Administration Experts Uncertain About Real Significance of Federation Statement

Administration experts here on the Middle East appeared to be uncertain today as to whether the new Arab Federation’s unity statement, barring peace talks with Israel, constituted rhetoric designed for local consumption or represented agreement by Egypt, Syria and Libya on a firm policy. The issue arose when State Department spokesman Robert McCloskey was asked whether the department had any information from any source as to whether the statement, circulated in Damascus on Aug. 20 after the Presidents of the three Arab nations signed the charter of federation. was to be taken literally, which would clearly mean an end to the Nixon Administration initiative last year in the Middle East. That initiative, directed by Secretary of State William P. Rogers, led to the present cease-fire agreement on Israel’s front lines, and to State Department efforts to obtain Egyptian-Israeli agreement on terms for an interim pact to reopen the Suez Canal. The federation statement last week declared “there will be no peace or negotiations with the Zionist enemy, no yielding an inch of Arab territory, no bargaining on the Palestinian cause.”

In response to the question today, McCloskey said that he had no information from official Arab sources on the exact significance of the Damascus statement. He also said there had not been any “follow-up” effort by the State Department “to ascertain the official nature of this statement.” McCloskey said that there would be one made “in due course,” and added that the State Department had been “disturbed by the content” of the Damascus statement–“very much so, since it came from heads of government.” State Department sources said today they had no information on a statement attributed to King Hussein of Jordan that he was willing to consider an interim agreement on Jerusalem with Israel. The report appeared in Al Nahar, a Beirut newspaper, which gave no details on the King’s interest in such negotiations. State Department sources pointed out that last spring, when Rogers visited Amman, there were indications Hussein felt he was in a stronger position to devote himself to one of his principal concerns, the status of East Jerusalem. In the Al Nahar report. Hussein was also said to have warned that any Arab moves to resume armed attacks on Israel might well result in greater losses for the attacking Arabs and more land “losses” for the Arabs. That comment, it was reported from Beirut, was viewed as a warning to President Sadat of Egypt, who has made public threats to go to war by the end of 1971 if no political settlement is achieved with Israel.