The impending signing of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty aroused a storm of violent protest in the Arab world. Professor Brzezinsky, the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Jones and Deputy Secretary of State Christopher, travelled to Saudi Arabia and to Jordan to explain the treaty and its significance and ask that Jordan join the talks on the autonomy for the West Bank and Gaza. In the following interview Secretary Vance surveys the new situation and evaluates the treaty. Excerpts:
Herman. Secretary Vance, Yassar Arafat has been in Jordan and is going to Saudi Arabia to try to shift the balance one way. Our own mission, headed by Mr. Brzezinski and General Jones, have been to Saudi Arabia and are going to Jordan to shift the balance the other way. Who is winning? Have we won anything that we really need, for example, from Saudi Arabia, in these talks?
Vance. Well, it's too early to say yet what will come out of the discussions that Professor Brzezinski and Warren Christopher and David Jones are having there. We have made it very clear to the Saudi Arabian Government and to our friends in the area that we consider the Peace Treaty to be the cornerstone of progress towards a comprehensive peace. I think they understand this very clearly. They're good and close friends. We share the same objectives of a stable and moderate Middle Eastern region and we will continue to work together towards that end. As to the specifics of what action they would or would not take on the Treaty itself, we'll have to wait and see.
Herman. Secretary Vance, you say it is still too early to tell which way Saudi Arabia, which I take it is the principal concern of the United States policy at this moment - too early to tell which way they are going - but a front page editorial in an influential Saudi newspaper says the United States mission is doomed to failure. Do you take that lightly or do you take it seriously?
Vance. No, I would take it seriously. I do not think they put those kind of statements in a Government paper in less than a serious vein. On the other hand, I think that these issues are of such critical importance that it will take time for them to reflect on what actions will or will not be taken as the facts unfold in the future.
Clift. Mr. Secretary, this Peace Treaty, at least in the short term, seems to be producing more turmoil than it is -than it is reducing. How do you reverse that tide? How can it be reversed?
Vance. First let me say that the Peace Treaty, in my judgment, is a momentous step. For 30 years, the countries of the region have been searching for peace. At long last, as a result of the mission of the President, and of the farsighted and courageous action of the leaders of these two countries, we now are the threshold of signing a Peace Treaty. This could not have been possible, let me say, without the work of the President of the United States, and without the presence of the United States, because it was absolutely essential that there be a trusted friend who could sit with the parties, and when they came to problems they could not resolve, come forward with suggestions that could bridge these gaps. Now, this is not the end of the process. This is merely the beginning of the process. The process leads towards the end of a comprehensive Peace Treaty. The next step along the road towards a comprehensive Peace Treaty will be dealing with the questions of the West Bank and Gaza - the Palestinian issues, which are of fundamental importance. Those, issues, as they are debated and discussed in the negotiations, will be watched very carefully by the people in the area, both the Palestinians and the other nations, and if progress is made in those very difficult negotiations, I think that attitudes can begin to change. I think a momentum will take place that can begin to move this, because this, in my judgment, is the only road to peace. All the other alternatives at this time are really mandates of the status quo. This has the objective of moving forward the ultimate end - a just and lasting peace.
Kalb. Mr. Secretary, almost to bear that out, one of the principal actors, the leader of the P.L.O., Yassar Arafat, is quoted today as saying - in fact, promising - an explosion in the Middle East if this Treaty is signed. Do you, yourself, expect violence in the Middle East if the Treaty is signed? Has the State Department taken any precautionary measures so far?
Vance. The answer is, we cannot rule out that there may be some violence after the signing of the Peace Treaty. We have taken the necessary precautions in light of this fact.
Kalb. Do you, yourself, feel, sir - or can you tell us - the obligatory kind of question at this point when you're in that kind of delicate negotiation, were there any secret understandings that will be popped on the Congress or the American people in another couple of weeks?
Vance. The answer is, there were no secret understandings that will be popped on the Congress
Kalb. What about the American people?
Vance. Nor the American people. I can assure you of that.
Herman. Let me go back and pick up that rather remarkable statement when Marvin asked you about the possibility of violence. You said we have taken the necessary precautions. Can you enlarge on that a little bit?
Vance. We have been in touch with our Embassies in the area indicating to them that they would take the necessary normal kinds of actions that one would take in such a situation.
Herman. You were considering only violence against American Embassies?
Vance. Yes.
Herman. The larger picture, if I may pursue that a second, is violence against Israel, violence against Egypt, violence against the person of President Sadat.
Vance. Well, I'm not talking about those when I gave you the answer that I did.
Clift. Mr., Secretary, in his speech before the Knesset in Jerusalem, President Carter spoke of a new military dimension in the U.S. relationship with the Middle East. Can you explain what - what he meant by that?
Vance. Yes. He was, at that time, talking about the need in the post-treaty signing period to make sure that the requirements of Israel would be met in terms of the necessary defensive equipment. This is one of the matters that will be discussed with the representatives of both Israel and Egypt who are here at the present time. This has been talked raised with the Members of the Congress in the reports that the President's already made.
Kalb. Mr. Secretary, I'd like to talk to you about a statement made by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Mr. Crawford, before a congressional committee this past week. He was asked by Congressman Hamilton whether the United States would go to war in order to protect - and I wasn't quite sure here whether he meant Saudi Arabia or the oil in Saudi Arabia. Would the United States go to war to protect either?
Vance. We would deal with a situation which jeopardized the kinds of elements that you are talking about when such a situation arose, and the President would, of course, take such action as he and his advisors deemed appropriate after full consultation with the Congress and within the Constitutional processes. I must go further and say that I think it would be premature at this point to speculate about hypothetical situations which are not facing us now. But I want to make one other point and I want to make it very clearly. There is no question that we have vital interests in this area. There is no question, also, that we have made it very clear through a series of statements by Presidents over the years that we consider the territorial integrity and the security of Saudi Arabia to be a matter of fundamental importance to the United States.
Kalb. It's not based then, on a specific piece of legislation or a Treaty that has already gone through Congress. You are - when you assert a vital interest of the United States for Saudi Arabia, you are talking about a series of Presidential statements over the past 10, 15, 20 years perhaps. Is that correct?
Vance. That's correct.
Kalb. And what you are talking about then too, is a vital interest in terms of the country, or are you talking about oil which - introduces a whole new definition of the vital interest.
Vance. I'm talking about stability in the region. This is a fundamentally important region, not only to the United States but to the world, in general, and of course peace in the region is of fundamental importance to the people in the region. So I'm talking about all of those when I answer your question.
Herman. Mr. Secretary, there've been a number of reports - semi-official, I think you could call them - in the Middle East that the United States will take a direct role in the negotiation between Israel and Egypt on the question of Palestinians, and the possibility of a Palestinian State, however it works out. Can you - is that true, and can you explain a little bit what kind of a role?
Vance. The letter which will be signed at the same time that the Peace Treaty itself is signed will have in it a statement that the United States will participate fully in the negotiations which will be taking place pursuant to the provisions of that letter. Those discussions are the discussions which deal with the question of the establishment of the Self-Governing Authority in the West Bank and Gaza, so that we will be, to, use a phrase that has been used before, a full partner in the discussions which will be taking place and this is at the request of Egypt and Israel.
Herman. Will the United States be, in any sense, safeguarding the interests of the Palestinian people in those talks?
Vance. The interests of the Palestinian people are of fundamental importance - great importance - as the President has said and as I think all of the parties recognize and certainly that is one of the issues that has to be dealt with before you're going to get a final and comprehensive peace.
Kalb. When are you going to get elections for the Self-Governing Palestinian Authority?
Vance. The basic agreement, which is contained in the letter, provides that one month after the exchange of the documents of ratification on the Peace Treaty, that negotiations will start and that the goal of the negotiating parties is to complete those negotiations within one year, and that, as expeditiously as possible after those negotiations have been completed, elections will be held. The purpose of those negotiations is to define what, in the jargon, we call the modalities of the election - how you set up the elections and the powers and, responsibilities of the Self-Governing Authority.
Herman. Mr. Secretary, since I'm not a Diplomatic correspondent, I can ask kind of a dumb question here. You see so many reports coming in about anti-American statements being made in various Muslim countries in the Middle East. The question occurs to me not fully understanding all these things - is the United States better off; is our standing better or worse in the Middle East as a result of negotiating this Treaty?
Vance. I think that our standing, in the long run, is clearly going to be better off. We are going through, I am sure a difficult short-term period immediately after the signing of the Treaty. But in the long run, I believe the people are going to recognize that this is the only road to peace. There is no other suggestion that those who criticize the Treaty are making. What they are suggesting is merely the maintenance of the status quo, which does not resolve these problems, but leaves them to fester.
Herman. In the short run, are things likely to get worse before they get better?
Vance. I would think that we will probably have some difficulties in the short run, yes.
Herman. Could you explain a little bit?
Vance. No, I think there's going to be a good deal of criticism of the Peace Treaty. What particular actions will be taken remains to be seen: I don't want to try and guess at this point what the Baghdad group will do in terms of specific actions, but I can expect that some action will come out of them.
Clift. Mr. Secretary, since it took the personal involvement of Jimmy Carter to pull this Treaty off, what kind of precedent does that set? I mean, do you worry that no one around the world will want to settle a problem without a personal visit from the President?
Vance. No, I believe that they will recognize that this was an issue of paramount importance; that it had come to a point of stalemate, and therefore it was necessary that the President of the United Sates himself intervene to try and break that stalemate. It was such an important matter and the time factor, I think, was important, that it be broken, and be broken when it was, so that the deterioration - which was taking place, I think - would not continue. So I don't think it's going to establish the precedent that every problem has to be solved by President Carter.
Kalb. Mr. Secretary, I'd like to ask you about SALT, but - one other question on the Middle East, if I might - you said a moment ago that some action will come out of the Baghdad group, perhaps - you aren't predicting any, of course -but what about continuing Saudi economic support of Egypt?
Vance. Again, I would have to say that that remains an open issue; I don't know the answer to that.
Kalb. Mr. Secretary, do you expect oil prices to go up - do you see an end to these continuing increases?
Vance. Well, it is clear that oil prices have already risen substantially because of the shortages which were brought about by the cutoff of Iranian oil. We indicated at the time that - they - the cutoff took place because of the Iranian situation; that we did not believe that the OPEC prices which were announced were justified; we felt that they were too high, and that they created a danger to the world economy; not only to the industrialized countries, but particularly the developing countries as well. It is necessary that we take action on our own part, however, to see what we can do to cut back on our consumption. That's why I was very pleased to see the International Energy Agency taking the position the other day that all of us - the 20 countries - will cut back five percent. I think its terribly important that we do it, and that was a very positive step. I think that once the Iranian oil gets back on the market, you'll find the spot prices beginning to drop.
Herman. In the past when we've had oil price troubles and oil supply troubles, we've always relied on the Saudi Arabians as our chief friends and allies in balancing things out. Considering their pressure that they're under now, can we rely on them anymore to keep oil production up to its extraordinarily high level?
Vance. I think you have to go back to the question of what are our mutual long-term interests. Our mutual long-term interests are for stability in the region; we share that view. I think they have - will have that very much in mind as we work together in the months ahead.
Herman. Does that mean we can rely on them to help us?
Vance. I don't want to - no - give you an ironclad answer on that. I think it's certainly a consideration, however, that they will have enough - we do share common values and ideas on many of these important, strategic issues.