Shultz Ignored Senior Aides in Barring Arafat

WASHINGTON —  In deciding to prevent Yasser Arafat from addressing the United Nations in New York, Secretary of State George P. Shultz overrode the argument of his top Middle East experts that a snub to the PLO leader would damage Washington’s standing as Middle East peacemaker, Administration officials said Monday.

Shultz’s decision, culminating a week of bitter bureaucratic combat, showed that the fight against terrorism has assumed precedence over almost all other foreign policy objectives in the closing weeks of the Reagan Administration.

By denying Arafat’s request for a U.S. visa, Shultz angered much of the Arab world--including such traditional American friends as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt--and may have shattered the U.S. role as mediator between Israel and its Arab adversaries. Paradoxically, the decision may make it easier for President-elect George Bush to make a conciliatory gesture toward the Arabs because Shultz so completely deflated their expectations.

‘Could Have Overruled It’

White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said Shultz did not consult with President Reagan before making his decision. Fitzwater said the President “could have overruled it . . . but he did not want to.” He added that Reagan “supports this decision.”

According to State Department officials, Shultz was persuaded by his counterterrorism chief, L. Paul Bremer III, that the United States should make a dramatic gesture against terrorism--especially in the wake of the Iran-Contra controversy, in which the Administration, albeit indirectly, violated its own rules against dealing with kidnapers and terrorists. In announcing his decision Saturday, Shultz accused the Palestine Liberation Organization of terrorism against Americans and others. Arafat, he said, was “an accessory to such terrorism.”

By siding with Bremer, a former ambassador to the Netherlands who has limited Middle East experience, Shultz rejected the stand of the department’s Near East Bureau, which argued that denial of a visa to Arafat would be interpreted as a slap against Palestinians and even against Arabs in general.

“I don’t think there were very many who thought that this was the way we should go,” said one State Department Middle East expert. “A lot of people told him that this would not do very much good for the United States in the Middle East.”

A counterterrorism official said the Near East Bureau “is still annoyed that they didn’t get their way on this one,” adding, “We’ve always been at odds with them over the PLO and the Middle East.”

Sources close to Bush have suggested recently that the President-elect hoped to avoid an early initiative on the Middle East because the situation is so muddled that the chances of success are slim and the costs of failure are high. However, the latest dispute over the Arafat visa may force Bush’s hand.

William Quandt, a former Middle East specialist on the National Security Council, predicted that Shultz’s decision will confirm the long-held view of the Palestinians and many other Arabs that Shultz and the Reagan Administration are “hostile to their interests.” But he said many Arabs “look toward the Bush Administration with the hope that things will get better.”

Packing an Extra Punch

Quandt, now a senior fellow of the Brookings Institution in Washington, said a conciliatory gesture by Bush would pack an extra punch because it would come against the background of a hard-line stance at the close of the Reagan Administration.

Former Sen. James Abourezk (D-S.D.), founder of the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, said: “It all depends on what Bush and (Secretary of State-designate James A.) Baker do when they come in--but I think they could make some moves that would remedy the whole situation.”

Administration sources said the decision was a personal one by Shultz, driven primarily by his repugnance for terrorism. In his statement Saturday, Shultz noted that the PLO renounced terrorism as a political tactic in a declaration issued in 1985 in Cairo, but he said that groups affiliated with the organization have committed several terrorist attacks since then.

However, Brian Jenkins, a terrorism expert at the RAND Corp. in Santa Monica, said that U.S. counterterrorism policy has become “a bit brittle.”

“The question is, just how high on the agenda do we put terrorism?” Jenkins asked. “Do we let it drive foreign policy?

“What happened in Iran-Contra is still casting a long shadow over American foreign policy,” he added. “In an effort to recover U.S. credibility on the terrorism issue, the United States has really backed itself into a corner. Sometimes you can stand up so straight that you fall on your behind.”

Arafat sought the visa to address a U.N. General Assembly debate on the future of Palestine that is scheduled for this week. U.N. officials complained that the decision violated U.S. obligations under the 1947 treaty that established rules governing U.N. operations in New York.

The U.N. Host Country Committee debated the issue in an all-day session Monday. Chairman Constantine Moushoutas of Cyprus said, “The vast majority of those who have spoken are of the opinion that the host country should be urgently asked to review and reverse the decision.”

If the United States sticks by its decision, which State Department spokesman Charles Redman said is “final,” Arab members plan to urge the General Assembly to move the Palestine debate to Geneva or Vienna, where Arafat would be welcome. Redman said Washington would not oppose such a move and would participate in the debate. But he insisted that it is not necessary because the United States already has granted visas to other PLO officials who could represent the organization.

Times staff writer Don Shannon contributed to this report.