At the conclusion of his visit to Egypt, President Nixon and President Sadat issued a joint communique which included, inter alia, an agreement concerning American aid to Egypt for the building of nuclear power station. This development alarmed Israel and was the main subject of the following interview with Mr. Allon. He emphasised that the United States had assured Israel that the Egyptian reactor would operate under international supervision. Text:
Q: Mr. Allon, with what degree of concern do you view the agreement signed between the United States and Egypt?
A: I am not happy with the paragraph concerning American aid to Egypt for the building of an electric power station based on nuclear energy. Everything depends, of course, on the organization and effectiveness of the inspection of the exploitation of the enriched uranium which will be supplied to such a station.
Q: In your opinion, is it possible to inspect effectively the exploitation of uranium?
A: From the scientific point of view, it is definitely possible to supervise and control the supply of uranium and the method of its exploitation for the purpose it is intended. I see from the communique there is a definite guarantee that double inspection will be established: international inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency and direct American supervision, both of which will guarantee that the energy, that this uranium, will be used only for generating energy.
Q: Do you think that the atomic plant to be built in Egypt can endanger the State of Israel?
A: I don't think there's any military danger to Israel because, as I said before, effective inspection will prevent the use of the uranium for military purposes, and the fact that a nation as responsible as the United States, which is showing such a degree of responsibility in everything touching on the exploitation of atomic power, is lending its hand to the project, gives us the feeling that the inspection will be absolutely effective.
On the other hand, I ask myself: does Egypt already need atomic power so much, when she still hasn't exhausted the exploitation of energy from the hydroelectric power stations on the one hand or her independent oil resources on the other hand?
But, apparently Egypt has big economic ambitions, a desire for rapid economic and social development, and possibly they see an atomic power plant as a kind of status symbol for Egypt.
Q: Did the agreement signed between the United States and Egypt come as a surprise to you?
A: To tell the truth - Yes. Israel had no advance knowledge of the existence of a paragraph of this nature in the negotiations between the U.S. and Egypt. It might have been expected, owing to the special nature of the relationship that has evolved over the years between Washington and Jerusalem, that a subject like this would be made known to Israel, or even would have been discussed between the governments of Israel and the United States, before any actual steps of any kind were taken - without any of the concerned parties committing itself ahead of time to accept the other's viewpoint.
But the thing has been done. It's an accomplished fact. It is worthwhile just to mention that the agreement of principles that was signed between Presidents Nixon and Sadat mentions negotiations between the government of the U.S. and the government of Egypt on the development of atomic energy. Thus the details have not yet been worked out or completed. There is then, in this, just a decision in principle, which, of course commits both of the parties.
Q: Up to the present, even the Soviet Union has avoided supplying nuclear fuel to the Arab states. Don't you think that the agreement could afford some kind of legitimization for the other Arab states to demand uranium for atomic plants from the Soviet Union?
A: Legitimacy - no. An excuse - Yes. That is to say, I don't think that the Soviet Union has determined its major course of action in the past, or will determine it in the future, parallel to the course of United States' action.
The Soviet Union has supplied Egypt and Syria with long-range, very long range missiles - with a much longer range than needed for the battlefront. Thus you can see that in some areas the Soviet Union has acted before the U.S.
But, I'll tell you, again, frankly. If the choice is of nuclear cooperation for peaceful needs between Egypt and the United States or Egypt and the Soviet Union, I would of course prefer the United States.
Q: After the agreement which has been signed, is there room for hope for a similar agreement between us and the United States?
A: I have no doubt in the matter, but I wouldn't say a similar agreement because, as a matter of fact, we have already for a considerable number of years had an agreement with the United States involving cooperation in nuclear research through the plant at Nahal Sorek, which is under international supervision, and we are maintaining contacts with a view to the setting up of a nuclear power station to supply electricity to Israel for a long time now, and I'm sure, we will, without a doubt, be able to receive know-how, and both the equipment and a very long-term commitment to the supply of enriched uranium From the United States. So, we aren't talking about a parallel agreement or a similar agreement, but our nuclear energy needs will be met, whenever we want them to be. Therefore, this isn't the problem that is bothering us.
I believe that this is certain. In conclusion, I would like to say that it is inconceivable that the United States would lend its hand to a course of action which would endanger the security of Israel, and I am sure that when the President of the United States is here, he will provide us with all the clarifications we are expecting, and there is no reason for special concern, though we will guard all aspects of our due rights.