Baker’s Role

Your editorial (Sept. 13) discussed foreign policy without mentioning James A. Baker III. In fact, it robbed Baker of some of the credit when you wrote, “Bush, to his credit, last year prodded reluctant Arabs and Israelis into face-to-face negotiations.”

It was Secretary of State Baker who established the ground rules for the peace negotiations and convinced the Arabs to attend. He then called the Madrid meeting and dared the Israelis not to come. Even when the Bush Administration refused to guarantee the Israeli loan, it did it in a way that did not alienate American Jews.

It was Baker who came back from Israel after they had killed the Palestinian elections and in a press conference told the Israelis that if they really wanted peace they knew his telephone number.

It was Baker who worked with Congress to resolve the situation in Nicaragua. If you compare the Bush Administration (Baker) with all previous administrations, you must conclude that the diplomatic negotiations were brilliant.

Your headline asked the question “Bush vs. Clinton: How Serious the Foreign Policy Differences?” Unless Clinton has a diplomatic genius in the wings, you must conclude that the differences would be significant. Even former President Jimmy Carter chided Bush for taking Baker away from the task of running the State Department. This action implied that no one else could match Baker.

If Bush is not reelected, we must join Carter and anticipate a significant degradation in the conduct of our foreign policy.

EDWARD C. PERRY II, Palm Springs