Arabs, Russians reticent over Beirut

Press, 14 July 1982, Page 14

Arabs, Russians reticent over Beirut

From the “Economist,” London

Why haven't the Arabs done anything to help the Palestinians? The question is asked with anguish, accusation or simple puzzlement. There are good and bad reasons for Arab inactivity. For a start, the Palestinian refugees- are a continuous reproach to Arab consciences; they would not be refugees if the Arab regimes had succeeded in stopping Israel from coming into existence 35 years ago. Now. hundreds of thousands of homeless wanderers present the Arab governments with nagging administrative problems: questions of nationality. identity papers, legal jurisdiction, work permits and so on. In many places the Palestinians have settled down, got work and prospered. But this too has caused problems. In Lebanon, the mostly Moslem Palestinians, upset the country's sensitive ChristianMoslem |wwer structure. In Kuwait and other Gulf states, the administrations became dependent on Palestinian expertise and resented it. The Palestinians made a serious mistake in 1968 when the guerrillas, taking over the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, called their movement a "revolution" and themselves "revolutionaries." This stirred up suspicion among the many conservative Arab states from Saudi Arabia to. Morocco. The fact that Fatah, by far the largest guerrilla group, is right of centre counted for less than the noisy revolutionary rhetoric of the. small Left-wing groups; the P.L.O. was stuck with a damaging revolutionary label. The smaller groups also did the Palestinian cause a great disservice by creating the impression that the P.L.O. was undisciplined and unpredictable: Fatah's refusal or inability to crush these groups at birth has cost the Palestinians dear.

Individual Arab countries

also have their several separate reasons for disliking the P.L.O. Syria has fought battles with the organisation because it refused to be wholly subservient to the Damascus government. even though the movement's main supply and training bases are in Syria. Jordan also fought the P.L.O. in 1970 when the Palestinians in Amman got too big for their boots; bitter memories of Black September are alive on both sides. Iraq is angry with the P.L.O. because it condemned its war with Iran. This condemnation was partly sincere — the war was a distraction and a cause of Arab weakness — and partly the result of Syrian pressure on the Palestinians to support Iran. Support for Iran has also queered the P.LO.'s pitch with anti-Iranian Saudi Arabia. Kuwait and the other Gulf states. Saudi Arabia was particularly exasperated by the fact that, though Mr Yasser Arafat at first supported its Arab-Israeli peace plan, the P.L.O. went along with the rejectionists partly, once again, under Syrian pressure and partly because of Left-wing pressure from within the movement. Even Libya has off and on sparred with the P.L.O. for much the same reason as Syria has - the Palestinians are not prepared to accept Libyan leadership. Even with all these old and new antagonisms around, the Arab governments are unlikely to move from inactivity to open hostility toward the P.L.O. and its members. The Palestinian cause is a just one. and the Arab regimes know that most of their people believe in it. some of them fervently.

"Deeds not just words" are what the Soviet Union promised Syria and the P.L.O. as their forces fell back before the Israeli army's push to the outskirts of Beirut. Instead, the Russians have responded to Israel’s attack with a mixture

of' anger, frustration and embarrassment — and have done nothing.

The anger is not just reserved for the Israeli "aggressors.” "Where are you. Arabs?" was the plaintive cry from the Soviet radio station. Radio Peace and Progress, broadcasting in Arabic on June 15. On June 25. Tass. the official Soviet news agency, took up the refrain. The failure of the Arabs to lift a finger in support of the P.L.O. forces holed up in west Beirut has confirmed the Russians' worst fears. They always said that Egypt's separate peace with Israel at Camp David was the thin end of a wedge the Israelis

could use to prise away their other adversaries one by one. Now that the Israelis have turned on the P.L.O. in Lebanon, the Russians are muttering "I told you so."

The Russians are embarrassed. too. that the Syrian and P.L.O. forces in southern Lebanon were routed so quickly. The Syrian army is equipped with modern Sovietmade weapons, including T-72 tanks, Mig-23 fighters and Sam-6 anti-aircraft batteries. But the Syrians have been outgunned on' land and in the air by superior Israeli forces. Losses have been heavy. Privately, the Russians are complaining bitterly at the Svrians’

inept handling of their equipment.

Syria remains the Soviet Union's closest major ally in the Middle East. Since 1980 the two countries have been bound by a treaty of friendship. The Soviet Union will eventually make good Syria's losses, although richer Arabs will have to pay for most of it. Syrian officials have hinted at a new "strategic alliance" with the Russians to match the special relationship Israel has with the United Slates. The Russians are keeping mum.

What they want most in the Middle East is a chance' to wriggle back into the peacemaking process, if one can be found, and get a say in

any future peace settlement. In order to do that they need to keep a foot in the door by backing Syria, their one ally on Israel’s borders implacably opposed to the Camp David accords. The Russians need to be needed by the Syrians but they know that the Syrians know it. They are wary of being drawn into’ a Middle’ East conflict on Syrian terms and finding themselves suddenly eyeball-to-eye-ball with the United States. They are keeping their heads down, but still hoping that Arab indignation about the carnage in Lebanon will turn the moderate Arab states away from the United States, Israel's backer.