Nation in search of a miracle

Press, 6 November 1984, Page 17

Nation in search of a miracle

Israel today — a nation wracked by the world’s highest inflation rate of 1000 per cent a year and recently in mourning for the death of its 600th soldier in Lebanon. Here, in his first major interview since forming his Government of National Unity, Prime Minister Shimon Peres talks to DONALD TRELFORD of the London “Observer.”

TRELFORD: I have felt, ever since coming to Jerusalem, that people here are waiting for some dramatic announcement to halt your runaway inflation, some magic formula. They seem to believe that such a big problem requires a big solution. Now you have committed yourself to a much more gradualist approach, so people may feel let down. Haven’t you missed a golden opportunity? PERES: There is no magic. We have to take some tough decisions, but the problem is how we take them — administratively or by negotiation. I personally feel very strongly that we can and should negotiate, with both management and labour. The maladies of the economy are various — it’s not just a matter of beating hyper-inflation but also encouraging growth and maintaining jobs. Four different steps are needed, one after another, in rather a short while. First, we have to cut our budget, itself not a simple matter, the options are not terribly great. Second, we have taken measures to reduce our foreign currency expenditure. Third is an agreement with management and labour to restrain prices and wages. Fourth, we have to renew our economic growth. You described your coalition when it was formed as a “government of disagreements.” Does the tentative nature of these reforms — compared with much tougher measures which have been aired, such as a 20 per cent devaluation or fixing the shekel firmly to the dollar — reflect those disagreements among your Cabinet colleagues? By and large, the disagreements have been small and between individuals; so far we have not divided along party lines. The problem is one of both philosophy and economics. Can you cut inflation at a stroke? It’s naive and childish to think you can take a single measure and bring an end to inflation. It is a little bit of nonsense. What realistic hope do you have of showing quick results, say by the end of this year? . You’re not giving me much time; it’s only two months to the end of the year, and there’s nothing we can do to affect next month’s figures. But by the end of the year I would hope that we will have cut inflation in half. Understandably, the economy has dominated your first month in office. But public opinion clearly expects you to tackle Lebanon as well. How soon can we expect a withdrawal of Israeli troops? Our intention is that the withdrawal process should last six to nine months. We shall deal with this issue immediately. If we can

reach an agreement of a political nature — or even just an ment — with the Syrians, and a military agreement with the Lebanese, a solution may be more comprehensive and easier to achieve. Your Defence Minister, Mr Rabin, thinks the Syrians are ready to talk, despite their official denials. Do you agree? Maybe. It would certainly be in their interests. By why should they talk? Why not just sit tight and wait for you to go? Because they wake up every morning in Damascus and see the silhouettes of the Israeli tanks only 25 kilometres away. That’s no way to greet the sunrise. The Syrians are renowned as tough negotiators. What makes you think you’ll be able to secure their agreement within the time-scale you suggest? With the Syrians you can’t negotiate, but you can reach an agreement. With the Lebanese, on the other hand, you can negotiate, but you never reach an agreement. Somehow, we shall have to do both. Won’t the Syrians demand a quid pro quo— over the Golan Heights, for example, or a seat at the table in the peace process? They will have to understand that if other issues are introduced into the Lebanese negotiations, we will take that as an indication that they are not interested in a resolution. We have enough complications already. You have proposed expanding the role of the United Nations forces in southern Lebanon, Unifil, to cover the ground you vacate. When I was last in that area, a few years ago, Unifil were regarded by Israelis as a bit of a joke. Now you seem to be

placing great faith in them to protect your northern border. No. They are not there to protect our border, north of the border will be the South Lebanese Army under General Lahade. The S.L.A. represents the wish of the people of southern Lebanon to live in peace with us. We would like the Unifil forces to the north of them, to separate the S.L.A. and other Lebanese forces, and also to fill the vacuum that may be created in the wake of our withdrawal. So far as Syria is concerned, the presence of Unifil will symbolically — and more than that — represent the line at which Syrian expansion into Lebanon will have to stop. It is not so much the military strength of the United Nations forces as what they represent to the world. They may also help to save the lives of Arab refugees — Palestinians and others — by defending their camps when we leave. But the S.L.A. has only 2000 men and enough problems already. Don’t they risk being slaughtered by other factions when you go? If order in the area breaks down, may you not have to go back in again? Hopefully, it won’t happen. If the terrorists try again to build their bases there, then, of course, we shall have to act in self-defence. Are you concerned about the return of the P.L.O. to southern Lebanon? First of all, the P.L.O. are not there now. Also, the P.L.O. are split. Third, the local people will not welcome them any more. What’s more, the P.L.O. know what retaliation we are capable of. This week (during October) we killed nine of them who tried to infiltrate back. Of course, we can see that all this is not a perfect outcome for us in Lebanon, but it’s better than keeping our army there. Looking back on the past two or three years, how do you think history will judge the Israeli involvement in Lebanon? . I don’t pass judgments on history. I have my hands full with the present, and the future. It’s - always tempting- to analyse the past. As you know, I didn’t agree with the previous Government’s policy on Lebanon, and I think I was right. But I do not see the need now to reopen these old arguments. At least one very outspoken member of your Government is closely associated with that policy. Mr Ariel Sharon has already signalled his readiness to disagree with you over Lebanon, and in public. This Government acts by majority rule. Every member has the same one vote as everyone else, and the same right to exercise it. It would appear that President

Assad of Syria had an unsatisfactory visit to Moscow recently. Does that suggest to you that Soviet attitudes are changing in the Middle East? I don’t known exactly what happened in Moscow, but .the Soviets seem to be anxious to begin building better contacts with other Arab nations like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. There is also the question of the P.L.0.; I’m not sure the Russians are happy with a divided P.L.O. Syria would also like a united P.L.0., but under its own auspices, not under Arafat, whom the Russians still back. Are you not now dangerously dependent on the United States for cash and arms? Is it not probable that, after the Presidential election, the Americans will put you under some pressure to consider their own peace proposals, such as the 1982 Reagan Plan for talks with Jordan on the future of the West Bank? Your predecessors rejected it — are you prepared to reconsider? The Reagan Plan is like the lady who gave up her birthday parties because she had lost her looks: so people stopped talking about her. The purpose of the plan was to get a certain party (Jordan) into the negotiations. But that party wasn’t ready to join. Support for Israel in the United States Congress has never been stronger; they know that Israel costs them much less than their other regional alliances — including, with respect, in Europe. What role do you see for Europeans in the Middle East? Europe played a crucial role in encouraging Sadat to make peace with Israel; it could now perform a similar useful role with King Hussein. Are there any special bilateral issues you will be raising, such as Britain’s attitude to the Arab trade embargo, for example? That will probably come up. We may also discuss the E.E.C.’s Venice Declaration of 1980 favouring the P.L.O. Whether we will succeed in persuading him that that line is a dead end remains to be seen. President Herzog has said that he favoured a Government of national unity, not only to resolve a constitutional impasse, but to halt an ugly trend towards extremism. Do you accept that Israel has become a deeply divided society? There were some worrying signs of extremism, which I hope we may contain. It is better to have voices of dissent represented around the same table, especially at a time of crisis. I would not say we are a deeply divided society. We are a people in the making — and that takes time.