Britain: Egyptians Rejected Soviets as ‘Sole Advisor’

British Prime Minister Edward Heath and US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in London on December 12, 1973 (Getty Images)
British Prime Minister Edward Heath and US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in London on December 12, 1973 (Getty Images)
TT

Britain: Egyptians Rejected Soviets as ‘Sole Advisor’

British Prime Minister Edward Heath and US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in London on December 12, 1973 (Getty Images)
British Prime Minister Edward Heath and US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in London on December 12, 1973 (Getty Images)

The recent declassification of historical British government records, dating from the period following the “October War,” has provided insight into the communication between the conservative government of that era and the US administration as they grappled with the consequences of the conflict.

These documents indicate that former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger reached an “informal understanding” with the Soviet Union to “restrain” the supply of weapons being sent to the warring parties.

While Kissinger’s initial focus was on achieving a ceasefire, the British noted that both the Americans and the Soviets had not considered who would oversee the enforcement of the ceasefire, particularly on the Egyptian front, where the situation was “highly complex.”

While secret proceedings primarily addressed the ceasefire and peace conference efforts, which were not favored by Kissinger, a significant portion of them revolved around the Arab oil embargo on Western nations following the October War in 1973 .

This development prompted the British to begin preparations for imposing fuel rationing, as revealed in the documents.

The documents also unveil that the then conservative government expressed concerns about a pro-Israel lobby in the British media.

They perceived that supporters of Israel in the UK were portraying its stance on the Middle East conflict incorrectly by depicting it as succumbing to Arab pressures.

Notably, during Edward Heath’s government in power during the October War, it was observed that unquestioning endorsement of Israel’s perspective without criticism did not serve the interests of either the UK or Britain’s economy.

There was a belief that public support for Israel as a “victim” in the eyes of the Arab world would diminish if British economic interests suffered due to its policies.

On Tuesday, October 23, 1973, Heath’s government held a meeting at 10 Downing Street that addressed aspects of the Arab-Israeli war.

The classified meeting minutes revealed that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, informed his colleagues that he had “met with the US Secretary of State the previous evening when Kissinger had stopped in London on his way back to Washington after visiting Moscow and Tel Aviv.”

It was evident from discussions between the Russians and the Americans that while they were focused on achieving a ceasefire, they had not given much thought to who would oversee it.

In the event of a ceasefire being achieved on the Syrian front, it was deemed that there wouldn't be significant operational difficulties in maintaining it, given the interconnected Israeli control in the Golan Heights.

On the southern front, however, the situation was extremely complex, as Egyptian forces east of the Suez Canal had lost their supply lines from the west.

Therefore, a ceasefire there was considered inherently fragile.

The British Foreign Secretary advised Kissinger to arrange with the then Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kurt Waldheim, to strengthen the UN’s ceasefire monitoring mechanism and deploy it immediately to oversee the ceasefire and assist in dealing with on-ground challenges.

The minutes also report that Foreign Secretary Douglas-Home stated in the meeting that preliminary reports on discussions that took place in Cairo the previous day (on November 7) between President Sadat and Kissinger indicate that they agreed to pursue arrangements whereby the way would be opened for the Egyptian Third Army under the supervision of UN observers, a prisoner exchange would occur, and within 10 to 15 days, a peace conference would commence.

Kissinger’s then advisor relayed these proposals to Israel.

The intention was for the peace conference to involve Waldheim, the conflicting parties, the US, and the Soviet Union.

According to the minutes report, it was learned that the Egyptians prefer a somewhat broader conference, as they do not wish for the Soviet Union to be their sole advisor.

 

 



Gebran Bassil: From Joseph Aoun’s Fierce Opponent to Supporter

MP Gebran Bassil and members of his bloc after naming Nawaf Salam as prime minister. (Reuters)
MP Gebran Bassil and members of his bloc after naming Nawaf Salam as prime minister. (Reuters)
TT

Gebran Bassil: From Joseph Aoun’s Fierce Opponent to Supporter

MP Gebran Bassil and members of his bloc after naming Nawaf Salam as prime minister. (Reuters)
MP Gebran Bassil and members of his bloc after naming Nawaf Salam as prime minister. (Reuters)

Head of Lebanon’s Free Patriotic Movement MP Gebran Bassil has demonstrated his ability to change his stances and adapt to changes in the country.

This was clearly shown when he backed Joseph Aoun’s election as president when he had initially been a staunch opponent of the former army commander.

Bassil had accused Aoun of being “disloyal” and of “violating the law” when he was army chief. This animosity led the FPM leader to object to his running for president, saying it was a constitutional violation.

However, Bassil quickly changed his stance and backed Aoun, because his “movement’s natural position is by the president.” The MP also said Aoun’s inaugural speech resonates with the FPM and that it was keen to see his pledges materialize.

The change in stance reflects the FPM’s reluctance to stand alone in the opposition as Lebanon approaches parliamentary elections next year. As it stands, the FPM has lost the majority of its allies, including Hezbollah.

Bassil recently acknowledged the losses, saying: “The FPM must get used to being in an independent position, without any allies or enemies.”

The FPM had won 18 seats in the 2022 elections. The number has now dropped to 13 after the resignation and sacking of some members of the FPM.

Later, the FPM would also make a last-minute change in throwing its support behind Nawaf Salam’s appointment as prime minister, when it was initially reluctant to do so.

Hezbollah viewed the change as “spiteful”, describing it as an “ambush” and accusing others of attempting to exclude it from power.

Member of the FPM’s Strong Lebanon bloc Jimmy Jabbour explained that Bassil opted to support Aoun because “of our conviction of the importance of the position of the presidency.”

“We must respect the position by standing by the president,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

The FPM didn’t have a specific candidate for the presidency, he remarked, adding that Bassil “did not want to run for post at the moment.”

The MP said that a “new positive chapter has been opened” and the FPM is eager to ensure that Aoun’s term is a success.

It does not want to squander the international support to Lebanon amid the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah and the changes in the region, he added.

On whether the FPM will be represented in the new government, Jabbour said it was “only natural” that the blocs that supported Salam’s appointment be present in the new cabinet.

“At the end of the day, however, the formation of the government lies in the hands of the president and prime minister,” he stated.

Moreover, he stressed that were it not for the FPM’s support, Salam would not have been named PM.

Former FPM member lawyer Antoine Nasrallah said he was not surprised when Bassil switched to supporting Aoun’s presidency.

In remarks to Asharq Al-Awsat, he added: “Throughout his political career, Bassil has been known to take contradictory positions and to be either hostile or friendly with various political forces, depending in whether they serve his interests and agendas.”

“So, we were expecting him to behave the same way with Joseph Aoun,” he noted.

“Bassil’s ultimate goal is the presidency, and he will do the impossible to achieve it,” he said.

Furthermore, Nasrallah explained that Bassil will “shower Aoun’s term with support and affection because he is aware that Aoun will eliminate his popularity ... should he remain hostile to him.”

“The FPM has become a political party that relies on clientelism. It believes that it can still have a piece of the cake because it is fully aware that a move to the opposition will mean its end,” he added.

Former President Michel Aoun – Bassil's father-in-law – had named Jospeh Aoun as army commander in 2017. The latter had always been viewed as loyal to the then president.

People who were closely following Joseph’s Aoun appointment told Asharq Al-Awsat that Bassil had been vehemently against it, but the president insisted.

After the appointment, the president tried to ease the tensions between the army chief and his son-in-law.

During the October 2019 anti-government protests, Bassil was very critical of the army commander because he was allowing the demonstrators to block roads, claiming he was even following American orders and that he had turned against the president.