Behind the Headlines Europe Discreetly Mum on Treaty

Western Europe has kept a striking silence over the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty. The European Economic Community (EEC) nine member-states, usually prompt to react on most international issues, have kept a discreet silence. There has been no joint communique welcoming the treaty, no messages of good wishes and no official rejoicings. This, in spite of Europe’s geographic proximity to the Middle East, its heavy oil dependence on the area and its traditional close links with both Israel and Egypt.

Some individual countries, and usually at ministerial level, have expressed some satisfaction but the EEC as a body has adopted an attitude of “wait and see,” with officials stressing, on the record and privately, that the treaty falls short of what they had expected.

Egyptian President Anwar Sadat has personally contacted most of West Europe’s leaders to explain his decision and plead for their support. He has had over a dozen such telephone conversations with France’s President Valery Giscard d’Estaing, Germany’s Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, Britain’s Prime Minister James Callaghan and even Austria’s Chancellor Bruno Kreisky.

Last week, his deputy President Hosni Mubarak toured Western Europe, meeting with all those pleaders again. To all he explained that the treaty is only “a first step” towards a comprehensive agreement and that what Egypt now needs is help and encouragement to break down the Arab wall of hostility and suspicion.

A few days later, the American Deputy Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, undertook a similar mission. At the onset, Christopher, according to American sources, hoped to mobilize not only political support in Europe but also some financial assistance for Egypt and help set up a program of European investments in Egypt and Israel to help alleviate America’s burden. The only country which made no promises but did not reject him outright was West Germany. However, a few days after his departure, even Bonn fell in line with its European partners.

REFUSES TO BECOME INVOLVED

Western Europe refuses to become involved in President Carter’s peace plan: Its officials stress their skepticism on its chances of success and some even say that the treaty might be worse than the previous situation of no war and no peace.

The West Europeans are not prepared to invest money as part of the treaty and are not even prepared to use their influence with the other Arab states to help diminish their hostility to Egypt and Sadat. Egyptian diplomats in Paris openly blame France for this West European approach. They claim, with a certain justification, that France has used its influence to turn the tide against the treaty.

They are especially bitter because of Sadat’s past attempts to cultivate cooperation with France, political consultations with its government and his own friendly ties with Giscard. As a sign of displeasure, Sadat pointedly decided to avoid a stop-over in Paris, as he was scheduled to make, while on his way to Washington for the signing ceremony.

French officials reply that France had always made its position clear and that Giscard had in variably advised Sadat to avoid a separate peace treaty. “As recently as mid-March, “French officials say, “the President (Giscard) phoned Sadat to press this point and warn him that a bilateral agreement with Israel would have dire consequences for Egypt and for the entire Middle East”.

French officials openly admit that France clearly told its West European partners that it believes the treaty to be unworkable because it does not solve the Palestinian problem and because it falls for short of the comprehensive approach France has traditionally advocated. The French add that they did not have “to do much talking – practically all the Europeans agreed with us to wait for nine months or so and see how the autonomy plan on the West Bank and Gaza Strip will be implemented and how the other Arab states will react”.

MOTIVATED BY POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Western Europe is also motivated by practical considerations. Contrary to what happens in the United States, over 80 percent of their energy comes from the Arab countries Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya and Iraq for oil, and Algeria for natural gas. Most of these countries have turned against Egypt and are opposed to the treaty with Israel.

While Egypt is an economic burden to those West European countries which have business deals with Cairo, all have profitable commercial exchanges with Syria and Iraq. Most European governments also continue to believe that no treaty can be a success unless the Soviet Union participates in its drafting and gives its approval.

The Soviet Union is a political reality in Europe where politicians regularly look over their shoulders toward the Ural to see what Moscow wants and how it feels. The USSR’s exclusion, Europe’s lack of participation and the general impression that the peace is a 100 percent American operation has further contributed to Europe’s detachment and mute indifference.

For once, public opinion has gone along with official stand. Most European commentators voice skepticism as to the treaty’s chances of success and journalists in the Middle East concentrate on reporting the Palestinian stand. Never before has the Palestine Liberation Organization been so much in the news than now.

ISRAELI DIPLOMACY SILENT

Strangely, Israeli diplomacy has kept silent. No Israeli ministers or high officials have visited Europe in their turn to try and explain the necessity for the treaty or its beneficial potential. Pro-Israeli supporters and the Jewish communities have not been mobilized for this cause and generally not even informed of what Israel wants and where it stands.

Israeli embassies have received no instructions from Jerusalem and Israeli diplomats when they acted have generally done so on their own initiatives. There have been no “Peace Day” festivities in the Jewish communities, no rejoicing, and for most of Western Europe’s one million Jews, peace day has been just another day in Israel’s 31 year history.