A two and a half hour meeting in Cairo between Mr. Arens and Mr. Shevardhadze failed to resolve the difference of opinions between Israel and the USSR. The Soviets clung to their view that peace must be achieved through an international peace conference with the PLO representing the Palestinian people. Israel rejected both these contentions. It called for direct negotiations. On the issue of bi-lateral relations, it was agreed that experts from both sides will enter into dialogue. Mr. Arens felt that the meeting had contributed to the furthering of normalization between Israel and the Soviet Union. Excerpts from the interview follow:
Q: You have spoken optimistically about Israel's relations with the USSR, but Israel still does not accept the two Soviet demands, an international conference and PLO participation in negotiations. How do you explain your optimism?
A: First of all I would not expect, nor do I think that anyone else would expect, that after such a long period when there were no relations at all and we did not speak, we would hold the first and second meetings and everything would be agreed upon. After all, it is well known that the Soviet Union's positions are not identical to ours. Nevertheless, at the same time, from the meetings we can deduce that we have made some progress, that there is a desire on their part to learn our positions. We are open to hearing their positions, as are the Russians. We are continuing to expand the basis fo.- discussions, the number of people who will participate in those talks, and I assume that in this way we are creating and are beginning to create the thing that was missing in the past: mutual trust, and also a basis for understanding which ultimately, if we reach [that point], will be the sole basis upon which an agreement, too, can be built.
Q: When you speak of "understanding," are you referring to an international opening under the auspices of the U.S. and the USSR, as opposed to the Soviet demand for an international conference?
A: I differentiate between "understanding" and "agreement." I think it is very important, particularly when positions are not identical, that the other party know why this is our position, what we fear, toward what we must move. At the same time, we naturally wish to understand their position as well. Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze asked me, "Explain to me, why do you oppose an international conference?" I saw that this - why we oppose it - was something he was completely incapable of understanding.
Q: Shimon Peres is also incapable of understanding.
A: Yes. And I said to him. "Allow me to answer you as a Jew answers a question, that is, with another question: Why do you oppose direct negotiations? That is the most natural way to conduct negotiations. It is the way we attained one peace accord already." Anyway, that is just one brief example from a very long discussion, which I believe created a basis for understanding even if it did not lead to agreement.
Q: Did Shevardnadze understand or agree on the issue of direct negotiations?
A: I think it gave him food for thought, because it seems to me that it is very difficult to refute the position that it is the natural way to conduct negotiations.
Q: Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir has said that he prefers to formulate Israel's peace initiative only after his return from the U.S. Will the Soviets wait until then?
A: 1 think you must differentiate between the content and the timing of any initiative. I assume that the meaning of a peace program is a path toward a final agreement, which can result only from negotiations; the cart cannot go before the horse. I do not think that it is appropriate to begin today to draft the final result we hope to achieve as a result of negotiations. The task before us today is to renew the dialogue. I explained to Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze that after we signed a peace accord with Egypt - it took 30 years and five wars - [people] thought that within a few months, or perhaps within a year or two, all the other Arab nations would sign peace agreements with us. It did not happen. The process remained paralyzed, through no fault of our own. It is we who waited, with a hand extended for peace, while the other side was not willing to come. In addition, while it is clear to us that if the process has not continued it is not our fault, we wish to add momentum to the process, we wish to come with an initiative that will have a chance to bring about a dialogue in the end that will also lead to a final result. I think that there will be such an initiative.
Q: Do you feel Israel should present this initiative after the prime minister's visit to Washington?
A: I do not wish to speak of timing. It is clear to me that it is the prime minister who must declare the initiative first. The government must speak with one voice, and the prime minister must speak in the name of the entire government. He will certainly select the appropriate timing for this.
Q: Has the USSR made any conditions for renewing relations with Israel?
A: In my opinion - and I said this to the Soviet foreign minister as well - I do not think that there should be any conditions. It is their decision. I did not try to win him over or persuade him. I said, "It is your decision. You severed relations, you will decide when to renew them. However, you know that we believe in the universality of diplomatic relations; they do not have to be subject to agreement, positions or policy." In addition, I believe that the Soviet Union, as one of the two superpowers in the area, will not allow any party to dictate conditions or timing. The Soviets will decide and do it. It seems to me that we are progressing in that direction. We agreed today that we will continue our discussions. We agreed today that there will be a meeting between experts from both sides. I have the impression that these things are naturally leading to the normalization of relations between the two countries.
Q: Do you feel that Shevardnadze was serving as a mediator by seeing you in the morning and Yasser Arafat in the afternoon?
A: No, not at all. Of course, I cannot dictate to the Soviet foreign minister with whom, when, and where to meet, just as he cannot dictate to me what meetings to hold. However, we devoted part of our discussion to the subject of the PLO, and I have no doubt that Shevardnadze has no doubts as to Israel's position concerning the PLO, that we see the PLO as an obstacle to peace, and not as a partner to peace negotiations.
Q: President Mubarak has stated that "we will never agree to talk with Yitzhak Shamir until he agrees to PLO participation in negotiations." Is there still a hardline Egyptian position against meeting with Shamir?
A: I did not see that quote. I do not know where it was said. During my long discussion with him, when just the two of us sat together, he did not say any such things. I was very impressed with his determination to contribute to the peace process, with his knowledge of the circumstances in the Middle East, with his familiarity with all the players in the region, and I think - and I told him this as well - that he is really in a unique position to contribute to the process. ( ... )