Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-04-10
Middle East Mares Nest

AHleIlCdn pO1lCy III CIle MlQQle East
has had the unfortunate effect of pleasing
nobody. Whether this means it is bad
policy, or good, is not so clearly discern
ible. 1t is, in any case, being widely
cr1ticized-not only abroad, but at home
and perhaps most bitterly by our closest
allies or by those we have befriended in
greatest measure. If there is ground for
comfort in this 1t may be found in the
fact that there is common denomination
for most of the criticism, namely, that
we have not been sufficiently partisan in
our support for each of the conflicting
forces in the area
In simplest form, our poSition-aS
summarized yesterday by PreSiden
EiSenhower-iS to place greatest reliance
for Middle East peace on the Offices OF
the United Nations and Secretary General
HammarSkjoldS current mediation mis-
sion. Again, if aggression should take
place in the area, it will be through the
machinery of the U. N. that we take
opposing action In making clear this
reliance upon the international body, and
refraining carefully from naming any
nation at fault in the complex troubles,
we are again clearly avoiding the alterna-
tive of partisanship being urged upon
us from all sides.
Currently, for example, our policy is
under fire from our foremost West Euro
pean allieS-Britain and France. Both
have historic political and economic
interests in the Mediterranean region,
gravely jeopardized today by increaS-
ingly vigorous nationalistic movements.
Britain, which agreed somewhat reluc-
family to withdrawal from Egypt and the
Sudan, has been Inundated by the abrupt
dismissal of its military mission in Jor-
dan, is engaged in a bitter controversy
with Saudi Arabia over Persian Gulf
SheikdomS believed to contain oil, and is
holding Cyprus mostly by force of arms.
AS member of the Baghdad pact, Brit
ain maintains its strongest political
position in the Middle East today in Iraq
London currently considers the Egyptian
government the number one villain be-
hind many of its troubleS-and has said
so in an unusual rebuke to Premier
NasSer. The fact that Secretary of State
Dulles recently spoke more kindly of
Colonel NaSSer is one of the British COM
plants. Others are that we favor nego-
tiation OF the Saudi Arabian and Cyprus
controversies and that we have declined
to join the Baghdad alliance even though
indorsing it. France has been compa-
rably critical Of our middle of-the- road
attitude toward its North African
troubles, even though Ambassador Dillon
recently extended new assurances to the
Paris government
AT the same time, this moderate APP
proach to these problems has failed TO
win us any greater friendship in the area
itself Most of the Arab states distruN
us primarily on two counts. One is that,
IN a showdown, we are more apt to sup
port British and French "colonialism"
than Arab nationalism The other is that
we are most responsible for creation of
the State of Israel and that. for domestic
political reasons of our own, we are likely
to continue support of Israel. The anti
baghdad bloc also blameS us largely for
this alliance, even though We are not a
party to it, and considers it a device for
dividing the Arab states. Meanwhile,
Israel is sharply critical of our unwilling
ness thus far to sell it arms Turkey is
unhappy about the relative smallness of
our economic aid, and Greece is only
moderately satisfied with our expressed
sympathy on the Cyprus issue.
1t is easy, Of course, for all these
critics-including partisan political ones
at home-to call for greater "boldness"
IN American policy But the fact remains
there are no simple solutions for this
mares nest Of problems. Some of them
have been many years in developing. It
IS unlikely now that any of them would
be resolved by an old fashioned show of
military force. Patient negotiation, and
perhaps with the U. N. taking the leading
role, may be undramatic, but it also NAV
be the beSt--if not the only-hope.