Behind the Headlines Carter-brezhnev Not Expected to Change Mideast Stands at Vienna

At the highest U.S. and Israeli official levels in Washington, the considered opinion is that President Carter and Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev will only briefly discuss Middle East Issues at their Vienna conference later this month–but without results that would significantly after their present formulas for a Middle East settlement.

These officials believe the leaders of the superpowers are too involved at present in their particular approaches to change them abruptly. The U.S. is deeply committed to a “comprehensive” settlement through the Egyptian-Israeli treaty and Camp David processes. The Soviets want to discard the treaty and accords and settle all at a Geneva type conference of “all” the parties including the Palestine Liberation Organization without preconditions. The U.S. insists on the PLO accepting conditions regarding Israel before dealing with it.

Among East Europeans, who monitor both superpowers, a Middle East specialist observed that the Soviet Union cannot drop its alliances with either the PLO or the “rejectionist” Arab states for obvious political reasons that underpin its continuing drive for penetration of the Middle East.

Thus it would seem that the Vienna summit will pass without another U.S. -USSR agreement that is in any way like the bilateral agreement announced Oct. 1, 1977. Nevertheless, the differences between Moscow and Washington may not be as great as they appear judging from the discussions and joint statements at the recent Soviet-American parley behind closed doors in Williamsburg, Va.

For three days in May, 17 deputies of the Supreme Soviet and top political technicians met with 24 Americans, including several Congressmen and leaders in the industrial and publishing worlds. It was the occasion of the Kettering Foundation’s 12th Dartmouth conference in 20 years. Their conclusions were not-harmonious and only a few from each side participated in the various subject discussions including the Middle East. But there was movement towards understanding on some essential elements.

URGE COMPREHENSIVE PEACE

“There was very clear agreement that the next steps (in the Arab-Israeli situation) must be directed towards finding a basic formula for involving all parties, to this conflict and the building of a comprehensive peace, ” a leading participant in the Middle East discussion told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, He confirmed “absolutely” that “all parties” include the PLO. “New and imaginative steps should be thought for that might provide a new framework and new procedures for dealing with the question” of a “comprehensive” settlement and that “full self-determination” should be provided the Palestinian Arabs, he said.

These positions would indicate that the Americans in the discussion appeared to lean towards scrapping part of the Camp David accords to accommodate Soviet approaches for its Arab friends. Other “common ground” elements in the Williamsburg discussions, the participant, who asked not to be identified said, were understanding that a separate peace between Egypt and Israel would not in itself achieve a comprehensive settlement and that the Palestinians were the central issue.

The participant observed the jointly approved statement called for a “Palestinian state.” He said this was “blurred by legitimate rights” of Palestinians and “full self-determination” for them. While the two sides took strong opposing positions on the Egyptian-Israeli treaty, the participant said “emphasis was on a new framework and procedures so that all parties could be involved.” He said “The Russians hardly mentioned Geneva. It was clear they were looking for a new formula with consultations by all parties without saying return to Geneva.”

Told that the Russians agreed “everybody would have to recognize Israel,” the JTA asked whether the PLO would be included before accepting President Carter’s conditions and whether the PLO would first change its charter that calls for Israel’s dissolution These questions angered the participant. “The PLO charter does not mean a God damn thing at all. It’s a dead horse, “he said. He said the conferees did not go into the timing of the consultations and the “conditions” for the PLO’s entry were left “blurred.”

Landrum Bolling, educator and author, whose 1970 book “Search for Peace in the Middle East” was endorsed by the American Friends Service Committee, and Evgend Primakov, director of the Soviet Institute of Near East and Middle East Studies, were co chairmen of the Middle East discussion. In the general American group were Charles Yost, former U. S. Ambassador to the United Nations, David Rockefeller, chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank; Hedley Donovan, retiring editor of time, Inc.; Jim Hoagland, Middle East specialist for the Washington Post; J.C. Hurewitz, director of Columbia University’s Middle East Institute; Robert G. Cholla, head of the Kettering Foundation; and Norman Cousins, of the Saturday Review.

Russians attending the conference in general included Georgi Arbgtov, director of the Soviet Institute of U.S. and Canada Studies; retired Lt. Gen Mikhail Milstein and Alexander Koslov, also of the Institute; Pravda commentator Georgi Zhukov; and Nikolai Mostovets, chief of the U.S. Section of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party.

Among the conference discussants was Rep. Stephen Solarz (D.NY). When he was asked about the joint statement and specifically the reference to “full self-determination” for the Palestinians, which is an extension of previous U.S. official formulations, he said “I disagree with that formulation.”