Commentary on American Foreign Policy

The Arafat Decision

The question raised about the decision made by Secretary of State Shultz in early December 1988 not to grant an Arafat entry visa to the United States fails to take account of why he made that particular decision.

Some observers say it was a personal decision based on George Shultz's strong personal feelings about combatting terrorism. Some say he violated the headquarters agreement between the United States (as host nation) and the United Nations. Others say anyone should be allowed to enter the United States for the purpose of addressing the UN.

Not A Personal Decision

George Shultz is a fine Secretary of State and a man of integrity. All of his foreign policy decisions, including this one, have been made for national not personal reasons.

The U.S. agreement with the UN governs the entry, residence, and exit of UN officials and officials of UN-member nations. It does not contain a commitment, stated or implied, that anyone who desires to address the UN should be admitted.

The Nub Of The Matter

So, we have arrived at the nub of the matter. The Arafat decision was more political than legal. Legally it is unassailable. Politically it is inquestionable.

Few doubt Secretary Shultz's characterization of Arafat as a terrorist. But terrorism is a world wide problem requiring the cooperation of many nations and individuals to curb. Of all nations targets of terrorism, the United States has suffered least within its borders. Therefore, denying Arafat an entry visa on those grounds is almost pointless.

How To Right The Wrong?

Whether the United States and Israel agree, Arafat represents a group of people, - Palestinian Arabs - who have been greatly disadvantaged since the end of World War II. How to right the wrong the have suffered is a complicated and highly sensitive political matter of enormous importance. Terrorism almost pales by comparison. Hearing Arafat at the UN, where he would have be exposed for exactly what he is (and is not) would have been just as important and useful to the United States - and to Israel - as to the Arabs and other member-nations of the UN. A crass way of saying about the same thing is that there would have been greater political mileage to be gained from hearing Arafat than from preventing his entry into the United States on the ground - undisputed- that he is a terrorist.

So, we return to the nub of the matter: the failure to recognize the real national security interests of the United States and the concomitant failure to assess and evaluate the interests of other nations. These kinds of failures have plagued American foreign policy since the end of WW II. The Arafat decision was another manifestation of the American tendency to go it alone and to ignore or badly underestimate the underlying realities of international relations.

Robert Sturgill
Bethesda, VA

Postscript

"Stunning Reversal of Policy"

Since the above was written, Secretary Shultz has announced U.S. willingness to enter into a dialogue with the P.L.O. He said the policy "change" resulted from a change in statements made by Yaser Arafat. The media characterized the U.S. decision as a "stunning reversal of policy." Sadly, the media are close to the truth.

Something of great value to the nation was lost in the mismanagement of this sensitive foreign policy issue: the credibility of the United States Government. That loss could have been avoided by an initial correct assessment of real U.S national interests.

U.S. And Israel can not dictate terms

And, sadly, something else of real value to the United States is in process of being lost: the goodwill and cooperation of the other nations critical to the peace process in the Middle East. The United States and Israel cannot dictate the terms for achieving a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. Nor can the U.S. continue to pick up its marbles and run home if the game is not played the way we think it should be played. Foreign policy problem solving, if it is to be done without war - something that Israel especially has not so far recognized - requires the cooperation of other nations. Cooperation requires compromise. politics is the art of compromise. Negotiation is the art of achieving compromise. Leadership is the skillful practice of both. loud voices and menacing words are not viable substitutes.

Robert Sturgill

© Copyright 1989
Institute for domestic Tranquility