NEWS ANALYSIS : U.S. Pressing for Continuous Mideast Peace Talks

In his Middle East diplomacy this week, Secretary of State James A. Baker III seemed to be gambling, against long odds, that the Bush Administration can help broker a Middle East peace settlement within a matter of months, perhaps even before the November election.

The Middle East peace talks may now resume as early as next month. Originally scheduled for Rome, they could be moved back to Washington, a setting that was opposed by the former Israeli government of Yitzhak Shamir but which may be more acceptable to new Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

And this time, the Bush Administration is trying to ensure that there will be no letup in the talks.

In the five rounds of talks held since last October’s Middle East peace conference, the parties met for a few days, gave speeches and flew home. Some Arab leaders said bluntly that the talks were an utter waste of time.

Now, Baker is urging, with apparent success, that the talks be “continuous.” That is a hint that he is hoping soon for the sort of intense, fatiguing diplomacy through which President Jimmy Carter produced the Camp David accords. It is ironic that, in an American election year, a Republican secretary of state seems to be borrowing a former Democratic President’s formula for bringing about peace in the Middle East.

Rabin favored the idea of continuous talks, and in each meeting with Arab leaders, the secretary of state pressed the point. The Arab governments had long complained that the old Shamir government was stalling; and so, at least in public, none of the Arab leaders rejected Baker’s idea.

But can the United States succeed in bringing about peace? Despite the movement toward new talks, are the chances for a peace settlement any better now than they were a year ago, when Syrian President Hafez Assad broke the ice by agreeing to come to the peace table?

And how can the Bush Administration concentrate on bringing peace to the Middle East in the middle of an election campaign, particularly one in which Baker may soon be leaving, at least temporarily, the post of secretary of state?

In the six Middle East countries he visited this week, Baker argued repeatedly that the recent political changes in Israel are an extremely significant development that should propel Arab governments and the Palestinians toward peace talks.

“It’s important in our view that there be a reconvening of the bilaterals (peace talks) fairly promptly, in order to take advantage of the possible momentum that could be engendered by a change in government in Israel,” he said in Amman.

And Baker got a bit of help in making his case to Arab leaders when Rabin’s government announced a series of new restrictions on the construction of new settlements in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Those developments were enough to produce at least some new expressions of optimism by Arab leaders, who moderated their usual denunciations of Israel. Arab leaders acknowledged that they were unwilling to denounce Rabin before getting a chance to see what he will do.

“The man (Rabin) is only one week in office,” Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said. “What do you expect him to do? Miracles in one week?”

Even Syria, the toughest and most important Arab government in the peace talks, was uncharacteristically optimistic, up to a point. “We hope that the new developments, especially the presence of a new government in Israel, will help all the parties concerned to resume talks as soon as possible,” Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Shareh said.

Yet the Arabs’ expressions of optimism go only so far.

They realize that Rabin’s actions on the settlements, and Baker’s trip itself, are mainly aimed, at least in the short term, at freeing up the long-sought $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees for Israel. Rabin’s government needs those loans for Israel’s economy, and the Bush Administration needs them to help smooth its relations with American Jewish groups.

The Israeli actions fall short of the complete freeze on settlements that the Arab governments have long wanted. Israel’s new Labor government is unwilling to go that far. And without a freeze on settlements, Arab leaders are unwilling to make any major concession of their own.

A year ago, Baker won concessions from both Mubarak and Saudi King Fahd that they would move to suspend the Arab economic boycott if Israel would suspend the construction of settlements.

Achieving an end of the Arab boycott would be a major victory for Baker--and, of course, for Israel. But Baker avoided even raising the issue in public this week, apparently because he knew that Israel’s actions in curbing settlements don’t amount to the settlement freeze the Arabs had wanted.

When asked Friday whether it might be time for Arab governments to make new concessions, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal retorted, “I don’t think we can call a new government in Israel a concession to the Arabs.”

Without any tangible concessions from the Arabs this week, Baker and other U.S. officials seem to be hoping they can get new movement toward peace at the negotiating table.

But, said Baker, “You can’t take anything for granted. We are, after all, in the Middle East.”