allies, and the countries of the region. Our overriding interest remains an early, comprehensive political settlement to the eight year old Iran-Iraq war which is the root cause of tension in the region. Finally, though it extends beyond the scope of this subcommittee, we are actively supporting UN efforts to gain a negotiated political settlement in

Afghanistan.

Real issues are yet to be resolved among the parties, but there is good reason to hope that a satisfactory agreement could be achieved, therefore leading to Soviet withdrawals and opening the way to a neutral, non-aligned

Afghanistan where the people exercise their right to

self-determination.

MIDDLE EAST

In the Middle East today we are at a moment of critical decision. After years of strife, the time may at last be ripe for major movement towards a negotiated peace in the Middle East. It is a time of challenge and a time of testing. The experience of recent years shows that violence begets only more violence, while negotiations can work and can produce peace. The challenge before the parties in the region today is to

seize the opportunity for progress toward peace that lies before them.

Over the past several weeks the United States has been engaged in intensive efforts with parties to the Middle East conflict, aimed at opening a path toward negotiations for peace. The Secretary of State has met at length with the leaders of Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. We have consulted closely with our European allies. I myself have just returned from talks in Western Europe and with the Soviet Foreign Minister. As you are aware, Prime Minister Shamir is now here in Washington and we are continuing our talks with him.

Our discussions in the region have seen the emergence of a new sense of realism. Leaders in each of the countries we visited showed a clear willingness to consider new ideas and to look afresh at old ones. The mood was one of seriousness and of an honest desire to find ways to move forward. We received constant encouragement to continue and expand our efforts.

The result of all of our discussions was the presentation of a new U.S. proposal for moving toward peace in the region. While our approach is ambitious, we believe it is fair and reasonable. No party will be able to achieve all of its desires. Our proposal, however, addresses the fundamental concerns of all parties. Most importantly, our proposal is realistic and it is workable.

Our objective is a comprehensive peace, a peace that provides for the security of all states in the region and that satisfies the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. It would be achieved through negotiations between Israel and each of its neighbors which is willing to do so, that is, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. Each negotiation would be based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 in all their parts.

Our approach, as regards the West Bank and Gaza, includes six months of negotiations on interim arrangements, firmly interlocked with an early date certain for the start of negotiations on a final settlement. The negotiations would be kicked off by a properly structured international conference. The conference would be open to permanent members of the UN Security Council and to parties to the conflict who accept resolutions 242 and 338, and who renounce terrorism and violence. The conference, in a manner to be agreed, could receive reports of the negotiations but not impose solutions or veto agreements reached between the parties.

i

The proposal we left with the parties is an integral whole. It is carefully balanced to take the concerns of all into account. It will not work if the parties accept some portions and reject other parts.

We are on a fast track. We would hope the bilateral negotiations could begin May 1. We asked the leaders to whom we gave our proposal to be in touch with us this month with their responses. Each agreed to study our ideas carefully.

As

I noted earlier, no one has said "no." That is not good enough; we hope to secure a "yes" from the parties.

We fully recognize that we have posed a vital challenge to our friends in the region. They face difficult and painful decisions, but decisions of historic proportions.

They face

a crucial opportunity which is unlikely

to arise again soon.

Our proposal has resulted from long study and many hours of discussion in the region. I found recognition of this in Moscow last week. The Soviet leadership is impressed by the high level commitment the President displayed in sending Secretary Shultz to the region with initiatives that aim at a comprehensive settlement. I said that our proposal is an integral one and no regional party or outside power may pick the elements of our proposal that they choose while blocking others. We will continue to remind them, as I did in Moscow, that without a clear statement disassociating themselves from terrorism against regional parties, without expanded opportunity for Jewish emigration, and without full diplomatic relations with Israel, Moscow's seriousness about peace will remain in question.

LEBANON

On a separate but equally important issue, we have been actively engaged in promoting in Lebanon the process of constitutional reform and national reconciliation. We will continue to do what we can to help restore Lebanon's sovereignty, unity, and territorial independence.

The suffering

of the Lebanese people has continued for far too long. We believe the efforts of the Lebanese themselves to restructure their political system are critical to the future of Lebanon, consequently, to regional stability.

PERSIAN GULF

The focus of my talks in Moscow was Middle East peace, but we also treated the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan in our consultations. There were no breakthroughs in Moscow, but there are some observations I want to offer you. The Iran-Iraq war remains the primary cause of instability in the Gulf region. The Administration is continuing to pursue its two-track policy: working through diplomacy to bring an end to conflict, but while taking specific military measures to defuse the immediate threats to U.S. interest that arise from the war.

Our most publicized short-term measure, increased naval presence to protect U.S. flag shipping in the Gulf, has been a