Dear Senator Knowland: I appreciate your request for my views on the amendment which would strike economic and military assistance provisions from the Middle East Resolution.1
Elimination of these features would gravely impair our ability to help these nations preserve their independence. The Resolution is directed against two dangers, direct armed aggression and indirect subversion. To counter one and not the other would destroy both efforts.
This I emphasize once again: We cannot wage peace with American arms alone. We must understand other national needs. We must respond to human wants. We must help nations and peoples satisfy those needs and wants in order to wage peace successfully.
The pending amendment ignores the danger of subversion. This we must not do. These nations need effective security forces. Their peoples need hope for improving economic conditions. The present Resolution serves these ends. Thus economic and military assistance provisions are more than desirable. They are essential to our efforts to bring peace to this area.
I trust it is clearly understood that these provisions do not make available one additional dollar. They simply authorize us to adapt these funds to the new conditions resulting from recent military action in the area and its economic consequences. It is hardly reasonable to insist that these funds, which are already appropriated, be spent only for programs approved before such drastic changes occurred.
And this I consider even more serious--the world-wide interpretation of such action. Approval of the amendment would suggest that our country wants only to wage peace in terms of war. This is neither the purpose nor the spirit of our nation's foreign policy. I should deplore any action by the Senate that could give the world a contrary impression.2 Sincerely
For background on the resolution for military and economic aid to Middle Eastern nations (the Eisenhower Doctrine) see Galambos and van Ee, The Middle Way, no. 2155. Congressional conflict had arisen over an amendment proposed by Senator Richard Brevard Russell (Dem., Ga.) that would have eliminated an authorization to sustain the program with $200 million in previously appropriated funds (Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. XIII, 1957, pp. 573 - 79; see also George to Dulles, Jan. 23, 1957, Dulles Personal Papers). On the preceding day Senate Minority Leader Knowland (Rep., Calif.), who supported the original resolution and opposed the amendment, had told Secretary Dulles that a "well-written letter" from the President to Knowland "might make the difference" in the upcoming vote. The Secretary subsequently drafted this letter (Telephone conversation, Dulles and Knowland, Feb. 27, 1957, Dulles Papers, Telephone Conversations; see also Telephone conversations, Dulles and Johnson, Feb. 26, 1957; Dulles and Persons, Feb. 27, 1957; Dulles and Harlow, Feb. 28, 1957, ibid.; and Ann Whitman memorandum, Feb. 27, 1957, AWF/AWD).
2 On March 2, after hearing this letter read, the Senate would defeat the Russell amendment and pass the resolution. Eisenhower would sign the legislation on March 9.
