Syria Commits to Talks, Baker Says : Middle East: He hints that the U.S. may have agreed to a broader U.N. role in a peace conference. Israel, where he arrives Sunday, has opposed that idea.

Secretary of State James A. Baker III announced here Thursday that Syria has agreed to an American plan for a Middle East peace conference, but he raised new uncertainty about the details of the still-secret American proposal.

“It is apparent to me that Syria has made a very important decision,” Baker told a news conference here after a 2 1/2-hour meeting with Syrian President Hafez Assad.

“Syria has agreed to the proposals we have made. . . . It gives us something to work with, and we are going to try to work with it on this trip to try to build the cause of peace.”

Last Monday, after receiving a private letter from Assad, President Bush termed Syria’s response a “positive breakthrough.” But until the secretary’s visit here Thursday, it was unclear whether Syria had actually agreed to the U.S. proposal.

At his press conference, Baker appeared to indicate that the United States may have made some concessions to Syria that would give the United Nations a greater role at the proposed peace conference than the Bush Administration had earlier envisioned.

One of the main sticking points that has held up agreement on a peace conference is the role of the United Nations. Syria wanted the United Nations to sponsor the peace conference, or at least to be an active participant in it. Israel objected to any significant U.N. participation on grounds that the organization has for years shown it is biased against the Jewish state.

In an effort to work out a compromise, the Bush Administration had suggested that the United Nations take part in the peace conference as a “silent observer.”

But Baker on Thursday repeatedly avoided using the word “silent.” And he left the impression that the U.N. representative at the proposed conference will be able to participate, at least to some extent.

“The (U.N.) representative would be an observer. . . . He will be able to communicate with the participants and the sponsors,” the secretary of state said. The United States and the Soviet Union would sponsor the conference.

One senior Administration official later explained that under the U.S. plan that Syria accepted, the U.N. representative might ask questions or talk to other participants but that “he (the U.N. representative) is not there to give a speech.”

Baker, who is due to visit Israel on Sunday, declined to speculate on how the government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir might respond to the U.S. proposal in its current form. “I cannot prejudge what their reactions will be,” he said.

In an apparent effort to ease Israeli fears, the secretary of state insisted that he will tell the Israeli government everything he has promised Syria about the proposed peace conference.

“We will not be giving secret assurances to any one party that will not be shared with another party,” Baker said.

There was no immediate response from Israel, but Shamir’s government has previously rejected the compromise accepted by Syria.

U.S. officials sought to portray Syria’s acceptance of the American plan as the result of a far-reaching strategic decision by Assad and his government.

“He (Assad) saw the wave of the future is with the West . . . and with a Damascus-Riyadh-Cairo axis,” said one senior American diplomat here, referring to Syria’s seeming attempt to align itself with Saudi Arabia and Egypt in Mideast diplomacy.

A senior Administration official, speaking on condition that he not be identified, said Assad’s decision reflects the past year’s changes in relations between the United States and the Soviet Union.

“They (the Syrians) have taken strong note of the U.S.-Soviet rapprochement,” he said. “ . . . It is their perception that we (the United States) are the preeminent superpower.”

Administration officials said that over the last six weeks, while the United States waited for Assad to reply to the American initiative, the Soviet Union, Egypt and Saudi Arabia sent letters to Assad encouraging him to go along with the United States.

Baker said at his news conference that the proposed conference will seek a peace settlement “in accordance with” the United Nations’ resolutions that call for the return of Israeli-occupied territories.

But the secretary of state noted that the countries taking part in the conference “will have differing interpretations of what those resolutions mean and require.”

Background: The Middle East Divide

Talks

ISRAEL: Strong reservations about an international conference; opposes U.N. participation; stresses bilateral nature of peace talks.

ARABS: In general, nations support talks on U.N. Resolution 242. They are in favor of U.N. participation in a conference.

Land

ISRAEL: Contends that return of Sinai fulfills U.N. Resolution 242, which calls for it to give up land seized in 1967 Middle East War.

ARABS: Demand withdrawal from all land held since 1967 war: Golan Heights (Syria), West Bank (Jordan) and Gaza Strip (Egypt).

PLO

ISRAEL: Says anyone associated with the Palestine Liberation Organization should not be seated at table for talks.

ARABS: They have long considered the organization the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.