Washington Report, December 1986, Page 22

WHAT THEY SAID

The following are excerpts from October 8, 1986, testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East by Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Richard Murphy.

On the Peace Process

The growing realization in the Arab world that direct contacts with Israel are acceptable and beneficial was clearly exemplified ... by King Hassan's meeting with [former Israeli prime minister] Shimon Peres .... The Moroccan monarch joined those who forthrightly declare to the world that they are willing to take risks for peace .... We applaud Morocco's action.

The Hassan-Peres meeting, Alexandria Summit and Taba agreement are among a number of positive developments that we have seen in the region over the past several months.

We can have no illusions. The core problems affecting the peace process remain to be settled, to be sure .... The United States remains and will remain actively engaged with the parties as they seek to find a way forward.

... (T)he parties have not abandoned efforts, hopes or aspirations for progress. They continue to build on areas of common agreement. All recognize the Palestinian people and their right to participate in the determination of heir future. The remaining question is how.

All also are of one mind that a productive route for working together is to seek ways to improve the quality of Palestinian life on the West Bank and Gaza. Their efforts go beyond economic indicators. It involves a common realization that Palestinian residents of the Occupied Territories must have a greater sense of control over their livelihood, civic life, and future prospects.

Central to improving the quality of life for West Bank/Gaza Palestinians is provision of economic assistance to finance a variety of developmental projects. We have provided $14 million for that support and will continue to give these projects high priority next year.... I am gravely concerned that we will not be able to be as generous as the importance of these projects would warrant.

On Regional Challenges

It is a challenging period in the Middle East. A time when many Middle East leaders alike are in agreement on the common goal of negotiation aimed at resolving the Arab-Israeli dispute. It is a time when the parties are actively, openly and creatively probing for routes around barriers. Paradoxically, it is also a period when forces and trends finding expression on resources we allocate to the foreign affairs budget hinder us from encouraging positive development.

[In a speech in early September, Secretary of State George P. Shultz] ... noted that Congressional reductions and earmarking of aid levels to a few countries deprive us of over half of all our security and economic assistance to many countries in the world.... (S)everal of our ... friends will be severely penalized. At a time when some moderate Arabs are more prepared than ever before to move toward Israel and when they themselves face mounting economic difficulties, we simply do not have the means to offer developmental support.

... (T)he dollars we spend on such assistance are the most cost-effective bargain among all of our national security activities. For example, the assistance we provide to Jordan for developing the West Bank is an inexpensive investment in regional peace .... The struggle for a comprehensive, fair and just Middle East peace will not be won by the opening of a bank, or the completion of a water project. But the context in which the peace process works cannot but be affected by the quality of life on the West Bank.

The severe reductions of U.S. security and economic assistance in the Middle East come at a time when our closest friends face grave economic difficulties, owing in part to the oil glut and debt crisis. During this type of crunch, the strong support of the United States is most needed and appreciated. Included in this group are small nations such as Tunisia and Jordan.... There were others.... an of these same friends stand to be heavily penalized by our assistance cutbacks.

Secretary Shultz warned of other dangers. He spoke of an alarming swing in America from involvement to isolation. Rather than giving in to our "impatience with diplomacy," the Secretary challenges our nation to pursue practical political solutions in this world. This requires "perseverance, understanding of ambiguity, and a recognition of the need for compromise."

I can think of no better example of Secretary Shultz's point than the opportunity we have to continue U.S. involvement with UNIFIL [United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon). We have supported UNIFIL since it was established in 1978.... The force has not been able fully to carry out its mandate. But we believe it makes an important contribution to stability in the area.

We are deeply concerned that the Congress may provide less than half our $42.9 million request for FY87 [fiscal year 1987] after making a similar cut in our FY86 request. Congress' move ... has made our policy of consistent support for the force more difficult to carry out.

... (Perhaps more than any other current congressional initiative, I am concerned at the long term threat to the President's ability to conduct foreign policy ... constituted by the proposed Biden/Levine bill to change the Arms Export Control Act legislation.... In the press conference announcing the bill, one of the sponsors stated that the objective of the bill is to ... require a majority vote of both houses of Congress to approve "sensitive" arms sales. ... while the bill is apparently neutral, the sponsors make no secret of the intent of the legislation, to block approval of such sales to the moderate Arab states.

... I fear that it is another example of the tendencies now developing in ... American policy.... It is a reflection of isolationism—best understood as an unwillingness to recognize the complexities and realities of the world we live in. It reflects a desire to withdraw from regional engagements....

... As this Committee well understands, one of our nation's highest priorities is to assure the free flow of oil from the Gulf. Our friends in the region such as Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Cooperation Countries must have the means to protect themselves and their interests, and in the process maintain freedom of international navigation. Their need is very much in line with US interests. Over the years, we have taken important steps to maintain these common security interests.... and as the crisis goes on we will be required to do more, so that they can defend both their interests and our own.

Since I last talked with you in mid-August, the preparations for a large Iranian offensive have proceeded apace. The offensive (or offensives) could be launched during the next few weeks.

Despite their very substantial economic problems, the Iranians continue to believe that they have a good chance of making a "breakthrough" of some sort with this offensive. Iranian troop concentrations are gathering in both the central and southern sectors of the front, from Mehran to Faw.

The Iraqis are well aware of Iranian plans and troop movements and have made their own preparations.... (W)e believe that Iraq should be able to sustain its defenses.

While all attention is focussed on the imminent offensive, we continue to be concerned about the long-term outlook of the war. As the level of violence and destruction escalates, so do the chances for the spreading and spillover of the war. Already, Gulf shipping has become a renewed target for both sides. We continue to press our three-year-old diplomatic initiative to prevent arms from getting to Iran. We also continue our diplomatic exchanges on the war—in an effort to see what we might be able to do—at the UN or elsewhere to help draw the war to an end. Our problem.... has been Iranian commitment to the war. There are any number of potential, even eager, mediators—and Iraq has agreed to various proposals, but Iran has not.

In conclusion, and to emphasize the Secretary's thoughts, we live in a dangerous and highly interdependent world. The preeminent task of the Executive and Congress is to meet the challenges before us by working together to construct a wise and just foreign policy that protects the best interests of the United States. This requires adequate resources, including a fair and flexible arms transfer statute.