Mission to the Middle East

WE believe there is an exceptional opportunity that must not be missed," said Secretary of State William Rogers in Washington last week. "The climate will never be better." With these words, Rogers announced that in early May he will make his first official visit to the Middle East, traveling to Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Israel. The State Department insisted that Rogers' visit would not commit U.S. prestige to the intricate task of finding acceptable solutions. Even so, the presence of a Secretary of State in the Middle East for the first time since John Foster Dulles visited there in 1953 puts pressure on the U.S. to help bring about some kind of results.

Rogers was instrumental in working out last year's cease-fire that stilled the fighting along the Suez Canal. There is a glimmer of hope that he may be able to find another compromise solution this time. Egyptians are frustrated over the lack of progress following President Anwar Sadat's major initiative of three months ago, in which he agreed to recognize Israeli sovereignty in return for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied Egyptian territory. Cairenes last week also were angry that Israel has, in effect, decided to annex the strategic former Egyptian fortification of Sharm el Sheikh by building "an urban settlement" there (see box next page). For their part, Israelis are concerned by an important increase in Soviet arms shipments to the Middle East. They are especially worried that recent deliveries include the latest Soviet weaponry and aircraft, which are so sophisticated that they must be operated by Russians. That implies a deepening Soviet involvement in the Middle East. When the Israelis celebrate their 23rd independence day this week, they will exhibit arms of their own, including U.S.-supplied helicopters, self-propelled guns and amphibious armored personnel carriers. Also on display will be 240-mm. Russian rocket launchers that were captured during the 1967 Six-Day War and can lay down in twelve seconds a barrage of twelve shells within a radius of 150 yds. at a range of seven miles.

Israeli Pullback. During his visit, Rogers is likely to concentrate on trying to find a solution to what currently appears to be the least baffling issue between Israel and Egypt: the reopening of the Suez Canal, which has been closed since the Six-Day War. Sadat has proposed that Israeli troops pull back from the canal as the first phase in the general Israeli withdrawal called for by the U.N. and that Egyptian troops take up positions on the east bank. In return, Egypt would agree to a formal renewal of the Suez ceasefire, which expired March 7 but has fortunately remained in effect. Sadat promised that once the canal was reopened, Israeli vessels would be allowed to pass through.

Last week Israel finally gave its "general views" on the question to the U.S. Israel is not prepared to meet Sadat's insistence that it should pull back its troops to a line midway in the Sinai, which extends from El Arish to Sharm el Sheikh. Nor is Israel willing to talk about Suez in terms of a first step in a larger withdrawal unless it first receives guarantees of peace from the Arabs.

But Israel did offer, in return for an end of belligerency, to pull back its troops from the Bar-Lev line on the canal's east bank. The Israelis did not specify how far back they were prepared to withdraw, but one unofficial suggestion was to a point, about ten miles from Suez, that would allow observation and artillery coverage of the canal to thwart any troop crossing. Under these conditions, the Israelis could easily cope with an Egyptian landing, but they would face a far more dangerous situation if a Soviet contingent crossed the canal. Direct Soviet intervention on the ground seems highly unlikely, but the Israelis will probably want U.S. guarantees just in case.

Egypt has not yet formally received the Israeli views. Even so, it complained last week that Israel's terms had the ring of a permanent and limited settlement. That would negate the sense of Sadat's entire proposal, which is intended as a first step toward a larger settlement. Hard-liners in Cairo, moreover, insisted that the U.S. remain committed to helping only Israel. Sadat's party press has warned him not to be too conciliatory toward either Washington or Jerusalem.

It was to appease this hard-line faction, and to hedge against unsuccessful peace talks, that Sadat last week made a gesture toward militant Arab unity; at a Benghazi meeting, he decided to form a new Union of Arab Republics composed of Egypt, Libya and Syria. The members will be pledged to joint defense and will also have the right to intervene in the affairs of the other states to prevent a coup d'etat. The three nations and their 42 million people are ultimately supposed to have one President, one flag, one military command and, of course, one enemy: Israel.

Libyan Gain. The amalgamation is an obvious gain in stature for Libya's flamboyant Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The proposed union may also help Syrian Strongman Hafez Assad, who now may be able as a partner to collect some of the $24 million in Libyan oil revenues that Gaddafi grandly promised Syria last fall. There appears, however, to be little advantage in confederation for Egypt, which has been trying to relax its pan-Arabism somewhat in order to concentrate on progress at home. Egypt will receive little military assistance from Libya. Of 110 French Mirages being sold to Gaddafi, only four have been delivered so far. Last week France warned Libya that further shipments will be embargoed if any Libyan Mirages are used against Israel.

Past experience indicates that the confederation has an unpromising future. Sarcastic Israeli diplomats called the new proposed grouping "the Federation of Arab Opportunists." Ironically, the announcement of the new partnership came on the eighth anniversary of the United Arab Republic, which was to have linked Egypt, Syria and Iraq. That undertaking lasted less than four months before the partners split up.

Arabs' Praise. In view of Egypt's obvious interest in Suez Canal negotiations, the surprising note in Benghazi was the saber-rattling declaration that the three members of the Union of Arab Republics would continue the war against Israel and even reopen the long-quiet eastern front. Visiting Cairo last week, TIME Senior Editor Ron Kriss received an explanation from Egyptian Deputy Foreign Minister Salah Gohar of what such declarations mean. "When Arabs argue," said Gohar, one of the main architects of Egypt's diplomatic strategy, "they start on opposite sidewalks and shout at one another, 'I will carve you into pieces!' and 'You'll never see another sunset!' Then, after ten or 15 minutes, they walk away and nobody gets hurt. This the Israelis don't realize." Rogers is hardly likely even to try to convince the Israelis of such a benign view of Arab bluster. Nonetheless, many Arabs last week welcomed Rogers' impending visit. Beirut's Al Anwar daily praised him as "one of the few Americans who have not succumbed to Zionist myopia."

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