A Crazy Act, for Good Reason : Shultz Move Has Drawn Fire, but Will Expose the Middle East Reality

Sometimes it helps to be perceived as crazy, just a bit. That’s the way most ofthe world has reacted to Secretary of State George P. Shultz’s decision to deny Yasser Arafat’s request for an entry visa to address the U.N. General Assembly.

One of the advantages of appearing to be somewhat crazy is that it accords others an opportunity to reexamine their own view of reality. For the Arab states and those who are supporting Arafat’s appearance at the United Nations, the dominant reality--or, more accurately, their perception of reality--is that Arafat would now be embarking on a significant “peace initiative”--one that would force Israel to respond. For the Israelis, it is all a masquerade. Their perception of reality is of a Palestine Liberation Organization that is irrevocably committed to Israel’s destruction, regardless of what nice words it may choose to utter to placate the Americans and others.

Shultz explained his actions as predicated on the ground that Arafat is a terrorist and thus a “national-security risk”--the exception provided in the U.N. Headquarters Agreement to the general obligation imposed on the United States not to impede the access of delegates to the U.N. headquarters in New York. Unfortunately, Shultz would have had a stronger legal case had the same compunctions motivated a denial of a visa earlier this month to Farouk Kaddoumi, the PLO’s “foreign minister,” to attend the same U.N. session, or had his State Department joined the Justice Department in favoring the closing of the PLO observer mission in New York. After all, the sins of leaders are generally imputed to their organizations, and if Arafat is a terrorist and a national-security risk, so, too, is the PLO observer mission of which he is the titular head.

But better late than never. Shultz, who opposed the Iran-Contra deal as transacting business with terrorists, is the Administration’s chief remaining anti-terrorist man. He was not about to see Arafat rehabilitated--not when he had the blood of Americans on his hands.

If Shultz’s primary reason was revulsion at Arafat’s terrorist side, the consequences of his actions--intended or not--were geopolitical. In the Middle East, where perceptions can quickly become reality, piercing the bubble of an inflated perception out of tune with events on the ground can have everything to do with advancing the cause of peace or stumbling down the road to war.

Had Arafat been given the platform of the U.N. General Assembly, it would have created the worldwide perception of progress in reaching a Palestinian-Israeli accord. The PLO would be viewed as the legitimate interlocutor. Now, if only Israel would be more forthcoming.

But the reality, as every serious diplomat knows, is quite different. Israel, regardless of any particular political party in power, will not be pushed into dealing with the PLO. And everyone understands why: the PLO’s Marxist-Leninist leanings, the worldwide cadre of revolutionary types that would surely make the West Bank their haven, and the PLO’s sorry record in Lebanon--not to mention the irredentist ambitions of its “factions” opposed to Israel’s existence.

Every serious diplomat also knows that, despite the enormous difficulties attendant in its execution, the Camp David formula is the only approach that stands a chance of working. It envisions an interim solution aimed at development of responsible autonomous Palestinian leaders and institutions before moving on to discussion of the final status of the West Bank and Gaza. But with Arafat in New York, with Washington perhaps his next destination, the interim-solution concept of the Camp David accords would have been pronounced dead and buried.

That’s why the United States had to act before it would be party to self-immolation of its own notable contribution to the efforts at finding a way out of the Arab-Israeli impasse.

Complicating the task for Washington today is the fact that the PLO has become not only for some Arab states the symbol by which they can continue to attack the legitimacy of Israel’s existence but also the only remaining vestige of pan-Arab unity. So they will shout, as will the Europeans, that the United States has acted crazily.

But in time--and this is what Shultz is gambling on, as is President Reagan, who shares his vision and has expressed full approval of his actions--the denial of Arafat’s visa request will help expose the PLO’s true place in the scheme of things so that the reality of events on the ground, and not the inflated aura of “happenings” at the United Nations, will determine what is feasible and what is not.