U.S. Proposals on Big 4 Meetings Reportedly Include ‘contractual Agreement’, Treaty

The United States has presented new proposals on the Middle East to Britain, France and the Soviet Union which, if accepted, could lead to the elevation of current bilateral talks among the powers to a full dress Big Four meeting, it was reliably reported here today. The proposals were said to have been made by Ambassador Charles W. Yost, chief U.S. representative to the United Nations to the delegates of the three other major powers–Yakov A. Malik of the Soviet Union, Lord Caradon of Britain and Armand Berard of France. Mr. Yost’s proposals reportedly spoke of working “toward a contractual agreement” between the parties to the Middle East conflict. He did not use the word “treaty” but indicated that the agreement would have to be signed by the parties concerned. The proposals were also submitted to Secretary General U Thant, and the delegates of Israel and the Arab states were informed of their contents, it was reported.

The U.S. proposals were reported to have spelled out definite views on the implementation of the Security Council’s Nov. 22, 1967 Mideast resolution which called for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied Arab territories in return for agreed and secure borders and on support of the mission of UN special envoy Gunnar V. Jarring. They were also said to contain a list of “desirable ingredients” in a settlement that would be discussed by the Four Powers. They were seen as constituting, in effect, a U.S. counterpart to the Soviet Mideast proposals of last Dec. 30 that the U.S. had previously answered. An informed source here said the proposals insured that in any Big Four conference there will be “two points of view on the table.” Mr. Yost reportedly presented his proposals to the other powers on the grounds that the bilateral talks that have been going on since January had established enough points of agreement and had sufficiently clarified areas of difference to make Four Power talks meaningful. France and the Soviet Union were said to have agreed to certain border rectifications which would permit Israel to retain small amounts of occupied territory. But it was believed that the agreements were more on matters of what the Big Four should discuss and how the talks would be held rather than on any Four Power initiative that might be taken toward Israel and the Arab countries. U.S. officials hoped that a favorable response would enable Big Four talks to get underway here next week.

Sources here said the U.S. proposals indicated that efforts by Israel’s Foreign Minister Abba Eban to forestall Big Power talks on the Middle East had been rejected by the Nixon Administration. Mr. Eban recently conferred in Washington with President Nixon and Secretary of State William P. Rogers. He was known to have argued that Big Four involvement in the Middle East dispute would globalize a local conflict and increase the risk of a Big Power confrontation. He insisted that only direct talks between the parties concerned could achieve a genuine peace settlement and that Big Power intervention would be a deterrent to such talks.

The U.S. proposal apparently did not mention the establishment of a new UN peace-keeping force in the Middle East, a suggestion recently made by Mr. Yost. Israel has rejected the idea on the grounds that UN forces had failed to prevent war in the past.