The Arabs and Point Four
By EMILE MARMORSTEIN
MR. H. L. MENCKEN once said that if a number of big business men get round a table and talk about service, it does not need a Sherlock Holmes to deduce that some- body is going to get robbed. This cynical axiom seems to have inspired the comments of Arab politicians and journalists on the generous proposal made by President Truman to supply capital and technical assistance for the development of the under-developed countries of the world with the object of securing a minimal standard of living for everybody. In fact a stranger to the Middle East, reading these statements, might have some difficulty in finding out who was offering and who being offered help. " I should like to remind our friends in America," said Azzam Pasha on May 4th, " that in the past 5,000 years we produced several civilisations before their continent was discovered. We can live without their charity." United States representatives in the Middle East appear to be aware of the Arab attitude towards the offer. Mr. Jefferson Caffery, who presided over the Cairo Conference of U.S. diplomats, explained that no conditions were being imposed on aid to Middle East countries and that the U.S.A. would help only those countries which desired help. Yet this clarification appears to have had little effect on the Press. Arab leader-writers appear to be under the impression that the Arab countries are to be forced to accept 'aid whether they want it or not. " Neither the fourth nor a fifth point would divert the attention of the Arabs from Palestine or the attention of Egypt from the unity of the Nile Valley," wrote Al Ahram. "The Fourth Point will not have the effect hoped for unless it is wholeheartedly accepted by the undeveloped countries and these would not accept such a proposal as long as they feel the injustice of the Western world or the injustice of a great Power." In fact, it would seem as if the Arab States are imposing far-reaching conditions on the U.S.A. rather than the other way round.
Yet apart from the rhetoric and invective, some serious criticisms have been put forward. The political objections, for example, have been explained by Dr. Charles Malek, Lebanese Minister in Washington and Permanent Delegate to the United Nations, in reply to questions put to him by members of the United Nations Corre- spondents' Association at Lake Success last month. Dr. Malek stated that, rightly or wrongly, Arabs were generally convinced that the aim of " Point Four " was to kill two birds with one stone —to strengthen Israel by giving her the lion's share and to make the Arabs forget the Palestine question. This argument is, of course, an obvious attempt to sway American public opinion on the Palestine issue, but it is in keeping with the general oriental tradition of refusing an advantage which might at the same time benefit a personal enemy. There is also the anti-American prejudice created by the U.S.A.'s pro-Zionist policy.
A number of economic and technical objections were raised. Foremost among these was the complaint that the Clapp Report and all other American-sponsored proposals for the Middle East are confined to the agricultural aspects of economic development. Arab writers on economics, as well as their colleagues in Persia and Turkey, have always put forward the view that the future of the Middle East depends on the creation of light industries. The Palestine war gave a definite impetus to this line of thought, and
any suggestion that the Arab countries have a future only as agricultural Arcadias is generally resented. There is no clash between agriculture and industry at present in the Middle East. The large landowners are very much in favour of industrial develop- ment. Any rise in the standard of living of the agricultural labourer, combined with development schemes for the opening up of large areas of barren land, can only increase their expenses in the form of higher wages and decrease their profits by keener competition. An increase in the industrial population would provide them with bigger markets for their produce.
Another objection that has been advanced is that the amount of money allotted to the scheme as a whole is very small, and that the share of the Middle East would be therefore even smaller and would consequently make little impression on the problem. Furthermore, it is argued that most of the money will be spent on surveys and supervision, including the salaries and expenses of American officials whose qualifications-may, it is suspected, be lower than those of far less highly-paid local experts. It has also been maintained that, as the enterprises which may be undertaken would show little or no profit, it would be impossible to attract private American capital for investment in the Middle East as envisaged in President Truman's plan. The Middle East is not well endowed with minerals, except oil, in which Americans are already extremely willing to invest. Long-term irrigation and agricultural projects do not usually tempt the American investor. This view, in which Senator Taft appears to concur, is interpreted as justifying Arab suspicions of American aid. As one of the wilder Damascene papers puts it, " an American does not present a dollar for a project unless he wins ten in return."
Yet, in spite of the lack of appreciation of American generosity and idealism, the general Arab point of view appears to be in favour of the United States giving money and technicians to Middle Eastern countries. In fact one commentator, dealing with the joint state- ment recently made by Britain, France and thq United States, ex- pressed the view that what was required from the United States was action in the form of technical and economic assistance, and not words. The Egyptian Prime Minister, Mustapha Nahas Pasha, even agreed that Egypt would willingly accept an American pr ii- gramme of economic assistance " provided it involves no political obligations."
The Premier's statement was violently attacked in an editorial in the Egyptian weekly A khbar a! Yawn, not for his acceptance of American aid, but because he accompanied it with the assertion that Egypt was in no danger from Communism. The writer who accused him of " shrinking from talking in the language of the age " added that " it would have been more advisable for him to say that Egypt is fighting Communism, and is determined to take the side of the Western bloc in any future armed conflict with the Eastern bloc. All students of international politics know that Italy has secured America's financial help only because Italian politicians always clamoured that without such help Communism would spread like wild-fire throughout the country. France and other European countries have done the same. . . . Nahas Pasha ought to have declared that Communism will find fertile soil in Egypt if British forces do not withdraw from her territory and if America continues to support Israel." This frank advice shows that some Arab journalists and politicians understand the value of a local Communist movement to a country seeking American aid.
The full-blooded manner in which these generous offers of assist- ance are publicised throughout the world does not tend to diminish Arab suspicions. It is perhaps both intelligible and natural that the American Government should insist on the recipients of American bounty being informed of the source of their good fortune. In fact, this stipulation has been made throughout the impressive history of official American philanthropy. American correspondents in the Ukraine during the Second World War were:often stopped by people who mentioned" with gratitude American relief during the great famine two decades earlier. But, on the whole, publicity does not make charity acceptable, and may even make -it a cause for resentment. It is hard enough to forgiye a favour in any circum- stances. Press and radio publicity make it almost impossible.
Previous page
