Enter the Big Four

The Middle East has no shortage of prospective peacemakers. Special U.N. Representative Gunnar Jarring has been trying for nearly 16 months to bring about a settlement between Arabs and Israelis. There have been secret meetings in London between Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban and Jordan's King Hussein, who is scheduled to arrive this week in Washington. Last week representatives of the Big Four met in New York in an effort to succeed where others have failed.

U.N. Ambassadors Charles Yost of the U.S., Armand Berard of France, Yakov Malik of the Soviet Union, and Lord Caradon of Britain gathered around the polished mahogany dining table in Berard's Park Avenue flat.

The four profess to reject the concept of an imposed settlement, which is anathema to both Arabs and Israelis. Instead, the diplomats hope to draw up a list of recommendations that Jarring would then present to both sides. The four powers agree that all discussions should take place within the general context of the November 1967 Security Council resolution, which calls for the Arabs and Israelis to recognize each other's right to exist and seeks Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab territories.

Soviet Plea. There are important differences. The Soviets support the Arab demand that Israel pull back to its pre-war borders. The U.S. contends that Israel must be allowed to keep border areas that make Israel more secure. The Soviets back the Arabs in their refusal to sign a joint peace pact with Israel. The U.S. agrees with Israel that a lasting settlement is possible only if all parties sign a single document. The Soviets, for their part, make much of Arab pride. Soviet Ambassador to the U.S. Anatoly Dobrynin reportedly said: "Remember, my government is dealing with the losers of the 1967 war, and this is much more difficult than dealing with the victors."

There is some hope of flexibility by the Soviets and the French, whose position is close to Moscow's. The Russians are anxious to head off a new outbreak of fighting because the Arabs would likely lose the new weaponry that the Soviets gave them after their last defeat. As for De Gaulle, he lately has sounded just a shade conciliatory. "The Israelis think I am an enemy," he told President Nixon in Paris. "This is untrue. I carry their hopes for peace and security in my heart." The British, who want the Suez open again, usually back up the U.S.

Arabs and Israelis still say, for the record, that they will refuse to abide by any Big Four peace plan. But Big Four diplomats hope that both sides will finally take a more reasonable attitude. The Big Four can apply a great deal of leverage to both sides. Theoretically, at least, the Soviets could cut off military and economic aid on which the Arabs are dependent. The U.S. could do much the same to Israel.

Even though such drastic measures so far seem unlikely, the Big Four would accomplish a lot if they achieved unity among themselves. But the results of last week's proceeding in the Security Council were hardly encouraging. As they have done for months, Russia and France both voted to condemn Israel for an airstrike on Jordan while taking no note whatsoever of the raids from Jordan that provoked the Israeli retaliation. The U.S. and Britain? They abstained.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.