Behind the Headlines the Conflict Between Moynihan and the Foreign Policy Establishment

Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s “almost-resignation” as the chief American representative at the United Nations has sharpened the focus on the Washington Administration’s continued reluctance to deal effectively with enemies of democracy which have Israel, for the present, as their chief target.

Despite the President’s “complete confidence in Moynihan’s efforts at the UN and Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger’s insistence that there is “no question of muzzling him.” it is widely believed that Moynihan is disenchanted with the foreign policy establishment in Washington because of its refusal to support him adequately and that plates its current session in New York.

Whoever follows him, it is believed, will not be another Moynihan but a type that plays ball with the “quiet diplomacy” stylists.

POLICY MAKERS ALARMED

Moynihan’s challenge to the detractors of democracy and the United States itself has alarmed important policy makers, particularly the Arabist elements. It is this anxiety, some observers contend, that led to tacit approval of British Ambassador Ivor Richard’s attack on his American counterpart before an American audience on American soil.

Despite this triple violation of political conduct between nations closely allied as Britain and America, the State Department reacted with indifference to Richard’s speech, Its attitude is seen as having reinforced a broad impression that the basic for the attack on Moynihan was hatched with, if not by, Moynihan’s Washington colleagues.

London is seen as having its own motives. Baiting Moynihan is popular with his enemies abroad and thus psychologically helpful to London’s policies, particularly economic.

Some say Moynihan’s objective in being so pro-Israel and pro-democratic is to establish a solid political foundation in New York before announcing his candidacy for the U.S. Senate. Assailing enemies of Israel is regarded as popular among large sections of New York’s electorate. But what is not as widely noticed is that it may be decidedly unpopular, too, with important and influential elements there.

Ford is understood to be genuinely fond of Moynihan as well as finding him useful in his political planning, Moynihan’s popularity extends to important sections of the Republican Party that the President must hold for a winning campaign next year. To have Moynihan quit following the dismissal of Defense Secretary James Schlesinger may be disastrous.

ROLE OF LATIN COUNTRIES

Apart from personalities and domestic politics an important factor in Moynihan’s effort to block the Arab-Communist-Third World resolution branding Zionism as racism is that only eight Latin American countries followed the U.S. lead on Israel. When the U.S. was under attack over Puerto Rico’s status, the Administration warned some governments that that to support the anti-U.S. resolution would be considered an unfriendly act. The resolution was defeated.

Sternness of that kind, however, was not seen in the days before the anti-Zionist resolution. The major Latin powers, Brazil and Mexico, representing more than half of Latin American’s population, voted with the Arabs. Brazil hopes for more oil and development capital from them, Mexico voted against Zionism for political reasons. President Luis Echeverria is said ant to replace Kurt Waldheim as UN Secretary General and needs Arab, Communist, African and Asian support to get the post.

Nine Latin countries abstained. In the past, Argentina, Venezuela, Peru and others have supported the U.S. position, but not this time, Whether this is due to State Department inertia or hostility, the point is that the UN group that fought to postpone the vote on the anti-Zionist resolution lost by two votes, It is felt that the Latin countries could have been persuaded to vote for postponement. This would have changed the whole complexion of the UN, the anti-Zionist action and the Moynihan position.