable there a foreign enclave, or
the alternatives to Panama in the con- "micro-state" as Panamanians refer to the
struction of a new isthmian canal. proposed treaty provision for the reduced
There being no objection, the material "Canal Area." A foreign occupied military
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, base is equally disasteful.
The fact that the. proposed treaties would
as follows: I give Panama no less than a one thousand per
THE NICARAGUAN STRAIT DEVELOP- cent increase in payments over the present
MENT Co., INC., annuity has not softened the opposition to
Eugene, Oreg., October 23, 1967. . the treaties in Panama. They would receive
Hon. WAYNE MORSE, 17 cents a ton from canal tolls starting two
Senate Office Building, years after the treaty signing. This would in-
Washington, D.C. Crease 1 cent each year for 6 years, up to 22
DEAR SENATOR: You kindly suggested to me, cents a ton. The United States would receive
at our recent meeting at your Eugene home, 8 cents a ton, increasing 1 cent a year up to
that I prepare a written account of the points 10 cents a ton. Net earnings of the canal to
I brought to your attention and you would be split 80-60 between the United States
place it in the Congressional Record. and Panama. Panama would receive about
. The Wall St. Journal reported Iast Fri- twice as much from the canal as the United
day, Oct 20, that the House Sub-Committee States, if the treaties were to go into effect
on Panama Canal had approved the measure, in their original form.
K.R. 6791, to give the Canal Study Commmis- Fernando Eieta, Panama Foreign Minister
sion an extension from June 30, 1968 to Dec. and in charge of treaty negotiations with the
1, 1969 to carry out its studies. The Senate United States, in talks in Panama trying to
companion bill, S. 1666, approved last June 'sell' the treaties, stated that Panama would
5, grants an extension to Dec. 31, 1970, receive approximately $1.3 billion from the
The Journal further reported: 'The meal- canal enterprise in the next 30 years.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B0036`9R000200290002-1