RN

by Richard Nixon

  When the motorcade finally reached the palace where we would be staying, Sadat suggested that we delay our first meeting for an hour or two. I thought he was simply being polite because of the exertion of standing up and waving for almost an hour under the blazing sun. Only later during the visit did Mrs. Sadat tell me that he took a nap every afternoon. He had suffered two mild heart attacks as recently as 1970 and as a result took extremely cautious care of himself. I later made a diary note: “The thing that I am really concerned about is what would happen if he were to pass from the scene.”

  In our conversations Sadat showed great subtlety and sophistication. He did not press me privately about U.S.-Israeli ties, although publicly he made a strong appeal for the return of the occupied territories, the rights of the Palestinians, and the status of Jerusalem. Describing his dealings with the Soviets, he said that he had asked them for military help before the October war, and they had not come through. With surprising candor he said, “We just gave up on them.”

  The crowds got bigger each day we were in Egypt. They jammed the entire route on our three-hour train ride from Cairo to Alexandria as Sadat and I stood waving from an open coach. It was hot and dusty, and the swelling in my leg grew painful from standing so long. But I realized that Sadat felt it was important for as many people as possible to see us together. It was a way of confirming the new Egyptian-American relationship.

  One of the pool of reporters aboard the train asked Sadat about the principal contribution the United States could make for continuing peace in the Middle East. In his reply he referred to some of the handmade signs we had seen along the route: “It is to keep the momentum of the whole thing going on, and I must say you have read what my people wrote. They wrote, ‘We Trust Nixon.’. . . President Nixon never gave a word and didn’t fulfill it. He has fulfilled every word he gave. So if this momentum continues, I think we can achieve peace.”

  I made a diary note about these phenomenal crowds: “I think the estimates that approximately six and a half to seven million people that we saw in Egypt is an honest one. It is in that kind of ball park at any rate. One wonders whether they came out simply because they think we are bringing a bag full of money to deal with their problems. Certainly something of that enters into it. I think more than that was what Sadat told me: that they really feel very strongly a feeling of affection for the Americans. Part of that, of course, is their irritation with the Russians.”

  Egypt is the key to the Arab world, and thanks to Sadat and the Egyptian people, the trip got off to an excellent start. Our objectives were to provide support to Egypt in pursuing its moderate course and to encourage and strengthen Sadat in his roles as leader of his country and as a constructive and essential influence for any future Middle East negotiations. At the conclusion of the visit, we issued a statement of principles of relations and cooperation between Egypt and the United States that set forth the basis for working together for peace in the Middle East and new plans for economic cooperation. We also agreed to negotiate an agreement under which we would sell non-military nuclear reactors and fuel to Egypt for the production of electrical power.

  When we landed in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, the temperature was above 100 degrees. Even so, King Faisal was at the airport waiting to greet us. He looked much older than his admitted sixty-seven—according to our intelligence reports, seventy-two—years.

  Faisal saw Zionist and Communist conspiracies everywhere around him. He even put forward what must be the ultimate conspiratorialist notion: that the Zionists were behind the Palestinian terrorists. Despite this obsession, however, and thanks to his intelligence and the experience of many years in power, Faisal was one of the wisest leaders in the entire region.

  Saudi Arabia was not directly involved in the Middle East peace negotiations, but Faisal’s stature in the Arab world and the substantial financial support he provided to Syria and Egypt gave him a vital role in maintaining the momentum toward peace. I was also able to discuss with him the serious global impact of the high oil prices caused by the recent Arab oil embargo and to encourage his moves to moderate oil prices.

  I was as surprised as the reporters who clustered around us when Faisal said at the departure ceremonies, “Anybody who stands against you, Mr. President, in the United States of America or outside the United States of America, or stands against us, your friends in this part of the world, obviously has one aim in mind, namely, that of causing the splintering of the world, the wrong polarization of the world, the bringing about of mischief, which would not be conducive to tranquillity and peace in the world. Therefore, we beseech Almighty God to lend His help to us and to you so that we both can go hand in hand, shoulder to shoulder in pursuance of the noble aims that we both share, namely, those of peace, justice, and prosperity in the world.”

  My visit to Syria required the most delicate diplomacy of the entire Mideast trip. Syria had been one of the most radically pro-Soviet, anti-Israeli, and anti-American of the Arab nations.

  The problems that my visit presented to President Asad were summed up in the story he told me about his eight-year-old son. The boy had watched our airport arrival ceremonies on television, and when Asad returned home that night, he went up to his father and asked, “Wasn’t that Nixon the same one you have been telling us for years is an evil man who is completely in control of the Zionists and our enemies? How could you welcome him and shake his hand?” Asad smiled at me and said, “That is the question all my people will ask, and that is why we have to move at a very measured pace as we develop our relations in the future. After all, for years my people have been taught to hate the Americans; and in recent years they have been taught particularly to hate the Nixon who represents the capitalists who have always supported the Israelis. The same Nixon who saved Israel in 1973!”

  The agreement to disengage forces in the Golan Heights had been an achievement of substantial proportions, and my visit was an opportunity to encourage, support, and nurture the new Syrian-American relationship that Kissinger had begun. I was convinced that Asad would continue to play the hardest of hard lines in public, but in private he would follow the Arab proverb that he told me during one of our meetings: “When a blind man can see with one eye it is better than not being able to see at all.” I was very impressed with President Asad.

  Diary

  As far as Asad was concerned he exceeded my expectations on the conversations I had had with Henry. He was, as Henry had said, a tough negotiator, but he has a great deal of mystique, tremendous stamina, and a lot of charm. He laughs easily, and I can see he will be a dynamic leader if he can just maintain his judgment. In our last conversation he came down very very hard against any separate peace. But on the other hand, he seemed to be quite reasonable with regard to the various regional approaches we were making. All in all he is a man of real substance, and at his age—forty-four—if he can avoid somebody shooting him or overthrowing him, he will be a leader to be reckoned with in this part of the world.

  Pat noted that he had a flat head in the back which she said was probably because he hadn’t been turned when he was a baby. What he reminded me of, curiously enough, was that he had a forehead like Pat Buchanan’s, and my guess is he has the same kind of brain and drive and single-mindedness that Pat has. The man really has elements of genius, without any question.

  In the Syrian capital of Damascus, the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world, American flags were flying for the first time in seven years. Everywhere we went large and friendly crowds turned out to welcome us, despite the fact that our movements and itineraries were given no publicity by the Syrian authorities. I viewed this as a measure of the people’s strong desire for friendship with America, for an alternative to the Soviets, and for peace. I noted in my diary, “These people want to be friendly with the U.S. and it runs right down to the rank and file and it goes to the fact that they know the Russians. The Americans, of course, may be in that category soon if we are unable to produce on the peace in
itiatives that we have begun.”

  In his toast at the state dinner in my honor President Asad said, “Let us open a new page and begin a new phase in the relations between our two countries.” For a President of Syria, this was a dramatic statement. At the conclusion of my visit we announced the resumption of diplomatic relations between our two countries, and I stated our willingness to resume educational and cultural exchanges and to cooperate in Syrian economic growth.

  When I said goodbye to Asad at the airport, he kissed me on both cheeks—the highest compliment that can be paid a visitor and an extraordinarily important gesture for the man who, until a few months earlier, had been the leading anti-American firebrand of the Arab world.

  I later reflected on this breakthrough in our relations with Syria.

  Diary

  All in all, Syria is by far the most difficult country we have in terms of working out some kind of positive continuing relationship. On the other hand, they desperately want to have another string in their bow. They want us in there, probably to play us against the Russians, and that’s why on the way back I said that we must explore every possible way to make some moves toward the Syrians in the economic area.

  My receptions in Egypt and Syria and my conversations with Sadat and Asad confirmed the tremendous potential of the new role of the United States as a force for peace in the Arab world. If we could provide the lead, these two pragmatic and patriotic men were willing to seek a compromise settlement with Israel as a prerequisite for turning their attention to the development of their own countries. I was also encouraged to see the extent to which the Soviets had alienated their former Arab clients; it was particularly interesting to discover that this was not just the case at the leadership level. As was frequently the case, Manolo, who was traveling with me, was an excellent source of information and insights.

  Diary

  Manolo gave some interesting sidelights about the trip when we asked him about which country he liked the best. He said that he liked Egypt the best because the Egyptians were so friendly. He said that they all said they were glad to see the Americans come in and the Russians leave. It reminded me of my first conversation with Sadat, where he said that in six months America had gained more in Egyptian popular support than the Russians had been able to gain in twenty years.

  Manolo said that the Egyptians told him over and over again that the Russians were grim and mean; they lived apart and did not treat the people kindly. He ran into the same thing in Syria, where one of the people working in the kitchen told him that the Americans were smiling and the Russians were always grim. I think one thing we have going for us in this part of the world, and I trust in other parts of the world, is the fact that, with all of our faults, and with the exception of some arrogant Americans, particularly in the foreign service and some business types, most Americans basically like other people. Putting it another way, they want to be liked, and so they go overboard in trying to win other people. The Russians, with their inferiority complex and their single-minded communist determination, are a very different breed. They don’t let their good qualities show through except when they are dealing with what they consider to be absolute equals.

  I recalled a conversation I had had with Sadat in which I had told him that I thought that the real problem between China and Russia was that, deep down, the Chinese consider themselves superior and more civilized than the Russians. Sadat had smiled and said, “You know, that’s exactly the same way we feel: we Egyptians are more civilized than the Russians.”

  Our reception in Israel, although warm by ordinary standards, was the most restrained of the trip. This was partly because of Israeli domestic problems. Golda Meir had resigned just two months earlier and Yitzhak Rabin had taken over as Prime Minister, heading up a fragile coalition. Given the unpopularity of my Mideast policy in many quarters in Israel, Rabin was understandably unwilling to be more than correct in the treatment he accorded me but he was also bluntly anxious to know how much more aid he could depend on from us.

  The primary purpose of my meetings with Rabin and his top Cabinet officials was to make it clear to them that while we would not waver in our total support for Israel’s security, we would insist on their playing a sincere and serious part in maintaining the momentum of the peace negotiations that we had begun with Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy and had now confirmed with my trip. In addition to a thorough discussion of the economic and military needs of Israel and a review of further steps that might be taken toward peace, we proposed in a joint statement issued at the conclusion of the visit that we negotiate an agreement on non-military nuclear reactors and fuel supply similar to the one we had concluded with President Sadat.

  At the state dinner at the Knesset, the Israeli parliament building, I said that I would exercise the presidential prerogative of breaking precedent: although Golda Meir was no longer Prime Minister, I wanted to propose a special toast to her before the traditional toast to the head of state. I said that of all the world leaders I had met none had greater courage, intelligence, stamina, determination, or dedication to their country than Golda Meir. She was sitting nearby at the head table, and I could see how flustered and flattered she was. I continued, “I thought that I, having worked with her, having become her friend, and she has been my friend, that I might have the honor and the privilege to ask you to join me in a toast to the former Prime Minister. Prime Minister Golda Meir. To Golda.”

  Typically eloquent even when taken by surprise, she made a brief reply. “As President Nixon says, Presidents can do almost anything, and President Nixon has done many things that nobody would have thought of doing. All I can say, Mr. President, as friends and as an Israeli citizen to a great American President, thank you.”

  In my formal toast I talked frankly about the task confronting the new Prime Minister and the Knesset:

  There are two courses that are open to them. The one is an easy one, an easy one particularly politically, I suppose, and that is the status quo. Don’t move, because any movement has risks in it, and therefore resist those initiatives that may be undertaken, that might lead to a negotiation which would perhaps contribute to a permanent, just, and durable peace.

  But there is another way. The other, I believe, is the right way. It is the way of statesmanship, not the way of the politician alone. It is a way that does not risk your country’s security. That must never be done. But it is a way that recognizes that continuous war in this area is not a solution for Israel’s survival and, above all, it is not right that every possible avenue [not] be explored to avoid it in the interest of the future of those children we saw by the hundreds and thousands on the streets of Jerusalem today.

  Our last stop in the Middle East was in Jordan, where I was once again impressed by the charm and intelligence of King Hussein. He and I spent over two hours in a private discussion of his unique role in assisting the settlement of conflicts. He had long been a staunch and loyal friend of the United States, sometimes to his considerable peril, and he affirmed that he would continue to do his part on behalf of restraint and moderation on the long road that lay ahead.

  In his toast at the state dinner he gave for us, Hussein generously summed up the meaning of my trip as he saw it: “Mr. President, we join with you in all the hopes and expectations you must have for this memorable ‘Journey for Peace’ that you are undertaking, and we in the Arab world are grateful that you have made it,” he said. “Although you know better than anyone else perhaps that a journey for peace seems to have no ending, your coming to us at this time has been perfectly timed to preserve the momentum that American initiative had begun under your inspired and inspiring leadership.”

  I concluded my toast that night by saying: “I do not tell you where this journey will end. I cannot tell you when it will end. The important thing is that it has begun.”

  There was a large crowd waiting on the South Lawn of the White House to welcome Pat and me. Jerry Ford led the official delegation of Cabinet members.
He said, “Mr. President, about ten days ago, I was here with many others to wish you Godspeed. Our prayers were with you at that time, and I think it might be appropriate now to quote from that biblical injunction: ‘Blessed is the peacemaker.’ ”

  During the next few days, even while preparing for Soviet Summit III, I briefed congressional leaders on the opportunity we had to exert leadership for peace in the Middle East, and I reflected on the Mideast trip in the practical perspective of the domestic reaction to it.

  Diary

  We must have gotten some lift from the trip, although it seems almost impossible to break through in the polls. Of course, this is not surprising after the terrible banging we are taking. As I pointed out to Ziegler, when he was telling me about the five or six minutes that we were getting on each network while we were away, I said, ‘Compare that with the eight or ten minutes that they have been hearing on Watergate for over a year!’ We can’t complain too much about the coverage in the Mideast. It was good. It was very hard to knock the trip. And I think it had an impact. How great and how lasting only time will tell.

  The most important thing, of course, is to keep working to make sure the trip bears the fruits of peace—or at least of progress. Sadat constantly emphasized the point that it was unnatural for the Egyptians and the Americans to be enemies, and natural for us to be friends. It was this theme that we heard in Saudi Arabia and also in Syria and Jordan: natural and unnatural, normal and abnormal, etc. This to me is the most significant benefit from the presidential trip as distinguished from all the negotiations. The Arabs really want to be friends of the Americans, and now it’s up to us to be their friends and also to prove that friendship with America is worthwhile.

  With the congressional leaders I stepped out a little bit ahead of Henry in indicating that we would make Israel strong enough that they would not fear to negotiate, but not so strong that they felt they had no need to negotiate. I would add to that, Israel should also be strong enough so that their neighbors would not be tempted to attack them, and would have an incentive to negotiate.