54. Memorandum From Secretary of State Haig to President Reagan1
SUBJECT
- Message from Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko on the Lebanon Crisis
Ambassador Dobrynin has just delivered
to me Gromyko’s reply to my Friday
message to the Foreign Minister on Lebanon2 (Soviet-provided English translation attached).
The first page and a half is devoted to a rather restrained diatribe against
Israel and those who support her, and need not concern you. The final two
paragraphs, however, are of interest. Gromyko says:
—The Soviets have taken note of our intention not to become involved
militarily in the event of an armed conflict, but believe the real task
is to prevent a conflict.
—The Soviet Union is working to avoid a confrontation including during
“recent days.”
—The U.S. should restrain Israeli leaders.
—The United States and the Soviet Union should be able to reach “mutual
understanding” that would prevent the outbreak of war in the Middle
East.
During my talk with Dobrynin after I
had read the letter, the Soviet Ambassador described it as “constructive,”
meaning that Moscow is “restraining” Assad. Dobrynin said, in a clear reference to his Friday night
remark about the possibility of a moratorium on Israeli reconnaissance
flights over the Bekaa Valley, that he had expected that we would already
have put forward such a compromise formula. He was, he said, surprised that
we had not yet done so. “After all, what would be in it for Assad?”, he
asked, pointing out that the Israelis would not be losing much by detouring
their reconnaissance flights some 20 or 30 kilometers off their normal
route.
Thus, despite the polemics in the letter, the last two paragraphs of the
Gromyko letter, plus Dobrynin’s comments, seem to indicate that
the Soviets remain in contact with Assad, and that hope remains that a
compromise formula acceptable to Syria and Israel can yet be found. We can
anticipate that the proposal that the Israelis forego
[Page 138]
reconnaissance flights over the Bekaa Valley
in return for Syrian withdrawal will surface at some point in the not too
distant future.
Tab A
Letter From Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko to Secretary of State
Haig3
Dear Mr. Secretary,
I have carefully studied your letter of May 15, 1981 and must regretfully
state that the interpretation given there to what is going in and around
Lebanon is one-sided and non-reflective of the real state of affairs. As
a result Israel—the true source of the dangerous exacerbation of the
situation—is being whitewashed whereas totally unsubstantiated charges
and demands are being addressed to Syria.
However, you have no smaller knowledge than ourselves of the actual
sequence of the events. You, of course, know, for instance, that the
Syrian anti-aircraft missile weapons did not emerge in Lebanon until
Israeli fighters had shot down two unarmed Syrian transport helicopters
used to carry supplies to the Syrian contingent lawfully deployed in
Lebanon as part of the Arab peace keeping force in that country. On the
part of Israel this was an act of aggression.
So, why is the question raised of having Syria withdraw from Lebanon
those weapons as a “sine qua non for any settlement” when, at the same
time, there is complete silence on the question of having Israel cease
the aggressive actions which made it necessary for Syria to take
counter-measures in self-defence?
If not for elementary fairness, is this a realistic way to pose the
question and how, then, can one be surprised at Syria rejecting such an
approach? After all, what right has Israel to carry out air strikes or
other military actions in Lebanon? To follow this kind of logic, it
turns out that Israel may continue its brigandage in Lebanon and
interfere in the internal affairs of that country while defensive steps
against those Israeli actions are barred.
If what you call the US efforts to “restrain” Israel in fact amounts to
such an approach to this matter, then there is no wonder that Israel
goes on with putting forward its demands.
[Page 139]
This is the reason why the responsibility for further serious
exacerbation of the situation around Lebanon and in the entire Middle
East as well as, possibly, beyond that area, and the danger thereof is
mentioned in your letter, will rest not only on Israel but also on those
who could exert influence on Israel and do not wish to do so.
We, of course, take note of the fact that in case of an armed conflict
the USA does not intend to be involved
in it militarily. We are deeply convinced, however, that the task is to
actually prevent the current situation from growing into an armed
conflict.
A new military confrontation in that area would serve nobody’s interests
and it can and must be prevented. It is in this direction that the
Soviet Union is applying its efforts, including in the most recent days.
We would like to count on the US side also acting with broader interests
of peace in mind and on its exerting really restraining influence on the
Israeli leaders. No reasonable man will believe that the United States
of America and the Soviet Union, being the kind of powers they are,
cannot reach an elementary mutual understanding in order to prevent the
outbreak of military conflict in the Middle East.
Sincerely,
Tab B
Letter From Secretary of State Haig to Soviet Foreign Minister
Gromyko
5
Dear Mr. Minister:
As you know, for the past week Mr. Philip
Habib has at the request of President Reagan, been conducting urgent
consultations in Lebanon, Syria, and Israel with the aim of promoting a
peaceful solution to the current dangerous situation in Lebanon. We have
recently received a report from Mr. Habib concerning his latest conversation with President
Assad. That report indicates that the Syrians are not prepared to accept
any compromise on removal of Syrian Surface to Air Missiles in the Bikka
Valley, a sine qua non for any settlement. They
were also less than forthcoming with respect to reasonable proposals
approved by the Government of Lebanon to replace the Syrian forces on
the Sannine
[Page 140]
Ridge and in
Zahle. In sum, the Syrians are unwilling to return to the status quo
ante in Lebanon. These developments, in the view of the United States
Government, indicate that events in and around Lebanon have reached an
extremely dangerous impasse.
Mr. Habib was instructed to
inform Prime Minister Begin of
the outcome of his latest discussion with President Assad. We have also
told him to proceed from Jerusalem to Saudi Arabia for further
consultations, and to go, thereafter, to Damascus for a further
conversation with President Assad. If the Syrian President indicates at
that time that there has been no change in his position, it will be
difficult for us to avoid concluding that we have done all we can to
assist the parties to find a compromise solution.
It should be clear to all that the United States has effectively
restrained Israel from a resort to military action throughout the past
difficult weeks. Further, the Israelis have shown considerable
flexibility in the search for an acceptable compromise. Unfortunately,
Syria has demonstrated neither restraint nor flexibility. Thus, should
Mr. Habib’s mission end without
positive results, despite our best efforts, our ability effectively to
influence the Israelis further will be greatly diminished.
As we have for some weeks been indicating to your government, we consider
the situation in and around Lebanon extremely dangerous—one which
certainly contains the seeds of war in the Middle East, and possibly
beyond. It is to avert that danger that we have taken every possible
step to urge restraint on Israel, while seeking to assist the other
parties to the dispute toward a mutually acceptable solution.
Unfortunately, we have seen no evidence that others who might be in a
position to influence events have worked with equal diligence to do
so.
The situation is now at a critical stage. Should the current crisis
escalate into armed conflict, it will be our intention to remain
militarily uninvolved; we will insist upon the same restraint from
others.
Mr. Foreign Minister, it now remains for those nations which have
influence in Damascus, such as the Soviet Union, to make one last effort
to avert what could become a human tragedy for Lebanese, Syrians, and
Israelis alike.
Sincerely,
