Agenda for Middle East Peace Talks Remains Unclear

While most of the attention surrounding the Mideast peace process has focused lately on the choice of Palestinian negotiators to meet with a U.S. envoy, officials here say they are now more concerned over what the two sides will talk about once the discussions begin.

“Everybody is worried about what’s next,” commented one Jordanian journalist.

Despite the hesitation that has emerged recently in Washington, it is taken as an article of faith here that the United States will dispatch Richard W. Murphy, assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs, to Amman in the coming weeks to meet with a Jordanian delegation that will also include Palestinians.

Although the planned talks are highly symbolic of U.S., Jordanian and Palestinian determination to keep up the momentum in the peace process, officials acknowledge that there is no clear agenda.

Recognition of PLO

The Jordanians, whose monarch, King Hussein, initiated the latest round of talks, are hopeful that the discussions will lead quickly to U.S. recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organization. The PLO could then enter the talks.

Jordanian officials said that they expect the PLO leadership under Chairman Yasser Arafat to agree reluctantly to recognize Israel’s right to exist by endorsing U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 as a means of winning recognition from Washington.

But PLO officials are far less optimistic on the question than the Jordanians, saying they are reluctant to make a major concession to Israel at the start of the talks without a major concession in return from the United States.

“We are under a lot of pressure internally not to give any more without something to show for it,” said one Palestinian close to Arafat.

The PLO has been seeking a statement from Washington that could be interpreted as an expression of support for the PLO’s primary goal of Palestinian self-determination. The phrase is generally interpreted as signifying a Palestinian state--something that the Americans have always refused to consider.

International Conference

Rather than mutual recognition between the PLO and the United States, according to officials here, the PLO is hopeful of getting agreement for the convening of an international conference to try to settle the Mideast conflict.

Since it would include all parties with stakes in the Middle East--Syria as well as Jordan, and the Soviet Union as well as the United States--both Israel and the Reagan Administration previously have been cool to the conference idea.

The United States, meanwhile, wants to use the preliminary talks as a means of engaging the Jordanians in direct negotiations with the Israelis.

According to one Western diplomat here, this entails persuading the Jordanians to meet the Israelis without the participation of the PLO, something that the Jordanians have so far regarded with something akin to horror.

“Without the PLO, there will never be any talks,” said one well-placed Jordanian. “The United States might as well start negotiating without Jordan altogether.”

3 Different Agendas

The three different agendas that are evolving have left a number of officials here pessimistic about the future of the discussions, which the Americans refuse to even label negotiations.

“The Americans are not going to give on the question of self-determination, the PLO is not dealing on (Resolution) 242 and the Jordanians will not drop the PLO--so what is Murphy going to talk about?” asked one Western European diplomat sardonically.

The Americans are now wrestling with the question of which Palestinians to meet with, following receipt of a list of possible candidates submitted by the Jordanians and reportedly endorsed by Arafat.

According to Jordanian officials, the PLO submitted an extensive list of names, any of whom they said they would be willing to accept as Palestinian representatives at the talks. They gave no minimum number.

The officials said many of those on the original list declined to serve, sensing that the talks were either ill-fated or would expose them to too high a risk.

2 Candidates Acceptable

After being shown a list of seven names by the United States, Israel’s Prime Minister Shimon Peres at first termed it unacceptable but then said Israel had no objections to two of the candidates--Hanna Seniora, a Jerusalem newspaper editor, and Fayez abu Rahmeh, a Gaza lawyer.

Neither Seniora or Abu Rahmeh is a member of the PLO, but both are believed to be close to the PLO leadership.

Diplomatic analysts here and Jordanian officials were surprised at the relatively mild opposition offered by the Israelis.

The Jordanians and PLO officials said they were heartened by a statement from Washington saying that Israel would not be allowed to exercise a veto over Arabs with whom the United States might meet.

One bemused diplomat said that, in light of the Washington statement, Israel’s rejection of five of the seven candidates now may result in the Reagan Administration’s feeling honor-bound to choose at least one more candidate to prove that the Israelis do not indeed exercise a veto.

Paris-Based Historian

In that event, according to officials, the third candidate appeared likely to be Henry Cattan, a Paris-based Palestinian historian.

The selection of the candidates represents something of a concession from both the United States and the PLO.

On the one hand, the United States has never previously agreed to meet with Palestinians designated by the PLO.

On the other hand, the PLO, which describes itself as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, has never before agreed to be represented by surrogates in peace talks, no matter how close they may be to the PLO itself.