Arafat Called Victor in PLO Feud : Power Increased at Expense of Radicals, Analysts Say

Despite being forced into a last-minute concession that could strain his relations with Egypt, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat has emerged as the clear winner after several weeks of intense infighting between moderates and radicals within the Palestine Liberation Organization.

This was the consensus of diplomats, Palestinian analysts and other observers attending the 18th session of the Palestine National Council, the PLO’s parliament in exile, which ended in the Algerian capital early Sunday.

The weeklong conference, and the intensive back-room discussions between the leaders of various factions of the Palestine Liberation Organization that preceded it, produced an agreement to reunify the PLO after a four-year split between Arafat-led moderates and Damascus-based radical dissidents.

Long-Term Impact Uncertain

The long-term impact of the unity accord is hard to gauge because it is by no means clear how long the PLO’s disparate and quarrelsome factions can remain unified.

“In terms of PLO politics, how long it lasts is less important than who gets blamed when it breaks up,” one analyst noted.

But in the immediate aftermath of the conference, Arafat “clearly has emerged as the main winner,” while Syria, whose influence over the Damascus-based dissidents is now diminished, seems, for the moment at least, to be “the big loser,” a Western diplomat said.

To shift away from Syria and return to the Palestinian fold, the radicals initially insisted on a number of concessions from Arafat that would have radicalized the PLO and limited his control over it.

They demanded, for instance, that Arafat sever relations with Egypt and Jordan, the two moderate Arab states pushing strongly for a peace conference with Israel, and that he accept “organizational reforms” giving the radicals a greater say in PLO policy matters.

In the end, the dissidents, dealing from a position of greater weakness, appeared to have given in on most of these points, analysts said.

In a gesture to the dissidents, Arafat did agree to abrogate a 1985 accord that he signed with Jordan’s King Hussein on a joint approach toward peace talks with Israel. But that appeared to have little more than symbolic significance because the accord was suspended by King Hussein himself last year.

Criticism of Egypt

Arafat, in what was seen as a more costly concession, also agreed to include an indirect criticism of Egypt in one of the council’s final resolutions. But he subsequently declared that he hoped the PLO’s “good relations” with Egypt would not be affected. At a news conference on Sunday, he publicly embraced Egyptian journalists and promised to “do my best” to maintain close ties with Cairo.

The PLO chairman also appeared to get his way on the crucial question of organizational reforms. Arafat loyalists and other PLO moderates account for a two-thirds majority on the new 15-member executive committee, which should ensure that key votes go his way.

“Arafat has gotten most of what he wanted without having to give much in return,” a Western diplomat said. “Taking back the radicals does not seem to have limited his room for maneuver. He still has a free hand.”

This is important, diplomats and Arab analysts agreed, because of two other developments emerging from the just-ended meeting of the council--developments that could have more long-range significance than the unity accord itself.

One was the council’s resolution calling for the convening of a U.N.-sponsored international peace conference with the PLO participating “on an equal basis” with the other parties.

“The significance lies in what the resolution did not say,” a senior Palestinian source said. “It did not say that the PLO would go to the peace conference only as an independent delegation. It did not rule out the possibility of going as part of a joint Arab delegation.”

‘Major Achievement’

“Arafat’s main aim at this conference was to maneuver the PLO into a position where it will be ready for an international peace conference, even though that still seems a long way off,” a Western diplomat said.

Although the resolution itself “breaks no new ground,” the fact that Arafat maneuvered the radicals into accepting a position similar to the one contained in the accord he signed with King Hussein is “a major achievement on his part,” the diplomat added.

The other development of major significance, diplomats said, was the re-emergence, through its role in helping to unify the PLO, of the Soviet Union as an influential player in the Middle East.

The Soviets, PLO sources said, exerted “heavy pressure” on Syrian President Hafez Assad to go along with the PLO reconciliation.

When, on the night of the Palestine National Council’s closing session, the unity accord appeared to be on the verge of collapse over the Egypt issue, Arafat held a make-or-break meeting with George Habash, leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the most important of the dissident groups. Also present at the meeting was the Soviet ambassador to Algeria, Vasily Taratuta, diplomatic sources said.

“The Soviet Union is trying very hard now to restore its influence in the Middle East, and it has found an opportunity through the PLO,” a West European diplomat said.

Other analysts noted that, with Israel determined not to negotiate with the PLO and the United States reluctant to give Moscow a role in the peace process, the Soviets and the PLO need each other to guarantee their respective places in any future negotiations.

“The United States insists on being our enemy, and the Soviet Union is trying to be our friend,” Khaled Hassan, a senior Arafat adviser, said when asked about Soviet-PLO ties. “We need an ally, and they need a cause.”