Weighing a New Mideast Role

By Jacob V. Lamar Jr

Slowly, warily, all but imperceptibly, the Administration may be inching its way back to a role in Middle East negotiations. Policymakers are far from convinced, however, that the time is quite right. Said a senior official last week: "We are shifting from neutral to first gear, but we're not at cruising speed yet."

The first step toward bringing the U.S. into the arena was taken in February by Jordan's King Hussein, who wooed Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat into an ambiguous agreement to pursue peace with Israel. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is working to thaw the "cold peace" with Israel by exchanging emissaries with Prime Minister Shimon Peres. Mubarak later flew to Washington to make a personal plea to President Reagan for renewed U.S. involvement. Then, last week, the globe-trotting Egyptian leader joined King Hussein on a trip to Baghdad to enlist the support of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Not since Reagan took office have Arab leaders displayed such an aggressive effort to revive the dormant peace process and, most important, to get the U.S. back into the diplomatic game.

So far, the Reagan Administration has been standoffish, giving the Arab overtures wary encouragement while avoiding, at least for the time being, any direct involvement. In his press conference last week, the President said that the U.S. "did not want to participate in the negotiations--it wouldn't be any of our business to do so." He added, however, that he had "complimented" Mubarak for his work and that the U.S. would "do whatever we could to help bring the warring parties together."

Reagan has ample reason for caution. The Administration's 1982 Middle East peace plan, which called for Palestinian self-government on the West Bank and Gaza Strip in association with Jordan, was peremptorily rejected by Israel and manhandled by indecisive Arab countries. Washington's well-intentioned attempts to make peace in Lebanon led to the deaths of 267 American servicemen and ended in the mortifying withdrawal of U.S. troops early last year. For the past 13 months, U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East has essentially been on hold. The tragedies in Lebanon had resulted in a vague policy known as disengagement, a virtual do-nothing stance. When the U.S.-mediated accord between Israel and Lebanon crumbled in March 1984, Secretary of State George Shultz remarked bitterly that Middle East governments reluctant to accept American peace overtures "must bear the responsibility to find alternative formulas."

While the newest Arab initiatives imply an awakening sense of responsibility, they leave unresolved a number of critical issues. The Hussein-Arafat agreement suggested that a Jordanian-Palestinian team, selected by the two leaders, be empowered to negotiate with Israel and the U.S. in a U.N. conference. Reagan indicated last week that the U.S. might meet with such a delegation if that would further direct negotiations with Israel. But no meeting could include members of the P.L.O., with which the U.S. and Israel refuse to bargain. Hussein and Arafat also endorsed a confederation of Jordan and a Palestinian state on the West Bank, but they gave little indication of how this new entity would be run. Moreover, their accord does not explicitly accept Israel's right to exist or U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for the exchange of Israeli-occupied territory for peace.

"It is not a question of just putting up a new sign," says a U.S. official who is dubious about the agreement, "but of delivering." Thus the Administration politely declined Mubarak's pleas for greater U.S. involvement in the process.

Mubarak, surprised by the cool reception his plan got in Washington, called the U.S. attitude "almost . . . defeatist." He flew off to Jordan for a meeting with Hussein, then headed with the King on a surprise trip to Iraq where he urged President Saddam Hussein to join the peace process. After years of taking a hard-line stand against negotiations with Israel, Iraq appears to be changing its tune. Iraq's President wants his country to be in the mainstream of the Arab world and not to be linked with the likes of Libya and Syria. "In the past," says a Western ambassador in Baghdad, "one could expect Iraq to have its own agenda. Any compromise with Israel was unacceptable. Now, Iraq will not stand in the way."

While the three Arab leaders met in Baghdad, Jordanian Foreign Minister Taher Masri was in Washington urging Shultz to embrace the new Arab initiative. He got little more than vague promises of "support and cooperation" from Shultz, who indicated he might meet with Masri and Egypt's foreign minister sometime in the next two months. Warned Masri: "This may be the last chance. The future will only be good for the fanatics and the extremists."

A crucial question is Israel's attitude. So far the Arab initiatives have not "gone far enough to galvanize a positive Israeli response," says one U.S. official. As the leader of a fragile coalition government, Peres may have trouble bargaining with the Arabs. The conservative Likud adamantly opposes territorial exchange, which for some is the basic coin of the peace negotiations. Peres and his Labor Party are not now in a position to dominate the Likud or ease it out of power in new elections. The U.S., however, supports the Prime Minister's approach to the Arab overtures. "He has been careful and reserved, but open," says an American diplomat. "He has made no snap judgments but is waiting to see what happens."

Washington will be seeking the quiet backing of Algeria, a country that / could lend support to Arafat in breaking with hard-line Syria by agreeing to negotiate. In addition, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy will leave in mid-April on a fact-finding tour of the Middle East. "There is no virtue in doing nothing," admits one senior American diplomat. But Reagan insists that, although he would be happy to meet with a delegation of Jordanians and Palestinians, it is up to the Arabs to find a way to get formal negotiations under way. As he put it at his press conference, "It's a case of their inviting us, not the other way around."

With reporting by Johanna McGeary/Washington, with other bureaus