Big Four Resume Talks; Memorandum in Doubt: British Push for Mideast Peace Formula

The Big Four resumed their talks today but diplomatic sources were tight-lipped about whether or not the ambassadors have the memorandum they requested their deputies to prepare for today’s meeting “with or without the memorandum.” He added that the deputies would continue their own meetings but could not say whether this would be to complete the memorandum or to refine it further. As the talks resumed, the British Mission to the United Nations released extracts from a speech by Evan Luard, Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, disclosing that the British have been opting for a number of measures at the Four Power talks as a basis for moving them forward toward an agreement on settling the Mideast conflict.

“Only within the last week we put forward two important proposals on two essential commitments which it is generally agreed are required in any settlement of this problem,” Mr. Luard told the House of Commons on Monday. “These were formulations on the commitment by Israel to withdraw and commitments to be made by the Arab states to live in peace with Israel. We certainly hope that these, or something like them, may be adopted.” Discussing the type of settlement and the procedure to be used in arriving at a settlement, Mr. Luard said the British view is that it is not enough to “simply call for direct talks in the hope that this alone will provide a settlement in itself,” an apparent reference to Israel’s approach. In addition to the two “essential commitments,” Mr. Luard suggested other “essential” prerequisites: solution of the refugee problem; guarantees of freedom of navigation in the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aqaba; “satisfactory security provisions for Israel, perhaps in the form of demilitarized zones, UN forces, and other measures which can reconcile withdrawal of Israel from the areas she has occupied with the justified need for Israel to enjoy security in the future”; and the solution of the “complex problem of Jerusalem.”

LUARD: ALL PARTIES IN TALKS MAKING CONCESSIONS; ALTERNATIVE TO TALKS IS BRUTE FORCE

The British Under-Secretary observed that a suggestion made by an MP for a conference on the Mideast to be attended by the Four Powers and the parties in conflict in the Mideast under UN auspices “has the advantages of the Rhodes formula in that it might serve to help to overcome the difficulties that have arisen over the question of procedure.” Mr. Luard noted that Lord Caradon, the British Ambassador to the UN, had made a similar proposal. If such a meeting became feasible, Mr. Luard noted, it would be better for it to take place in New York where it would be “evidently” under the auspices of the UN and “in some ways an extension of the existing discussions among the Four in New York who might perhaps call representatives of the parties to appear before them during such discussions.” He added, however, that such a meeting would not be favorable now but could be valuable at a later stage. Mr. Luard asserted that the Big Four are presently engaged, “with some success and some progress” in the search for some document which can be used by Ambassador Gunnar V. Jarring for resuming his peace mission. “It is still our hope that this will succeed,” he said. “In cur view, this should be the next stage.”

Mr. Luard observed that, “There have already been several meetings of the deputies, and a certain amount of progress has been made on their task. There have been significant concessions made by all the parties in the talks, and it is not true to say that all the concessions come from one side.” He described the intensified violence in the Mideast as an “unhappy” background for the Four Power talks. “Perhaps the only slightly hopeful development” recently was the decision by the United States government not to supply additional Phantom jets to Israel, he said. “It is the hope of many of us,” he continued, “that this decision will set an example to other countries engaged in the supply of arms to countries in the area…” Mr. Luard rejected suggestions by former Foreign Secretary George Brown and Labor MP Emanuel Shinwell that the Four Power talks are a waste of time and should be abandoned. He said the British government rejects this approach and declared that “it would be a total abrogation of that responsibility if the United Nations were not to attempt to arrive at a settlement in this case.” He asserted “it would be wrong to suggest that there is no hope of progress in the future” for a settlement of the Mideast conflict. The alternative to the Four Power talks on the Mideast, Mr. Luard warned, could only be a “settlement by brute force.”