The challenge of Camp David
Hugh Fraser
'Geopolitics' is an ugly word, almost as ugly as Hitler' s odious and disastrous guru, Alfred Rosenberg, who first introduced it. But, on returning from Israel, one can but feel it should now be put back into the vocabulary, and better still into the bleeding hearts of some of our editors, media monarchs and politicians. Geographically it IS not inappropriate: Rosenberg after all was the architect of Hitler's 'Jewish Final Solution'.
Geopolitical issues raised by Camp David are, by definition, not concerned with the displacement of Israeli or Arab citizens, however distressing this may be, but rather with which power block and ideology will control the Middle East: the West, or a confused but real hegemony of Russiandominated, terrorist-terrified movements or regimes. Reading recent back numbers of the Financial Times or the Guardian, or listening to the recordings of television 'think-in' programmes, one gets an impression of such an unending assault on Prime Minister Begin as almost to feel that for some in England the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism is as waferthin as the pink leader page of one of these Journals . What, by most British commentators, is scarcely mentioned is the incredible luck for the West that the two major military and educated forces in the Nea-r-East, Egypt and Israel, seem now prepared to work together against Soviet Far too little praise is given to President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin for reversing the American policy of 1977, which was still based on the Geneva concept of shared Russian and American responsibility by defying and surprising the State Department in the drama of last November's meetings in Jerusalem. And insufficient credit is given to President Carter and his advisers for seeing the real issues at stake and the opportunities arising. By accepting a regional Middle East lead the US has set in train at Camp David a complete shift in the geopolitical situation in the Middle East. Camp David has set more in motion than diplomatic negotiations. Camp David is more than a gamble: it is a global challenge. This is the first direct check to the spread of a new order made up of Russian and terrorist penetration of the Middle East. The recent deterioration in Middle East stability, in the contest for power and eventually for oil, is remarkable in the Lebanon, in Afghanistan, in South Yemen, in Ethiopia, in the Horn of Africa, and in the threats to Iran. From such developments there can be only one calculating beneficiary. It is a quite logically imperialist-minded Russian General Staff. Any reversal of this trend surely has an importance which should totally involve Western interests in assuring what success they can to the agreements of Camp David. Camp David has decisively rejected the old concept of a Geneva Conference and a Russian participation. It has given to the PLO no official role. The enemies of Western-orientated development have been positively excluded. Of course their fury will know no bounds, in the Soviet press and media, at the UN, in acts of agitation, sabotage, terror and subversion, in Egypt, and even in attacks on third parties. From the purely military point of view, the conclusion of a treaty of peace between Jerusalem and Cairo, and the economic reinforcement of a regionally undefeatable military axis — one might have thought — would have been a prime objective of Western diplomacy and indeed of the British House of Commons, the French and West German governments and assemblies. But nothing of the sort. The incredible will for peace displayed by both the Egyptian and Israeli people is not apparently reflected either here or in this so-called great new world power, the EEC.
To say that the Foreign Offices of the West are decadent, still suffering from the withdrawal symptoms of abandoned power, is perhaps an exaggeration. But they are certainly defeatist — a mood which at last America is shaking off. But is perhaps defeatism justified? Is the breakdown of talks, the overthrow of Sadat or Begin really the basis of a political strategy? True, this seems to be the murmured argument of the high-ups in Whitehall, and of people like Monsieur Foccard, again back near the Elysee. But can that analysis be correct? Where in fact have regimes like those of King Hussein or of King Khaled or the rulers of the Gulf States to go to preserve their interests, other than to a new and local alignment strong enough, if properly supported, to show a measure of independence even from Washington? If the fear holding back the West is the threat of an oil price increase, that is an entirely separate matter which concerns the dollar and the incompetence of Western politicians in dealing with inflation. It is not a strategic issue. If it be the fear of an oil blockade, even our present rulers must know, after Rhodesia, how effective that would be.
There is of course one other possible 'power ploy' — the writings of a few spoonfed editors and of some politically ignorant, semi-geriatric 'lobby' correspondents may indicate th:s in their attacks on Mr Begin — and that is that Israel can be pressurised into further concessions by a barrage of 'wellinformed criticism'. It is of course not a 'power ploy' at an. It is the last hope of some anti-Zionist Foreign Office officials. It is the one way to force Shimon Perez and Menachem Begininto a war coalition and to create a 'Massada' for Western interests. It is not a policy at all. Indeed at Camp David President Carter and Brzezinski rejected such a policy as absurd and it is precisely for this reason that 90 per cent of the agreements are based on the twenty-six points of peace put forward by Israel at Ismailia. There is not even any need for the Foreign Secretary to ring up our excellent Ambassador in Tel Aviv: the Knesset's debate and vote should be enough to register realities.
But our Foreign Secretary is clearly otherwise engaged. What a chance then for John Davies at the Conservative Party Conference, or for Mrs Thatcher when she winds it up, to strike a blow for Western interests in the Middle East by announcing their support for Camp David.
Previous page
