Shultz Lowers Sights on Mideast Talks : En Route to New Round, He Sees Little Hope for Quick Answers

When Secretary of State George P. Shultz unveiled his Middle East peace initiative to Israel and its Arab adversaries barely a month ago, he said his first task was to get the antagonists to abandon unrealistic objectives. “We’re not there yet,” he admitted.

But as Shultz began the latest phase of his shuttle diplomacy Friday, it appeared that he is the one who has absorbed the reality therapy. Now, he concedes, the task is even more daunting than he once had believed.

Shultz had urged the leaders of Israel, Jordan, Syria and Egypt to accept or reject his proposal by mid-March, musing then that deadlines are useful because they force decisions.

But when none of the countries submitted a definitive reply, Shultz lowered his sights.

“Of course, we would like to have people say ‘yes,’ ” he told reporters Thursday on the flight from Washington. “If they can’t say ‘yes,’ they can say ‘maybe’--or they can say ‘yes, if somebody else will do something.’ ”

“I think we have a chance of getting some motion, although it remains to be seen,” he added. “It comes in small increments.”

Shultz is scheduled to reach the Middle East late Sunday after 2 1/2 days in Italy.

Italian Foreign Minister Giulio Andreotti applauded Shultz’s effort following a meeting with the secretary of state Friday. But the Italian official left little doubt that he considers Shultz’s original two-week schedule to be unrealistic.

“This is a problem that has been enduring for many years and, therefore, it is not possible to find a solution in a fortnight,” Andreotti said.

And Shultz virtually conceded that Syrian President Hafez Assad will ultimately reject the plan.

“I don’t want to predict that I won’t make any headway with President Assad, but he’s usually pretty firm,” he said.

Mubarak Supports Plan

So far, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is the only official to give even a qualified approval to the Shultz proposal. But Egypt is a peripheral player in the process this time, because it already has a peace treaty with Israel and it already has recovered territory it lost in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir has made it clear that he finds the Shultz plan unacceptable, although Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres supports it. Israel’s coalition government has taken no official position on the matter.

With the positions in Israel, Syria and Egypt fairly well set, at least for the time being, Shultz’s best hope of making progress is in Jordan. King Hussein has not yet announced his view of the proposal.

“I think I can say fairly that the Jordanians are quite intrigued with this,” Shultz said.

But in the past Hussein has usually held back, waiting for others to make a commitment before he takes a stand himself. Asked if he plans to tell Hussein that the peace bandwagon has stalled and that it is up to Jordan to get it started, Shultz said he would not make the case that starkly.

“But I certainly will tell him that it’s important to move forward here and keep the process moving,” he added.

Shultz’s plan, unveiled last month, calls for an interim period of limited self-rule for Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip while negotiations proceed over a final settlement. The major powers would have an advisory role in the process.

Shultz reiterated his determination to avoid changes in the plan, which he said is carefully balanced to give all the parties as much as possible--but certainly not all--of what they hope to achieve.

“I’ve heard lots of proposals for modifications and I don’t, at this point, see any modification that would improve this,” he said.

Shultz said the peace process has taken on new urgency because of the bloody Palestinian uprising against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

But he admitted that he has no new ideas on ways to bring the Palestinians into the negotiations. Most Palestinians insist that they should be represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization.