Speaker 1
This program was made possible by grants from the German Marshall Fund of the United States, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Ford Foundation and International Business Machines Corporation.

Theo Sommer
I'm afraid there is a very serious danger of war sometime in the spring. And I hope to God that if it comes it will be short, because if it won't be short, a lot more will go to pieces, then just a wobbly NearEast in truth Truth.

Michel Huttoo
There is so much talk about it that I think it won't happen, at least not this spring.

Peter Jay
I'd make it six to four against

Bill Moyers
Once a month in this series devoted to international affairs, I'll be talking with knowledgeable observers about current affairs. This week, I'm in London, and my guests are Godfrey Hudson, the London Sunday Times, Matteo Summer editor in chief of design in Hamburg. Michel Huttoo, Chief of foreign news Edmond in Paris, Peter Jay, economics editor of the London Times and Miatec Rickoski, editor in chief of Polityka in Warsaw, Poland. During this hour, we'll be discussing the Middle East detente, oil and the world economy. With the question on just about everybody's mind is, of course, the Middle East. If war comes, what will be the consequences?

Theo Sommer
Well, I think even a short war would carry heavy risks, if it ended in the humiliation of one side. But anything that lasts longer than a week or two weeks, at most, I think will conjure up great dangers and I see three dangers. One is the danger of superpower confrontation. If the two superpowers have again to replenish the depleted arsenals of the warring parties, I also see a second danger that of an American European confrontation in American European American European conference, West European confrontation, if the Americans send supplies from their bases or Garrison's in Europe, to Israel. And thirdly, I see the danger of an Arab Western confrontation. If, in the course of that war, a new oil embargo should be declared,

Bill Moyers
There's any Michel.

Michel Huttoo
Well, I would agree with that there's about these three dangers with maybe the risk of big power confrontation is maybe the one which can be avoided most, because it's only this chapter where you have only two partners completely decided to escape any confrontation. So there is the risk, but it's maybe the less dangerous of all others.

Miatec Rickoski
I'd have so strong and now I guess. They were even in October ’73.

Bill Moyers
Do you think they I mean, we'll use that string? Yeah.

Speaker
If if they started? Or is the Israelis would start with a war? Because the question is, who is more interested now in a war?

Michel Huttoo
I'm not sure the Arabs are stronger. Syria is stronger edge. Yeah. And that's one reason to believe that they will not start.

Miatec Rickoski
Well, but stronger. I mean, not on the military, but also politically, they're stronger now than they were in ’73.

Godfrey Hudson
it seems to me there's a big danger, which is that analysts always project the trends of the past. And the danger is that there's a different analysis made by the Israelis on the one handed by the Arabs on the other of the lessons of the last two wars, that from an Israeli point of view, they won both times. Therefore, the assumption is that they're still able to win a war. From the Arab point of view. They did so much better the second time than they did in the Six Day War, that it's tempting for them to project that, like we were easily beaten the first time, we did pretty well the second time, maybe as we're getting stronger economically and militarily, we might one day be able to win. That seems to me to be a hypothetical danger.

Bill Moyers
What do you think the outcome of the two things,

Peter Jay
they need money, and they need an oil embargo? And we haven't yet mentioned oil and gas, it seems to me that oil is one of these central issues and any speculation about the political fallout from another Middle East.

Bill Moyers
Do you think if war came Peter that the Arabs would respond by imposing another embargo on the web?

Godfrey Hudson
Which becomes a tremendous problem for the United States very quickly.

Peter Jay
This is what I would suggest that if there is a successful Israeli blitzkrieg, preemptive strike, then suddenly there's going to be another oil embargo is no way in which the Saudi Arabians which is the Arab oil producing countries in the Persian Gulf can refuse that step, if there brethren, non oil producing brethren in the Near East, in direct conflict with Israel are under extreme pressure. The other possibility for me just finished the hypothesis. And I don't want to make the mistake that Godfrey describes of being an analyst projecting past trends to confidently but it seems to me you can say one or other of these things will happen. The other alternative is that the Arabs will start the war. They will start it because they basically believe for the reasons which Godfrey has given that they are strategically in the long term in a winning situation, then it seems to me quite likely, that what you will get is a fairly long drawn out war of attrition have an interesting difference between the war rather war and the previous wars was that the element of attrition became significant, that it became a serious problem for the Israelis, how long they could maintain the situation, which was not, in fact, moving very fast on either front, that was a kind of a sort of stalemate on both fronts. And that is, without question, I think, militarily, the most disadvantageous situation for the Israelis. And it's either

Bill Moyers
How is How are his friends going to answer that question? When Henry Kissinger, Gerald Ford calls and said which side are you on?

Speaker
I would first like to introduce some nuances in this scenario? Because it seems to me is these oil embargo in case of successful Israeli Blitzkrieg is not quite sure. It seems to me not as sure now as it used to be one or two months ago. And I understand Kissinger's warnings along these lines, and having had had maybe some success, I would say Partially, because I understand these warning meeting, saying to the Arabs, where we cannot exclude there will be a war in the Middle East. We cannot exclude these war will be started by Israeli. But please, even in that case, think it again, please don't do an embargo, which would be much more serious business then in October '. And it seems that it had some effects in the sense that we have some indications that the Arab countries are very careful about now waving these trades of an embargo. And we you should look at what they decided the other day in a GL theory, where they had a much wider tone. And when they say we will get oils and support, there will be a total oil embargo. In case of an aggression against any one of us. It means OPEC countries and the oil producing company oil producing countries not and you shouldn't forget that Syria, Egypt are not OPEC countries. So their position was to make we will make a general an embargo in case Kissinger puts his warning into effect and attacked some countries in the Gulf. In that case, you will have an embargo not only from the Arab countries from Venezuela from Nigeria and the like, but they didn't raise the question what they will do in case of an Arab Israeli war.

Miatec Rickoski
Well, I guess Yeah, but this both countries supported when? I would say politically not more. So support, more or less limited. But may I say some words more, namely, of course this all speculations about what about the war or peace in the Middle East? I find it very interesting. But, in my opinion, the American leaders, I mean, especially the President fought and Mr. Kissinger that knows also this all aspects of this possible war. So therefore, I think, and I believe that they will try to avoid this war, you know?

Bill Moyers
Well then what is necessary for peace,

Miatec Rickoski
when necessary for peace, in my opinion, is to push Israelis from this part of Egypt, which they occupy now

Bill Moyers
The territory they won in 1967?

Bill Moyers
Well, let's begin with the most specific one, though Henry Kissinger is certainly on the line. He's going off to Egypt to try to get Sadat to agree to some kind of political settlement by which the Israelis could then withdraw from the Sinai, do you think you'll have any success there?

Peter Jay
Well, I would think of covering up what your question and what what was being said, of course, the problem is to persuade the Israelis to withdraw from the ' territory, but the question and it becomes specific, if you say, which piece of territory you're talking about. You see, I would guess that if it were possible to take it bit by bit, Dr. Kissinger's phrase step by step and talk about Sinai first, then there would be quite a possibility of some negotiating progress. But for that to happen, President Sadat has got to break ranks with the Arabs and go back on what was clearly agreed and understood amongst the Arabs at the rabbet summit and make a unilateral partial deal covering part of the problem ignoring the problem with the West Bank, ignoring the problem of the Golan Heights and problems which involve the Palestinians and Jordan and the problem, which involves Syria. But if you talk about the other two, if you talk about the Golan Heights, or you talk about even more the claims of the Palestinians, then it seems to me that you're in a much more difficult problem. For one, for one thing, the Israelis are much, much, much less willing to contemplate giving up the Golan Heights position, because they regard it as strategically and tactically, very important. And because they think, rightly, presumably, the Syrians are much more determined than than maybe the Egyptians are. And secondly, if you've come to the real kernel of the matter, which is the argument between the Israelis and the Palestinians, there is no way on the face of it, that you can resolve that dispute. I mean, what the Palestinians say is that virtually the whole of modern Israel, perhaps they haven't been in Israel is their country, and Israelis say it's theirs. And what's more, they need a sufficient, in addition to make it defensible. Now, I don't see how, if you take the diplomacy to Geneva, where you have to discuss all three questions at once there is any way within the tolerances of the various powers concerned on the spot locally, you can resolve that question the Israelis aren't going to concede a Palestinian homeland in Israel, the Palestinians aren't going to accept anything less than two the

Michel Huttoo
Why don't we get time to find time, I think will be later early or later to convene the Geneva conference to go see the Russians. Yes, but you have to anyway, but after all, we are in a situation without the Geneva conference, where when things can be escaped only if Kissinger makes success, which are more difficult every time to do so it's not quite sound situation that every single relies on the shoulders of one man. But I think earlier or later, you will have to get the Geneva conference. And one one good thing, at least in these will be that you will have a forum, you will have long dogs, you know that can it can stay along for last for many months. And at that moment, you will have less tension at least

Bill Moyers
Why Michel, Is that Geneva conference, so significant in your judgment?

Bill Moyers
And he said on this program two weeks ago, Secretary Kissinger said on this program two weeks ago that the Russians had been kept out of it, by the request of both parties, the Egyptians and the Israelis tell you we're trying?

Theo Sommer
Well I think we are now at the sticking point, I have a feeling that the step by step approach has about exhausted its possibilities, as long as it promised success. It was perhaps not wise, but at least clever to keep the Russians out of the game. But I think it doesn't promise success anymore, or not readily because every further step you make is now linked to the final step. And the closer the closer you come to the final step, the bigger your problem gets. So I tend to agree with Michel, that we will want to convene the Geneva conference a to buy time, and B to work out a global solution now. And in that global solution, the whole thing has to be addressed the whole ball of wax, the Palestinians and the Suez Canal and nonbelligerency and whatnot.

Peter Jay
So all we may be proving is that there is no way of solving this problem, which indeed, is probably spending money. But I mean, it seems to me, yes, very good points are made as to why if you don't bring the Russians in, it's not very likely that you're going to solve a situation in which they, after all, one of the world's two superpowers have a major interest. On the other hand, it seems to me that the Geneva conference is not as it were, attack, you can take in trying to find a solution. It's an admission of defeat, because the very nature of the Geneva conference is, as you say, you can't look at the whole ball of wax you've got it's an all or nothing solution. I mean, either you do solve everything compromising but still you've got to solve all the problems, or you solve none of the problems. Just to finish this, the plain fact of the matter is that there's no way you're going to solve all of the problems because all of the problems include the problem with the Palestinians and to take it at its most specific and concrete the problem of Jerusalem.

Godfrey Hudson
But it seems to be Kissinger's great success has been so far in persuading people that unlike the Russians, the United States really is sufficiently equal, equally involved with both sides that it can play a mediating well, and that claim on his part, which is, after all a surprise, because in the past people had identified the United States with Israel, is based on the relationship that he has with President Sadat. And if that relationship is seen to collapse, whatever the real nature of that relationship ever was, then we're back in the situation where the United States is the guarantor of one side and disobey, you

Michel Huttoo
know, maybe the United States may make make pressure on his way, you know, while the Soviet Union has is not willing even to make strong pressure on Europe's on the negative pressure is

Theo Sommer
You know, there is such a thing as getting used to reality isn't the Germans have done it with regard to the order nicer territories, and the Palestinians, I think, in the course of time, will come to see that the existence of Israel you shake your head is certainly true today, but it may very dangerous ideas, hence

Peter Jay
very dangerous line of argument only because it flashed through my mind as you said it, the number of people who have not in your phrase, comprehension is reality, the British people or British politicians comforted themselves that once Britain was in the common market, that argument would die down and become dead. It's not it's a very live Ireland for years, the issue has been settled and dead. And people have been supposed to be coming to terms with reality, nothing of the kinds has happened. Even Scotland, which has been closely involved with England for an enormous number of years. You can take whatever measurement you like, according to which particular constitutional stage regardless, the most significant. The fact of the matter is that right now, Scott's people are more concerned about this relationship and more concerned to break it anytime for a very long time. If the Palestinians in particular, after all have had What is it years nearly in order to come to terms with this reality. In fact, they've grown stronger, not weaker, and they've grown more resistant to the presence of Israel in what they regard as their territory, then they've been anytime in the last years

Peter Jay
The minimum would satisfy the Palestinians I think, is what I would call a reverse Balfour Declaration, a declaration not just by the Israelis, but by the superpowers, the people who originally made the Balfour Declaration and created Israel, that the Palestinians have a right to a national homeland using the very language of the Balfour Declaration in the traditional area of Palestine. Well, that would achieve two important things eight would give them the hope that Godfrey is talking about and be it will be an admission, not by the Israelis, but by the superpowers by Britain by Soviet Union and above all the United States that what they did before the last World War and after his name, he was in fact wrong. Now, if you did those two things, then I think and only then will the Palestinians will begin to think the way you think and take a constructive approach to I mean,

Godfrey Hudson
if one is to simply one's got to talk basically about extremely simple human emotions and one has got to give the Palestinians hope. On the other hand, it seems to me one has got to cope with the fear of the Israelis. I've recently been reading. So I got very moving interviews done by John Hershey in The New Yorker, with the children of the people he interviewed when he was doing his book on the Warsaw Ghetto. And you cannot get away from the fact there is nothing in the recent experience of the present population in the state of Israel, which would make them want to concede what they think of as dangerous advantages to the Palestinians. So when it seems to me one has got to do one, we've got to give the Palestinians hope, and what one has got to give the Israelis the opposite of fear, which is security.

Peter Jay
I think there is something in this I mean, in response to your question, I would say, Bill, nothing, there is nothing to make me think any of those things. But I mean, somebody once said that Americans are solution oriented, they look for solutions to problems, and Europeans or some Europeans are more oriented just to living with problems. And it seems to mean a classic case of a problem which, at the very maximum and the most optimistic, what you could do would be to live with it, I mean, prevent it blowing the rest of the world up.

Bill Moyers
But the Israelis can't live with that kind of tolerable non solution can they or the Palestinians.

Theo Sommer
actually the local Matadors don't have that possibility. It is the sovereign will of the superpowers that decides whether this blow up will be a global configuration,

Miatec Rickoski
the oil producers

Theo Sommer
and the oil producers, perhaps the

Bill Moyers
Miatec?

Miatec Rickoski
this opinion about the role of superpower,

Bill Moyers
you think you think they're the ones who can trigger the confrontation? What what would what would trigger a conflict in the Middle East between the Soviet Union and the United States? What in your judgment would bring them to the precipice again?

Peter Jay
And Syrian army at the gates of Tel Aviv.

Michel Huttoo
Its own life and confrontation with the United States?

Theo Sommer
This this is true,

Michel Huttoo
anything short of that?

Theo Sommer
This true is rationally, I think each of the superpowers would try to avoid to be in Vegas to that extent, but they will all have to indulge in some gesturing and they have to extend some aid, or they may just overstepped the line that's

Michel Huttoo
in that in October ’73, when for a just few stake, little stake, which was the sort of the fate of the third Egyptian army, you know, we had the big Brezhnev's rocket rattling more or less, I don't know,

Bill Moyers
we're about to defeat the Egyptian army

Michel Hutton
And then by Nixon. So only for that, but we can say it was more of a showed and then a real, real desire to really do what the what they what they showed,

Bill Moyers
you're still evading my question, gentlemen, if they come to Geneva, and you have these thorny issues, the PLO recognizing the right of Israel, Israel, recognising the right of the Palestinians to have a state, Fidel is interested in going back to pray in Jerusalem, all of these thorny issues that have brought us to where we are, what is there that makes you think the Soviet Union and the United States can force these irrec seemingly irreconcilable antagonists, as you have described them was kind of a term

Theo Sommer
but you can limit the risks as the two superpowers work, if not hand in glove, but at least together. And I think this this, limiting the risks if you cannot avoid war, or if you can't prevent it is worth the Geneva game.

Bill Moyers
That brings us right to the question of the taunt, which Secretary Kissinger said two weeks ago, again, on this program had suffered a setback. How serious do you think the setback in the top between the two great superpowers is?

Miatec Rickoski
Well, it seems to me that this is the setback, but on the first time,

Bill Moyers
a short time times, you don't see us returning to the drama and conflict of the Cold War?

Godfrey Hudson
of course, of course. It seems to me that this whole question they turn to us really vulgar parallels that the story about the managers How's your wife? And the answer is compared to what the, you know, we have something called detente, which is a better relationship between the Soviet Union United States compared to what compared to what people supposed to have been the relationship before that. Now, in my opinion, there was a great deal of exaggeration of the real tensions and the real dangers as between the Soviet Union the United States for many, many years, since an exaggeration. Well, yes, I mean, that much. policy in Washington over many years, I think has exaggerated the actual aggressive intentions of the Soviet Union.

Bill Moyers
If I were a German, I'm not sure

Godfrey Hudson
I was just gonna turn around and say,

Theo Sommer
I don't think the Berlin ultimatum of . And the Berlin crisis of was just the invention of the State Department or the White House. So I would plead the case that compared to what we had, in , we are in a more relaxed state of affairs.

Peter Jay
Runs on an escalator. Yeah, I mean, there are there are various possible relationships in United States. One is hot war, but he's cold war. One is detente presumably beyond that there is coexistence, friendship, and all sorts of nice things. The name of the game for all practical diplomats, politicians and so on is to keep it in the Cold War stake stroke, detente zone. So it doesn't get into the hot war zone. I mean, the incentive after all, for both superpowers, the fundamental incentive must be used to avoid hot war because that's a disaster. For everybody. I think the danger at present is the over complacent assumption that detente is just a matter of both sides wanting it. It is just a matter of both sides wanting it. And of course, not only the political will, it requires also an enormous amount of continuous and continuous skill and hard work day by day, because there are to one situations around the world in which the two superpowers in the the two greatest powers in the world, whoever they are, doesn't matter whether they're ideologically in conflict, or not just the two greatest powers in the world are inevitably preoccupied with what the other one is doing, because it affects them, and it affects the stability of the world. Now, in order to maintain the deadlock, if you like the stalemate, that's stability, you've got to work at it all the time, because the great danger is that the other guy misunderstands your intentions, that he thinks that you don't much care if this point is conceded, when in fact, you do care that each side underestimates the degree of intensity with which the other guy feels about some particular problem that is a situation in which wars and conflict to meet, that we will have to work at it extremely hard, all of the time, and detente won't come back just because both sides wanted or because it's in the economic, political interests.

Michel Huttoo
if you something worse, or something more important, it seems to me first, because those words they don't should not be used. And I'm surprised that Kissinger himself use it after having so heavily criticized everything, everything having connection with what he called atmospherics, you know, if suddenly now he likes these words, detente he has a setback, since detente mean good climate, atmosphere, externalities, even more, etc. But I agree with you that it means dialogue is still a necessity. But it seems to me, you know, the tone within all these these setback could have internal impact on the different countries on the United States. What happens now is maybe a consequence of the change in the internal situation.

Bill Moyers
I mean, do you think there's an internal review going on right now in the Soviet Union?

Michel Huttoo
put a limitation on the credits yes,

Theo Sommer
no, I I always find it useful to distinguish two different aspects of detente detente on one plane on one level, is the effort by the superpowers to take the risks of war out of armed confrontation, make peace secure or more secure and this A was the background of the Seoul talks of the Berlin agreement of waste German realpolitik. And I think this joint effort to preserve peace will go on, no matter whether they're More Jackson amendment amendments are not the most important, but often I'm not so sure, I think this is important because it is the foundation on which we have to build everything else. But I have always felt that they taunt on a second and higher and more sophisticated level is more than just the prevention of war. It is creating a Kissinger calls it a structure of peace and, and achieving a degree of cooperation, overcoming confrontation and and meshing the two systems and opening them up to contacts. And I think that the Soviets may always have had second thoughts or doubts about the cost effectiveness of this kind of cooperation, which they need for many different reasons. They want Western credits, they want Western technology to, to build up their own country. But on the other hand, with the credits and with the technology, they do get a lot of investors ideas of democracy, democracy is the most nefarious one, free travel and so on. And perhaps they they've come with it. Perhaps they've arrived at the conclusion that $ million just isn't worth that kind of these days. The risk of this stabilization

Bill Moyers
would be affected, it would be affected if, if there is as I think I heard Theo suggesting there is a review, there's a harder line emerging within the Kremlin toward carrying on these various aspects of relationship.

Godfrey Hudson
I agree with that. But what I was trying to say is that one on the one hand, the degree of the tension seems to me to be exaggerated for years or more. On the other hand, the degree of the setback now seems to me to be exaggerated. And people are talking as if what has happened over the Jackson Mammoth is sort of the end of detente. But if you look at the long term motivations on either side for data, and I don't see how that can be so serious

Bill Moyers
Michel raising his eyebrow, I think.

Miatec Rickoski
about this motivations. Gentleman you don't forget that the Soviet Union still, the war. The Second World War is a very lively subject. They have lost Millions of people and therefore but this is for me, the main motivation, why they're looking for, for, for peace based on some very important agreement first. Secondly, I will share this opinion, which Mr. Sommer has expressed, namely about this two level of police of the town. And I think that in the framework of this second level or second, cooperate cooperation, we have to do just now with very, very difficult practice, we have to, to, to learn ourselves and to just to remove this another part of our political Well, political style, which was growing up during the Cold War. So, of course, therefore, for instance, this is for me, therefore, I felt that this is only a setback for a short time. Then another problem, of course, you have to do is a discussions about the police of the town, in every county, and you have a lot of groups or a lot of tendencies. But I find that this is a very, you know, useful thing.

Theo Sommer
So it's natural,

Miatec Rickoski
it's natural.

Michel Huttoo
Why do you think this movie which is more important question that he will do an adventurous policy, that I don't believe

Peter Jay
Then the will to detente

Bill Moyers
Miatec, Miatec

Miatec Rickoski
No reason, I mean, turn reason for, for such a policy which you have presented to the right people in criminal people, people do not dismiss a lot of people and different people. But the question for me, is, what is really the main issue, why the Soviet Union is interested in lasting peace? This is the main and your answer. And my answer is because of this internal reason, because of the past, you'll know, because of the fact that they have to develop the economy, you know,

Michel Huttoo
Because of China?

Miatec Rickoski
because of China, too, but not in the first on the first stage. In my opinion.

Bill Moyers
Godfrey, what do you think the Chinese take in all this?

Godfrey Hudson
Well, I was going to say that if a journalist says that he thinks that a war between China and the United States is inevitable, he is making some move in some domestic Chinese game, because apparently, the politics of China take the ostensible form of a competition between a vaguely pro Soviet group and a vaguely, quote, pro American unquote, group. And that China, and I presume, is saying that because he has been tagged as being unduly sympathetic to the United States, and he wants to remove that tag. I don't think he's seriously making some prediction of any kind. I would,

Bill Moyers
And I've got to close this discussion off, unfortunately. Because our time is gone. Next month, I hope we can get together to talk about are we controlling the arms race? Are we making headway toward it? What do you think about strangulation and do the oil producing companies have that in mind, and I'd like your opinions next month about American society and how it seems to be going to you today, but we must go because our time is passed. I'm Bill Moyers and next week, I'll be taking a look at river blindness in Africa and have a conversation with Robert McNamara. The president of the World Bank, good night.

Bill Moyers
For a transcript, please send $ to Bill Moyers Journal box three, four or five New York New York . This program was made possible by grants from the German Marshall Fund of the United States, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Ford Foundation, and International Business Machines Corporation