Background Report Shultz’s Failure to Make Headway During His Visit to Syria Has Put Reagan’s Initia

Secretary of State George Shultz’s failure to make any headway during his visit to Syria last week has put the Reagan Administration’s Middle East peace efforts on hold, pending President Reagan’s meetings with Lebanese President Amin Gemayel July 22 and Israeli Premier Menachem Begin July 27.

Shultz was candid after his meeting in Damascus with Syrian President Hafez Assad in saying he had made no progress in getting Syria to agree to withdraw its troops from Lebanon.

State Department spokesman John Hughes noted this today in saying that Shultz was “frank” in his assessment that there was a “lack of movement” by the Syrians. “This doesn’t mean we have given up our efforts,” Hughes stressed. He said, “Diplomatic activity is going forward,” although he would not give any details.

Special envoy Philip Habib is back in Washington and is having meetings at the State Department, presumably on the next step by the U.S. The other special U.S. Mideast envoy, Morris Draper, was in Israel today but is expected to return to Washington for the Gemayel and Begin visits.

While it is clear the Administration has not made up its mind on what to do next, Reagan was quoted last week as declaring, “There would be no reverse gear” on seeking a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon at the same time Israel leaves.

Meanwhile, the Administration has to face the problem that strong domestic pressure in Israel is seeking at least a partial pull-back in Lebanon to cut down the number of casualties the Israelis have been suffering. The Administration has been opposed to any redeployment although there is some evidence that it has been suggested that it might not be opposed to a redeployment if it was coupled with an Israeli timetable for withdrawal. Israel has rejected this.

THE ISSUE OF REDEPLOYMENT

Hughes was non-committal about the U.S. position on redeployment today. He said that any proposal would be looked at in the context of meeting the U.S. objectives of a sovereign Lebanon, security for Israel and the withdrawal of all foreign forces. “What works for those objectives, we are for,” he said.

U.S.-Israeli relations have vastly improved since the Israeli-Lebanese agreement was signed May 17 after the conclusion of Shultz’s first visit to the region. The onus has now been placed on Syria for holding up withdrawal. The Administration has particularly been angered at Syria since officials had been saying for months that they had been assured that once Israel agreed to leave Lebanon, there would be no problem in getting Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organization to go too.

When Hughes was asked today if Syria had suggested that its objections to the Israeli-Lebanese agreement was based on the clause providing normalization between the two countries, he maintained that the Syrians had objected to the entire agreement. He also denied that there had been any discussion between Shultz and Assad over the role of Maj. Saad Haddad’s Christian militia in south Lebanon.

While Syria’s intransigence is clear, pro-Arab segments in the media are already trying to blame Israel for the lack of movement. Articles are already appearing claiming that Israel’s position is aimed at screening its plans for the West Bank and Gaza.

AN ILLUMINATING ARTICLE

Yet even more illuminating was a recent article by Ibrahim Nafi, chief editor of the semi-official Egyptian daily Al-Ahram, reprinted in the U.S. government’s Foreign Broadcast Information Service daily report yesterday.

“The first thing to be pointed out here is that neither Syria nor the Arab countries were surprised by a Lebanese-Israeli agreement,” Nafi wrote. “Indeed the surprise was the Syrian stand in rejecting the agreement because obviously the Arab governments believe there was no problem involving the withdrawal of the Syrian forces or other non-Lebanese forces.”

The Al-Ahram editor also says that a stalemate will help Israel consolidate its hold on the West Bank and Gaza. But he places the blame not on Israel but on Syria’s refusal to negotiate for a withdrawal from Lebanon. He charges Syria with “being responsible for keeping the Palestinian problem a hostage of its own policies.”

ANOTHER INTERESTING POINT

Nafi makes one other interesting point. “It is a known fact that there is disagreement between Washington and Tel Aviv only when there are negotiations between the United States and the Arab side, ” he wrote. “But in the absence of such negotiations, the special relations between Israel and the United States are ruling supreme.”

While this may be an over-simplification, there is some truth in it since U.S. “even-handedness ” in negotiations in recent years has seemed to favor the Arabs. But Nafi does have a point when he adds that the Syrian position had led to a “lessening” of the opposition to Israel that developed in the West because of the invasion of Lebanon.

Meanwhile, the new air of good feeling between Israel and the United States provides an opportunity for Begin to build upon when he comes to Washington. It is also an opportunity for Israel’s new Ambassador, Meir Rosenne, who officially presented his credentials to Reagan at the White House late this afternoon.