October 9,1975
Page 32748
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I stand in support of the proposal submitted to the Senate by the Committee on Foreign Relations to authorize the stationing of up to 200 U.S. civilian technicians in the Sinai desert. In my judgment, the American Sinai surveillance mission is an acceptable arrangement on behalf of the September 4, 1975, disengagement agreement between Israel and Egypt.
The United States, through the good offices of our Secretary of State, served as the honest broker in mediating the Sinai agreement between Jerusalem and Cairo. The accord's center piece is the placement of 200 American technicians in a demilitarized zone for the purpose of observing the activities of Israeli and Egyptian military forces.
As an indication of the confidence in the United States, both parties requested the United States to perform not a military role nor be a participant in the conflict, but to act as an agent of peace.
This is a high tribute to our Nation's position in the world. It is the very reason the Governments of Israel and Egypt did not ask the United Nations to man the early warning system in the Sinai.
Ironically, the international organization is not looked upon as a fair and reasonable peace party; only the United States has the prestige and influence over the conflicting parties to mediate. Both sides agree the other side would be reluctant to ask the United States to withdraw. This reluctance, I know, would not exist in Jerusalem if the United Nations force alone were in the Sinai. Egypt's President Sadat has referred to the American civilian technicians as being true. "witnesses" to the agreement and Israel's Prime Minister Rabin has said he only trusts Americans in the demilitarized zone.
Monitoring an armistice on behalf of both parties is quite different from our recent Vietnam experience. In that tragic episode, the United States sided with one of the warring parties, leaving the other side actively hostile to our involvement. In this case, without the presence of Americans no Sinai agreement would have been possible.
Some Americans have expressed concern that the Americans posted in the demilitarized zone face potential harm by one of the belligerents. If bloodshed took place, the argument goes, it would lead to a deeper and deeper U.S. involvement. I understand such a concern, in fact I share it to some extent. However, our technicians will be in an area surrounded by 5,000 United Nations troops, protected from attacking armies or Arab terrorists.
Also, the joint resolution we are voting on authorizes the President to implement the U.S. proposal for the early warning system in the Sinai, subject to the provision American technicians will be removed immediately when an outbreak of hostilities between Egypt and Israel occurs or when Congress determines the safety of our personnel is jeopardized or their role is no longer necessary.
With regard to the issue of U.S. commitments, I am satisfied that Senate Joint Resolution 138 does not signify approval or disapproval by Congress of any other agreement, understanding, or commitment made by the executive branch. By approving this limited proposal for technicians, Congress does not bind itself to any particular course of action with respect to future proposals.
The Sinai arrangement is a major step toward a peaceful settlement of the dangerous and tragic Arab-Israeli conflict. Without the agreement, and the U.S. part in it, there is a grave risk of a renewed threat to war, a war which Middle East officials and observers agree would be devastating due to the highly sophisticated and powerful weapons both sides now possess. There have been four wars between Israel and Egypt since 1947, each has been deadlier than the last, none have settled the conflict, neither would a sequel.
In fact, another war, besides the destruction to cities and civilian populations, would mean another oil embargo, which would result in the disruption of the economies of advanced industrial countries, including our own, with the attendant inflation, recession, and unemployment. The State of Maine, for instance, could not afford such a development. Another war would also push the two nuclear super powers — the United States and the U.S.S.R. — toward renewed tension and confrontation.
Enhancing the prospect of peace and stability between two bitter belligerents in the Middle East is a vital interest of the United States. The Sinai agreement, which establishes an American- manned early-warning system, strengthens that cherished prospect. This diplomatic development is the best chance the American people have to influence peace in the area. Indeed, the accord is the first positive agreement reached by the parties to the conflict without having been immediately preceded by warfare. That is a favorable omen. It is necessary then to maintain a momentum in the Middle East peace process. This joint resolution helps. I shall vote for the proposal to place American civilian technicians in the Sinai.