382. Telegram From the Department of State to Multiple Posts1
150838. Subject: U.S. Position on European Middle East Initiative.
1. (C) Entire text.
2. As addressees know, Europeans are concerned about Middle East peace process and have conferred among themselves about an initiative they might take. There is much divided counsel, however, about what specific form an initiative should take, with some preferring the idea of a Security Council resolution while others believe this would be a mistake and that instead the Europeans should confine themselves to an EC statement. The Egyptians are apparently now weighing in with the Europeans against a Security Council resolution at this time: Vice President Mubarak reportedly took this line in his recent visits to [Page 1266] London and Bonn, and Minister of State Boutros Ghali appears to be making same argument in Rome. The state of play as we understand it is that various options will be examined at meeting of political directors June 4, who will prepare final recommendations to their leaders in time for summit June 12–13.
3. In our judgment the Europeans have already made up their minds that they will have to issue some kind of statement and it will therefore probably not be possible to talk them into holding off entirely on an initiative. We believe instead our efforts should be directed toward channeling any statement by the Europeans in directions that are as constructive as possible and that will be less damaging to our own Middle East strategy. We can best do this, we believe, by defining our own concerns and requirements as precisely as possible.
4. As the EC governments formulate their final positions over the next few days, you should seek appropriate opportunities to get our views across as outlined below at the level you deem will be most effective. In your remarks you should stress three principal points: (1) We will view any statement they make or any action by the contribution it makes to a negotiated settlement; (2) anything that appears to offer the Arabs the false hope of an easy alternative would conflict with our purposes since it would take the heat off the Arabs to engage eventually in the autonomy negotiations; (3) we wish to be consulted about any initiative the Europeans propose to launch well in advance.
5. Begin talking points:
—The achievement of peace in the Middle East is, as we all agree, of vital importance to the West. In our view that cannot be achieved by actions which are designed primarily to satisfy one side. It can only be achieved by negotiations, as difficult as these can be, of the kind which flow out of the Camp David Framework. As the Secretary has already stressed, the President has determined that we will pursue these negotiations in the absence of any other alternatives which have a chance of achieving peace.
—We are now attempting to cope with Sadat’s suspension of the talks2 over the proposed Jerusalem legislation.3 Amb. Linowitz is at work attempting to get the talks back on the tracks because we believe both sides basically want to see the process through. In the meantime the Israeli Cabinet crisis4 and the increased violence in the West Bank have complicated matters. But we continue to hold the view that the [Page 1267] autonomy negotiations are viable and that they ultimately offer the best hope for progress. The negotiations are tough, but they are slowly getting somewhere.
—Our concept is that we need further work by the negotiating teams before the key issues are delineated in such a way that we can begin to plan for a major push to get trade-offs on these issues. We are working to get the parties back to the table as soon as possible so that we can work intensively toward this.
—We understand European concerns at the slowness of the talks but we would ask them to analyze carefully the pressures they believe are building on them. Are the Arabs really going to rush to actions that would be as self-defeating for them in the final analysis as they would be damaging to the West? Is the security of the moderate Arab states seriously threatened by the present negotiations? Our own judgment is that while the key moderates have reservations about the autonomy negotiations they have no alternative plan and do not plan to join any radical bandwagon to produce a confrontation with us on the peace issue. They are concerned but not seriously threatened. We believe we have the time to see this process through but also want to stress that it is our intention to help complete it as soon as possible.
—We and the Europeans have a shared interest in the fundamental importance of a comprehensive Middle East peace. Actions which the Europeans can take to further this objective would be welcomed by the United States. Our own specific reaction to any European proposal will be determined by whether an initiative will be supportive of a negotiated solution.
—Our reaction to any consideration in the UN of the peace process will be based on the fact that Resolution 242 is the agreed basis for a peace settlement and it is the foundation of the Camp David process and the current autonomy negotiations. Any effort to alter the ground rules of the negotiations would be fundamentally counterproductive. Resolutions which seek to establish or define “rights of the Palestinians” or “self-determination for the Palestinians” are likely to be construed in Israel as changing 242 and cause a similar adverse impact on the peace negotiations.
—We have another concern that bears on any initiative the Europeans might take. We should not offer the Arabs the false hope of an easier alternative that will save them from joining the negotiations or giving serious consideration to the eventual negotiated outcome of the autonomy talks in the cold light of available alternatives. You should stress that no other means has been suggested that offers the Palestinians the hope of as many real gains in the near future as the Camp David process.
[Page 1268]—We are therefore open-minded but we attach utmost importance to the criteria which we have mentioned, and we want the Europeans to be aware of them. We would ask the Europeans to explain how they believe their specific ideas would contribute in real terms to advancing the negotiations.
—We hope that in continuing its dialogue with the Arabs, the European Community would not suggest concessions without a clear commitment on the Arabs’ part to a peaceful resolution of the Middle East problem and recognition of Israel’s right to exist. The recent Fatah conference in Damascus resulted in assertion of maximalist Palestinian demands for the liquidation of Israel and we would expect that this position would be strenuously opposed by our European allies.
—Finally, whatever ideas the Europeans finally come up with, we hope to be consulted well in advance.
6. In making these points, you should also make it clear that we are fully aware of the connection between the Arab-Israeli conflict and the problems we face more broadly in the Middle East and Southwest Asia. We recognize the contribution that demonstrated progress toward a comprehensive Arab-Israel settlement can make toward strengthening our strategy across the whole region.
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D800279–1230. Confidential; Immediate; Exdis. Sent Immediate to Luxembourg, London, Paris, Bonn, Copenhagen, Brussels, and Dublin. Sent for information Immediate to all Near Eastern and South Asian posts and Khartoum. The telegram was repeated Immediate to Rome and The Hague and repeated for information Immediate to Brussels (for USEEC), USNATO, and Berlin on June 9.↩
- See footnote 3, Document 368.↩
- See Document 371.↩
- Defense Minister Ezer Weizman resigned from the Cabinet on May 25 in protest of the government’s “marking time” in the peace talks with Egypt. (“Weizman Attacks Begin on Talks,” The New York Times, May 27, 1980, p. A18)↩