Big 4 Meet Monday; They Reportedly Agree That a Mideast Peace Should Be Contractual

The United States, Soviet Union, France and Britain resume deliberations tomorrow aimed at a Mideast settlement against a reported background of common agreement that it should include a contractual agreement. A working group of deputies met last Thursday, by previous agreement of the Big Four Ambassadors here, to frame a statement of intention to carry out the Security Council’s Nov. 22, 1967 resolution which Israel, Egypt and Jordan would be asked to sign, sources said.

In their first meeting on April 3, Charles W. Yost of the U.S., Yakov A. Malik of the Soviet Union, Armand Berard of France and Lord Caradon of Britain agreed that the Big Four peace efforts should be based on the resolution. They also agreed to focus on strengthening the mission of UN envoy Gunnar V. Jarring and that there should be no imposed solution. If the Big Four carry through an agreement that there should be a contractual peace, the Soviet Union, which has supported the Arab position, apparently would be committed to a peace treaty concept. Israel insists on a treaty but the Arab states reject any negotiated settlement.

The Washington Post reported that France was said to have offered a settlement plan that “in effect complements the Soviet proposal of Dec. 30 and the U.S. talking paper of March 24.” The Paris plan was said to envisage a peace treaty at the end of a period of Israeli withdrawal and establishment of secure borders, and would reserve the Jerusalem and Palestine refugee settlement issues until last. The plan was also said to call for establishment of freedom on navigation through the Suez Canal simultaneously with withdrawal of troops from occupied territories. There was also an allusion to an international peace force, although the UN was not explicitly mentioned. France opposed the UN Emergency Force set up in the Mideast by the General Assembly in 1957 and did not pay assessments to finance it.

(In Philadelphia, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Joseph Sisco, said the Big Four sessions have shown “considerable concern over the continuing wide gulf” between Israel and the Arabs. Addressing the annual meeting of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Mr. Sisco said that “only further time and exploration will tell” whether “this concern can be translated into parallel positions” that Dr. Jarring could present to the disputing parties. Replying to Israeli objections to the Big Four sessions, he said the talks were not intended as a substitute for the Jarring mission, now temporarily suspended, and that “we do not see a Four Power solution as a substitute for agreement between the parties.”)

Israel’s UN Ambassador Yosef Tekoah reportedly told Secretary-General U Thant during a private meeting last Thursday that Israel believes the Big Four meetings have already paralyzed Dr. Jarring’s mission. He was said to have argued that the Arabs, sensing new possibilities for a victory for their diplomatic posture, have stiffened their position and have halted the small progress that the Jarring mission seemed to be making. Mr. Tekoah also reportedly said that tough Arab replies to a questionnaire circulated by Dr. Jarring had thwarted his mission, and that Egypt and Jordan had escalated military activities to create the impression that a crisis exists. Mr. Tekoah visited Mr. Thant after the UN issued a statement saying that Mr. Thant believed the Four Power talks were “necessary and vital” and were “designed to reinforce the Jarring mission, and not at all obstruct or weaken it.” Israel has taken the position that the Four Power meetings would make the Arab states unwilling to negotiate through Dr. Jarring, while Egypt and Jordan assert that Israeli intransigence has frustrated the Jarring mission and that only a Big Four settlement can prevent a new war.