Modern History Sourcebook:
President Eisenhower:
The Eisenhower Doctrine on the Middle East, A Message to Congress, January 5, 1957
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 that 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 cross-currents of distrust 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 Communism.IIRussia's rulers have long sought to dominate the Middle East. That was true of the
Czars and it is true of the 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.That statement I make solemnly and emphatically. . . .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. . . .International Communism, of course, seeks to mask its purposes of domination by
expressions of good will and by superficially attractive offers of political, economic and
military aid. But any free nation, which is the 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 11 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 contrarv 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
non-interfcrence 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:
The Middle East, which has always been coveted by Russia, would today be prized more
than ever by International Communism.
The Soviet rulers continue to show that they do not scruple to use any incans to gain
their ends.
The free nations of the Mid East need, and for the most part want, added strength to
assure their continued independence.
IVUnder all the circumstances I have laid before vou, a greater responsibility now
devolves upon the United States. We have shown, 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 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 other hand many, if not all, of the
nations of the Middle East are aware of the danger that stems from International
Conimunism and welcome closer cooperation with the United States to realize for themselves
the United Nations goals of independence, economic well-being and spiritual growth. . . .VUnder these circumstances I deem it necessarv 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. . . .VIThe 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
economic strength dedicated to the maintenance of national independence.It would, in the second place, authorize the Executive to undertake in the same region
programs of military assistance and cooperation with any nation or group of nations which
desires such aid.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. . . .VIIThe 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 bv 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 possesses loyal
security forces, and where economic conditions are such as not to make Communism seem an
attractive alternative. The program I suggest deals with all three aspects of this matter
and thus with the problem of indirect aggression. . . .And as I bave 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.VIIILet 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 anv
nation in the area against Communist armed 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.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
correctly 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 of the Middle East in ways consonant with the
purposes and principles of the United Nations. I intend promptly to send a special mission
to the Middle East to explain the cooperation we are prepared to give.IXThe policy which I outline involves certain burdens and indeed risks for the United
States. Those who covet the area will not like what is proposed.Already, they are grossly distorting our purpose. However, before this Amencans have
seen our nation's vital interests and human freedom in jeopardy, and their fortitude and
resolution bavc been equal to the crisis, regardless of hostile distortion of our words,
motives and actions. . . .In those momentous periods of the past, the President and the Congress fiave united,
without partisanship, to serve the vital interests of the United States and of the free
world.The occasion has come for us to manifest again our national unity in support of freedom
and to show our deep respect for the rights and independance of every nation - however
great, however small. We seek, not violence, but peace. To this purpose we must now devote
our energies, our dctermination, ourselves.
Source:from The Department of State Bulletin, XXXV1, No. 917 (January 21, 1957), pp.
83-87.
This text is part of the Internet
Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and
copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright.
Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational
purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No
permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook.
The Internet History Sourcebooks Project is located at the History Department of Fordham University, New York. The Internet
Medieval Sourcebook, and other medieval components of the project, are located at
the Fordham University Center
for Medieval Studies.The IHSP recognizes the contribution of Fordham University, the
Fordham University History Department, and the Fordham Center for Medieval Studies in
providing web space and server support for the project. The IHSP is a project independent of Fordham University. Although the IHSP seeks to follow all applicable copyright law, Fordham University is not
the institutional owner, and is not liable as the result of any legal action.
