Washington Skeptical of Terror Pact

The anti-terrorism agreement that produced enthusiastic praise Monday among the seven national leaders attending the Tokyo summit meeting faced skepticism in Washington from experts in and out of government who said they doubted that it will have any noticeable impact in stemming terrorist acts.

Officials here, including terrorism experts and non-government authorities who viewed the summit’s statement from afar, generally portrayed it as lacking sufficient bite to change the behavior of Libya and other sponsors of international terrorism.

However, the fact that the occasionally contentious leaders could reach an agreement on the subject at all--despite historical differences and a lack of enthusiasm among some of them for the tougher efforts urged by President Reagan--reflected a degree of unanimity that has been missing when the summit nations have discussed the subject in the past.

‘Terrorism Is Bad’

One skeptical senior Administration official here summarized the summit’s terrorism accord as no more than: “Terrorism is bad and we’re going to do something about it.”

Henry M. Schuler, an expert on Libya and the Middle East at Georgetown University’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, said, “It seems to me they keep warming these things over.”

Schuler acknowledged that the agreement is better than nothing but added, “It doesn’t seem terribly impressive.”

Referring to the agreement’s proposed strictures on the size of Libya’s overseas diplomatic and consular missions, Schuler said: “It boggles my mind to say, ‘This embassy’s got two terrorists in it, so we’ll throw them out.’ Why isn’t it proof the (whole) embassy is being used as a terrorist conduit, and you close it all down?”

Getting His Attention

Schuler said that “the only thing that gets Kadafi’s attention and the only thing he cares about is the commercial links.” Therefore, he added, anti-terrorism steps must be taken to isolate Kadafi economically--by cutting sharply into his ability to produce and sell Libyan oil--to force a change in his policy or in the support he receives from his military forces.

Despite the summit’s show of unanimity, a senior Administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, cited previous expressions of concern about terrorism and asked rhetorically, “Are the allies going to do anything?” He answered, “I’m not aware of anything.”

However, another high-level official, also requiring anonymity, viewed the agreement as evidence that Japan and the Western nations at the summit are offering “a mandate to pursue concrete measures.” But he asked skeptically: “Are all the seven going to stick to this? Are the French? Are the Japanese?”