–Sen. Carl Levin (D. Mich.) has disclosed to the Senate his 36 questions to Secretary of State Alexander Haig and Haig’s response to them. Virtually the entire text of more than 6,000 words is taken up with Arab-Israeli affairs, the Persian Gulf and relations with the Soviet Union.
Levin, who opposed Haig’s confirmation, made his disclosure in an address to the Senate during the debate on Haig’s confirmation as Secretary. Haig was confirmed by a vote of 93-6. In opposing Haig, Levin concentrated on his record in the White House during the Nixon Administration. The Senator is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee which he represented on a recent visit to the Middle East and submitted a report to President Reagan.
Following is an abridged summary of some of Levin’s questions and Haig’s answers, in order of their presentations:
Q: Do you agree with President Carter’s view that it is in the vital interests of the U.S. to maintain the security of the Persian Gulf?
A: The importance of the region obviously includes its oil resources. Beyond oil, however, the region has geopolitical significance and we have long standing and close relations with a number of states in the area…. potential threats which we must counter are the further spread of Soviet power and influence ….
Q: Do you think we presently have the military capabilities to defend the Persian Gulf, by force if necessary….?
A: …. We cannot hope to protect U.S. interests with a strategy that is exclusively military, nor do we expect to have to rely solely on our forces in responding to external aggression…. There is no question that our overall military capabilities for responding to Persian Gulf contingencies need strengthening, and we will do so. It is also true that our present power is not to be trifled with. Our force deployments are backed up by access to important military and naval facilities in the general region….
Q: Saudi Arabia has requested additional offensive equipment for the F-15 aircraft (60 sold in 1978)…. President Reagan pledged his Administration “will not continue to ship massive quantities of sophisticated armaments to so-called ‘moderate’ Arab states who, in fact, might directly threaten Israel’s existence” …. Would you support the sale of the equipment the Saudis are seeking?
A: This is a serious issue which this Administration must examine carefully…. But I will assure you that my recommendation will take into consideration our concerns for Saudi Arabia’s security, our commitment to Israel’s security, and the regional arms balance.
ISSUE OF DROP IN SOVIET JEWISH EMIGRATION
Q: (Soviet Jewish emigration) has dropped drastically in the past year and half…. You linked the drop to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Other observers…. have pointed to figures showing that the trend was well established before the Soviet military action even began. They believe that American lack of reaction to the Soviets’ sharply increased emigration after the implementation of the Jackson-Vanik amendment caused the Soviets to abondon their efforts to work within the framework of this Congressional action.
A: It is true that a decline in Jewish emigration had begun in the autumn of 1979, before the invasion of Afghanistan. This decline intensified, however, following the Soviet invasion, producing a 1980 Jewish emigration total of just over 20,000 persons compared to a 1979 total of over 50,000 persons…. We can see both the drastic cut in Jewish emigration and the invasion of Afghanistan as reflections in their different ways, of the same hardened Soviet stance towards U.S. interests. To link the sudden decline in Jewish emigration to a Soviet perception of lack of movement in MFN (most favored nation treatment) alone would be to ignore other significant factors operating in U.S.-Soviet relations at the time.
Q: …. Would you be willing to continue to work within the parameters of the Jackson-Vanik provisions?
A: …. I certainly operate within its parameters. Should the Soviet record on emigration improve substantially at some future point, any recommendation I might make to the President as to whether the requirements of Jackson-Vanik have been met would be made in full consultation with the Congress….
ARMS SALE TO SAUDIS
Q: If you had been Secretary of State in 1978, would you have proposed that the U.S. sell 60 high performance, F-15 jet fighters to Saudi Arabia?
A: I support the 1978 decision…. The U.S. has had a long standing interest in Saudi security and territorial integrity and it has long been U.S. policy to assist Saudi Arabia to develop an adequate defense capability…. I do not believe that it adversely affected the balance of power in the Persian Gulf region.
Q: Would you recommend to President Reagan…. that he also disapprove any Saudi request for sale of this offensive equipment (bomb racks, fuel tanks, advanced air-to-air missiles) ….
A: It would be premature for me to say what I would recommend….
VIEW ON JERUSALEM
Q: Do you think the U.S. should recognize a unified Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and under Israeli jurisdiction?
A: It has been the U.S. position for three decades that the final status of Jerusalem must be resolved through the process of negotiations and that the outcome of such negotiations should not be prejudiced by unilateral action by any party. I associate myself fully with this view. The U.S. must continue its efforts to help bring about a settlement of the issue of Jerusalem satisfactory to all those directly concerned.
Any move to extend formal recognition before an agreed settlement of the status of Jerusalem has been reached would undercut both our efforts and those of the parties to bring about such a settlement and to achieve a comprehensive Middle East peace. At the same time, I firmly believe that Jerusalem should never be divided again by barbed wire and artificial boundaries.
THE U.S. IN THE UN
Q: If you had been Secretary of State during the past year, how would you have recommended the U.S. delegation vote on the two UN votes dealing with Israeli treatment of territories it captured in the June 1967 war? The first deal with Israeli settlements of the West Bank and the general disposition of that area; the second UN resolution condemned Israel’s move affirming Jerusalem as its eternal capital.
A: Although both Security Council resolutions (March 1 and Aug. 20) contained elements that are in accord with American policy that has remained constant through Administrations Republican and Democratic, I consider both to have been deeply flawed and unbalanced. I believe it would be very difficult to say now just what I would have recommended, not being fully aware of all relevant circumstances, including the climate of the Middle East, the status of the peace process, and the environment at the UN at the time the resolutions were presented.
It is fair to say in retrospect, however, that the many unbalanced efforts to condemn Israel for various of its actions this year (1980) turned out to be counterproductive and contributed nothing to the search for peace. These efforts were sterile in the main. It will be my objective to encourage the UN to find constructive ways to stimulate progress towards a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
Q: Do you think the U.S. should insist that President Sadat sign a formal facilities access agreement with the U.S. before we make improvements to the Egyptian airfield/port at Ras Banas in Egypt for contingency use by our forces ….?
A: President Sadat has been very forthcoming in offering the U.S. the contingency use of Egyptian facilities, exclusive of those in the Sinai …. President Sadat and other Egyptian officials have … repeatedly stated …. Egypt cannot permit a permanent
U.S. base on Egyptian soil, nor can they sign any kind of formal agreement concerning even limited access to Egyptian facilities … I can assure you that this is a subject which we will be addressing in detail soon.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
