The forgotten pledges
Patrick Cosgrave
Some weeks ago I discussed a certain contraction of the imagination which has been evident in the conduct of British foreign policy whatever government has been in power over the last decade. True, Sir Alec DouglasHome was, to the end, capable of a tour d'horizon that was also a tour de force, and he had, also, the forensic capacity to alter or even to create a policy something that has become increasingly rare in a British foreign secretary. Not all of Sir Alec's innovations were, in my view, wise and certainly not the one which occurred in the Middle East but he was the most tlistinguished of our foreign secretaries since the war, and his passing from the forefront of British politics a fit occasion for lamentation. To listen to Mr Callaghan discussing the social contract in the course of a turgid Commons debate nominally about foreign policy last week was to realise that British politicians are beginning to lose even the-capacity to talk about foreign affairs in any large way.
Of course, there are notional preoccupations which excite passions among socialists Simonstown and Chile; among Heathites the EEC; among Tories national sovereignty but there is one particular area of the world in relation to which the Labour Party professed in opposition the strongest commitments, in which it avowed the deepest interest and on which the Foreign Office has had practically nothing to say during a momentous period of the last fortnight. This is, of course, the Middle East.
Let us summarise at least part of the story. During the Yom Kippur war Mr Heath, in stern pursuit of the shift in policy inaugurated by his government, refused co-operation to the United States in their attempts to bring help to the Israelis. This was, not perhaps wise, but logical. It was less logical it was, indeed, dishonourable for the then government, however, to break a solemn Anglo-lsraeli arms contract in the hope of gaining favour with the Arab powers; an attempt which failed. After the war Dr Kissinger brought his own unique brand of personal diplomacy to the Middle East and managed to move all parties towards a settlement, the two fundamental principles of which would be recognition of the right to existence of an independent Israeli state, and territorial adjustments which, while they would not deny security to Israel, would go a long way towards restoring to the Arabs ground lost in their various disastrous wars against their neighbour. Such is the chemical mix created by a Kissinger intervention that, as the event unfolds, nobody can ever be quite sure of the aim, if any, towards which the Secretary of State is proceeding, or whether, indeed, he has any other aim than to produce an equilibrium at whatever cost either to principles or to allies. "Well," said an Israeli diplomatist, when I reminded him of a statement he had made in favour of Dr Kissinger many months ago, in the light of the Secretary of State's record since, "he hasn't betrayed us yet."
Now, this is where the Labour Party comes in. Throughout Yom Kippur, to the discomfort of Labour's wild-eyed Arabists—among whom was numbered, then, Mr Christopher Mayhew Mr Wilson led the Opposition in steady and unrelenting support of the Israelis, and in steady hostility to Mr Heath's policy. Once in power in February, however, it became apparent that, whatever the situation in regard to the Jews, Mr Callaghan at the Foreign Office would aboveall be dominated by a servitude to American policy and ideas of diplomacy unequalled even in our recent history. On his first visit to the United States the Foreign Secretary was so fulsome that he embarrassed even those hosts. Over the Cyprus affair it is now clear that he yielded up the possibility of a constructive British initiative in order to leave the field clear for Dr Kissinger, a move which can hardly be justified on the ground that American policy has shown any results in Cyprus; and on the Middle East he has been silent.
American policy since the Yom Kippur war has, however, shown some significant shifts. It is too early yet to say what effect President Ford will have on affairs, if any, but it is clear that Dr Kissinger is trying to continue a course initially conceived in the desperate need of the dying Nixon presidency for another foreign policy triumph. This course involves the elimination of the absolute guarantee of security for Israel as a governing factor in policy. (It is a known practice of Dr Kissinger to invite his aides, they having prepared a list of the constants in any given policy, to treat one or more as variables, if only for the intellectual exercise: it is a habit that has brought grief to more than one friend of the United States.) Of course, it is not possible for any American political party wholly to end its commitment to the state of Israel there are too many Jewish votes in the United States for that. But, with the glittering prize of American dominance over Russia in Arab lands readily available, the temptation was there, and even the quarrel over oil has done nothing to weaken its attractions.
Two recent pieces of evidence have suggest
„The,
opeccator November 9, 1974 ed the weakness or turpitude of the declared friends of Israel. Both concern the activities of the Palestine Liberation Organisation which, under its leader, Yasser Arafat, is prinelPal among the many gangs of murderers operating in Middle Eastern politics, and owns solve suzerainty over a number of the others. The PLO claims to be the sole body representative of the interests of. the Palestinian people, whether on the Israeli or on the Jordanian side of the river. It has, of course, no mandate save what comes from its bullets and from the cash ' flowing into its coffers from Arab governmentS; more than one Arab ruler being in the habit ot paying protection money to keep PLO assassins out of his country. • At all periods of her struggle with the Arabs, Israel has been prepared to negotiate with existing governments of neighbourin, countries. Especially since Yom Kippur, tU,', Israeli government has made clear its goodWi" in this respect, but it has consistently refused w negotiate with terrorists. Apart altogether freal the morality of this stand, there has been a practical side as well. However worthless allt Arab pledge might be judged to be, at least some Arab governments, with a greater od lesser degree of ambiguity, have proferr:d recognition of Israel's right to exist not, s,':,r this is not unreasonable, necessarily to keeP ace' conquests, but to exist. In this pledge, 0 underwritten by American policy, the 1-1' have steadfastly refused to join, repeat° j again and again that the extermination of isram is a principal aim of the organisation's policYsi consequence there is no possibility of joining in a series of talks at Geneva at Nvl''" the Arafat gang is represented. A.not dissimilar view of the situation e been taken by Jordan. Thwarted by 'On' military prowess from a successful caMPai,g„e against the Jews the PLO sought to undertn""t the government of King Hussein, an atteast which the king beat off only with the greate, difficulty. But and this is the first of the ace developments to which I have referred st,,ta s Arab summit conference in Rabat, the king n-0 forced by the preponderant weight against hi to accept the general resolution of t11,0 conference viz., the right of the PLO .`d represent Palestinians living in Israeli-occuPiea Palestine, who had always hitherto bf„et, represented by the Jordanian governine",i5 Since this immediately opens up for the Israe:, who, since occupation, have, incidentalioYi provided a living for many thousandd Palestinians on both side of the river who uthe before eked out their days in misery
prospect of an unremittingly hostile separated from them only by an indefensw„ ., border, they can hardly be expected to sit dove'
with their intended murderers. . to Then, too, the PLO have won the rig";d speak at the General Assembly of the tio",r5 Nations. Can it have been all that many ye 'to ago that Mr Heath gave a stirring address a. that body,' warning of the dangers of intelo tional terrorism, a speech applauded hY,,od poltical enemies as much as. by his allies? e have his warnings counted for so little, or to influence of Great Britain and the United St° os for so little, that the leaders of one of the garlf who have terrorised the cites and airwaY„5 the world should now be feted in the ha"sot peace; and is this what the government ine,"ed when in the Queen's Speech it said it inter'
to strengthen the United Nations? the
This general question takes up beyon-d plight of Israel. But, as has so often a";ties correctly been observed before, the diff1eu4ie5 and problems of Israel encapsulate diffictiiet and problems which all of the rest of us el` fat face or are about to face. FortunatelY themselves the Israelis have learned not too much trust in allies. But the United Stanot and Britain are embarked on a course„.ece merely supine but dangerous if they he," for that the silence of fear of reprisals or greeu se, oil can long protect them from the 0,11 quences of forgetting their pledges to Israe'
Previous page
