The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001.  Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date.  This site is not updated so external links may no longer function.  Contact us with any questions about finding information. NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

James P. Rubin, Spokesman On-the-Record Press Briefing, Middle East Peace Process Shepherd College, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, January 3, 2000

SPOKESMAN MR. RUBIN: Greetings. Welcome to today's first briefing at the Shepherdstown Peace Talks. A couple of procedural announcements: I'm going to take the first roll and turn my cell phone off. For those of you from other countries who bring your cell phones to briefings, it would be a big help to all of us for us to turn our cell phones off. Secondly, since this isn't at the State Department, we do not have your seats miked, and there will be people in the audience who will have microphones, if you could turn to those. Today is the first briefing here in Shepherdstown. Secretary Albright arrived this morning. As you know, the President arrived late this morning, around 11:30. They have now begun the bilateral discussions. Secretary Albright and the President are trading off, meeting with the delegations. Right now, President Clinton is meeting with Prime Minister Barak and the Israeli delegation, and Secretary Albright is meeting with Foreign Minister Shara and the Syrian delegation. They will then take a short break after those bilateral meetings and switch off, and Secretary Albright will meet with Prime Minister Barak and the President will meet with Foreign Minister Shara, at which point they will take a break and then we do expect some form of trilateral meeting to occur later today. The exact time and form of that will emerge after the bilateral discussions. We are going to proceed much like -- for those of you who remember the Wye talks, I am going to try to come each day and tell you what I can tell you. Joe Lockhart, as well, will be here this afternoon when the President is here, and he will be briefing on the bilateral meetings and we'll see whether there is more to be said later in the day. Generally speaking -- and before taking your questions -- I think it's fair to say that Charles Dickens' novel, Great Expectations, is not the novel that is being read by the negotiators and the working level officials. We do not expect to be able to achieve a core agreement in one round of negotiations. What we are hoping to achieve is to have an opportunity to discuss all of the outstanding issues, all the issues that have not been discussed face to face with experts in all the areas for four long years, at the end of which we would certainly hope that we are able to achieve real progress towards closing some of the gaps, and towards making this historic opportunity more possible. But I think it's fair to say, at this point, that we do not expect to achieve a core agreement in one round of talks. With that short opening, let me turn to your questions and, at the end of the Shepherdstown portion, for those of you from the State Department who have other questions on other subjects, I'm in a position to answer them as well. QUESTION: Jamie, I know you're not forgetful by nature and you did the same sentence twice, the only difference being you put an adjective in front of agreement and the second time you did it you said core agreement. Of course, I take that as meaning something. Are you saying, then, that you do not expect a declaration of principles, a framework, whatever we call it and, you know, there are various things to call -- I don't want to say interim because that has other connotations -- but any partial agreement, any marker. You expect none of this this week, are you saying? MR. RUBIN: I can't rule out that there will be an effort to record progress. It is not unusual to record progress. What I'm saying is that the objective in restarting the Syria-Israel peace talks is to capitalize on this historic opportunity that now exists for political dialogue at the political level, that's never happened before between Israel and Syria, to achieve the elusive Syria peace deal that the Israelis want and that the Syrian side has indicated they want. There is real seriousness, we believe, on both sides as a result of the discussions at Blair and subsequent discussions in between. Secretary Albright and the President believe that there is a true intent on both sides to make progress; that there is true seriousness. But given the 4-year hiatus, we do not think it's reasonable to expect that a core agreement that records agreement on all of the major issues -- and you know them: the timetable of peace, the question of withdrawal, the security arrangements, the content of peace, and normalization -- that all elements of those will be achieved in some kind of core agreement that then could have annexes added on later. We do not expect that that kind of core agreement, with all of the complex issues resolved, is reasonable to expect in one serious round of talks. Let's remember that both sides have now brought experts who are in a position to discuss all the issues. I believe there are several dozen experts on the Israeli side and a couple of dozen on the Syrian side. The delegations are large. That means that all the issues that have divided Syria and Israel, that were not resolved at the first Wye talks in 1995 and 1996, can be addressed here. The question is: Do we expect to achieve a core agreement that covers all of those outstanding areas? The answer to that question is no. What we do expect and what we do hope is that we will be able to narrow gaps that do exist in those important areas. QUESTION: A follow-up. Again watching your words or tracking your words -- and, indeed, it's consistent with what was said in the previous round -- that was described sort of as an agenda-setting round. Are you saying literally that the meetings in Washington did not address those key issues, that this is the first time since '96 -- or whenever it was -- that Israel and Syria are talking face to face about timetable, nature of peace, et cetera, or did they touch on it in some way a few weeks ago and now we're getting into it deeply? MR. RUBIN: I think a fair assessment of what happened at Blair House and what is expected to happen here at Shepherdstown, is that at Blair House the topics, the general disputes, were covered. There wasn't a complete discussion of any of those areas where there are significant gaps, but there were discussions about the significant gaps. A large portion of the time at Blair House was spent on procedural questions, which yielded the arrival here today of President Clinton, and the large Syrian and Israeli delegations who are now in a position to address in a highly technical way, in an expert way, the kind of subjects, including security arrangements, including water, including all of the experts for all of those areas are here now. When and how they decide to meet, what groups meet, when they meet and what progress they achieve is something one certainly can't predict now, since the talks just began, but I think it's fair to say that the expertise is there that will enable that discussion to go forward. You'll have to forgive me. I can barely see many of your faces. QUESTION: Jamie, the Syrians came looking for specifics, details of the Israeli position. They said there were coming to test the Israeli sincerity of all this. Are you telling us they're not going to get any reading on that? Are they going to go home with something less than that? MR. RUBIN: That who would go home? QUESTION: The Syrians would go back to Damascus without any specifics on the Israeli positions that they came looking for, the testing that they said they were looking for? MR. RUBIN: No, I'm not suggesting that at all. What I'm saying is that they have the teams here that contain experts: legal experts, scientific experts, military experts, geographic experts - people who are able to get into the details. As you know, in these negotiations, the devil is in the details, and the detail men will be the men that are going to play a critical role. We do expect that during this round that all of the issues, one way or another, will be discussed in detail. But that's a very different thing than expecting that, having discussed them, that they will achieve agreement, given the four-year hiatus and given the excruciating nature of some of these issues, whether they be land, security arrangements, water, the content of peace. These are big, big issues, and it's our view that progress can be made and we hope progress will be made, but we have no reason to assume or expect that a core agreement can be achieved in a short number of days. QUESTION: The American role -- we heard that this hasn't been something -- MR. RUBIN: Could you start again? I missed the beginning. QUESTION: I'm going to ask you about the American role. We've heard that this issue hasn't been settled yet. So the question is: Will the Secretary be in the room along with the Syrians and the Israelis as the Syrians ask, or will she be in an adjacent room as the Israelis are suggesting? Perhaps you can tell us something about that. QUESTION: Right now, as I indicated, the Secretary is meeting with the Syrian delegation, and the President is meeting with the Israeli delegation. They will then swap, and then the trilateral meeting of the three will obviously include the Americans. That is an initial set of opening sessions, where an agenda can be formulated in greater detail, where a work program can be established, where they can discuss what committees will begin and when will they begin -- at which point it will be our judgment as to how we can best be helpful. I think we are doing this, playing this role -- the President is committing his time and the Secretary is committed to staying throughout this round of discussions -- because we're prepared to do what it takes to help the two sides make the difficult choices for peace. They want us to play that role, and we will have to judge -- on a given day, on a given issue, at a given time -- whether it is better to be hosting a set of discussions, or whether it is better to have a meeting between Israel and Syria alone without us. We will take that day by day or topic by topic, but for today I don't expect to see those kind of meetings face-to-face between the Israelis and the Syrians without the United States. QUESTION: Are there any issues that you see as being particularly difficult to reach agreement on? MR. RUBIN: Yes, that's an easy one. Most of them are extremely difficult. The question of the timing of normalization, the question of the withdrawal, the details of the security arrangements, the timetable of how these three pieces fit together, those are the general topics. I think it's fair to say that an enormous amount of work went into this at the first round in Wye in 1995 and 1996. There were obviously substantive and numerous contacts between the United States and the two parties that led up to President Clinton's announcement of the restarting of talks, during which we got a sense of what issues might be a little easier, that are closer to closure, and what issues might be bigger decisions. I think it's fair to say that we're at a time for decisions, but those decisions don't get made in an instant, and they have to be the result of developing confidence, developing a sense of seriousness, a sense of good intentions, and recognizing -- and this is critical -- that each side has their own needs. So what issues end up being the ones that lend themselves to quicker progress, and what issues don't, is something that is not only a matter of what we know about their positions but how we want to sequence it. We are going to be here for a number of days, and we want to have a process where both sides see that the good intentions and the seriousness are there. We will have to judge, issue by issue, whether one is ripe for closure. Again, even when there is closure, there is a recognition on our part that one of the principles of these negotiations is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and that is something that perhaps wasn't fully understood about our role in the past. QUESTION: Jamie, what does the administration read in the inclusion of the Minister of Tourism, Mr. Shahak, the Israeli in the team, who also took a part in the last negotiation with the Syrians? Do you think there is anything special in that? MR. RUBIN: I'm sorry. That they're here or they're not here? QUESTION: He is here. MR. RUBIN: Right. QUESTION: The Minister of Tourism, who was the ex-chief of staff for Mr. Barak, he did enjoin in the first round of talks. MR. RUBIN: These talks have a number of very, very high-level Israelis. The Attorney General is here, the Foreign Minister is here, General Shahak is here, Prime Minister Barak is here. It's a very high-level team. We certainly understand that from the Israeli perspective the core question is the security of Israel, and ensuring that whatever arrangements are made in that area are sufficient. So the fact that he is here is a sign that the Israeli side wants to be sure that the security arrangements -- and I wouldn't be surprised if additional Israeli military officials came in and out, depending on their needs, because that is, for them, the core question: If we move towards peace, how to ensure that the resulting arrangement guarantees and protects the security of Israel. QUESTION: Jamie, below the level of President and Secretary of State, what US officials are going to be here throughout the talks? MR. RUBIN: What I would expect is that Ambassador Ross is staying, that Assistant Secretary and soon-to-be Ambassador again Indyk -- I think he may be the first in that category, an Assistant Secretary and Ambassador-to-be-again Martin Indyk. There are a number of technical people that work with them that are here. I would expect some officials from the NSC to be here throughout, and that's essentially the core team. What often happens, though, is people who are not here today might be brought in on another day, but I would say that core group and Secretary Albright's staff, including Wendy Sherman, myself and some others, will stay throughout. QUESTION: Can you give us a sense of the schedule for the week? Do you expect these to go into next week? Also, is there sort of an outer limit time-frame for the Shepherdstown talks themselves? And then also, you seem to have glanced at this - do you expect these talks to break down into expert subcommittees on specific issues working and then bringing proposed solutions up to the high level for resolution? Is that the structure of the talks? MR. RUBIN: On the second question, the short answer is yes, we would expect that, as the negotiators get down to brass tacks, that they will break up into some groupings focused on issues. What groupings they break up to, into and when and how those committees' work evolves, it is obviously too early to tell, today being the beginning of the talks. But I would expect that to happen, and I'll be trying to report to you, as best I can, as that happens. The normal procedure then, as you stated correctly, is that problems are hopefully resolved or narrowed to one or two points that then can be resolved at a higher level, and then approved by the leaders of the delegation. With respect to the first question, I really can't give you a good answer. I packed more than seven days' worth, because I've been around this before and I didn't want to have to go out to any of the outlet stores and get any particular needs filled that others might have to, and so I packed for many days. And we'll have to see what the delegation leaders decide as the week unfolds, as to how long we're going to stay. Let's bear in mind that it's the kind of thing where not everybody may need to stay; there may be adjustments, work may continue, people may come and go. QUESTION: Are the Israelis asking that the President of Syria somehow be more involved in these talks? Does Mr. Shara -- does the Syrian delegation have the authority to conclude an agreement? MR. RUBIN: We believe President Asad made clear to President Clinton that Foreign Minister Shara has plenopotentiary power to make decisions on behalf of Syria at this negotiation. That does not mean we think that the President, President Asad, won't be involved. We do expect him to be involved. In what form it remains to be seen, but we believe the Syrian delegation is empowered to negotiate and to negotiate seriously. QUESTION: Jamie, could you just give us some sense of the atmospherics this morning? The two ministers, when did they arrive? And the handshake. MR. RUBIN: And what? QUESTION: And, of course, was there anything bordering on a handshake or even did they look into each other's -- MR. RUBIN: I will have to get back to you with some of the initial color. Let me say Secretary Albright arrived around 9:30. She spoke on the phone to Foreign Minister Shara and the Prime Minister. The President then arrived at 11:30, and for those who were in the pool, I think they can give you a flavor of them walking across the bridge into the conference center at the US Fish and Wildlife facility, and the meetings began. But as far as giving you more color as to what happened inside those meetings, I'll have to get that for you a little later or ask Joe to do it. QUESTION: One other point just to follow up on something you said. One principle is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. That wasn't always clearly understood. Could you elaborate? MR. RUBIN: There were a number of press reports out of the region in recent weeks in which there was often a presumption that one particular issue could be pulled out and declared agreed if other issues hadn't been agreed, and so we have said, when various accounts occurred in the media, that there were two principles that, from the American standpoint, that we could talk about. One was that we only conveyed what we were authorized to convey from one party to another and that, two, that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed. These were principles, and that there was suggestion often in the media coverage of this issue over the last several years that seemed not to jive with that principle, in our opinion. But I think now isn't the time to revisit that kind of history at just the moment that they're, hopefully, going to move forward and walk forward to exploit this moment of opportunity. QUESTION: Very quickly, you ticked off, I think, three issues. Is whatever the US would do physically or financially or spiritually, however, in the event of agreement, is that on the table and being discussed as well? MR. RUBIN: We have made clear in the past that no agreement of this magnitude, a peace agreement between Israel and, in this case, Syria which has a fundamental security component, has come without a price. But we believe that peace in the Middle East has been and continues to be a vital national interest of the United States, and that one can contribute far smaller amounts to secure a peace than one might have to pay if peace turns to conflict. So we have taken the view, in the case of Jordan, and in the case of Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority, the various peace agreements that were achieved in that area under President Clinton and his predecessors, that the United States should and can play a role. We haven't begun formal consultations with Congress about that kind of package or the specifics of that kind of package but, generally speaking, this is a big, big deal. And a deal this big is going to carry with it a price tag. But we believe the peace is so important, and our vital interests could so be strengthened by a peace agreement, that it is worth our playing an important role. How big that role is, what it consists of, the kind of details, it's too premature for me to speculate on. QUESTION: Jamie, since the spokesman for the Syrian and the Israeli delegations probably won't be made available in an on-the-record setting, I wonder if you could explain -- MR. RUBIN: I don't even like that on-the-record edition. QUESTION: I wonder if you could explain to sort of the wider American public, who may not have the expertise in this room, about the issues why it is that this is such a big, big deal. Why are you all investing so much energy and effort into this? And if you could speak for the delegations, what is it about the relatively small amount of land that requires all of this effort? MR. RUBIN: Let's make first things clear first. War is a terrible tragedy for the people of the Middle East. It has been a tragedy they have had to go through, time and time again. It has been the view of Israeli governments and American governments that Israel deserves and should have a place in the Middle East with -- a prominent place and a place in which its neighbors are not in a state of war with Israel, and recognize its right to exist in secure borders. That has been a longstanding American policy. Egypt was the first piece of the circle of peace that was put into place during the Camp David period. There was then a peace agreement, the so-called Declaration of Principles, between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and then there was the agreement with Jordan. The big hole in the circle of peace, that has caused such concern for the people of Israel and the peoples of the region, is the question of Syria and, by extension, the question of Lebanon. And for the people of Israel to know that all of their neighbors have accepted their right to exist in secure borders, have normalized relations with them, and have diplomatic representation and relatively open borders would contribute enormously -- not only to the near-term security of the people of Israel, but would open up an opportunity for Israel and the region to thrive in a way that has never thrived before, economically, politically and socially. So that is what is so important for the people of Israel. For the United States, the Middle East is a region that has long been regarded as a vital interest of the United States. War and conflict that broke out there affected our vital interests. We saw that most recently in the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, when we sent half a million soldiers to defend those vital interests. Clearly, this region is a region where conflict and instability do pose threats to our national security that would cause us to have to respond in a very serious way. That is the reason the President and the Secretary have spent so much time on this. If we can close the circle of peace with Syria and with Lebanon, the opponents of peace, the proponents of terrorism, the enemies of peace, will be totally isolated. Those who are against everything but for nothing will have no base and no succor for their repressive and negativist ideology and strategy, and that will make it harder for those involved to harm the national interest of the people of Israel, of the countries of the region and thus, by extension, the United States. QUESTION: Jamie, could you answer three quick questions? One, how about doing some of our work for us by giving us a list of the people that are here for each of the teams? MR. RUBIN: I'll try to get you that. QUESTION: First, second and third; Israel, Syria, and the US team. Secondly, would you tell us if you're going to put on the website, as you did at Wye River the intimate photographs done by the pools or others so that we can take them off? MR. RUBIN: Well, try to use the same high-tech that we used at Wye, yes. QUESTION: And, lastly, how would you contrast the original Wye River Syrian-Israeli negotiations compared with what here? Some of the same people are involved. MR. RUBIN: There is a big, big difference between this and the first Wye River discussions, and that is the level. We have a Prime Minister here and, as I indicated, several Israeli ministers, the Attorney General -- a very, very high-level team. On the Syrian side, for the first time, you have a political-level involvement, so that is the big difference. Wye River I, the Wye talks between Israel and Syria, focused almost exclusively on technical issues, and now with four years gone by, and a lot of contact having occurred, there is an opportunity for political leaders to make decisions about the details that the technical people that have worked on before and will be focusing on today. QUESTION: First a very quick question, Jamie. Is it true -- we've been hearing that the negotiators have had their cell phones taken away from them. You know, during Wye were able to call people up in the midst of negotiations. Do they have their cell phones inside? And then a second question after. MR. RUBIN: I just turned my cell phone off so, obviously, there are cell phones. I think what you may find here in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, is that the cell zones might not be as active as they were in Maryland. As you drove out here, you probably went through places where the cell zones were less active and the number of dots on your phone went from a strong four down to a weak one. So you may be in a situation where some of the people that you're trying to call may not be in a place where cell phones work. I found that happening to myself just 10 minutes ago. As far as us confiscating cell phones, that has not happened. I think it is the view of the leaders of the delegations, as well as the United States -- and let me make this point once, and I hope I don't have to make it too many times. As important as it is for the people of the United States and, in particular, the people of Israel and the Arab world to know what is happening on issues that affect their security, it is our considered judgment, having been through this many, many times, that the more public and the more open and the more contentious issues become as a result of coverage in the media, the harder it is for the decisions to be made that can lead to peace. We're here to make a peace agreement, not to make a headline, and if that means that news is scarce and cell phones are turned off, or they don't exist, that's a small price to pay for the outcome -- at which time there will be plenty of time for the leaders of Syria and Israel and the United States to explain what the agreement is, what its impact will be. As you know, in Israel, it's been clearly understood that any agreement is going to be subject to public scrutiny, and going to be the subject of a referendum. So there is no question that the democratic process is going to unfold here. The question is: Would it be good for peace to have you all in the room as they're negotiating? And the answer is, no. QUESTION: The second question is in your role as facilitator, how much do you see the Americans actually stepping in from the very beginning, and telling the Israelis or the Syrians from which point they need to begin the negotiations? The Syrians, as you know, have been saying you've got to start with Golan Heights and get the lines out of the way, and the Israelis have been pushing more towards confidence-building measures before you can even address that issue. So what role is the US playing in getting the negotiators to get down to the specifics of talks? MR. RUBIN: That's a very good question. That's exactly what the President and the Secretary are working on right now. It is our view that all of the issues need to be discussed in this round in one form or another, and at a detailed level. The sequencing of that, the way in which that unfolds, is important to the negotiation, and so one of the questions they're now addressing is how do you meet both sides' needs. As far as where the negotiations are beginning from, they're beginning from where they left off, and that involves the discussions that occurred at Wye and that occurred in other ways that both sides are aware of and that we're aware of, and the discussions are beginning where they left off. But how one walks oneself through the main topics - the withdrawal question, the question of security arrangements, the timetable for normalization and what does that entail - these are the things that have to be sequenced in a constructive way, and that's why procedure often can be as important as substance in a negotiation this complex. So there is no answer to your question of how that will unfold specifically, other than to say that it is certainly our intent that all the issues can be and should be discussed during this round. One more before you start. On the cell phones, I'm advised that the Israelis and the Syrians have agreed to give up their cell phones as a gesture of their seriousness in reaching an agreement, even if it is a gesture that makes your life more difficult. That's what I'm advised, and that may be because their leaders agreed that this is a negotiation that needs to take place behind closed doors. QUESTION: Just a clarification. You said earlier that President Asad's involvement would become presumably essential at some point. Did you mean to suggest during this round and, if so, under what circumstances? MR. RUBIN: That's a very good question. I don't think we know the answer to that yet. There are many ways in which President Asad could be involved. You can imagine them -- the telephone, whatever, or face-to-face at some point. I think that it is presumed that as this thing unfolds, that will be necessary, but that is not to say that we don't believe and have not been specifically assured by President Asad that Foreign Minister Shara has plenopotentiary power, and has the authority to negotiate on behalf of Syria. But we do expect that an issue of this magnitude will ultimately involve and obviously have involvement of the President, but I don't have an answer for you as to when and in what form that will come forward. QUESTION: Jamie, just a schedule question. Do you expect meetings this evening after dinner, and can you tell us what the rest of your briefing schedule is going to be today and maybe into the future? MR. RUBIN: On tonight, I don't know the answer to that. They're going to break probably mid-to-late afternoon, after they've had the two bilaterals, to decide what to do next. There is a breaking of the fast that we expect the Syrian delegation to go through this evening. Whether there are meetings after that, I really don't know. As far as the briefing schedule today and throughout, my understanding is that Joe Lockhart is going to brief later today, probably after the bilaterals, and he will be conducting his regular briefing from here. There are other subjects that the American people are interested in, apparently. After that, we'll have to make a judgment. If there is something to say after the trilateral, as you know from those of you who are veterans of the previous talks, there is this great concept of a conference call, with a little box, out of which voice comes out, and is treated with the respect it deserves. And then my intention is to essentially conduct a daily briefing around this time. It could move an hour or two depending on what's going on, at which I can address your questions and talk about any other subjects you might be interested in, knowing that each day the schedule will always be a little different, and there may be a development that requires me to either come over here or call in with a conference call. QUESTION: Are they going to talk into the night? MR. RUBIN: In response to your colleague's question, I said I really don't know what will happen after the break, the Iftar, at which the Syrian delegation will break its fast. Depending on what happened during the day, there will be a decision for the President to stay or go or whether others will meet separately. QUESTION: You said before that you don't expect a core agreement on all the major issues to be reached during this round of talks, but would you like the parties to detail whatever progress they do make on issues, or have some sort of record of progress on issues? MR. RUBIN: That's a very good question, and I think it's one we will address and answer as the week unfolds. It depends on what is achieved. Certainly progress needs to be recorded. What form or process that takes, it's just premature to speculate at this time. QUESTION: Are the delegations going to be kept sequestered in one of the two negotiating sites? Are they going to be allowed ever out to walk around town, go out to eat, anything? MR. RUBIN: So that you can get access to them? QUESTION: Well, just they're going to get bored. There's nothing to do there. They're going to go stir-crazy. MR. RUBIN: We're not holding anybody hostage against their will. There will be breaks, and people will get out. Apparently, the Israelis and the Syrians have brought Middle Eastern weather here to Shepherdstown, West Virginia, on January the 3rd, and it's quite nice outside, and I expect people to take walks. There are very large delegations, and you may find some people leaving the sites even while negotiations are going on if they don't absolutely have to be there. So I would expect, over the coming days, that there will be departures from those sites -- so long as we have the location of all of you pinned down and we can be sure that you won't be there. QUESTION: The Syrian press regularly quotes Syrian officials saying there can't be full normalization until all the Palestinian issues are dealt with by Israel. Do you see that as a potential problem, and would you recommend that the Israelis kind of lower their expectations about normalization? MR. RUBIN: Someone is obviously violating the cell phone rule here in the hall. That's a very good question. Let me say that normalization and the content of the peace is something that should be determined on its own terms, irrespective of the other areas. The Israelis and the Palestinians have already made substantial progress in their bilateral peace process, and this peace process -- the Syrian-Israeli peace process -- need not and should not be linked to that. The Israelis and the Palestinians have made substantial progress in several agreements. Land has been transferred, security arrangements have been improved, a safe passage has been created, prisoners have been released, airports have been opened, borders have been improved -- so an enormous amount of normalization has occurred between the Israelis and the Palestinians, in the generic sense of that word. Our view is that there is the existential question: Until the core Palestinian issue is resolved, of course there is going to be a less-than-perfect atmosphere in the Middle East. I think everybody recognizes that. But with respect to what arrangements need to be made between Israel and Syria to fulfill the normalization and the content of peace, I am not aware that anyone in the United States believes that ought to be linked to the separate and extraordinarily difficult challenge of getting a permanent peace with the Palestinians. QUESTION: I want to ask you about the confidence-building measures. Are you going to pursue, to push forward this idea? I know that it will help at least the Israelis to support an agreement, the agreement. MR. RUBIN: Can you be more specific about that, please? QUESTION: There are a few topics, like Eli Cohen and the MIA of Sultan Ya'akub, and I don't recall the third issue but, anyhow, there are a list of issues that the Israelis are very interested in, in order to build this confidence between the two nations. MR. RUBIN: I thank you for that question. On that, let me say that with respect to certain humanitarian issues, it has certainly been our view that Syria ought to be helpful in resolving certain humanitarian issues, like the ones that you mentioned. The Syrians have made clear to us that they are prepared to be helpful, in whatever way they can, to resolve humanitarian issues, but I can't say anything further on that. QUESTION: I have two questions. First, I was told that the Israeli Government is going to release 17 Syrian prisoners from Golan Heights in the Israeli prison. The second question is, since the Syrians agreed to talk about the nature of peace and security guarantees and water, doesn't mean that the Israeli Government agreed to withdrawal from Golan Heights until line 4th of June? I mean, how can we talk about security guarantees or water if we don't know what borders we are talking about? MR. RUBIN: With respect to the second question, the negotiations have resumed where they left off. We expect, during the course of this round, that all of the issues ought to be discussed; that the question of the negotiations resuming is one that we answered repeatedly in the last three weeks, and they resumed because both sides -- the Syrian side and the Israeli side --concluded that the other was serious, was approaching this with a good intention to resolve problems, and that both sides' needs can be met. That is what the premise was for the resumption of the negotiations. With respect to the 17 Syrian prisoners, I'm just unfamiliar with what I can tell you on that. Let me try to get it for you, and get back to you when I can. QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- indication that Hezbollah has -- I mean, Hezbollah continues -- there continues to be attacks, and people are dying still in the Lebanon zone. If Syria was serious about peace, is the United States asking Syria to pressure the Hezbollah to restrain itself, and has that restraint been shown? MR. RUBIN: On that question, we've asked both sides to make every effort to ensure that this period during these negotiations is one in which the climate is as good as it can possibly be for the enormously difficult political decisions that have to be made, and that includes on the Syrian side urging restraint on those activities in Lebanon. We have done that and will continue to do that. QUESTION: Jamie, you said that peace has a price and that contacts have already been made with the Congress. MR. RUBIN: No, I specifically said that contacts have not been made. QUESTION: Have not been made? MR. RUBIN: Yes, a big difference. QUESTION: Slight, yes. But peace has a price? MR. RUBIN: Right. QUESTION: Does that mean you are prepared to give financial aid to Syria in case they sign an agreement with Israel, and does that mean you're heralding the removal of Syria from the states that support terrorism? MR. RUBIN: Right. The terrorism list is a statutorily created list that requires certain steps by Syria to be removed. It would certainly be our expectation that, in the context of a peace agreement, that the Syrians would want to take the steps necessary, and that we would certainly want that to happen, that would eliminate the standard blocks of the terrorist restrictions from the intercourse between our two countries. That would be something that -- it would be hard to envision a full-fledged peace agreement between Israel and Syria and all the work that would have gone into that, without Syria and the United States wanting to take steps to improve our relationship as well. QUESTION: To your knowledge, has there been any kind of discussion, regardless of what level it's at, or any requests that might have been made, involving the potential role that US troops might play in any agreement? Might they go in fully armed as peacekeepers? Might they go in in more of an observers role? And I have a follow-up to something you said. MR. RUBIN: I think it's premature to speculate on what exactly the United States' role would be in helping Israel assure its security in the aftermath of a comprehensive peace agreement. I can assure you that discussions are held all the time about speculative questions like that, so that if and when an agreement is struck, that we have our own ideas of what would be appropriate and what would not be appropriate. So there has been no dearth of planning for that prospect. But, as far as telling you that there are discussions ongoing about what role the US will play, that's premature at this point. QUESTION: Is it a foregone conclusion that US troops might have some level of involvement? MR. RUBIN: No, it's not a foregone conclusion. QUESTION: And just following up on something you said in response to my earlier question, you said that there were certain issues that you saw as being ripe for closure, after what you know of the process at Wye and in recent weeks. What are those issues? MR. RUBIN: We're going all the way back around again. I'm not going to speculate on things that haven't yet happened. QUESTION: Is there a sense of urgency on both sides to come up with an agreement? MR. RUBIN: I think the short answer to that one question is, yes. They are all here. On the Israeli side a major portion of their government has now left Israel and is here in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, and I think that there is a sense of urgency about resolving the problems. I would assume the same on the Syrian side. But a sense of urgency does not mean that either side could be willing or ready to make decisions that it didn't see were in its national interest, and so a sense of urgency doesn't solve the need for big decisions to be made. I think it's not a sense of urgency like a deadline tomorrow night, but it's certainly a sense of urgency, in that this is the first time that the political leaders have gotten together, that this is a unique and historic opportunity, and it's the kind of historic opportunity that may never come again if it is not exploited and acted upon and seized. So there is a sense of seizing this historic opportunity with a sense of urgency, because nobody knows if it will ever come again. QUESTION: You were talking earlier about the importance of confidence-building measures. One of the issues that is, I think, important for the Syrians is what happens physically to the settlements on the Golan Heights after they are evacuated - the actual physical buildings, the sites? Remember, after the Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai, the final area of the Sinai, the Israelis razed Yamit rather than hand it back intact. Does the United States have a position on the way it would like Israel to treat those settlements physically, to leave them intact? MR. RUBIN: I think that's probably not the kind of thing we would have a position on at this time. Obviously, there are a number of issues related to withdrawal that need to be discussed, and to the satisfaction of both sides, but I think it would be premature at this time to get into that kind of detail. QUESTION: Could you tell us, give us a little color, by telling us how Shepherdstown was chosen? What other area - what other places were considered? MR. RUBIN: I wouldn't want to tell the runners up who they are, or who lost to Shepherdstown. QUESTION: And does the President see himself as the good shepherd of the peace process as a result of this? MR. RUBIN: We have a new noun. We've gone from facilitator to broker, mediator, handmaiden, and now shepherd. I think that it's enough to say that Shepherdstown has an important history in our country, a history that I'm sure you've been made familiar with. It was important to be close to Washington. It was important to be in a place where the two sides could be together. Unlike in Wye, there was a feeling that we needed to have the delegations in the same hotel. They are in the same hotel. I think some of them are even on the same floor. There was a feeling that there needed to be a location new and different. Syria-Israeli peace is different that Egypt-Israel and Israel-Palestinian, and there was a feeling we ought to have a new location for that. So putting all those together, our experts at the State Department on these sorts of things did some driving around the Washington area, and here we are. Last question. QUESTION: You said almost literally that this is a time for decisions. Do I take this to mean that a lot of groundwork has occurred? MR. RUBIN: Yes, I think there has been an enormous amount of groundwork. Not only were there the months of discussions at Wye I in 1995 and 1996, that covered in great detail many of these issues. There were a number of discussions and contacts that we had with Syria and with Israel in recent years that fleshed out some of these points. I think it's fair to say that most of the issues are known. There are no hidden problems that haven't, at some point or another, been at least discussed or thought about. So there has been an enormous amount of groundwork. This is a historic opportunity. It's an opportunity that we think should be seized. Other subjects? Yes. QUESTION: I'm just wondering what the US makes of this incident that happened in Beirut this morning with the attack on - or what appeared to be an attack on the Russian embassy. MR. RUBIN: We are aware that unknown attackers fired rocket-propelled grenades near the Russian embassy in Beirut. According to press reports, two Lebanese policemen were killed, and at least a half a dozen people injured. According to press reports, one attacker was killed and another was captured. The Lebanese have indicated the Russian embassy was the target. The United States condemns this cowardly act of terrorism. Our sympathies go to the victims and their families. We do not have any concrete information as to what the intent of this attack was, and no group has claimed responsibility. Obviously, the Russians and the Lebanese are now conducting investigations. QUESTION: And one other thing that's totally unrelated. I'm wondering if you have anything more to say than Jim did on Friday about the resolution of the Indian Airline hijacking, and what this might mean in terms of encouragement for terrorists around the world. MR. RUBIN: With respect to the hijacking, there continue to be conflicting statements about who is responsible for the hijacking and where the hijackers are. We believe and support a thorough police investigation of all concerned. Pakistan has told us that it will meet its obligations under the international conventions to apprehend the hijackers and bring them to justice. We do not know where the hijackers have gone. We continue to work with countries in the region. We think they must be brought to justice. We remind all countries of their international obligations associated with the Convention on Hijacking, and we continue to urge in the strongest possible terms that any and all states involved take action to ensure that the hijackers are prosecuted, or extradite the hijackers to a place where they can be apprehended and prosecuted. QUESTION: On that point, India is accusing Pakistan of almost direct involvement or support. Do you have anything on that? MR. RUBIN: Well, at this point the Pakistanis have told us that they condemn these acts of terrorism, and that they will meet their obligations to apprehend the hijackers and bring them to justice. I have nothing more to add to that. QUESTION: I have a question on Chechnya, which is can you bring us up to date, if possible, just which way are things moving there, especially since President Putin now has visited the troops? Is there any sign of a move toward a political settlement, or is it just the opposite? MR. RUBIN: We continue to believe that the crisis in Chechnya requires a political solution. We are very concerned about the impact of fighting on civilians trapped inside Grozny. Many of these people may be too sick, injured or scared to leave. The Russians have previously said they will avoid targeting civilians caught up in the conflict. It is important that Russia allow displaced persons freedom of movement to seek safety and work constructively with international relief organizations, and provide adequate security and access. The international community has spoken with one voice about Chechnya. We call for a broad cease-fire in the region, urge all parties to engage in a meaningful dialogue towards that end. We believe the unified international reactions are having an impact on Russia's perception of the costs of its behavior. We have to be persistent. We have made it clear that the means Russia is using are undermining its stated objective, but I can't say that there are any developments that give us new hope that Russia is going to see the danger, and the unwise course that it has taken. We have extreme concerns about the plight of displaced persons in the region. Russia has an obligation to provide for the safety and well-being of displaced persons. We've seen reports that displaced persons are being pressured to return to Russian-controlled areas. If that proves true, said practices would be completely unacceptable. President Clinton has authorized funds for international relief efforts, and we think it's extremely important that Russia meet its international obligations in this area. And we've raised our concerns about this question with Russian officials. [end of document] Peace Process | Near Eastern Affairs | Department of State