Cairo Questionnaire

Egyptian newsmen wanted answers. What are America's intentions in the Middle East? They had watched staffs of British and American planners growing in their land, far beyond military needs; had seen British and Americans begin juggling for air transport supremacy. But while British intentions were clear, how about the U.S.? Was the U.S. preparing to remain in the Middle East--politically, economically, militarily--at war's end?

James M. Landis, new U.S. Economic Director for the Middle East, skittishly skirted these questions last week at his first Cairo press conference. Said he gravely: "U.S. policy is 'achievement of the objectives of the Atlantic Charter.'" Egyptian newsmen fidgeted. To them, the Four Freedoms already sounded as stale as "Making the World Safe for Democracy" did after Versailles. Egypt was safe, so to them the war was over. Egyptians are fighting the peace. They wanted more specific, realistic answers to the suspicions of Syrians, Iraqians, Persians, Egyptians, Palestinians, on U.S. postwar motives. Then Minister Landis let slip:

"All policies must have long-range objectives, and these go beyond immediate war objectives into a period of peace."

Egyptians thought, they understood: the answer was yes, the U.S. was in the Middle East to stay. And they were ready to give Landis all the rope he needs, either to help them, or to hang himself--and U.S. interests with him.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.