Carter and Fahd to Meet This Week in Diplomatic Test of Arab Demands

With the political eyes of the world focused upon them, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Fahd and President Carter will hold four, possibly five meetings in the next two days in a diplomatic test of Arab demands wrapped in a threat of another oil embargo against the President’s commitment to the security of Israel.

In a weekend bristling with innuendoes and open threats, the Arabs have unsheathed their double-edged oil weapon–higher prices and the withholding of oil–as a means to frighten Washington into coercing Israel to capitulate to Arab terms. In collusion with the Presidents of Egypt and Syria, after the Israeli elections, Fahd declared his intention to use oil to persuade Carter to bring Israel to its knees. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ismail Fahmy baldly declared that this is the Arabs’ aim.

DEMAND ISSUED BY SAUDI ARABIA

Only a week ago, prior to the elections, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had agreed to cancel a five percent oil price increase scheduled for July. But since the Arab tripartite summit in Riyadh, the monarch of the desert kingdom announced that Saudi Arabia is “prepared” to raise its price of oil.

“First and foremost,” Fahd declared, “we want the United States to throw all its weight into the process” of reaching a Middle East settlement based on Arab terms. If the U. S. does not force Israel to withdraw quickly from the post-1967 territories and allows a Palestinian state on its border, an oil embargo will be instituted against the West by Saudi Arabia.

The Carter-Fahd conference, originally scheduled by Washington to cap the President’s series of meetings with Mideast leaders in the U.S. initiative for a settlement now becomes even more significant and important to both the United States and the West as a whole. A facet of Fahd’s visit that is intriguing analysts is that his Washington schedule, in addition to the now familiar routine of meetings with Cabinet officers and key Congressional figures will be concluded with a visit to him at Blair House by Nelson Rockefeller, an old political, economic and personal friend.

Against this background of Arab oil politics, the Carter Administration seemed reserved–some said, cool–towards Israel and some pro-Israelis indicated uneasiness with the Administration’s factice.

While U.S. officials were reticent to make any public statements following the Israeli elections last week, Carter and Administration spokesmen have gone on record in the last several days indicating the U.S. attitude to Mideast events since the elections.

Last Friday, Carter told a group of 30 newspaper editors at the White House that he did not consider Menachem Beigin, Israel’s prospective Premier, an obstacle to the pursuit of peace in the Mideast and that he will communicate with Beigin after he is formally designated as Israel’s chief executive.

U.S. EXPECTATIONS IN THE MIDEAST

Yesterday, at Notre Dame University, the President said the U.S. expected “Israel and her neighbors to continue to be bound by UN Resolutions 242 and 338 which they have previously accepted.” He prefaced this statement by noting that he has tried to “suggest a more flexible framework for the discussion of the three key issues which has so far been intractable: the nature of a comprehensive peace, the relationship between security and borders, and the issue of the Palestinian homeland.”

Carter emphasized “the historic friendship” between the U.S. and Israel as being “derived from our common respect for human freedom and from our common search for permanent peace.” He also stressed that “our own policy will not be affected by changes in leadership in any of the countries of the Middle East.” Carter added that this is “the most propitious time for a genuine settlement.”

Today, White House Press Secretary Jody Powell said that Carter stands by his election campaign statements of stern opposition to the use by Arab countries of an oil embargo as a weapon in the Mideast political process. Earlier, however, State Department spokesman Hodding Carter declined to assess the threats voiced by Fahd and Fahmy.

In a statement read to the media, Hodding Carter said that “Quiet diplomacy offers the best prospects for progress.” He noted that Carter, of Notre Dame University, “again repeated our commitment to help reach a peace settlement in the Middle East.” The State Department spokesman added, “That is the focus of our policy and we are determined to continue our efforts to bridge the differences between the parties.”