The Ford administration was bitterly disappointed by the breakdown of the talks. Before leaving Jerusalem, Dr. Kissinger issued a statement which said: "We believe both sides have made a serious effort to reach a successful outcome," but "unfortunately, the differences on a number of key issues have been irreconcilable. "A White House statement reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to continue its efforts to assist the parties to reach an agreement. But privately, both the President and the Secretary of State felt that Israel had been shortsighted and had made a tragic mistake. Following is the text of Dr. Kissinger's statement in which he announced that President Ford had ordered a "reassessment of policy." There are also excerpts from the questions and answers:
I would like to begin with a brief statement concerning the suspension of the Middle East peace talks.
The step-by-step approach pursued by the United States attempted to separate the Middle East problem into individual and therefore manageable segments. Now that approach has suffered a setback, and the Middle East issues have to be dealt with comprehensively, under more difficult circumstances.
A moment of potentially great danger is not the time to assess blame between the parties or to indulge in recrimination. We need a calm appraisal of the situation and the U.S. policy best suited to the new conditions. Let me sum up the U.S. position:
- With the end of the step-by-step approach, the United States faces a period of more complicated international diplomacy. Consequently, a reassessment of policy is essential. This reassessment has been ordered by the President.
- The dangers which produced the need for progress toward peace are still with us. The United States therefore is determined to continue the search for peace in the Middle East. It is prepared to go to Geneva and will be in touch with the co-chairman of the conference, the U.S.S.R., in the near future.
- The United States is prepared to consider any other approach acceptable to the parties.
- The United States remains fully committed to the survival of Israel.
- The search for peace can be nurtured only in an atmosphere of calm. The parties involved in the Middle East conflict thus have a responsibility to moderate words and deeds and to refrain from threatening acts.
- All outside powers have a responsibility to exercise restraint and to follow a course of moderation.
We face a difficult situation in the Middle East and throughout the world. The times demand a renewed sense of national purpose.
We must understand that peace is indivisible. The United States cannot pursue a policy of selective reliability. We cannot abandon friends in one part of the world without jeopardizing the security of friends everywhere.
We cannot master our future except as a united people. Our energies should be directed, not at recriminations about the past, but toward a vigorous and constructive search for a lasting peace. And to this, the Administration is dedicated.
Q: Mr. Secretary, is the reassessment of U.S. policy to the whole Middle East primarily aimed at prompting Israel to adopt a more relaxed or less intransigent negotiating posture?
A: At this moment, there are no negotiations going on, and therefore we would have no concrete proposals to make to Israel, even if Israel asked us what negotiating posture it should adopt.
The assessment of our policy that is now going on is made necessary by the new circumstances. Our policy had been designed, as I pointed out in this statement, to segment the issues into individual elements, to negotiate each element separately, and therefore to permit each party to adjust itself domestically and internationally to a process of a gradual approach toward peace.
Now that this approach has to be abandoned, we face an entirely new situation in which, in all probability, all problems will have to be negotiated simultaneously, and in which, instead of a forum in which Israel deals with one Arab country through the mediation of the United States, the strong probability is that Israel win have to deal with all Arab countries in a multilateral forum.
The assessment of our policy is not directed against Israel. It is not designed to induce Israel to alter any particular policy. It is designed to develop a position that the United States can take in order to prevent an increasing radicalization in the area and an increasing tension and, above all, in order to avoid a war in which inevitably the United States would be involved at least indirectly, given the international circumstances.
Q: A very quick followup. You and your spokesmen have denied that this reassessment contemplates a cutoff, but I don't think anybody has denied that it might contemplate a reduction. Can you respond to that?
A: There is no level of aid right now that has been set for next year's - for the next year. And therefore the question of a reduction is an entirely academic one.
We have before us an Israeli request of rather large size which at this moment is being staffed on the entirely technical level and has been staffed on the entirely technical level for weeks. It has not yet reached either my desk or the President's desk.
We will make our decisions on aid to Israel on the basis of our national objectives and on the basis of the statement that I made here, that we remain committed to the survival of Israel.
Of course whatever conclusions we come to will be submitted to the Congress, and the Congress can make its independent judgement.
We are not approaching the reassessment with an attitude of cutting aid. And we are approaching it with the attitude of looking at the overall situation in the Middle East to determine what the best course might be.
Q: Mr. Secretary, now that you have written an obituary on step-by-step negotiating, does that mean that you are writing off the possibility of unilateral American action in the Middle East? Are you now going to be walking step-by-step with the Soviet Union? What will be your approach?
A: Our approach will be whatever is most likely to lessen the dangers of war and to produce steps toward peace.
As I pointed out in our statement, the United States is prepared to go to Geneva. The United States is prepared also to go along with any other approach that the parties may request of it. So, we are not insistent on any particular approach. We will follow whatever approach is most likely to be effective and is requested by the parties. The obvious forum that is now open is Geneva, but we are prepared to look at other approaches.
Q: Mr. Secretary, to follow that up, could you say when you go to Geneva, would it not be likely that the talks would themselves become segmented into the various problems and that would provide an opportunity for the United States or other parties to play a role in each individual problem - Israel-Egypt, Israel-Syria, Israel-Jordan?
A: If that is the turn that the negotiations take, the United States will be prepared to participate in it. The United States has no fixed idea on which course to pursue.
At this moment, we have to consult with the other parties, and we of course also have to consult now with the co-chairman of the Geneva Conference.
The United States will do what is most likely to reduce the danger of war and to promote peace, and if it should turn out that separate negotiations develop at Geneva, the United States will certainly support them.
Q: Mr. Secretary, why is there such a presumption in this country at this moment, in newspaper articles, in the meaning - in the interpretation - of the reassessment of Mideast policy, that Israel somehow was at fault for the breakdown of the talks and should somehow be punished by reduction in aid or some other manner?
A: Well, I cannot answer why people make certain assumptions. Many of you were on the plane with me, and you know how I attempted to explain the situation. We - the Administration - has made no assessment of blame, nor will it serve any useful purpose to engage in that now.
Secondly, punishment of a friend cannot be the purpose of a national policy. We now face a new situation. No useful purpose is served by conducting it in a fit of pique or by encouraging even greater tensions in the area. We will make an assessment of the American national interest in relation to our long-term commitments, as well as the necessity of preserving the peace; and our policy will be based entirely on this. And in no sense is any consideration given to punishing any particular country.