EISENHOWER DOCTRINE

Speech Delivered by Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower

to a Joint Session of Congress on Jan. 5, 1957.

(excerpts)

The Middle East has abruptly reached a new and critical stage in its long

and important history. In past decades many of the countries in the area were

not fully self-governing. Other nations exercised considerable authority in the

area and the security of the region was largely built around their power. But

since the First World War there has been a steady evolution toward self-

government and independence. This development the United States has welcomed

and has encouraged. Our country supports without reservation the full

sovereignty and independence of each and every nation of the Middle East.

The evolution to independence has in the main been a peaceful process. But

the area has been often troubled. Persistent crosscurrents of distruct and fear

with raids back and forth across national boundaries have brought about a high

degree of instability in much of the Mid East. Just recently there have been

hostilities involving Western European nations that once exercised much

influence in the area. Also, the relatively large attack by Israel in October

has intensified the basic differences between that nation and its Arab

neighbors. All this instability has been heightened and, at times, manipulated

by International Communists.

Russian rulers have long sought to dominate the Middle East. That was true

of the Czars and it is true of Bolsheviks. The reasons are not hard to find.

They do not affect Russia's security, for no one plans to use the Middle East

as a base for aggression against Russia. Never for a moment has the United

States entertained such a thought.

The Soviet Union has nothing whatsoever to fear from the United States in

the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world, so long as its rulers do not

themselves first resort to aggression.

Neither does Russia's desire to dominate the Middle East spring from its

own economic interest in the area. Russia does not appreciably use or depend

upon the Suez Canal. In 1955 Soviet traffic through the canal represented only

about three fourths of 1 % of the total. The Soviets have no need for, and

could provide no market for, the petroleum resources which constitute the

principal natural wealth of the area. Indeed, the Soviet Union is a substantial

exporter of petroleum products.

The reason for Russia's interest in the Middle East is solely that of

power politics. Considering her announced purpose of Communizing the world, it

is easy to understand her hope of dominating the Middle East.

This region has always been the crossroads of the continents of the

Eastern hemisphere. The Suez Canal enables the nations of Asia and Europe to

carry on the commerce that is essential if these countries are to maintain well

rounded and prosperous economies. The Middle East provides a gateway between

Eurasia and Africa.

It contains about two-thirds of the presently known oil deposits of the

world and it normally supplies the petroleum needs of many nations of Europe,

Asia and Africa. The nations of Europe are peculiarly dependent upon this

supply, and this dependency relates to transportation as well as to production!

This has been vividly demonstrated since the closing of the Suez Canal and some

of the pipelines. Alternate ways of transportation and, indeed, alternate

sources of power can, if necessary, be developed. But these cannot be

considered as early prospects.

These things stress the immense importance of the Middle East. If the

nations of that area should lose their independence if they were dominated by

alien forces hostile to freedom that would be both a tragedy for the area and

for many other free nations whose economic life would be subject to near

strangulation. Western Europe would be endangered just as though there had been

no Marshall Plan, not North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The free nations of

Asia and Africa, too, would be placed in serious jeopardy. And the countries of

the Middle East would lose the markets upon which their economies depend. All

this would have the most adverse, if not disastrous, effect upon our own

nation's economic life and political prospects.

Then there are other factors which transcend the material. The Middle East

is the birthplace of three great religions--Moslem, Christian and Hebrew. Mecca

and Jerusalem are more than places on the map. They symbolize religions which

teach that the spirit has supremacy over matter and that the individual has a

dignity and rights of which no despotic government can rightfully deprive him.

It would be intolerable if the holy places of the Middle East should be

subjected to a rule that glorifies atheistic materialism.

International Communism, of course, seeks to mask its purposes of

domination by expressions of good will and by superficially attractive offers

of political, economic anbd military aid. But any free nation, which is subject

of Soviet enticement, ought, in elementary wisdom, to look behind the mask.

Remember Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania! In 1939 the Soviet Union entered

into mutual assistance pacts with these then independent countries: and the

Soviet Foreign Minister, addressing the Extraordinary Fifth Session of the

Supreme Soviet in October 1939, solemnly and publicly declared that "we stand

for the scrupulous and punctilious observance of the pacts on the basis of

complete reciprocity, and we declare that all the nonsensical talk about the

Sovietization of the Baltic countries is only to the interest of our common

enemies and of all anti-Soviet provocateurs." Yet in 1940, Estonia, Latvia and

Lithuania were forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union.

Soviet control of the satellite nations of Eastern Europe has been

forcibly maintained in spite of solemn promises of a contrary intent, made

during World War II.

Stalin's death brought hope that this pattern would change. And we read

the pledge of the Warsaw Treaty of 1955 that the Soviet Union would follow in

satellite countries "the principles of mutual respect for their independence

and sovereignty and noninterference in domestic affairs." But we have just seen

the subjugation of Hungary by naked armed force. In the aftermath of this

Hungarian tragedy, world respect for and belief in Soviet promises have sunk to

a new low, International Communism needs and seeks a recognizable success.

Thus, we have these simple and indisputable facts:

1. The Middle East, which has always been coveted by Russia, would

today be prized more than ever by International Communism.

2. The Soviet rulers continue to show that they do not scruple to use

any means to gain their ends.

3. The free nations of the Mid East need, and for the most part want,

added strength to assure their continued independence.

Our thoughts naturally turn to the United Nations as a protector of small

nations. Its charter gives it primary responsibility for the maintenance of

international peace and security. Our country has given the United Nations its

full support in relation to the hostilities in Hungary and in Egypt. The United

Nations was able to bring about a cease-fire and withdrawal of hostile forces

from Egypt because it was dealing with governments and peoples who had a decent

respect for the opinions of mankind as reflected in the United Nations General

Assembly. But in the case of Hungary, the situation is different. The Soviet

Union vetoed action by the Security Council to require the withdrawal of Soviet

armed forces from Hungary. And it has shown callous indifference to the

recommendations, even the censure, of the General Assembly. The United Nations

can always be helpful, but it cannot be a wholly dependable protector of

freedom when the ambitions of the Soviet Union are involved.

Under all the circumstances I have laid before you, a greater

responsibility now devolves upon the United States. We have sworn, so that none

can doubt, our dedication to the principle that force shall not be used

internationally for any aggressive purpose and that the integrity and

independence of the nations of the Middle East should be inviolate. Seldom in

history has a nation's dedication to principle been tested as severely as ours

during recent weeks.

There is a general recognition in the Middle East, as elsewhere, that the

United States does not seek either political or economic domination over any

other people. Our desire is a world environment of freedom, not servitude. On

the otherhand many, if not all, of the nations of the Middle East are aware of

the danger that stems from International Communism and welcome closer

cooperation with the United States to realize for themselves the United Nations

goals of independence, economic well-being and spiritual growth.

If the Middle East is to continue its geographic role of uniting rather

than separating East and West; if its vast economic resources are to serve the

well-being of the peoples there, as well as that of others; and if its cultures

and religions and their shrines are to be preserved for the uplifting of the

spirits of peoples, then the United States must make more evident its

willingness to support the independence of the freedom-loving nations of the

area.

Under these circumstances I deem it necessary to seek the cooperation of

the Congress. Only with that cooperation can we give the reassurance needed to

deter aggression, to give courage and confidence to those who are dedicated to

freedom and thus prevent a chain of events which would gravely endanger all of

the free world.

There have been several executive declarations made by the United States

in relation to the Middle East. There is the Tripartite Declaration of May 25,

1950, followed by the Presidential assurance of October 31, 1950 to the King of

Saudi Arabia. There is the Presidential Declaration of April 9, 1956, that the

United States will within constitutional means oppose any aggression in the

area. There is our Declaration of November 29, 1956, that a threat to the

territorial integrity or political independence of Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, or

Turkey would be viewed by the United States with the utmost gravity.

Nevertheless, weaknesses in the present situation and the increased danger

from International Communism, convince me that basic United States policy

should now find expression in joint action by the Congress and the Executive.

Furthermore, our joint resolve should be so couched as to make it apparent that

if need be our words will be backed by action.

It is nothing new for the President and the Congress to join to recognize

that the national integrity of other free nations is directly related to our

own security.

We have joined to create and support the security system of the United

Nations. We have reinforced the collective security system of the United

Nations by a series of collective defense arrangements. Today we have security

treaties with 42 other nations which recognize that our peace and security are

intertwined. We have joined to take decisive action in relation to Greece and

Turkey and in relation to Taiwan.

Thus, the United States, through the joint action of the President and the

Congress, or, in the case of treaties, the Senate, has manifested in many

endangered areas its purpose to support free and independent governments--and

peace--against external menace, notably the menace of International Communism.

Thereby we have helped to maintain peace and security during a period of great

danger. It is now essential that the United States should manifest through

joint action of the President and the Congress our determination to assist

those nations of the Mid East area, which desire that assistance.

The action which I propose would have the following features.

It would, first of all, authorize the United States to cooperate with and

assist any nation or group of nations in the general area of the Middle East in

the development of ecnomic strength dedicated to the maintenance of national

independence.

It would, in the third place, authorize such assistance and cooperation to

include the employment of the armed forces of the United States to secure and

protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations,

requesting such aid, against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled

by International Communism.

These measures would have to be consonant with the treaty obligations of

the United States, including the Charter of the United Nations and with any

action or recommendations of the United Nations. They would also, if armed

attack occurs, be subject to the overriding authority of the United Nations

Security Council in accordance with the Charter.

The present proposal would, in the fourth place, authorize the President

to employ, for economic and defensive military purposes, sums available under

the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, without regard to existing

limitations.

The legislation now requested should not include the authorization or

appropriation of funds because I believe that, under the conditions I suggest,

presently appropriated funds will be adequate for the balance of the present

fiscal year ending June 30. I shall, however, seek in subsequent legislation

the authorization of $200,000,000 to be available during each of the fiscal

years 1958 and 1959 for discretionary use in the area, in addition to the other

mutual security programs for the area hereafter provided for by the Congress.

This program will not solve all the problems of the Middle East. Neither

does it represent the totality of our policies for the area. There are the

problems of Palestine and relations between Israel and the Arab States, and the

future of the Arab refugee. There is the problem of the future status of the

Suez Canal. These difficulties are aggravated by International Communism, but

they would exist quite apart from that threat. It is not the purpose of the

legislation I propose to deal directly with these problems. The United Nations

is actively concerning itself with all these matters, and we are supporting

the United Nations. The United States has made clear, notably by Secretary

(John Foster) Dulles' address of August 26, 1955, that we are willing to do

much to assist the United Nations in solving the basic problems of Palestine.

The proposed legislation is primarily designed to deal with the

possibility of Communist aggression, direct and indirect. There is imperative

need that any lack of power in the area should be made good, not by external or

alien force, but by the increased vigor and security of the independent nations

of the area.

Experience shows that indirect aggression rarely if ever succeeds where

there is reasonable security against direct aggression; where the government

dispose of loyal security forces, and where economic conditions are such as not

to make Communism seem an attrative alternative. The program I suggest deals

with all three aspect of this matter and thus with the problem of indirect

aggression.

It is my hope and belief that if our purpose be proclaimed, as proposed by

the requested legislation, that very fact will serve to halt any contemplated

aggression. We shall have heartened the patriots who are dedicated to the

independence of their nations. They will not feel that they stand alone, under

the menace of great power. And I should add that patriotism is, throughout this

area, a powerful sentiment. It is true that fear sometimes perverts true

patriotism into fanaticism and to the acceptance of dangerous enticements from

without. But if that fear can be allayed, then the climate will be mroe

favorable to the attainment of worthy national ambitions.

And as I have indicated, it will also be necessary for us to contribute

economically to strengthen those countries, or groups of countries, which have

governments manifestly dedicated to the preservation of independence and

resistance to subversion. Such measures will provide the greatest insurance

against Communist inroads. Words alone are not enough.

Let me refer again to the requested authority to employ the armed forces

of the United States to assist to defend the territorial integrity and the

political independence of any nation in the area against Communist aggression.

Such authority would not be exercised except at the desire of the nation

attacked. Beyond this it is my profound hope that this authority would never

have to be exercised at all.

Nothing is more necessary to assure this than that our policy with respect

to the defense of the area be promptly and clearly determined and declared.

Thus the United Nations and all friendly governments, and indeed governments

which are not friendly, will know where we stand.

In the situation now existing, the greatest risk, as is often the case, is

that ambitious despots may miscalculate. If power-hungry Communists should

either falsely or coorectly estimate that the Middle East is inadequately

defended, they might be tempted to use open measures of armed attack. If so,

that would start a chain of circumstances which would almost surely involve the

United States in military action. I am convinced that the best insurance

against this dangerous contingency is to make clear now our readiness to

cooperate fully and freely with our friends in the Middle East in ways

consonant with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.