Nasser In Moscow

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32351, 17 July 1970, Page 12

Nasser In Moscow

Hopes for peace in the Middle East, whether based on an American or a Russian prescription, seem to be caught up in a kind of static diplomacy. Neither the Israelis nor the Egyptians—the latter now clearly under Russian direction—are willing, even at this late stage, to give a much-needed flexibility to the peace overtures. The Russians take the line that, whatever the outcome, the Israelis must withdraw from the cease-fire lines established in 1967. They put forward the thesis that territorial gains by war cannot be permitted. Little support for that contention could be found either in international law or in precedent. The Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr Eban, has once more emphasised that Israel has the right to stay where it is until the establishment of peace- The creation of peace frontiers, Mr Eban insists, is open for negotiation. It is, he says, “ not a “question that has already been decided”.

Therein is the substance of deadlock. The Arabs will not negotiate directly with the Israelis on peace terms—the basic issue—and are supported in that stand by the Russians. The Americans appear to take a slightly equivocal Hne, with some reliance on the hope, apparently endorsed by the Israelis, that direct talks may yet be arranged through Dr Jarring’s mediation. There is ample justification for Israeli distrust of Russian intentions. The Russians are not taking the Arab side—the side of Egypt specifically—in any spirit of altruism. They are blatantly pursuing a policy of self-interest, with the long-term aims of (1) controlling a reopened Suez Canal, which they need for quick access to the Indian Ocean; (2) establishing more firmly their naval presence in the Mediterranean; and (3) getting a grip on policy affecting the disposal of Arab oil.

The Russians may now be finding themselves more dangerously involved in the Middle East than they had at first contemplated. If they are embarrassed at this stage by the scale of their involvement, this is probably because of earlier miscalculations, including their deliberate commitment to the defence of Egypt against Israeli air attacks. They know that the Americans, cautiously watchful at present, will not deny the Israelis the arms and aircraft they may need for survival They know also that when the Israelis say they are ready to fight again if the military threat against them is expanded, even through Russian agencies, they mean exactly that

It is inconceivable that the Russians should want war again in the Middle East which might swiftly get out of hand. And it is at least possible that President Nasser’s current visit to Moscow was extended to make certain that policy-making, by and large, will be a Russian task. In the meantime the wrangle over peace proposals will go on; and it is at least hopeful that Moscow, with President Nasser on the spot, seems to be seriously examining Washington’s hopes for a new initiative. There is no mention in the Russian plan of Arab recognition of Israel’s sovereign status. But President Nasser, in mid-June, appeared to accept the right of Israel to live within secure and agreed borders. Dr Jarring’s mediation, if it is to be resumed at all, could perhaps usefully start there.