A Growing Mood Of Moderation

Shuttle diplomacy is scheduled to resume in the Middle East in a few weeks, when Secretary of State Henry Kissinger undertakes negotiations for a second-stage disengagement by Israel, Egypt and Syria. Last week a TIME-sponsored news tour of 53 U.S. businessmen, TIME editors and correspondents visited the area. In talks with several leaders, the group discerned a growing mood of moderation and a determination on all sides to help Kissinger move toward an eventual peace. Excerpts from the discussions: SADAT: "I Am Ready"

Egyptian President Anwar Sadat received the group not in Cairo, but at his favorite winter vacation spot, Aswan. Sadat was in an amiable mood as he relaxed on a sofa in a salon of the New Cataract Hotel--where Kissinger stayed during the first round of shuttle diplomacy last year--and answered the TIME group's questions. Among them:

Q. Mr. President, are you on the point of accepting a second stage of disengagement in Sinai? A. I am ready. If the Israelis are ready, I am quite ready. I hope that in the very near future we can do something because we are in a very dangerous situation. And it is just like a bomb that is about to explode any moment, a time bomb that may explode if Israel wanted to achieve superiority in the area, or by miscalculation, and I don't want either.

Q. Could you reach an agreement with Israel on Sinai without insisting on agreement on other fronts? A. Well, this is a very important question. If you mean to ask if I am ready to reach a separate solution with Israel, I say no. But if you ask if I am ready to defuse the bomb that is about to explode now, yes, I am ready; and I am ready to discuss further steps toward peace, a new step of disengagement, and so on.

Q. You recently indicated that unless there is progress in the next 90 days, you would return to Geneva. What would you like to see happen in the next 90 days? A. Well, I should like to see an Israeli pullback on the three fronts: Sinai, Golan Heights and the West Bank. After that, we shall be going to Geneva, but we shall be seeking a free atmosphere, not a tense one. No, we shall be at ease and we shall talk together.

Q. Is there a possibility of creating a demilitarized zone between your country and Israel? A. I am ready to allow a demilitarized zone in my country, but I shall be asking in reciprocity to have a demilitarized zone on Israeli land.

Q. What could we in the U.S. be doing for the Middle East that we are not? A. In the last 20 years we were in constant confrontation with the Americans. We started a new era in relations one year ago, when Henry Kissinger visited me here. What am I asking from the U.S.? Look, I am not asking the U.S. to break its special relations with Israel. But I am now your friend, and I have the right to ask you as a friend to be logical with me. Keep your special relations with Israel, but treat me as a friend also.

Q. Henry Kissinger has said that the U.S. might intervene in the oil-producing countries in this area. What would Egypt's position be in that case? A. This is a very grave error that Henry has committed. Henry is my friend, but he shouldn't have said that. I don't like the language of confrontation, which is the language of the 19th century, the diplomacy of the gun.

Q. It is only fair to point out that Kissinger qualified his statement. A. Yes, I know. He spoke of strangulation not only of America but of Western civilization. But can you convince the man in the street in the Arab world? This can be used against him by others.

Q. When you spoke of 90 days, were you speaking specifically of the outbreak of a war? A. Well, my main concern really is this: we started after the October war a process toward peace. It slackened last summer. We have to keep the momentum and continue the search or we shall be facing a state of stagnation again, and if we reach this stage of stagnation, there will be no other alternative than war by miscalculation or intention.

Q. To get things moving again, is it necessary for Kissinger to come here? A. I have told Henry that he is welcome whenever he chooses to come. But when he comes to this area, there must be something concrete to be achieved or the repercussions will be against you and your effort. He is welcome any time, but he must prepare to achieve something.

ASSAD: "No Secure Borders."

Syria's President Hafez Assad pointedly invited U.S. Ambassador Richard Murphy to sit beside him when he held a long (2 1/2 hours) discussion with the TIME party at the presidential palace in Damascus. By addressing the U.S. Government as well as Americans traveling privately, Assad stressed that he was voicing Syrian policy. Uncharacteristically voluble, Assad at one point made an emotional exposition linking Syrian and U.S. views on freedom: "We believe that the aggression of Israel conflicts with the principles of freedom for which the American people fought."

Q. Mr. President, what are your views on step-by-step diplomacy? A. The most important thing is an overall concept of a just peace. Second, there could be a giant step, involving all fronts, but if it is like the movement of a turtle it is of no use. Clearly, if step by step is meant to divide the Arabs into three fronts, and then a subdivision of three fronts, this is not conducive to peace.

O. Is Syria prepared to consider secure borders for Israel? A. With modern weapons, there are no secure borders. The Israelis are not serious. In 1967 they occupied the Golan Heights. They said it was to protect their settlements. In 1973 they pushed the Syrian army about 17 kilometers in the north and 25 in the south. The range of our artillery is 30 kilometers, so the Syrian army can still shell their settlements. And now they have built new settlements. If we are to pursue their logic, after a while they will ask for new secure borders to protect their new settlements. That is why I believe they are interested in expansion.

Q. Would you be prepared to consider a demilitarized zone on the Golan Heights? A. We may agree to reciprocal measures on either side of the border for any length of time. If they agree to ten kilometers on either side, so do we. But not if it is imposed on us.

Q. What would another war solve? A. Because I am opposed to step-by-step measures does not mean I want a fifth war. What I mean to say is that divided and slow movements will not avert a fifth war. I do not have any clear idea what the U.S. means by step-by-step movement. If the step-by-step movement has good substance on all Arab fronts, it will help peace.

Judging from their comments, all the leaders of the "confrontation countries" are pinning their hopes--for the time being at least--on Henry Kissinger's gradual personal diplomacy. The alternative is full-scale negotiations at Geneva involving the Soviet Union and probably the Palestine Liberation Organization as well. Even Syria, one of Moscow's warmest Arab allies, is willing to let Kissinger negotiate, and has suggested for the first time a demilitarized border. Israel will not be pressured, but evidently is prepared to follow Kissinger's proposals, even to Geneva if necessary.

The trap for the Secretary of State is whether he can satisfy all parties with multiple negotiations. The Sinai talks will be relatively easy, but tricky nonetheless. Egypt demands the return of the oilfields at Abu Rudeis and the strategic Mitla and Giddi passes through which Israeli armor has moved three times to fight her. Israel is not prepared to surrender Abu Rudeis until alternate fuel supplies are firmly guaranteed. The form of this guarantee--and of any firm U.S. guarantee of Israel's security--could become sticking points.

Nevertheless, the prognosis for further disengagement and easing of tensions is still good. As diplomats in the Middle East noted last week, Sadat would never have specifically mentioned a 90-day deadline for further progress unless he believed that Henry Kissinger could produce results in time.

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