Rogers Expresses Concern with Edging of Soviet-egyptian Missile System Closer to Suez

Secretary of State William P. Rogers departed from London for Washington this afternoon following two days of talks with British government leaders which were devoted largely to the crisis in the Middle East. No Joint communique was Issued. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency learned from authoritative sources that the Middle East was a major item on the agenda of Mr. Rogers’ talks today with Prime Minister Edward Heath. It also figured in a larger discussion that followed in which Mr. Rogers, ranking members of his entourage and U.S. Ambassador Walter Annenberg participated along with Mr. Heath. Foreign Secretary Sir Alec Douglas-Home and Defence Minister Lord Carrington. JTA learned that Secretary Rogers informed the British Prime Minister that the “interested parties” had not yet sent to the U.S. their “considered replies” to the Secretary of State’s new diplomatic initiative on the Middle East. Mr. Rogers announced the initiative on June 26 but gave no details. The text of his proposals was said to have been forwarded to Israel and the Arab states before that date. Observers here expressed surprise at the report that Mr. Rogers said no replies have been received to date. On July 6, a government spokesman in Jerusalem announced that Premier Meir had sent her reply to President Richard M. Nixon.

At a press conference yesterday. Mr. Rogers stressed that the United States was very seriously concerned by the apparent edging of the Soviet-Egyptian missile defense system ever closer to the Suez Canal zone. “There are SAM-3S in that area and we are concerned at the prospect that they (the Russians) may be deploying them closer to the Suez Canal than previously,” he said. “Clearly the situation is a serious one, as President Nixon said in his television appearance the other night.” Asked whether the U.S. would replace Israeli aircraft losses, Secretary Rogers replied, “We shall resist the temptation of commenting on military matters.” He added that the U.S. had no information that SAM-Ss were actually deployed on the canal. He denied reports that the U.S. had sent Israel tactical nuclear weapons. Mr. Rogers said at his press conference that the very seriousness of the situation along the Suez Canal could, in the long run, have a salutary effect on the chances for peace. He said that while “we are concerned” by the apparent Soviet escalation, “you could argue it the other way and say that because It becomes a matter that is more serious and the world recognizes the seriousness of this, then it might have the opposite effect and suggest to the parties that this is the most appropriate time to open negotiations.”

Secretary Rogers said that he hoped to receive replies from the parties concerned to the latest American peace proposals. He observed the fact that President Nasser has postponed his departure from Moscow indicated that the Egyptians and Russians were giving “serious thought” to the American plan and that a response may be forthcoming when President Nasser returns to Cairo. Lord Caradon, the former British Ambassador to the United Nations, presented his views on a Mideast settlement In the second of a series of articles published in the Sunday Times. The British diplomat suggested that an “impartial international commission” be appointed to draw permanent boundaries between Israel and the Arab states, in consultation with both. He called for “free, united peaceful Jerusalem,” demilitarized but with two municipal authorities, one Israeli and one Arab, and the presence of a United Nations authority to assure freedom of movement and access for all to the holy places. Lord Caradon believes that Israel’s greatest mistake was to prevent the return of all but a few West Bank residents to their homes after the Six-Day War. “They are a greater security risk to Israel when condemned to exile in squalid, overcrowded refugee camps on the East Bank,” he wrote. According to Lord Caradon, the Mideast settlement must be “a complete, single package, fully interdependent.” “Peace will be dependent on (Israeli) withdrawal and withdrawal on peace,” he wrote.