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 5, 2000

SPOKESMAN MR. RUBIN: Greetings. Welcome to Day Three of the Shepherdstown Peace Talks. Let me try to give you a quick update of where we stand, and what has transpired, and then respond to your questions. As I indicated yesterday, all the committees were established and constituted. The names of those committees, in alphabetical order, are: Borders; Normal Peaceful Relations; Security Arrangements; and Water. The committee meetings did begin today. Two committees met for the first time today. There were committee meetings, and the committees that met were the Security Arrangements Committee and the Normal Peaceful Relations Committee. From the American side, on the Security Arrangements Committee included Secretary Albright's military advisor, General Don Kerrick; Frank Kramer, who is the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; and Bruce Riedel, who is Senior Director for Near East Affairs at the White House. On the Committee on Normal Peaceful -- sorry, Normal Political Relations -- Normal Political Relations. I think I made a mistake there. QUESTION: You said "arrangements." MR. RUBIN: No, Arrangements is with Security. Security Arrangements, Borders, Normal Political Relations and Water. I'm going to have to find out for sure. I believe it's Political. QUESTION: (Inaudible.) MR. RUBIN: Yes, maybe we'll use our cell phones. Kitty, if you'll get me my notes from that briefing room there, I will clear up the confusion as between Peaceful and Political. It was written on a small piece of paper in the briefing room. I want to make sure we get these details just right. So those two committees did meet and the Americans in the committees were struck by the fact that the meetings were constructive, business-like, and positive in terms of getting down to business, rolling up their sleeves, and trying to work through these complex issues. QUESTION: Jamie, you started to saying something about the American presence there. MR. RUBIN: Martin Indyk, Aaron Miller and Rob Malley. Martin Indyk is Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs and former and soon-to-be Ambassador to Israel; and Aaron Miller is the deputy to Dennis Ross; and Rob Malley is the director at the National Security Council for this region. So those are the Americans on those two committees. And as I was saying, the Americans having sat through some of the sessions -- and the sessions are continuing today -- the Americans were struck by the fact that the meetings were constructive and business-like and positive in terms of getting down to business, rolling up their sleeves, and trying to work through these difficult issues. With respect to Secretary Albright's schedule, her schedule will emerge more clearly during the course of the day but she will be meeting over lunch with Prime Minister Barak at about 1:45 in an one-on-one session. She is expected to meet with Foreign Minister Shara today, and then I expect her to get a briefing from General Kerrick and Assistant Secretary Kramer and Bruce Riedel on the Security Arrangements Committee work. Then she will probably also meet informally with some of the other senior officials who are working from both the Syrian and the Israeli side. There have been contacts and discussions the United States has had with both Syrian and Israeli officials on the other issues, on the other remaining issues where committees have not met. So the two committees that have met are the Normal Relations Committee and the Security Arrangements. And the discussions and contacts that we've had on the other issues -- Borders, Water -- have taken place as well, but those have not been in formal committee meetings. Let me just add one more point from last night for those of you who are interested. The session last night or evening with President Clinton and Secretary Albright hosted with the Syrian and Israeli delegations, I believe there were six members from each side. It was held in the Clarion Hotel. It was over non-alcoholic drinks. There was not food served at that time. And those who -- including our Ambassador to Syria who has seen this kind of thing before, was struck by the new level of discussion and contact and intercourse between the Israeli and Syrian delegations. During that meeting, the President did talk about the historic nature of Shepherdstown and the fact that it has been the site of terrible conflict in the United States in which hundreds of thousands of American lives were lost during the Civil War, and that the decisions that were going to be made here in Shepherdstown were ones that were going to affect the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people throughout the Middle East. There was a lot of back-and-forth discussion. It went on for about a half an hour. It was informal and not focused on a specific substantive issue. So with those opening comments, let me turn to your questions. QUESTION: I can't imagine land-for-peace negotiations without Dennis Ross. Is he part of this in some prominent way? And by the way, where was he and what was he doing in the walk-up to these talks last week, if you can tell us? The Secretary was sort of on the -- MR. RUBIN: Ambassador Ross is here and is involved in a lot of these discussions. I was describing the American participation in specific committees, and Ambassador Ross has been discussing and having informal contacts with the Israelis and the Syrians, has been briefing the Secretary on developments on an hour-by-hour basis. As far as what he was doing before we convened here, I assume that he celebrated New Year's Eve with his family. But other than that, I assume that he was in contact with the relevant counterparts and delegations from Syria and Israel. He was certainly spending a fair amount of time preparing briefing materials for the Secretary and the President. And beyond that, I'm not familiar. QUESTION: Was there any sort of legal (inaudible) -- MR. RUBIN: We have a full team here, including legal experts, lawyers, who are familiar with the negotiation and the drafting of documents of this kind, and lawyers who have drafted previous agreements. QUESTION: I don't want to be overdoing it, but I meant to ask you -- let me ask you now -- has the notion of -- and this is a decades-old notion -- the notion of some formal defense treaty between Israel and the United States come up in even a sideways, sidewise way? MR. RUBIN: I saw a reference to that, and let me take this opportunity to make a larger point. I did see a reference to that in the Israeli press, OK? And I hope that all of you as journalists have as thick skin as I am supposed to have at the podium. If there is something in the Israeli press that I criticize or regard as incorrect or regard as without foundation, that doesn't mean I am criticizing the Israeli press in general. I have to use a lot of words up here, and I think all of you in the Israeli press can probably show as thick skin as I have to show. There are errors and factual mistakes and assertions that are simply not true in outlets in the Israeli press, and if I'm going to mention that and be very clear on that, I hope all of you won't uniformly think that this is an attack on the medium of the media in Israel. I strongly, as an American, believe in a free and democratic press and I deal with an American press that's free and democratic every day. Having said that, there was a report in an Israeli media outlet, whose name escapes me at the moment -- QUESTION: Jerusalem Post? MR. RUBIN: Jerusalem Post. I think that's correct. That was based on discussions with people who don't seem to know what's going on because I have heard nothing about any discussion of a formal defense pact with Israel along the lines of NATO or something like that. We obviously have a very close relationship with Israel and we provide a substantial amount of military assistance, but the idea that we're planning a defense pact to go along with any potential military assistance is a question that I asked prior to this report and was told that there has been no such discussion that anybody has heard about. And these are people who would have heard about that kind of thing if it was going on. QUESTION: Jamie, in your rundown of the committees, I didn't hear anything about Israeli withdrawal from the Golan and the timing of that. How is that being discussed? MR. RUBIN: I think you can assume that Borders is a committee that would deal with the question of how one would define withdrawal, and so that is the answer to your question. Again, that committee hasn't met formally but, as I indicated earlier, all the committees -- I'm sorry, all the subjects have been discussed informally in informal contacts and discussions . QUESTION: Do you expect the other two committees to meet formally today? MR. RUBIN: I would expect them to have met by the time this first part of the week is out, but I don't expect them to meet today. QUESTION: And do you see any problem in the fact that the Syrian committee for -- two of the Syrian committees are made up of exactly the same people -- the Borders -- the Syrian team for Borders and Security are verbatim. I mean, they're the same people. Does that pose any kind of a logistical problem? MR. RUBIN: They may have given you the names of their committee members. I haven't done that. If it were correct that they had the same people on certain committees, that would not necessarily be a problem. It depends on who they are and how effective they are in getting down to business. QUESTION: In all of these briefings, I haven't heard any reference to the 400,000 or so Palestinian refugees in Syria. At any point, is it expected that the refugees would be included in this set of negotiations? MR. RUBIN: As I understand it, refugees is one of the permanent status issues. Palestinian refugees is one of the permanent status issues that is being discussed between Israel and the Palestinians. That is why we call that aspect of the peace process at the core of the conflict in the Middle East because it carries with it issues that affect all the countries in the region in one form or another. But to my knowledge, this negotiation between Syria and Israel does not include a discussion of Palestinian refugees in Syria. But refugees, Palestinian refugees in many parts of the Middle East is what would fall under the refugees rubric in the permanent status negotiations. QUESTION: And one more question. Does the fact that Israel annexed or at least extended its laws to the Golan in 1981, does that pose any special problem? MR. RUBIN: Well, Israel has made legal determinations and judgments in the course of the time since it obtained the Golan Heights, and if Israel wants to make any adjustment in what happens to territory, they are obviously capable of doing that. As I indicated, we expect this agreement to be -- and the Israelis themselves have said -- to be the subject of a referendum and approval by the Knesset. So they will have taken a political/legal action that would obviously implement what it was that was agreed in the core agreement. QUESTION: Given the controversy over priorities, can you tell us what the rationale was for having those two committees start work first and not those on Borders and Water, firstly? Secondly, the informal discussions you mentioned, did those begin on the issues -- did those begin last night or this morning? MR. RUBIN: The committees first met this morning, the two committees I mentioned, and the other two have not yet met. There have been informal contact and informal discussion on the other issues, I think, during the course of the last -- I think that must have begun late yesterday or yesterday afternoon. So there have been discussions on a number of these issues informally and through a variety of contacts, but the committees began this morning. QUESTION: And the rationale? MR. RUBIN: Again, I don't think we need to disrobe in public on every aspect of our decision-making. We believe that this approach, this procedure, creates an organizational structure -- the four committees -- all of which will have met by the end of the week, and an informal process that meets the needs of both sides and that allows us to get down the business of working on the subjects that need to be resolved and the issues that need to be resolved if we're going to move forward on this historic peace agreement. So we found a procedure, a work plan and an organizational structure that met those needs, and that's how we've proceeded. And the rationale for that I don't think needs to be discussed at this time. QUESTION: Jamie, any indications on when the talks might pause, might break? Has Barak said when he might go back to Israel or if he's going to go back for Yeltsin's visit, for example, or break for the end of Ramadan? MR. RUBIN: With respect to Ramadan and the Sabbath for the Israelis, obviously we are going to make accommodations to the delegations based on their religious observings -- observances -- thank you. And we will do that. With respect to how that impacts on the departure of people here, I've heard nothing to indicate their planned departures at this time. And as I said yesterday, we're going to take stock at the end of the week and see where we go, but there's nothing new in terms of who's leaving and when they might be leaving. QUESTION: I have a question. MR. RUBIN: Can you wait for the microphone, please? Thank you. QUESTION: Yes, thank you. Confidence-building measures. We've been following the Syrian media -- radio, TV and newspapers -- since the beginning of the talks, which continue to talk about liberating all of Palestine after getting the Golan. I'm wondering if the President of the United States will call on the Syrian Government to call on its own people in Arabic for peace. Second issue: 17 years ago, the Syrian Government took three Israeli soldiers as hostage and refuses to give any information, not even to their parents, about their whereabouts, including one American citizen. I'm wondering if this is the time for a confidence-building measure that the President of the United States will call on the Syrian Government to hand over those three Israelis and, that way, perhaps the President of the United States would be able to look (inaudible) in the face and say I've done everything possible. Thank you. MR. RUBIN: Well, I'm not aware of the first issue. I will check into that. With respect to the question of humanitarian cases, we have long held the view that it would be appropriate for Syria to be helpful in resolving humanitarian issues from the past, and Syria has indicated to us that they will do -- and are prepared to do -- all they can in that area. But beyond that, I don't have any specific comment. QUESTION: The (inaudible) issue? MR. RUBIN: Sorry? QUESTION: The (inaudible)? MR. RUBIN: Well, your question was put in the form of more of a parliamentary resolution than a specific question, and I've answered the question as best I can. QUESTION: Jamie, has the US or Secretary Albright sent a message to the Lebanese leadership about the progress of the talks and when they might be -- MR. RUBIN: A second message? QUESTION: Sent. Sent a message. And when might it be appropriate for the Lebanese leadership to get involved in these talks? MR. RUBIN: It is my understanding that Secretary Albright did send a greeting to the Prime Minister of Lebanon and it was a seasonal greeting. Obviously, it has been our view that at the appropriate time we would like to see the discussions between Israel and Syria be broadened to include the Lebanese track and, at the appropriate time, we would certainly hope that happens. QUESTION: In your opening remarks, you mentioned two or three times that the Americans were struck by the level of professionalism and constructiveness. I wanted to know if you chose those words specifically to indicate that things are going better than you expected or that things are moving along. MR. RUBIN: It's a good question. I think what it would be fair to say is that we -- I indicated yesterday we were on track. I think we're chugging along. We're not on a fast track, and so we're chugging along in a professional manner. But these are very difficult issues and we've just gotten started in that kind of serious way. QUESTION: Given the fact that this is day three now and these Israeli Prime Minister and the Syrian Foreign Minister have only met in the same room once, do they plan to meet again soon, either alone or with Secretary Albright? And would you like for them to pick up the pace of their direct meetings? MR. RUBIN: We do not regard three-way or face-to-face meetings as a be-all and end-all of the negotiating process. As I recall from the Wye talks that some of you may remember, those were not necessarily the sessions that produced the most progress in terms of moving forward. They have met in the same room more than once. They met both in the informal session and the formal session with President Clinton and Secretary Albright yesterday. And whether we think it's ripe or appropriate to have another such get-together will depend on the circumstances, and I can't predict that at this time. QUESTION: Do they have plans to get together right now, today? MR. RUBIN: If I had additional plans to offer you, I would have done that already. If we think it's ripe or appropriate to propose that, I'll let you know. QUESTION: In respect to the informal discussions that were on the other issues, were there these informal contacts between Israelis and Syrians or between the Americans through each one of the sides? MR. RUBIN: With the Americans. QUESTION: So there was no direct informal discussions between Israelis and Syrians? MR. RUBIN: That is my understanding of the situation, but obviously there will be because all the committees will have met very shortly. QUESTION: You mentioned that the discussions yesterday were informal, but the Syrians are saying that the borders has been discussed yesterday. And given the fact that the formation of the two committees from the Syrians on the Borders and the Security Arrangements, does that mean that this was a way to solve the hurdle that was (overcome) yesterday? And given the fact that the same people are in both committees, are they discussing borders and security arrangements at the same time? MR. RUBIN: Normal Peaceful Relations Committee and the Security Arrangements Committee have met today. The other issues and those issues have been discussed through informal discussion and contact. That is what has happened. With respect to what is discussed in those committees -- what is discussed in the security Arrangements Committee, to what extent it relates to Water or Normal Peaceful Relations or Borders -- I'm not prepared to get into the details of what has transpired in those committees. I have described for you the procedures. I have obviously been candid with you when there were procedural hurdles. Those procedural hurdles have been overcome, and you can draw your own conclusions as to how the organizational structure and procedures that are now in place relate to that hurdle. QUESTION: When it comes time to reconstruct that procedural impasse, and then the resolution of it might have to be retold, so just even talking about the Israeli press, the prominent American press is talking about President Clinton having broken that deadlock, and some of us have the impression that it was broken, and that the President was able then to come here and resume his talks. MR. RUBIN: You're not trying to get me in trouble, are you? QUESTION: I'm not trying to get you in trouble, but it suggests the Secretary of State was sort of, you know, walking in a meadow. I mean, my impression was that while the President was away, the people here worked out an arrangement to break the deadlock. You know, you don't have to challenge the White House, but you can talk about the Israeli press. I wonder if you could just tell us -- as carefully as you are able to -- how was that broken? Did the President break the deadlock, or did other folks? MR. RUBIN: Let's see if I can dance through that thicket. QUESTION: You don't have to (inaudible). MR. RUBIN: I would if -- would you like me to? QUESTION: No, (inaudible.) MR. RUBIN: OK, you use your own scorecard. QUESTION: (Inaudible.) MR. RUBIN: The way I would see it is as follows: Secretary Albright and the President are essentially a "tag team." Secretary Albright is here all the time, has more contact with the leaders of the other delegations than the President, because she is here all the time. But President Clinton, being the President, carries with him a special authority and weight. And what the two of them do so well together, and what they did so well together at Wye, and what they did so well together in getting these talks started, was to combine their efforts, with face-to-face discussions by the Secretary, often, and the President using the telephone, or the fact of the President's arrival being laid before the delegations as something that requires some solution. And so I think it would be fair to say that America's greatest newspapers notwithstanding, that both Secretary Albright and the President were involved in coming up with a procedure that enabled us to move forward. QUESTION: (Inaudible). MR. RUBIN: I have a what? QUESTION: (Inaudible.) MR. RUBIN: Thank you very much. QUESTION: Jamie, you had mentioned earlier taking stock at the end of the week. Is that something that might involve another visit by the President, where he would meet with Shara and Barak, and take stock where they go from here? MR. RUBIN: It's a good question. I wouldn't quite see it that way. I think the President's involvement will be on a daily basis, in either receiving reports from Secretary Albright about what's going on, or deciding to come out and meet with the parties. And today he is not coming, obviously. I don't want to speak for the President, but I think he'll be coming again this week, is my expectation. And whether that coincides with a timing decision -- the President's involvement would be focused as much on substance as it would be on timing of the end of this round, say. So I would expect the President to be involved, first on substance, before there were any final decisions on how we would proceed in terms of what goes on after, say, Friday. QUESTION: Jamie, the meeting last night of the Committee on Borders, you're describing it as informal. MR. RUBIN: The Committee on Borders did not meet last night. QUESTION: Informally? MR. RUBIN: Right. I made that very clear, four or five times. QUESTION: Not even informally? MR. RUBIN: There was no committee meeting last night, formal or informal. QUESTION: Right. What makes it -- I mean, just a simple -- what makes a meeting formal or informal? Can you explain that to me? MR. RUBIN: What you need to understand is a committee involves three -- is a three-delegation exercise, at least initially: the American participants, the Syrian participants and the Israeli participants. That's what a committee is, and it has a name. And I've now given you the name, and I think I was right the first time, as I usually am, and then I second-guessed myself. The name is Normal Peaceful Relations, Security Arrangements, Borders and Water. No committees met last night, in whatever adjective you want to put before those meetings. There were, however, contacts and discussions on those issues. And as I indicated in response to one of your colleague's questions, my understanding of those contacts has been essentially the United States officials meeting with Israeli officials, and then meeting with Syrian officials, or vice versa, as opposed to the constitution of a committee with three delegations present. I hope that answers your question. QUESTION: Could you give us an idea of the interaction that's taking place between the Syrians and the Israelis? Are they eating together, are they walking into the room and sitting down and -- what kind of interaction is there? MR. RUBIN: Well, the committee meetings have taken place in working rooms at the Clarion -- you know, seminar-type rooms. The Secretary, as I indicated, is going to be having lunch with Prime Minister Barak. The only informal gathering that I can describe for you, again, is the one last night with six members from the Israeli and Syrian delegations, and the Secretary of State and the President hosting the gathering. It was very informal. I believe Prime Minister Barak talked in Arabic during some of the discussions, and it was described by our Ambassador to Syria as a remarkable type of interaction for the diplomats of two countries that are in a state of war, obviously, and that have no contact of any kind other than -- or no normal diplomatic contact, I think would be fair to say. QUESTION: Jamie, you said that two committees met this morning. Are they going to meet this afternoon, as well? MR. RUBIN: The two committees -- and I'll just name them again so that I can help myself memorize them -- Normal Peaceful Relations and Security Arrangements, I believe they had a couple of sessions this morning. In other words, they met for awhile, took a break, met again. I think one of them was still going when I left at about 12:30 or so. So they will make their own schedule, but they've obviously been working hard all morning. QUESTION: Does the fact that the name of Normal Relations -- MR. RUBIN: Normal Peaceful Relations QUESTION: Let me ask exactly, why "normal" and "peaceful"? Does this mean that the name of this committee is a subject of discussion? MR. RUBIN: Yes, that is the subject of discussion. I mean, to state something that should not surprise you and I hope will not upset any of the parties, normal peaceful relations carries with it certain normal practices, including diplomatic relations, including intercourse between the two countries, and that is -- the specifics of that and the timing of that is what would be discussed in that committee. QUESTION: Several times you have emphasized that the other two committees didn't meet. Was that the price for getting the thing started last night? In other words, Borders imply withdrawal, and that was what the Syrians wanted to start with or include. But this doesn't look simultaneous. It looks like the security arrangements and the normalizing political relations are going to precede any discussion of borders or water. Could you comment on that? MR. RUBIN: Yes. QUESTION: Would you give us the names of the people that met last night, the six Israelis and Syrians? Would that be possible? MR. RUBIN: Yes, I can probably get you -- QUESTION: And would you give us the names of the officials that are on the Water and Borders Committees for the US? MR. RUBIN: Maybe at the time of their meeting. I'm not going to be able to give you all the names on a real-time basis. With respect to the meeting last night, I know Secretary Albright was there from our side, and the rest of the peace team. On the Israeli side -- I don't want to leave anybody out so, obviously, it was their senior people on both sides, and so let me get you the list and that will solve that problem. With respect to your other question, I mean, I have tried to answer it as best I could from some of your colleagues. The last part of it indicated that we haven't discussed anything but Normal Peaceful Relations and Security Arrangements. That's not accurate. I said that there were discussions and informal contacts on those issues, but the only committees that met were the two that I named, and the other two will be meeting very shortly, this week. And as far as what that means and who's keeping score, I mean, I've tried to indicate that this is not a ping-pong match, and I don't intend to help you score it as a ping-pong match. I intend to tell you, as best I can, what has happened, to tell you as best I can what hasn't happened that some people say has happened, and that's the best I can do here, really. QUESTION: Regarding this Normal Peaceful Relations and Water Committees, you are saying they will meet later this week or do you have any specific time on when they are going to hold the meeting? MR. RUBIN: Let me make sure. There must be some misunderstanding. The two committees that met today were Normal Peaceful Relations. I take this as an opportunity to repeat Normal Peaceful Relations, so that I can remember it next time and not have to call in. Normal Peaceful Relations and Security Arrangements have met. Security Arrangements and Normal Peaceful Relations. The Borders Committee and the Water Committee have not yet met. They will meet this week, very shortly. OK? I don't have a time yet, but shortly. QUESTION: As for the Security Arrangements, can you tell us what is the American position, and what is the gap between the two sides in that committee? Where do each stand? MR. RUBIN: We try -- certainly at this stage -- not to take formal positions. What we're going to do is help these committees start from where they left off in the discussions that ended in 1996, and make clear this is where they start from; these are the areas of agreement; these are the areas of disagreement; how do we narrow the gaps; how do we widen the areas of agreement. And on the Security Arrangements, other than saying that obviously they need to talk about security zones, and they need to talk about early warning for security, I'm not going to describe what they're going to talk about. As far as the American position is concerned, it is not really our job to take a position on what would be enough to meet, say, the Israeli needs for security in the event of a withdrawal from land. So we certainly would want to be helpful in coming up with creative suggestions. If there is another way that comes up in our minds to meet an objective the Israelis have set out, for example, we might make a suggestion. But that's not the same as having a position. For example, for those of you who might remember, we had a position that we couldn't have serious talks between Israel and the Palestinians unless the number 13 percent was the basis for those talks. That was more close to a position, as opposed to saying, one side is over here and one side is over here, and communicating to each of the two sides what the other needs and what the other believes. At some point in the Palestinian-Israeli process, we obviously came up with what would be fairly described as positions. Most of the time, what we did was come up with what we hoped were creative suggestions. QUESTION: The Syrians are saying that they want these security arrangements to be equivalent on both sides. Will that be taken into consideration in the American mediation? And also the arsenal, the nuclear arsenal in Israel. Is that going to play any role in this part? MR. RUBIN: I would be surprised if nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrents were a relevant factor, in terms of the work that is done by the Security Arrangements Committee. I would be surprised by that. That may be some existential factor in people's minds, but I don't think that is what is being discussed. I gave you examples of what was being discussed: zones, early warning. Now, with respect to giving consideration to the Syrian desire for symmetry, of course we're going to give it consideration. We're going to give consideration to the views of both parties, and then we're going to try to encourage both sides to find a way to meet their objectives in a way that can be recorded in an agreement, and that can be implemented on the ground. QUESTION: Jamie, just to clarify: Am I right in assuming that Barak and Shara, and I guess Albright as well, are not on any of the committees? And if that is the case, as you've indicated it is, can the committees continue to meet after Barak and Shara go home? MR. RUBIN: Theoretically, I think the answer to your last question would be yes, and Secretary Albright obviously will be hearing from committees. As I indicated, she'll be hearing from the Americans on the Security Committee later this afternoon, and she'll be meeting with, at various times, I'm sure, the heads of the committees. QUESTION: Jamie, you touched on it just in your earlier answer, but if you could perhaps go into a little more detail as to why it's necessary to have such a large American presence on each one of the committees, rather than just having one or two people? In some instances, you have just as many as the Israelis and the Syrians. And then I have another question. QUESTION: Well, I wouldn't assume that every member of that group will always be there. Some of those people may need to be operating -- what my observation was at Wye was, there were some officials, like Ambassador Ross and former Ambassador and soon-to-be Ambassador Indyk and currently Assistant Secretary Indyk, who were capable of juggling many responsibilities. And so they would have a seat on the committee, maybe be there when it starts, and remain familiar with its agenda and its discussions, and they may step out for many of the discussions, and then work on some other aspect of the talks. So I wouldn't read too much into the numbers of the Americans there, other than that I guess we want to be sure, certainly on the Security Arrangements we have General Kerrick and Frank Kramer and Bruce Riedel who are all going to play a role. But Bruce Riedel may be involved in other things at some point, as would Ambassador Indyk, say, or Aaron Miller, who might leave the work to the others. But the idea is, in the beginning they all get started, get familiar with the issues, concerns, of the specific Syrian -- members of the Syrian and Israeli delegations. QUESTION: Obviously, Lebanon is not one of the committees, but can you tell us whether or not you expect Lebanon to come up? Has it come up? What aspects of resolving that peace track have been discussed? MR. RUBIN: Yes, Lebanon has been discussed here at Shepherdstown. Obviously, it's on everybody's minds and there is obviously a connection between closing the circle of peace with Syria and getting progress, and hopefully achieving an agreement between Lebanon and Israel. So there has been discussion of it. Obviously, there are concrete links for the Israelis, in terms of their withdrawal issues from Lebanon. So it is something that comes up. The Lebanese are not here, so it can't come up in a fully formal way, and when I have more to report to you on what might be discussed on that, I'll try to do so. But I think it's fair to say it's come up. I don't expect a committee to be named after it, however. QUESTION: Jamie, have the discussions today of the two committees that have met, as well as the discussions on the informal basis of the committees that haven't met, been in English entirely or are translators being used, interpreters? MR. RUBIN: Let me get you some detail on that. I would assume it would be both, but let me try to get you some detail on that. QUESTION: Would the United States considering transferring cruise missile technology or stealth technology to Israel as a part of an overall settlement? MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to speculate on what we may or may not choose to contribute to any security package that results from a potential agreement. I think the President said, yesterday, that this is something that we're obviously going to have to take a look at. That is their overall question. I think it's fair to say that the Israelis and US officials have begun preliminary consultations on the substance of such a package, but there has been no agreement, and some of the suggestions that there is some agreement of extremely large numbers, I indicated were wildly premature. But we are now getting down to the discussions with Israel and the Syrians on the security arrangements in that Security Arrangements Committee. We have begun preliminary consultations with the Israelis, on what they think they may need. We have not begun consultations with Congress, so to assign any dollar figure, or to discuss any critical component of the package at this time, would be premature. QUESTION: On the Security Committee, were any discussions held with regard to Hezbollah, and the security arrangements that might be needed there? Furthermore, are the security talks between Israel and the US going on here at all, or just in Washington? MR. RUBIN: With respect to your second question, that is not a negotiating effort. In other words, the US-Israel bilateral arrangements are not being -- the kind of preliminary consultations I'm describing are not really being done here. I think it would be wrong to assume, however, that the issue doesn't come up in some form or another, but the actual preliminary consultation would normally be done in bilateral channels, rather than at a multilateral negotiation. Your first question, again? QUESTION: Hezbollah. MR. RUBIN: Hezbollah. We have made clear, as I said yesterday, that we do believe that restraint should be the order of the day, at a time when we are trying to promote peace. And we have made that clear to both sides, and we have specifically made clear to Syria that we would like to see real restraint shown, on the part of those in Lebanon, who could have an interest in making these talks more difficult and making peace more difficult, and those whose only interest is to go back to terrorism, and back to the past. So that is a view that we hold that we are sharing, as appropriate. I wouldn't assume that there is a three-part agenda -- early warning, security arrangements -- sorry, security zones and Hezbollah on the agenda of the Security Arrangements Committee, however. QUESTION: Have you any idea when, this week, the borders issue will be discussed? And then, do you expect that the Israeli premier will, for the first time, present a map? Is such a map being discussed between Mr. Barak and the American administration? And referring to your notion before, concerning Wye, that you then came and said we need 13 percent -- MR. RUBIN: That was before Wye. QUESTION: Yes. So have you got any idea about percentage now, that you will present once this issue is on the table? MR. RUBIN: OK. On the last, that's easy. The short answer is no, because I specifically said no in response to the question in which I gave 13 percent as an example. I specifically said what we're doing here is trying to hear out both sides' objectives and see how they can be met, and that we are not taking positions. I specifically said that in response to the question. With respect to when the Borders Committee will meet, today is Wednesday. There aren't that many days left this week, so you can certainly assume that it will be in the next couple of days. And the second of your three-part question was about maps. Let me just tell you that obviously, the United States and Israel have a very, very close relationship, and we have a very good understanding of Israel's needs and concerns. We believe that Israel's needs and concerns can be met, as a result of our discussions with the Syrian side and our contact with the Syrian side. But as far as getting into a specific map question, I'm not prepared to do that at this time. QUESTION: Does the fact that they are starting with the Security Arrangements imply that there is a kind of a priori, implicit understanding for the borders, because how can you discuss security arrangements without knowing what are the borders. MR. RUBIN: Right. The question was -- since the first part wasn't miked -- is to what extent they're starting from an assumption about the borders, when they're talking about security arrangements. That's obviously a very good question, and it's such a good question I couldn't even begin to try to answer it. QUESTION: Jamie, I know you touched on this subject again before, but I would like to ask you again. Sorry. The Syrians are calling the Security Arrangements Committee "Reciprocal and Equal Security Arrangements Committee." Does that fairly or accurately describe the work of this committee? MR. RUBIN: Separate? QUESTION: Reciprocal Mutual. MR. RUBIN: Reciprocal Mutual -- QUESTION: Equal Security. That's the official name they're giving to this committee. Mutual Equal Security Arrangements Committee. Does that accurately describe this committee's work -- equal and mutual arrangements and reciprocal? MR. RUBIN: Let me put it this way: This one I'm going to answer, OK? Security: If both sides are going to have security, it's going to have to be both sides having mutual security. Equal is in the eye of the beholder. QUESTION: The Secretary of State has made a point of emphasizing human rights in the Third World as a high State Department priority over the last few years. Asad, over the last 48 hours, has been jailing dissidents, and Arafat has been doing this over the past few weeks. The question is: Will the State Department, as part of the peace talks this week with Asad -- and I understand that Arafat will be coming to Washington very soon -- make some strong statements about human rights and civil liberties, both in Syria and in the Palestinian Authority? Thank you. MR. RUBIN: There should be no doubt about America's commitment to human rights and the rights of all peoples in all parts of the world. There never should be any doubt about that. We make our views known quite clearly . We will continue to make our views known as we believe it is appropriate. QUESTION: Can we move on to another ping-pong match? MR. RUBIN: Yes, let's move on. QUESTION: The Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Commissioner, announced today their decision. And I wonder, given the last six weeks, if you can reflect about whether you think that this boy, Elian Gonzalez, was well served by either government, or with the process between the two governments. MR. RUBIN: Well, I think certainly, if you're going to make a comprehensive answer to that question, I think you should probably include in the media coverage of the boy, because that was certainly one of the factors that affected him in a dramatic way. If you were a six-year-old boy, and you were suffering the benefit of extreme media coverage, I think you would also want to take that into account. And I don't think it's time yet to make any reflections. All I can say is that the State Department is prepared to expedite the application for a non-immigrant visa for Mr. Gonzalez, if he decides that he wants to travel to the United States to be reunited with his son. We have communicated this information and the decision of the INS to the Cuban Government, and we are awaiting their response. QUESTION: Jamie, does that mean that he has not applied for the visa? MR. RUBIN: Correct, he has not. We have not received a response. We will expedite it if such a response is forthcoming, and they seek such a visa. QUESTION: And then, there is right now an Iranian soccer team winging its way towards the United States, and I'm just wondering if you see this as any kind of a significant move, considering you've been saying for the past month or so that the Iranians have been stepping up their support for terrorism. MR. RUBIN: Well, with respect to terrorism and exchanges, we've always said we have concerns about Iranian support for terrorism. In the meantime, we have also said we support a civilizational dialogue, including exchanges between US officials or US academics -- let me broaden the term from "US officials" to "academics and scholars." And, obviously, sports is an important part of that. The United States welcomes and facilitates private exchanges between US and Iranian citizens, and we believe the visit of the Iranian soccer team is a great example of that. They are coming for a match on January 16th in California. That has been arranged by the US Soccer Federation. We did arrange for the Immigration and Naturalization Service to issue a waiver for the team and members of the delegation, which will exempt them from the usual fingerprinting procedure. The INS will, however, handle these visitors at their point of entry in Chicago. A follow-up to that? QUESTION: (Inaudible)? MR. RUBIN: I somehow don't think there's too many Iraqi soccer players who are anxious to play here in the United States. QUESTION: George W. Bush said it would be a mistake to send the boy back to Cuba. Do you have any comment on that, or reaction? MR. RUBIN: Well, George W. Bush is a candidate for President, and candidates for President have to take different positions than those who are responsible for government. And those responsible for government followed the law, and the INS made the decision based on the law. QUESTION: I realize that things are early, and that only two committees have met, but has there by chance been anything substantive agreed to yet? By that I mean, have any -- did the two committees that met, have they produced any proposals that have been taken back to either side for a yes or a no? MR. RUBIN: I think the short answer to that is no, in the sense that the committees are beginning with the process of getting, essentially, a common understanding on where we left off, so that we can then move to extending the area of agreement, hopefully to as much agreement as possible. QUESTION: What is the nature of the US commitment to Israel, if Israel is attacked? Is there any sort of formal treaty or military arrangement? And, secondly, is Syria being urged to cut its ties with Iran, in view of the fact that Iran only a couple of days ago called for the destruction of Israel? Is this going to be part of this negotiation? MR. RUBIN: On the first, you know, our commitment has been clear and unshakeable to the security of Israel. I don't care to get into the specifics of any hypothetical military scenario, but our commitment to the security of Israel has been unshakeable, and President Clinton has made clear, will remain unshakeable. But I'm not going to comment on hypothetical military scenarios. With respect to Iran, let me say one of the great values of this peace process will be to turn those who have been the determined foes of not only relations with Israel, but theoretically, the existence of Israel into proponents of relations with Israel. And those who have been obviously the most rejectionist of the neighbors will then, if this works out and we do get this historic opportunity seized, will then be proponents of normal peaceful relations. That may leave out in the cold a lot of others: rejectionists, people who only want to tear things down and not build things up, who only want to destroy the hopes and dreams of the people of the Middle East, rather than give them a positive future and a hopeful future. They may be left out in the cold, in the event of an agreement with Syria -- between Israel and Syria. That's why it's such a big deal, and so I'm sure some of them are wondering where they will get their base of operations, where they will get their opportunity to play the rejectionist, terrorist card. And so we certainly hope that in the context of an agreement, which is a big, big if -- and I've made that very clear to you -- that Syria will implement that agreement, and thus there will be a loss of political and physical space for the opponents of peace and prosperity for all the peoples of the Middle East, including those in Iran who have opposed the peace process, whatever peace process. As far as I can tell, they think the word "peace" is a bad word. Some in Iran -- not all in Iran -- some in Iran. QUESTION: Is there a concern of a sort of a last gasp of terrorism in a sense to try and derail this treaty, and what is the United States doing about that? MR. RUBIN: We have been concerned about that. I think, before Christmas I think, I spoke to that. We had received some indications that were worrying to us, that the opponents of peace, the rejectionists, were going to try to hopefully prevent this process from moving forward, precisely because they know what damage it will do to them and to their cause. We have been working on that problem very, very seriously, including talking to a number of countries around the world that may have influence with those who could potentially have influence with those who are conducting these operations, or might want to conduct these operations, and we are keeping a very, very watchful eye on that. QUESTION: You may have already been asked this, but have Barak and Shara met today themselves, face to face? And when is the prospect for the next face-to-face for those two? MR. RUBIN: They have not met face to face. I was not asked that. As far as the future is concerned, I'm giving you the schedule as it emerges each day. I've kind of run through what I think is going to happen. The committees will meet. There will be informal contact. Secretary Albright will meet with Prime Minister Barak over lunch. Then I expect her to meet with Foreign Minister Shara during the course of the day. She will receive a report from some of the committee heads. As far as what we do after that, I'll try to call in later, if I have new information about schedules. QUESTION: You mentioned, I think, yesterday that you would like to see some of your European and Asian allies get involved in footing some of the costs of peace, and I was wondering if the US has, in any sort of formal way, requested Asian monetary support to Syria, for example, to help out with their costs of peace -- or for Israel? MR. RUBIN: Well, my understanding is that we have been talking to James Wolfensohn, the head of the World Bank, about potential activity in the future. I can't say we've had a specific conversation on a specific program, or funding for a specific program with European or Asian allies. That would really be putting the cart before the horse, and would be as premature as working out military assistance. But, yes, we're beginning to think about, explore, and we'll soon be talking to others who have an interest in peace in the Middle East. And as the President said yesterday, we certainly hope that others in Europe and Asia see the value to the whole world of getting a comprehensive peace in the Middle East that will benefit everyone. QUESTION: Jamie, I'm sorry to drag this back to the Cuban question, but I did have a question on my mind. Obviously, there is as much an ethical component to that question as a legal component. I'm curious, who ultimately will make the call or has made the call on that? Is it INS, State Department, White House? MR. RUBIN: Well, the INS made the decision. You know, I guess theoretically if somebody wanted to stop that, maybe they could, but it was an INS decision and they made it. QUESTION: (Inaudible)? MR. RUBIN: Yes. [end of document] Peace Process | Near Eastern Affairs | Department of State