Right All Along?

Vance defends U.N. vote

Just one day after the White House announced the forthcoming visits of Premier Begin and President Sadat, Secretary of State Vance was attacked by members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who seemed as anxious as the President to show their support of Israel. The subject was the fiasco at the U.N. when the U.S. first supported and then repudiated a resolution criticizing Israeli occupation of Arab territory that it seized during the 1967 war. The caustic tone of the session was set by New York Senator Jacob Javits, a firm backer of Israel, who announced on Feb. 25 that he would be seeking re-election in the fall. Said Javits: "Now, Mr. Secretary, did anyone ever read this resolution?" Vance's calm reply: "Of course they did."

At one point, Chairman Frank Church held a text of the U.N. resolution in one hand and in the other grasped the Camp David accords and previous U.N. resolutions that were far less critical of Israel than the one under contention. Said tie: "To my own bafflement, these two sets of documents are clearly inconsistent." Later, Church stated: "Why vote for any resolution proposed by Arab countries condemning Israel? It would have been more appropriate to abstain."

Vance further angered the Senators by endorsing the basic thrust of the U.N. resolution against Israel, although that put him in the anomalous position of backing the theme of a resolution that his President had rejected. The Secretary pointed out that the U.S. had long opposed the Israeli settlements as being "contrary to international law and an impediment to the successful conclusion of the Middle East [peace] process." Vance told how the Administration had repeatedly asked the Israelis to show restraint. "The situation grew worse, and it came to a point where it was beginning to jeopardize the success of the autonomy talks." The Secretary said that the Administration had grown frustrated and eventually decided to vote in favor of the U.N. resolution.

With the talks with Sadat and Begin coming up, Vance was obviously reluctant to delve into touchy aspects of U.S. policy. Trying to pin Vance down, Maryland's Senator Paul Sarbanes asked him at length about Administration views on Israel's control of East Jerusalem, which is bitterly opposed by the Arabs. The Israelis want the area because it contains the Wailing Wall and other Jewish holy places. Said Sarbanes: "Is it the position of our Government that East Jerusalem is considered an occupied territory?" Replied Vance at last: "That is the position."

Several Senators closely questioned Vance because of what they termed their "lingering suspicions" that the State Department's initial backing of the U.N. resolution reflected a growing influence of a pro-Arab group of policymakers in the Administration. Vance denied this was the case. And once again Vance took full blame for the flip-flop on the resolution, saying that his department had failed to follow Carter's wishes.

In his appearance the next day before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where he received a tamer reception, Vance indicated that Carter had known about the references to Jerusalem in the resolution that the U.S. approved. Asked Representative Elizabeth Holtzman of Brooklyn: "Did you advise the President of the references to Jerusalem that were in the text of the Security Council resolution?" Vance: "He was familiar with it." Then Vance slid away from the point, saying only that the President himself "should speak to that issue." The White House had no comment to make.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.