Meeting At Camp David

(10 of 10)

A summit failure, of course, could create infinitely more serious problems. For one thing, a deadlock at Camp David would probably have a profound effect on Sadat. Most observers in Egypt think he would cancel the 1975 Sinai Disengagement Agreement. This could start a potentially disastrous chain of events. It might mean, for example, that the U.N. peace-keeping force and the U.S. observation mission would have to pack up and leave. Israel would probably respond by moving its forces into the vacated areas and reoccupying the Sinai's strategic Mitla and Giddi passes. The Israelis might even push as far as the Suez Canal. Hostilities, in some form, would be almost certain. If that led to another Arab oil embargo, the result would be economic catastrophe in the West.

Even if there is no new war and no new embargo, however, a major failure at Camp David would discredit moderation and encourage radicalism to spread in the Middle East. Moscow would have a new opportunity to increase its influence in this vital region.

Such grim predictions, according to some experts, are unwarranted. Counsels Sisco: "I've seen too many last chances over the years. Failure at Camp David would bring bad fallout, but I don't think that it would necessarily mean war. Both sides already have too high a stake in avoiding it."

Correct as this may be, it is undeniable that the situation in the Middle East will be much worse after a failed summit than before it. This is the great risk in convening the conclave without preparing for it in the meticulous manner of traditional diplomacy. The potential benefit, by contrast, is that Camp David could turn into a laboratory in which the Begin-Carter-Sadat chemistry really works, and the long-delayed movement toward a Middle East peace is restored.