THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, October 31, 1994 TAG: 9410290009
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A8 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 56 lines
Israel and Jordan have just concluded a peace treaty, an event for which the world should be grateful. It is no accident that President Clinton was asked to preside at the ceremony. Despite all the talk about the decline of American power, everyone in the Middle East realizes there is only one superpower. The participants know the United States alone possesses the weight in world affairs to ensure that any peace is a lasting one.
The fact that the president was forced to cancel his visit to Jerusalem's holy places - at least partly for security reasons - unfortunately demonstrates that making peace in that part of the world remains a dangerous game. Syrian strongman Hafez Assad condemned the Israel-Jordan peace treaty before President Clinton went to visit him, as did PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. The Hamas terrorist group, which is domiciled in the Syrian capital of Damascus and in Syrian-controlled Lebanon, promises to do everything it can to wreck any peace deals.
Assad demonstrated once again why he is among the most durable dictators in the Middle East. He resisted the temptation to send the first American president to visit him in two decades home with any high-profile concessions. While the details of what the two men discussed during their three-hour meeting are not known, in his news conference afterward Assad refused to acknowledge any connection of his regime with terrorism or take any responsibility for controlling Hamas. That is not a hopeful sign.
Probably the key issue for the United States in working out any peace agreement between Israel and Syria is what role, if any, the U.S. should play in enforcing peace on the strategic Golan Heights. The Center for National Security Policy in Washington, D.C., has put out a thoughtful paper on the subject by former Reagan administration official Richard Perle warning of the pitfalls of stationing American peacekeeping forces on the heights.
``The presence of U.S. troops on the Golan would increase the likelihood of U.S. opposition to pre-emptive military action by Israel, no matter how urgent or well-advised'' Perle writes. (T)he effect of the U.S. deployment might be the opposite of that intended: It could reduce fear of Israeli pre-emption among potential Arab aggressors.''
Mr. Perle's concerns could be so much whistling in the dark. American troops have served in the Sinai without incident since 1977. But the Golan is potentially more volatile, because Assad clearly does not have his heart in peace the way Egypt's Anwar Sadat did. The troops could also become targets for Hamas terrorism.
Sending American forces into harm's way should not be something the American public gets to discuss after such deployment has effectively already been agreed upon. There should be an open debate in Congress and elsewhere about whether the United States ought to become more deeply involved in the peacekeeping business. by CNB