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 4, 2000

SPOKESMAN MR. RUBIN:Welcome to day two of the Shepherdstown Peace Talks. It is a pleasure to be here. The weather has switched from warmth and sun to warmth and rain; nevertheless, it's not yet cold. Let me tell you where we stand. Secretary Albright met this morning with Prime Minister Barak. She then reported to the President about that meeting. The President, as I understand it, is on his way here. He should be here very shortly: in half a hour or so. And at this time, there are meetings going on between American officials and Israeli officials, and American officials and Syrian officials, on a number of substantive issues. Those contacts and discussions began after the Secretary's meeting with Prime Minister Barak. It is our plan to have a meeting, a short meeting, the President will hold with Prime Minister Barak when he gets here, and then they will go right into a three-way meeting with the Foreign Minister Shara, Prime Minister Barak and the President and Secretary Albright. And they should be meeting early this afternoon. That's the first real discussion, after a short meeting with Prime Minister Barak. We have been able, today, to constitute all the relevant committees, and we believe that all the issues will be discussed over the next couple of days in a variety of ways, between Syrian officials, Israeli officials and American officials. So, in short, the procedural hurdle that emerged yesterday has been overcome, and we are proceeding apace. As I said yesterday, the officials in the talks were not using Charles Dickens' Great Expectations as their book of the day, and, as you can see, neither are they using Charles Dickens' Bleak House as the book of the day. With that short opening, let me turn to your questions. QUESTION: If you stand by what you said yesterday -- and, I mean, Joe Lockhart said virtually the same -- that it would be overly optimistic or something to expect even a core agreement. And, again, you know, that word "core" bothers me, because if you have some reservation about using the word "core," and it's interchangeable with framework or outline, I wish you'd say. But is it still, even though you've gotten past this procedural problem, unlikely that you'll have that kind of agreement by the end of the week? MR. RUBIN: Let me give you my best, English-language definition of a core agreement. On one level of a discussion of an issue as complex and difficult as peace between Israel and Syria, you might have a statement of principles. That would be the most general kind of recording of agreement that you could have. On the other extreme, you would have a full-fledged, hundreds-of-pages of agreement with annexes and maps and details, fully fleshed out. When we speak of a core agreement, we're talking about something in between that: not a framework agreement and not an agreement with all its annexes completed but, rather, a core agreement that constitutes agreement on all the major outstanding issues recorded in the relevant languages. That is the objective of this process. It is not reasonable -- and we certainly don't expect that objective -- the core agreement -- to be achieved in this round of the process, given the extraordinary difficulty, and the extraordinary sensitivity of many of these issues that are outstanding. With respect to our expectations, therefore, they remain the same as yesterday: We still hope that we can make some progress in narrowing gaps, in extending areas of agreement, as a result of this round of discussions here in Shepherdstown. But we don't expect to have a core agreement on all the relevant issues completed. QUESTION: Now that this procedural problem has been overcome, can you tell us what it was, exactly, and how it came to be resolved? Was it actually resolved in the Secretary's meeting with Barak this morning? MR. RUBIN: No, I think the question of how one proceeds, both the substance and the procedure that is part of that substance, was the topic of the discussions during the course of yesterday that the Secretary had, that the President had. And during the course of the day, we were trying to develop a work plan by which the various subjects -- water, security, normalization, withdrawal and timetable -- all of these subjects could be discussed in a substantive and serious way, and, hopefully, narrow some of these gaps. In order to do that, we had to come up with an acceptable plan for how to constitute the committees and begin the discussions on these substantive issues. And we weren't able to do that yesterday. But the President and the Secretary consulted last night on a way to do that, and that was discussed with Foreign Minister Shara and Prime Minister Barak, and then finalized this morning with Prime Minster Barak. QUESTION: Given the fact that the procedural issues appeared to have centered on the question of sequence -- the sequence in which these issues would be addressed -- does this mean that they will now be addressed simultaneously? In other words, are these committees that you're forming on water, security, et cetera, are they all going to sort of do their work at the same time? MR. RUBIN: I wouldn't assume that. What I can say is that all the committees have been constituted, and that discussions on all of the issues will be held, in one form or another, in the next couple of days. QUESTION: Jamie, in your telling us how this was done last night, you left out President Asad's involvement. Was there any, to your knowledge, as far as the Americans were concerned? Or do you know if Foreign Minister Shara consulted with Asad yesterday? MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to comment on what decisions the Syrian delegation makes, in terms of reporting to Damascus. We believe that Foreign Minister Shara has plenipotentiary power to make decisions. As far as I know, the United States did not get in touch with President Asad. QUESTION: When you talk about these four issues that they will be discussed at the same time, one of them is withdrawal. Is it understood for everybody that withdrawal will be to the June 4, 1967 lines, or just it's a broad issue? MR. RUBIN: Let me say that I wouldn't accept your characterization of what I said in response to [your colleague's] question, but, with respect to your specific question, I think it is our view that that kind of a specific discussion of a specific issue is not one that can helpfully be discussed in public, and that public discussion of such sensitive issues will only make it harder to achieve the agreement that we're all trying to achieve. QUESTION: Jamie, can you tell us which will be the first issue to be discussed? Will it be borders or will it be security arrangements? MR. RUBIN: At this point, what I can say is that all of the issues will be discussed. They began some contacts this morning, after the Secretary's meeting with Prime Minister Barak. All of them will be discussed in the course of the next couple of days. All the committees were constituted. As far as the sequencing of what words were mentioned first, and what groupings, I'm not prepared to say. QUESTION: An official in Israel -- an Israeli Government official -- said that the Syrians have reneged on an agreement that they reached in Washington a few weeks ago on the agenda. Can you say if it's your understanding now that that agreement on the agenda holds and that that agenda remains the same? MR. RUBIN: I would reject the characterization of a renege of an agreement. That obviously comes from someone who wasn't at Blair House, and was unfamiliar with the details of what was discussed there, the arrangements that were made there, and I would urge you to avoid assuming as true those who are unfamiliar with specific arrangements. QUESTION: You mentioned five topics. Does that mean there are five committees -- water, security, normalization, withdrawal and timetable? MR. RUBIN: At this point, let me simply say that I've tried to give you some broad substantive categories of issues that you're familiar with, and I don't know all the names of the committees. When I can give you those names, I will, because they've just been constituted. QUESTION: Jamie, you said that Madame Secretary met with Barak. She didn't hold any meetings with Foreign Minister Shara. Did she speak to Shara by phone, even after the meeting with Barak? MR. RUBIN: I don't believe so. I think that the last meeting that was held last night was the one the President held with Foreign Minister Shara. So that was the last contact that was held between the United States and one of the two parties. So the next contact was with the Israeli side, and we have moved forward as I have described. QUESTION: Jamie, the decision to form the committees: Was that made overnight, or was this something that was planned for quite a while to form the committees? MR. RUBIN: Again, I think it's fair to say that there was a procedural hurdle that had to be overcome, and that was overcome. So it would be hard to say that the plan was formulated before we overcame the hurdle. QUESTION: Jamie, I take it then the overcoming of the hurdle was done through an American suggestion on how to go ahead with the procedure? MR. RUBIN: Yes. I mean, in short, we are here as facilitator. We are trying to make sure that this site is one where all the substantive issues can be discussed and, hopefully, progress can be made on them. And one of the ways in which we play our role is to try to facilitate those substantive discussions, and sometimes that requires procedural suggestions. QUESTION: One issue of substance is, of course, settlements on Golan. During the two-week break, Israel announced that it was going to build some more settlements. I'm not sure whether you had a comment on that publicly, but perhaps you would have one now. But in any case, is that one of the factors that might have come into the discussion in the last 24 hours, and is there some resolution on that? Is Israel going to put off -- MR. RUBIN: Is that one of the factors -- I'm sorry - that what? QUESTION: That may have been discussed in the last 24 hours? MR. RUBIN: I don't think that was a particularly relevant factor in these discussions over the last 24 hours. QUESTION: So nobody cited them? MR. RUBIN: I didn't say that nobody cited them. I can't say that. I'm not in every single discussion. But from my appreciation and understanding of these discussions and what the problems were -- and I was made aware of what the problems were -- I don't think that was a relevant factor in the hurdles that existed that were overcome. QUESTION: And would you care to comment on Israel's plans to build settlements on the Golan in the midst of negotiations -- the announcement that came a few days ago? MR. RUBIN: We have stated on many occasions our view on settlement activity there and elsewhere, and I think it's well known. QUESTION: If they have resolved the procedural hurdle, why does President Clinton need to come today? MR. RUBIN: Again, resolving a procedural hurdle that will enable discussions to ensue is only a starting point for what is going to be an extraordinarily difficult discussion, an extraordinarily difficult negotiation, one that will require the most painful of political decisions by both parties. The President of the United States has a unique role to play in providing the confidence, and the support, and the persuasion that is necessary for those political decisions to be made. And the fact that he's here and returning today to chair this trilateral meeting is a reflection of the fact that this presence will often be required: not simply on relatively minor procedural hurdles, but also on the far more difficult political decisions about substantive issues. QUESTION: Thank you. Could you comment then on the economic arrangements? There is obviously some talk about what the U.S. would help Israel, with regard to the return of the Golan. MR. RUBIN: With respect to that, let me say again: There were probably what I would call some wildly premature reports about any plan for assistance to Israel in the aftermath of an agreement. Wildly premature is the way I would characterize those reports. As I said yesterday, I think it's fair to assume that this is a major, major peace agreement we are considering here that we are hoping to help the parties achieve. And if it's achieved, peace agreements of this magnitude are inevitably going to carry a price. But with respect to the specifics and the timetable and the details of that price, I think it would be inaccurate to say that anything has been agreed to, (that) there is any formal plan. We consult regularly with Israel on a number of issues in this area and, following the resumption of the talks between Israel and Syria, we did begin some very preliminary consultations on the implications of an agreement on the security of Israel -- and those extraordinarily preliminary consultations will continue. But I think some of the reporting, that suggests that this is a package that's already been decided upon, is wildly premature. QUESTION: Thank you. Can you say whether there have been discussions of money that could go to Syria? MR. RUBIN: At this point, I don't believe we've had those kinds of discussions with Syria. As I said yesterday, we would certainly hope and expect that in the context of a real, full, comprehensive peace with Israel that Syria would be taking the necessary steps that would enable them to be removed from the terrorist list, but that's up to them to make. And in that context, we certainly could imagine a better bilateral relationship with Syria. QUESTION: Jamie, among the dozens of experts that have accompanied both delegations, the Israelis have pointed out -- I want to know if it's accurate -- that the Syrians have neglected to bring experts either on the economy or on various whatever you would need to do to normalize diplomatic relations. If this is true, do you think that it's still possible to have detailed discussions that would make progress on those two issues which are so important to Israel? MR. RUBIN: I don't know to what extent their economics team is here in full. I do believe that the suggestion they don't have people here able to talk about normalization is utter nonsense. There (are) senior Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials, including the Foreign Minister of Syria, who would be the official in charge of the department that would conduct the normalization of relations and conduct its external relations. So to suggest that there aren't Syrian officials capable of having those discussions with Israel and with the United States is simply wrong. QUESTION: I have a question on that issue. Is it the U.S. position that all these issues require discussion and definition? And if it's not clear why I'm asking this, I'll be happy to spell it out. MR. RUBIN: There is a view -- QUESTION: Let me spell it out. I don't want to make it impossible for you to answer the question, but is it sufficient for Syria to say, we're prepared to have peace, or must be spelled out in these negotiations? MR. RUBIN: One of the issues, the topics -- normalization -- there is a content to that, and we believe the content of peace is one of the issues that we want to have serious discussion and, hopefully, progress towards agreement on. QUESTION: All right. And when you said, about six questions back, that these decisions are painful for both sides, can you please explain what the pain Syria would endure in taking back the Golan Heights? MR. RUBIN: Well, you haven't seen the security arrangements. QUESTION: Jamie, maybe you spelled it out and I missed it, but there was a hurdle that was overcome. Could you please define: What was this hurdle and how was it overcome? What was the problem in the talks? All I want to know is -- I've got a multi-part question. Is Clinton coming here because the talks are doing well, or because they're not doing well? And, finally, the hurdle was broken after he spoke with Mr. Barak? And does that mean that Mr. Barak gave in: that he surrendered something, that he was the obstacle? MR. RUBIN: Is there another one, or just those three? OK, on the third part, the short answer is, no. We were trying to develop an arrangement and a work plan, and we needed to talk to both parties in order to do that. Secretary Albright and the President spent many, many hours with Prime Minister Barak yesterday, and several hours with Foreign Minister Shara yesterday. The last meeting we had last night was with Foreign Minister Shara, and when the business resumed this morning it returned with Prime Minister Barak. The procedural issue was not the only issue discussed in that meeting. There were several issues discussed. So your assertion, or assumption, that there was somehow a giving-in on the part of the Israelis is incorrect in the extreme. Secondly, the President is going to come, as I understand what Joe has said: He's got a relatively light schedule that is enabling him to come here when Secretary Albright thinks it's appropriate. We got a good start yesterday in discussions. A lot of substance was discussed. There was a procedural hang-up in the evening. That hang-up has been overcome. The President, as I said in response to one of your colleague's questions, needs to be here often, given the nature of this decision, given the painful decisions on both sides that need to be made. And so you shouldn't read disaster or success. You shouldn't read Great Expectations or Bleak House into every arrival or departure of the President. I confess I have forgotten the first of your three questions. QUESTION: What was the procedural hang-up? MR. RUBIN: Right. I think it's fair -- the best way I can summarize that is how to get an agreement on a work program. And beyond saying that, I don't care to comment. QUESTION: There are Israeli reports that the Syrians have agreed that they will discuss the security arrangements before they discuss the withdrawal. Is that true, and are they going to meet face-to-face today? MR. RUBIN: I've got my little stack every morning. I get the press from the region -- from Israel and from the Arab countries -- and it's thick. And I read that, along with other newspapers. And I must say that there were a number of reports that I read today, in the Israeli press, that didn't resemble the meeting I have been at, including the dinner that was going to be held and planned and set out for all the participants last night -- something I'd never heard anything about, and was never a part of the plan. So I would urge the use of extreme caution in reading some of those reports. Beyond saying that there will be discussions on all the issues in the coming couple of days, I have no comment. QUESTION: Will the topic of Lebanon be part of these issues to be discussed? MR. RUBIN: Yes, I think there is an obvious link and relationship between the importance of closing the circle of peace vis-&#agrave;-vis Syria and vis-&#agrave;-vis Lebanon, and I think we believe that it's a topic that cannot be decided upon without discussion with the Lebanese Government. But certainly is an issue that can be explored, and it is something that is on the table, in the sense that it's come up here in Shepherdstown. QUESTION: You said in answer to my friend here that his assumption that the Israeli gave in is wrong in the extreme. Are we to assume that the Syrians gave in or is that wrong again in the extreme? MR. RUBIN: Right. This isn't a "giving-in" situation. And those of you who are anxious -- and I can see that you are anxious to disprove one particular point, and maybe others are anxious to disprove another particular point. No, no, I urge you to be not so anxious to see this as a ping-pong match. This is a peace negotiation, and we're at the beginning, and there will be a lot of discussions. And when it's all over, there will be plenty of time for everybody to judge what was offered, and what was accepted, and whether those implicattions are good or bad for one of the particular parties. QUESTION: On the half-dozen committees that have now been constituted, have they actually begun work? Do you expect them to begin work today or will they -- MR. RUBIN: I expect work on all the issues in the next couple of days, and I would expect some committee activity. But we'll just have to see how the day progresses. QUESTION: I have a follow-up question. President Clinton: I'm sure, when he walks in the room there is great presence and power, and the fact that he is President of the United States also gives a little more power. In what way does his presence facilitate what's going on in the room? MR. RUBIN: I have observed both President Clinton and Secretary Albright, up close and personal, in a variety of peace negotations, including the Wye talks and including a number of discussions in the field, and I've talked to many of you about Secretary Albright's role. With respect to the President, let me simply say that there is a special power that the United States has. We are a country that people look to. It's not an accident that countries around the world seek the United States to be the mediator, seek the United States to be the facilitator, regardless of who is President. And that's because we have a long and special tradition of playing a unique role in promoting peace in many parts of the world. I can't tell you how many times, in my experience in government, countries have wanted it to be the United States -- rather than some international organization -- that helps them to make their decisions. That's because the United States is respected as an honest broker, as a country that promotes peace for its own sake, as one of the only non-imperialist superpowers in history. And, therefore, we carry with us a special credibility, and President Clinton in particular carries with him a special credibility in this area, given his long record on the Israeli-Palestinian track, the Israeli-Jordanian track, and all the work that he has done up to now. I mean, it's no secret that he is an extraordinarily popular President and person in Israel. I watched him in Gaza with the Palestinian Authority, and saw the extraordinary reaction that he has on the people there. The same applies in other parts of the Arab world. So that political power of both the United States and President Clinton pesonally is brought to the table. Then, specifically, both the President and the Secretary are able to understand the views of each party, to communicate our understanding of those views to the others in a fair and credible way, and that is what an honest broker does. QUESTION: Jamie, if they have since agreed to an agenda for talks, and you say that the actual working groups won't get going or probably won't get going for the next couple of days, then what can we report they're doing today? MR. RUBIN: What I said was that I expect all of the issues to be discussed in the next couple of days, so that means that some may precede others. So there are discussions that have already taken place this morning. There will be discussions that take place this afternoon. Some committees will presumably meet very shortly, and when I have specific information on what committees, or when they met, or what issues were discussed, I'll provide that to you. But right now, it's 1:30 or so, and we have just overcome this procedural obstacle, and I've been reporting that to you here. QUESTION: So which groups met this morning, then? MR. RUBIN: If I had intended to tell you that, I think I would have about 35 minutes ago. QUESTION: Do you have any color that you can give us about -- MR. RUBIN: Any what? QUESTION: Color? Fluff? Whether the delegates are meeting outside of meeting rooms, whether there is any co-mingling of the delegations? MR. RUBIN: I think that as the day progresses, I may have a lot more of that for you, but in the last 24 hours the basic discussions involved the President and the Secretary in very tiny, small meetings with the leaders, and then shuttling back and forth, and meeting with each other in between, or having -- the President met with his team several times, and with Secretary Albright. So that's basically all that's happened, in both the Clarion Hotel and the National Conservation Center. So as these additional contacts occur, and additional meetings are held, I can try to get a flavor of where they're being held, and what the formality level is, and that kind of thing. I may be able to give you some more color. I have not seen a lot of walkings yet. QUESTION: You have not? MR. RUBIN: I did take a very short walk this morning, but I know that's not quite what you were looking for. QUESTION: (Inaudible) scheduled for the Clarion? MR. RUBIN: I believe so, yes. QUESTION: To go back to the $17 billion which you said was wildly premature, clearly if there was going -- MR. RUBIN: I was talking about a number of specifics in a number of stories about that issue. QUESTION: What I'm reading from you is, you're not strictly denying this is possible. Presumably, it would have to come out of the American taxpayers' back pocket; it would have to be coming from Congress. Given the fact that the American taxpayer is going to be asked to pick up the tab for any of this, I wonder if you can give us a little more detail about what is being discussed in this nature. MR. RUBIN: I think what I'm suggesting is that, what the American people ought to know now is that, the President and the Secretary of State believe that it's in the national security interests of the United States to promote a comprehensive peace in the Middle East: that it's in our vital national interest. This region affects our vital national interest and, therefore, preventing conflict and promoting peace enhances our national security. It makes the world a safer place. That is why the President and the Secretary of State are spending such an extraordinary amount of time on this subject. It is why we have described this as an historic opportunity that we hope both parties seize. With respect to the specifics of what might be necessary, other than saying that obviously a peace agreement of this magnitude and this historic significance and this important security relationship will have a cost. The specifics of that cost, we are only having, as I indicated, preliminary discussions with the Israelis about this. We -- and the President, I believe, said this earlier today -- wouldn't move forward at all without consultations with Congress, who are the representatives of the American people, even more so than all of you out there. And so we will be consulting with the Congress. This is an issue that ought to be decided jointly, and the American people ought to know what our intentions are as they unfold. But we can not predict and describe wildly premature details, when we've only begun the process of consulting in a preliminary way. QUESTION: Has not the President got some kind of agreement, meaning verbally, from Congress? I mean, you don't do this unless you -- no? MR. RUBIN: Real consultations haven't even begun. Any suggestion that there's an informal agreement between the leadership, the administration, that there will be a huge number associated with peace for Syria that both sides have agreed to, is not true. QUESTION: There were some press reports saying Syria demands the same compensation like Egypt after Camp David agreement, once President Asad will be willing to get back gently the Golan Heights, meaning financial and also supplying by the US of the most modern military gear. If this is going to be a comprehensive peace, as you have described a couple of times, why any need for such arms shipments or commitments should be needed? Can you comment about this? If any preliminary conditions were put by the Syrians about financial and military aid? MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of any preliminary conditions put in place by the Syrians of financial or military aid. I would urge you not to assume that every peace agreement is the same, that every country is the same. Egypt and Syria are different countries. I would also urge you not to give credence to those who say, with confidence, things like: There was a precondition of financial and military assistance from the United States. Anyone who advised someone of that is someone that I would think has zero credibility. QUESTION: Can we move on to another topic? MR. RUBIN: Yes, please. Or we can bash the press some more. QUESTION: Let's change the pace a little bit. Did US officials ask the Cuban Government, in a formal way, to allow the father of Elian Gonzalez to travel to Florida and, if they did so, can you say if they did so in anticipation of an immiment INS decision to return the boy to Cuba anyhow? MR. RUBIN: The Immigration and Naturalization Service has yet to make its final decision on this case. We do expect a decision soon. We would welcome an application for a non-immigrant visa from Elian's father at any time in this process, and we have informed the Cuban Government of that. The State Department is prepared to expedite a non-immigrant visa for Mr. Gonzalez, if he decides he wants to travel to the United States to see his son. The Cuban Government, of course, would have to issue him the necessary travel documents to make such a trip. QUESTION: Thanks. One quick housekeeping matter. Can we expect Mr. Lockhart to brief at the end of the three-way meeting if, in fact, it takes place? MR. RUBIN: I do not know what his plan is yet. Is there anybody here who does? I don't see anybody, but I will try to get that information to you as soon as I have it. QUESTION: OK. And the second matter is that we've seen reports that Italy today recognized North Korea. One, is that true? Two, what's the US reaction? And, three, is there any concern that this is going to become an EU-wide trend? MR. RUBIN: I am aware of reports to that effect. It's something the Italians did raise with the United States in recent weeks. Our view has been that each country has to make its own decision on how to proceed towards a more normal relationship with North Korea, as North Korea meets the international community's concerns on the nuclear and the missile front. We have indicated that we have suspended some sanctions in light of their decision to not flight-test their medium-range missile, pending continued discussions between us and North Korea. So we've taken steps in that direction. That is not a step we've taken yet, but we've certainly indicated to other countries that it's up to them to decide how they want to normalize relations with North Korea, as North Korea meets the concerns of the international community. QUESTION: Do you see a trend in recognizing -- MR. RUBIN: I am aware of Italy having raised that issue with the United States. I'm not aware of a number of other countries doing so. QUESTION: Yesterday, actually, at least I had the impression that the trilateral meetings are going to take place and then they are going to continue at a certain point, then they are going to break into groups. Today, we are hearing something different. Immediately after the hurdle has been overcome, you are breaking into groups or at least there are groups now meeting. MR. RUBIN: There are no committee -- QUESTION: Was this with the trilateral? MR. RUBIN: To my knowledge, there are no committee meetings. QUESTION: Not now? MR. RUBIN: Now. QUESTION: Okay. So what were going to happen after the two days that you mentioned, after the couple of days you mentioned? You said after the couple of days. MR. RUBIN: Let me try to give you the sequence as best I can. After the Secretary's meeting with Prime Minister Barak, officials -- senior officials from the US delegation -- had a number of contacts with Syrian experts and with Israeli experts, and that's been going on over the last couple of hours. There will then be a meeting of President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak, then there will be a trilateral meeting, and then during the course of the next few days we expect there to be meetings in which all the issues are discussed. As of now, and prior to the trilateral, I don't believe there are any committee meetings that will have taken place. QUESTION: I just wanted to get your reaction to the progress that was reported this morning on the Palestinian track, which was fairly substantial, and how you see these two tracks working parallel, together, however, over the next couple of months. MR. RUBIN: Obviously, let me say we're very pleased by the progress on the Palestinian track. We've been saying for some time that we think and have thought that the implementation of the Sharm el-Sheik Accord is something that the Israelis and the Palestinians could work out themselves. We have been in touch with both sides on a daily basis about a number of the issues involved, but what we're pleased about is that there has been the kind of fruitful and successful and intensive discussion between the Palestinians and the Israelis that enable these problems to be overcome without a trip by the Secretary of State, or something of that nature. So we're very pleased about that. We've always said, on your broader question, that it is possible to pursue both of these tracks, because they each can run on their own steam, their own momentum. They each have their own logic, and their own rationale, and certainly the Palestinian issue is at the core of the comprehensive peace question that we are trying to answer positively. And we are pleased that this progress occurred, and I think it shows that you can move forward on both tracks. QUESTION: I have another Gonzalez question -- maybe several. MR. RUBIN: OK. I don't know that I have another Gonzalez answer but -- QUESTION: Well, I want to make sure that I'm clear on what the US was offering to father. This government was offering a chance for him to come to visit his son, not to take his son back? MR. RUBIN: Correct. A non-immigrant visa for him to come visit, yes. QUESTION: Was there any indication from the meeting whether he would apply? MR. RUBIN: We'll have to see. As soon as we know that they have made a decision to request a non-immigrant visa, and that the Cuban Government has provided the travel documents he would need, we'll let you know. QUESTION: And when you say you could expedite the visa, does that mean an hour, a day? MR. RUBIN: Well, quickly. We recognize that this is an issue that has captured the attention of a lot of the world. We obviously have demonstrated extreme concern over the child, and so we would move it in a very expeditious basis. QUESTION: Do you have any indication how long the President will be here? MR. RUBIN: No. When we know more, we'll let you know. QUESTION: Jamie, you went on at length when I asked you whether or not it was the US belief that there were Syrian officials, experts on hand, to discuss normalization of relations and the economy. Let me ask it this way: Does the US believe that there is sufficient representation of Syrian experts, officials, et cetera, here in West Virginia to discuss all of the major issues at hand? MR. RUBIN: Yes, I thought I said that as clearly as I could in a very strong way with respect to the security - I'm sorry, with respect to the normalization. And, yes, we believe there is plenty of representation here for discussing a number of the issues. Again, we have never said that every single thing is going to be done here. When I answered questions earlier about a core agreement, well, that means there could be annexes to those agreements - sorry, to that agreement. Core agreement doesn't mean every single issue is fully written out in dozens of pages. There could be annexes to that agreement. But we think there is sufficient representation to do the work that needs to be done on achieving a core agreement. Let me do one thing, and then I'll go over to you. On Croatia, let me say the United States congratulates the people of the Republic of Croatia, and Secretary Albright is particularly pleased on the conduct of the parliamentary elections in Croatia over this weekend. International observers have characterized the conduct of these elections as professional, and has having made significant strides towards meeting OSCE standards. The successful conduct of these elections and the prospect of a peaceful and orderly transfer of power, from one freely elected government to another, is a major step in the consolidation of democracy in Croatia and a major contribution to the development of democracy in the region as a whole. We look forward to working with Croatia's next government to further advance our bilateral relation, and to accelerate Croatia's further integration into the European community of democratic nations. QUESTION: Jamie, when you elaborated on the various types of agreement at the beginning, you mentioned a framework agreement as being the most -- simplest version of that. How do expectations stand on the possibility of reaching a framework agreement during this round of talks? MR. RUBIN: I think what I'm trying to suggest is that our objective is a core agreement: that we're not seeking a declaration of principles, or an agreement with all its annexes in such a compressed time. We're not seeking either of those things: either a declaration of principles, or a statement of principles, or an agreement with dozens of annexes and all their detail fleshed out. That's not what we're seeking. What we're seeking to achieve is a core agreement. That's something in between those two, that covers all of the major outstanding issues in some serious way. QUESTION: Can I just follow up? Do you mean that you intend to bypass the framework agreement or the statement of principles stage of this, and go straight for the core agreement, but you won't be able to do it this round? MR. RUBIN: Yes, what I'm trying to suggest is there are different ways to go about these things. You don't always have a declaration of principles. You don't always have a statement of principles in every case. And so that is not something we're seeking in this case. QUESTION: The core agreement: Is it going to be signed? The core agreement, is it going to be signed? MR. RUBIN: Well, usually such agreements are signed, but nobody is spending a lot of time working on that now. I mean, as I said, we don't expect to achieve a core agreement in this round of talks, so talking about how an agreement would be signed that we don't expect to achieve - I'm trying to help you with the form of the agreement, not the details of its completion, which is as wildly premature as the issue of the money. QUESTION: (Inaudible) Shabat and on Friday and Saturday or will they be suspended? MR. RUBIN: Normally, we do not conduct the same kind of negotiations on Shabat with the Israelis. That's normally not happening, just as a result of the Iftar each day the negotiations adjust. We do make accommodation for those views. QUESTION: I understand that you talked about the problems with agenda or procedure in the beginning. Is it true that the real crux of the problem is this: that when these two parties sit down at the negotiating table together, that Syria says, OK, Israel has to withdraw first; Israel says no, that's going to be the thing that we do last. Is that the kind of problem, the kind of gulf and impasse that we're dealing with here? MR. RUBIN: Well, whatever procedural hurdle might have existed yesterday, I think I indicated has been overcome, so we believe that all of the issues will be discussed in the coming few days. QUESTION: I know you don't want to comment on the substance of this hurdle, and I understand that. Was it a surprising situation? Was it just the grind of such negotiations? Can you characterize it that way? Another thing I was curious about: What time did the meeting break up last night, and when did the President leave? MR. RUBIN: I think the President left - and Joe's office probably has the precise time - but my recollection was that it was around 10:20, 10:30. Let's see, a little later than that, even, because -- no, it wasn't midnight. No, it was before 11 o'clock. It was definitely before 11 o'clock that they -- because I -- anyway, it was about 11 o'clock. Let's say that. And the last meeting, I think, ended at about 10:20, 10:30, and then the President met with Secretary Albright and the peace team, and then he left. What was your other question? QUESTION: Was it a surprise? MR. RUBIN: Oh, the surprise question. Look, I think those of us who have been involved in this, on a number of occasions, have stopped being surprised by procedural hurdles or stoppages or problems. You know, we always expect there to be problems in this kind of a negotiation, and that's why we're here, to overcome them. I think it's fair to say that we had wanted to get the procedural plan done as quick as possible, and we did it perhaps not as quickly as we might have liked, but about as quickly as one might have reasonably expected. My understanding is the President has just arrived at the Clarion, so let me take that as a cue to head back there. [end of document] Peace Process | Near Eastern Affairs | Department of State