POLITICS 88 : Jackson Attempts to Clarify His Views on Terrorists--He’d Consider Concessions

The Rev. Jesse Jackson struggled Monday to clarify his views on terrorism, finally making clear that he would consider granting a wide range of concessions to terrorists in order to win the freedom of American hostages.

After contradicting himself repeatedly in trying to explain the stance he first outlined Sunday, Jackson ultimately said he would rule out only the exchange of weapons for hostages as a concession to terrorists. He said other concessions “must be weighed on their own merits.”

That position contrasts sharply with declared U.S. policy, which since the Carter Administration has stated that the U.S. government will make no concessions whatsoever. Jackson indicated that, although he might violate that policy as President, he would not revamp it, saying: “It is good as a policy but there must always be flexibility in the policy.”

‘Don’t Have Any Reaction’

Jackson’s Democratic rival for the nomination, Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, avoided any direct criticism of Jackson’s views on terrorism. “I don’t have any reaction,” Dukakis said at a press conference in Langhorn, Pa., when reporters pressed him for comment. “I don’t have a problem with talking. But you never make concessions to terrorists.”

But Vice President George Bush, campaigning at the Wilkes-Barre/ Scranton airport, was critical of Jackson’s stance, saying: “I would not negotiate with terrorists. I think he made a mistake there, a serious one, as a matter of fact.”

Jackson’s airing of his controversial views on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary bore striking similarity to his emphatic appeal, while campaigning in Wisconsin earlier this month, for Pa1851878753resign. Campaign officials had said those comments, coupled with the news that Jackson had written directly to Noriega, cost the candidate considerable support in the Wisconsin primary, where he was beaten decisively by Dukakis.

Bid to Mute Controversy

Jackson’s final clarification of his position on terrorism came after nearly a day of frantic attempts by the candidate and his campaign to mute the controversy over his statements on Sunday.

Jackson had first indicated in an interview Sunday that he would negotiate with terrorists and be willing to make concessions to them but his campaign released a statement late Sunday night insisting that “talk does not mean concessions.”

Jackson then contradicted himself repeatedly in trying to explain that position, stumbling through two lengthy sessions with reporters but never clarifying what kinds of concessions he would be willing to consider.

Finally on Monday morning, Jackson read a revised statement prepared by aides that declared: “Talk does not mean materiel concessions.” He and his aides said the insertion of the word “materiel” should be interpreted to mean that Jackson would rule out only the provision of weapons and other military goods to terrorists.

Principles for Action

Jackson emphasized that the “first operating principle” in dealing with terrorism must be to avoid action that would “compromise or jeopardize national interest or national security.” He said also that “we must do nothing that will provide an incentive for terrorists to continue hostage-taking in the future.”

But Jackson made clear that he would consider concessions “on a case-by-case basis,” including granting immunity to terrorists or guaranteeing them freedom of passage if they released American hostages. He left open the possibility that he might ask other governments to release prisoners in exchange for hostages, saying that “the other governments must make that judgment.”

“Every plea-bargaining situation or right-of-safe-passage situation must be weighed on its own merits,” Jackson said.

Asked whether he believed such concessions might encourage further terrorism, Jackson said: “I am not afraid of that.”

Reagan Actions Cited

Jackson argued that his positions did not represent a break with the past. In 1985, he claimed, the Reagan Administration violated its own no-concessions rule when it used Amal militia leader Nabih Berri as an intermediary in negotiations to win freedom for Americans held hostage aboard a TWA jet in Beirut and reportedly agreed to concessions that provided safe passage for the hijackers and led to the release by the Israeli government of hundreds of Lebanese prisoners of war.

Now, he said, the Reagan Administration was effectively making a concession to Noriega by offering him free passage out of Panama to Spain. Both positions, Jackson said, were “the right thing to do.”

In his comments Monday, Jackson also backed away from his declaration Sunday that he would “meet with anybody I could meet with to get the American hostages out of Lebanon.”

Although reaffirming that the United States must “choose negotiation over bloody, bloody confrontation,” he said that as President he would not meet directly with terrorists. Instead, Jackson suggested that he might send a U.S. ambassador or other official to negotiate in his place, a stance that would mark a further break from U.S. policy.

Calls South Africa Terrorist

Jackson said, however, that he would negotiate directly with the heads of states that sponsored terrorism, and sought throughout the day to put South Africa in that category, insisting that U.S. anti-terrorist efforts have been overly preoccupied with the Middle East. He condemned in particular South Africa’s raids against the front-line states in southern Africa and the reported massacre by South African-backed Renamo guerrillas of 100,000 civilians in Mozambique.

“We must bring South Africa back into the loop of defining terrorism,” Jackson said. “It’s stretching the definition to leave South Africa out.”

Jackson planned to fly today to Washington to meet with Deputy Secretary of State John Whitehead to urge the United States to take a stronger stance against the South African actions, and planned to meet with congressional leaders and African ambassadors to organize a congressional fact-finding mission to Mozambique.