Secretary of State William P. Rogers’ emphasis Friday on “active negotiations” between Israel and Egypt for an interim agreement were interpreted here today as a United States assurance to Cairo that an interim agreement would mark a first step toward a final settlement and not an end in itself.
According to a diplomatic authority on the Middle East here, the United States is not asking Egypt to give up its demand that Israel commit itself in advance to total withdrawal before entering negotiations for an interim agreement to reopen the Suez Canal: rather, it is seeking to have Egypt understand that Israel will commit itself to the position that an interim agreement will not mark Israel’s final withdrawal act. the official said. Speaking personally, the diplomat said Rogers’ remarks Friday followed by about ten days two questions that were put by a top Egyptian official to an American counterpart, presumably in Cairo.
One question, according to the diplomat, was whether the US was still sticking to Security Council Resolution 242. The other was whether the US favored “direct negotiations” between Israel and Egypt. The diplomat indicated that Rogers’ remarks Friday formed, in effect, the American reply. Rogers, the diplomat said, called the press conference to discuss the criticism of the Nixon administration’s Vietnam policy by Sargent Shriver, the Democratic Party’s Vice Presidential nominee, but was brought into the Mideast issue by reporters’ questions.
Therefore, the diplomat continued, Rogers stressed first of all that the Soviet withdrawal was a domestic, internal Egyptian problem. Rogers did not even try to interpret the evacuation, because, the diplomat indicated, he did not wish to embarrass the Russians. In the second place, the diplomat went on, Rogers wanted to make it clear to Egypt that an interim agreement was not an end in itself but a method to achieve a final settlement. In this connection, the diplomat stressed that while Rogers referred to Resolution 242 he did not mention Dr. Gunnar V. Jarring’s mission, which is mandated by it. The diplomat declared that this omission was deliberate and of much significance, since it meant that Egypt should look at Resolution 242 not in the context of the Jarring mission but in the context that an interim agreement is not a final one.
Regarding the Rogers’ statement that his 1969 position still stands, the diplomat said Rogers could not be expected to say at this point that “we have changed our policy.” The diplomat asserted that no immediate hope whatever exists in diplomatic circles for an interim agreement. That agreement, he forecast, would come only when it is clear to Egypt that it has no military chance to regain the Sinai and no hope to achieve an overall settlement without first going through preliminary steps.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
