Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August 1987, pages 13-14

Other People's Mail

"Gentlemen don't read other people's mail, "an idealistic American official exclaimed between World Wars I and II as he abolished US cryptographic counter-intelligence programs. Times change, however, and some letters by or to other people are as informative for our readers as anything we might write ourselves.

ReFlagging Kuwaiti Oil Tankers

The New York Times July 6, 1987
To the Editor,

William Safire's outburst against the Emir of Kuwait ("Jerking Us Around," column, June 18) must make Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmed Al-Sabah's subjects feel 10 feet tall. No one before has ever called their leader cunning, with an ability to jerk around the United States or to "lean on Pakistan to stop pressing the Russians to leave Afghanistan." That's a lot of clout.

Contrary to the communique issued by the Islamic Conference Organization, Mr. Safire's reading of the fifth Islamic summit held in Kuwait last January must be based on sources of intelligence unavailable to the ordinary person. I wonder if the resistance fighter from Afghanistan who represented his country at the Islamic summit was aware of all this backroom skullduggery. For anyone having lived in the area, Mr. Safire's characterization of the Emir's personality and Kuwait's prowess must be somewhat amusing.

Kuwait's fears are not difficult to understand. This tiny, precariously situated oil sheikdom has an obsessive preoccupation with security. If you are a minority in your own country—only 40 percent of the 1.7 million population are Kuwaiti citizens—internal security becomes a problem. If that 40 percent has family ties to Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, there may be some lingering ancestral tribal relationships and loyalties. For the ruling Sabah family, primarily Sunni in faith, a 30 percent Shiite population adds to one's nervousness, particularly if some of those Shiites lean towards Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's brand of fundamentalism. Nor are Iraq's territorial aspirations of the past easily forgotten.

Before its independence in 1961, Kuwait was under a British protectorate. It has since depended on international protection that at times has included the United Nations, the Arab League, and the superpowers. "Dickering with Moscow" is no more a crime than dickering with Washington. What is "blackmail" and "supertrickery" to Mr. Safire is intelligent survival policy to Kuwait. Perhaps that is cunning. As for jerking us around, I suspect many Middle East analysts would ascribe that designation to Israel, not to the Persian Gulf sheikdoms.

Making American carriers out of Kuwaiti tankers is another matter. Whether it is a wise move or not, we'll soon know. That 16 or 17 ships moving to and from Kuwait's ports have been attacked over the last six months gives urgency to Kuwait's plea for protection. I believe it is wrong to base United States protection squarely on keeping the Russians out. But Kuwait did not blackmail us into this policy, we accepted it, if foolishly.

The Russians have long been playing both sides in the Iran-Iraq war in an attempt to gain influence in the Persian Gulf area through a peace-keeping role. So long as that role is minor, it presents no threat to United States interests. Denying them any role, any responsibility whatever, runs a greater threat in the long run. Our impetuous unilateral action must have Moscow chuckling privately. Publicly, the Russians can have a picnic denouncing this move, while waiting quietly in the wings, ready to pick up the pieces. Whatever form hostilities may take, the Russians will be in a position to offer aid and comfort to the wounded party, whether Iran, Iraq, or a Persian Gulf state—as a friendly outsider.

If there is any area in the world where the United States and the Soviet Union might collaborate to world advantage, it is the Persian Gulf. If preliminary signs are accurate, this may still be done through the Security Council of the United Nations, the road the Persian Gulf states preferred to take in the first place.

Finally, to expect Kuwait to allow foreign bases on its territory is unrealistic. It is not "arrogant nonsense" for Kuwait to deny such bases. To allow them is to provoke internal political dissension. This has few if any benefits, and many risks. Shipping in the international waters of the Gulf can easily be protected by the superpowers without bases. Territorial waters can be defended by the Persian Gulf states themselves. The question of bases is more political than military, for all parties.

While I share Mr. Safire's chagrin over maintaining the delicate political balances in the Persian Gulf, I hope the Reagan administration does not take his diagnosis or prescription seriously.

Edmund A. Bator, Atlanta, GA
The writer was public affairs counselor at the US Embassy in Kuwait from 1975-1979.

The PLO and Anti-Terrorism Legislation

Mr. Thomas A. Dine, Executive Director
American Israel Public Affairs Committee

Dear Mr. Dine:

Today I read the text of Senate Bill S.1203, and I believe it contains some extremely grave inaccuracies. I shall state my case against what I believe is gross misinformation and invite you to refute my allegations, if you can.

• Section 2, Point 2, under "Findings and Determinations": The Palestine Liberation Organization thereafter in the Act referred to as the "PLO" was directly responsible for the murder of an American citizen on the Achille Lauro cruise liner in 1985, and a member of the PLO's Executive Committee is under indictment in the United States for the murder of that American citizen.

Rebuttal: I recently heard a former ambassador to Syria say that the Abu Musa faction was behind the Achille Lauro incident. I'm sure you are aware that Abu Musa is backed by Syria. And I'm sure that you are equally aware that Abu Musa was a leader among the rebels who revolted against Chairman Arafat and drove him from Tripoli in the winter of 1983. Also, the findings of the investigation of the Achille Lauro incident in Genoa confirm the belief that the hijacking was an act of insurrection against Mr. Arafat.

• Section 2, Point 3, under "Findings and Determinations": The head of the PLO has been implicated in the murder of a United States ambassador overseas.

Rebuttal: I must assume that you're referring here to the murder (of American Ambassador Cleo Noel) at Khartoum (in February 1973). It is my understanding that responsibility lies with the anti-PLO Abu Nidal group. Did not AIPAC try previously to indict Mr. Arafat on such grounds, but the findings did not implicate him?

• Section 2, Point 4, under Findings and Determinations": The PLO and its constituent groups have taken credit for, and been implicated in, the murders of dozens of American citizens abroad.

Rebuttal: I find this totally absurd! Can you provide names, dates, places? This is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has even a minimal knowledge of the Middle East situation.

• Section 2, Point 6 under "Findings and Determinations": The PLO rededicated itself to the "continuing struggle in all its armed forms" at the Palestine National Council meeting in Algiers in April 1987.

Rebuttal: The PNC Session decided to carry on the struggle in all forms. As you know well, the PLO is working very hard for a peaceful solution through the convening of an international conference in which it has equal footing with other delegations. The PLO is not a deterrent to a just peace. Whenever Israel sees the wisdom of the PLO's advocacy of mutual recognition of Israel and Palestine, there will be peace!

Linda E. Long, Mt. Crawford, VA
member, the United Church of Christ