Great Seal 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.

Department Seal James P. Rubin, Spokesman
On-the-Record Press Briefing, Middle East Peace Process
Shepherd College, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, January 6, 2000
Flag bar

SPOKESMAN MR. RUBIN: Greetings. Welcome to Day Four of the Shepherdstown Peace Talks. Forgive my delay. I try to be as prompt as I can, but it was unavoidable.

Let me try to give you an update on where we stand today on this, the fourth day of talks. Secretary Albright just finished an hour-and-a-half meeting with Foreign Minister Shara. She was accompanied by Ambassador Dennis Ross, and he was accompanied by Dr. Buthaina Sha'ban. They had an hour-and-a-half meeting that gave them an opportunity to review all of the major substantive issues. The Secretary thought it was a constructive discussion.

I don't have additional meetings planned for you at this point, other than to say that a number of informal contacts and discussions have been going on all day. I've seen some of them. They tend to be informal, in the sense that they're not three-way working group/committees.

Yesterday -- I think I mentioned this earlier -- the Security Arrangements Committee met on and off, for a total work time of about seven hours, and the Normal Peaceful Relations Committee met in the morning yesterday.

No committees have yet met -- as of yet -- today. We do expect committee meetings to occur, as I indicated to all of you earlier. All four committees have been established, and we expect all four committees to work before the week is out.

Finally, let me say that the President is expected to return sometime in the mid-afternoon, and will go to the Clarion Hotel and get a briefing from Secretary Albright on where things stand, at which point the President and the Secretary can determine what the next best course of action is.

On a housekeeping procedural matter, let me say that I have spoken to the White House, and they have agreed to add to their pool -- that is, at the Clarion Hotel -- a member of the Arab press and a member of the Israeli press, in addition to the many American members of the press that are part of the White House pool.

With those opening remarks, let me turn to your questions.

QUESTION: Jamie, of course there were committee meetings, formal committee meetings. More now, as you said yesterday, is known about security and about the nature of peace. The Syrians seem a little irritated or a little -- I can't think of the right word -- but a little edgy about not getting to work directly on a timetable for withdrawal. But there have been other contacts.

Would you say that Syria, at this point, knows more about Israel's withdrawal intentions than, maybe, Syria knew at the beginning of the week, or do you still need, you know, a committee meeting -- which you say will be held -- or some other form of discourse for Syria to hear what it is looking to hear?

MR. RUBIN: Without getting into what one party or the other is looking to hear, let me say: I think it's fair to say that both parties have heard more about the positions of the other side than they knew when they were coming in.

QUESTION: The Syrians and the Americans went yesterday at 11:00 to that Water Committee, but the Israelis didn't go. Can you confirm that?

MR. RUBIN: Please repeat the question.

QUESTION: The Syrians and the Americans went yesterday at 11 o'clock to have the Water Committee (meet). Can you -- and the Israelis didn't go. Can you confirm that?

MR. RUBIN: Right. I think that reflects what you've heard: a misunderstanding of the structure. The committees meet when there are delegations from Israel, the United States and Syria meeting together in a constituted committee: one of the four constituted committees. That's happened on the Security Arrangements Committee, and on the Normal Peaceful Relations Committee.

On the other issues, the contacts and discussions that have occurred have occurred primarily through the United States, so if you've heard that the United States has met with Syrian officials, or the United States has met with Israeli officials on, say, borders or water, that would probably be accurate. But it wouldn't be a committee.

That doesn't mean it wouldn't be able to get into substantive issues. Let's remember, there are a number of ways one can skin the procedural cat -- all with the objective of moving us closer to a core agreement, which is what the objective of this process is. So I wouldn't assume that a committee or an informal contact or other procedural devices is the only way to move forward on issues of concern.

QUESTION: Jamie, where we stand right now seems to be almost where we stood on Monday, with a procedural hitch delaying the -- wait till I finish.

MR. RUBIN: All right.

QUESTION: The same sort of procedural hitch delaying the working groups meeting today, or at least this morning. The Israelis are complaining that the procedure -- the whole procedure, the whole mechanism for the talks -- is somehow flawed, and want the Americans to fix it.

Is the President coming here to address that issue with the Secretary?

MR. RUBIN: I have no doubt that Israelis may have told you or your colleagues that, but that doesn't reflect the position of the Israelis, as far as I know. They have not complained about the procedural approach here.

Let me say this: Secretary Albright has, in her time here and from her experience in Wye and in getting these talks started, has a number of approaches to keeping the train chugging along. The peace train chugging along is what the objective is here, so that there are substantive exchanges, so that each side learns more about the other side's positions, so that we can get closer and closer to an agreement, a core agreement.

So Secretary Albright has been involved in direct contact with the Syrian Foreign Minister, the Israeli Prime Minister, each day for an extensive period of time. And what we're doing, in a way, is we have a number of procedural approaches. There is the process of informal discussion, and that involves a number of different substantive issues. There is the process of committees meeting, but that isn't the only process: committee meetings. And then there is a third process, which is that Secretary Albright has asked her team, as a result of the interaction they've had and seen in the committee meetings, to put together a working document that will enable us, at the appropriate time, to move forward.

So each of these three procedural devices -- informal discussion, committee meetings and Secretary Albright's creation of a working document -- are ways to move the substantive process forward. And that's what we've been doing, so I would not see us at all in the situation that we were in earlier in the week, where there really wasn't substantive discussion going on, because of the procedural issue. So I think you've been misinformed.

QUESTION: OK. But the working document that's being prepared by the US - by your people for the committee meetings?

MR. RUBIN: No, it's an overall working document that will help us not only record where we left off, but where we think we have to go if we're going to achieve a core agreement.

QUESTION: Inclusive of all the four?

MR. RUBIN: That it takes into account her meetings with Prime Minister Barak, her meetings with Foreign Minister Shara, the committee meetings, the informal contacts that have been held and discussions that have been held on the borders and water issue where the committee meetings haven't met. So through that procedural device, you're able to take into account all the work that's gone on. QUESTION: Jamie, you have confirmed the last two days that all committees will meet in a couple of days, by the end of the week. It has been confirmed now in the Arab world tomorrow is Eid, the holy -- the end of Ramadan, and the Syrians will be taking it off, I understand. So the end of the week is today. We know about the two meetings of the two committees yesterday. Today you're not confirming any meetings today.

We presume that what you said -- that all the meetings will meet in a couple of days -- was with the agreement of the Syrian and the Israelis. Are the Israelis doing a U-turn now, which can get you in trouble, as I know?

MR. RUBIN: Right. I would urge all of you, from your different perspectives, not to always assume that those on the other side are making U-turns, or those on the other side are "pinging and ponging." It's a little more complex than that. I am under the impression that the Eid meal will occur mid-day tomorrow, but today is still Thursday, mid-day. The week doesn't end necessarily tomorrow, and we do expect committee meetings to occur.

How each of the delegations choose to reflect their religious observances, while we're having these Peace Talks, is going to be for them to decide. So all I can tell you is that yes, you're correct on the calendar and, yes, we expect -- the calendar created by the moon, that calendar. And we do expect committee meetings to occur today, and when we have more information about what meetings meet when, I will give them to you. But I wouldn't always think you can draw conclusions from a set of disparate facts.

QUESTION: Jamie, my question was, when you say a committee meeting will occur, would that be all committees?

MR. RUBIN: Right, yes. We still intend to see that all committees do meet.

QUESTION: Jamie, is it the case --

MR. RUBIN: Yes, it was our fellow from the land of Great Britain, yes -- a lovely land it is.

QUESTION: You can elaborate on that, if you like.

MR. RUBIN: Well, we have a special relationship.

(laughter)

QUESTION: To get back to the special relationships going on here: Is it the case that the Syrians are refusing to reconvene the committees that have already met, until the committees that haven't met are able to have their first talks? And is it also the case that the Syrians have tried to convene the committees which haven't yet met, but the Israelis have refused?

MR. RUBIN: On the second point: We're the hosts and, as hosts, one of the roles of the host is to organize meetings and set times for meetings. So we would be the party responsible for trying to have a meeting. And what I can tell you is all the meetings that we've scheduled have occurred, whether they be informal discussions between us and one of the delegations or another, or whether they be committee meetings. So each of those has happened.

I wouldn't assume that one side or the other is refusing to do something, or another side is making U-turns. Each day we have to make a judgment as to what is the best way to move forward, and today I can say that the Secretary's judgment was to have a meeting, an extensive -- probably her longest discussion with Foreign Minister Shara, with Dennis Ross and Dr. Buthaina Sha'ban together, to run through the issues.

And as I indicated in response to [your colleague's] question, also to accelerate the third procedural device, which is to put together a working document by her team that reflects all of the numerous discussions we've had in the last several days.

QUESTION: To follow up on the working document, is that something you would care to put a time frame on; like, would that come out this week? Is that something that's way down the road?

MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to speculate on when it would be appropriate to move that working document forward. I'm not going to speculate on that.

QUESTION: Is it possible that it could come out this week?

MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to speculate on that.

QUESTION: He asked whether or not the Syrians are refusing to attend any committee meetings until the Committee on Borders and Water actually meet, and you --

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I heard that question.

QUESTION: I noticed I did not hear the answer. Maybe I missed it, but what is the answer to that question?

MR. RUBIN: What I said in response to that question was much like I said in response to the other question that said that the Israelis have made a U-turn, is that I wouldn't assume that this is a simple matter of one side or the other U-turning or refusing to meet or anything like that.

What I can tell you is that each day is a little different than the day before, and today we do expect committees to meet. So I hope that is responsive to your question.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) was there any (inaudible) yesterday it was suggested there were new ideas being put forward.

MR. RUBIN: Right. Let me distinguish between progress and new ideas, OK, as we do our various description of terms. To me -- and the way I will try to use it with you -- progress means when the two sides have agreed on new things that go beyond agreements they may have had when they left off in 1995 and '96. New ideas mean that one or the other parties or the United States has put forward ideas that could lead to agreement that go beyond what has been previously stated, reiterated, often reiterated over and over and over again.

So if one or the other parties has put forward new ideas, or the United States has put forward new ideas, that means this is a different approach to a specific issue, and there have been new ideas that have been circulated or discussed here at. I don't care to describe the details of any new ideas. We don't think that would be constructive. But I think it's fair to say that it has not been a simple matter of repeating only those things that have either been agreed on in previous negotiations or stated during the course of previous negotiations.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. RUBIN: Again, I'm trying specifically not to direct that to one place or another. Obviously, in seven hours of talks a lot of things were discussed, including demilitarization zones, including the importance of an early warning process, verification - that kind of thing. And that was discussed extensively, but I'm not prepared to say what category, or the specifics of new ideas. I don't think that would be appropriate.

QUESTION: Jamie, is it fair to say that the US made the decision not to call a committee meeting because, in doing so, one side or the other might have refused to attend, and so this is a way to get around it? Is that an incorrect characterization?

MR. RUBIN: I wouldn't assume because committees haven't been meeting that it's because the United States didn't call a meeting. I've told you yesterday there were meetings, OK? There were extensive meetings. I have a described a little bit of their time-frame. I've said to you that today we expect there to be meetings. So that's yesterday's meeting activity -- committee meeting activity -- and I've now just described today's meeting activity.

Beyond saying that -- that we expect committees to meet today, that we had extensive committee meetings yesterday -- I don't think it's appropriate for me to tell you every reason we have for calling or not calling a meeting. I've given you the general plan. We expect all the committees to have met this week. We have constituted all the committees. Two of them have met extensively and we expect continued meetings today.

QUESTION: OK, so just to follow up, President Clinton, you've already said, is coming, in the hopes of either bringing new ideas or inspiring new ideas amongst the two parties. So can you help us out a little bit as to why you would have two extensive meetings with two committees, and then nothing all morning long, even if they're informally you're not having the Israelis and the Syrians sitting down together which is, after all, why they're here?

MR. RUBIN: No, it isn't after all why they're here.

QUESTION: Well, they're here to make peace but, clearly, they have to talk to one another. That's why you brought them here.

MR. RUBIN: That may be some opinion. Our opinion is that the process of making peace is a combination of those three procedures I described to you: one, informal conversations and discussions between the United States and the Syrians, the United States and the Israelis. That means, at the highest level, Secretary Albright's extensive discussion with Foreign Minister Shara, and it also involves expert-level contact.

A second procedural device: committee meetings. And a third procedural device, which is the United States, as Secretary Albright has asked, putting together a working document that reflects the conversations and discussions in the first procedural device, informally, and the second.

We have found through our experience at Wye, which yielded an agreement, as you well remember, that the progress was not always a function of direct discussion between the Syrians and the Israelis. There is a need -- we did bring them all here because we thought that having them all in the same place would help. But it doesn't mean that every issue is best negotiated, discussed and resolved through face-to-face discussion between the Syrians and the Israelis. That's our job: to try to figure out what is the best way to do that; and what's what we've been doing.

QUESTION: Could you be a little more specific, at least: In what area the chugging along is really going on? Is it in the area of the informal talks, is there problems that occurred in one of the two committees that met, or is it in working on getting this working document? Can you narrow it down a little bit?

MR. RUBIN: Let me say this: The "chugging-along" metaphor is not a pace that we are satisfied with, and so we are looking for ways to accelerate the pace. That doesn't mean that nothing is happening, but it just means that we would like to do more. So we are trying to accelerate the pace. The procedural approach the Secretary has taken, the President's presence, we hope, will combine to accelerate the pace. If we don't accelerate the pace, it will take longer to make the kind of progress we've been hoping to achieve.

QUESTION: Jamie, judging from the duration of the Security Arrangement Committee, which lasted seven hours, can we conclude that there was some priority given to that topic over the Normalization, which lasted one session?

MR. RUBIN: That there was some what?

QUESTION: Priority.

MR. RUBIN: Priority? I wouldn't assume that we have greater priority or that - look, Security Arrangements, the details of those, I think it's fair to say are more complex than Normal Peaceful Relations. I think the essential components of "normal peaceful relations" are fairly straightforward. They may need to be discussed and mulled over and adjusted, but they're fairly straightforward.

To create overall equal security for both sides -- which is what the objectives of the Security Arrangements are -- is a more complex exercise, that involves steps like zones of demilitarization, or early warning, or verification, and those are more - how shall I say - highly technical, specialized issues that have been worked on by, as I indicated to you, on our side, General Kerrick and Frank Kramer and Bruce Riedel.

So I don't think you should necessarily say or assume that longer hours on one subject means that's more important. I think it would be safer to assume that, sometimes, longer hours are because it could be more technical in nature.

QUESTION: Is it true that despite --

MR. RUBIN: : I love questions that start with, "Is it true..." "Will you deny..." "Can you rule out..."

QUESTION: Can you confirm very credible reports the U.S. -- not zero credible -- that President Clinton and Secretary Albright succeeded in a very important breakthrough in the bilateral talks with Damascus, that President Hafiz al-Asad, for the first time, is ready in principle not to insist any more on the return of Israel to June the 4th, 1967, lines?

I just want to remind you, your yesterday's answer that you were optimistic through your contacts with the Syrians that concerns of the Israelis in what is connected to the line, to the maps, can be answered. That was your answer yesterday.

MR. RUBIN: First of all, let me say that I stand by my answer from yesterday. What I can say on this is essentially two things: Number one, with respect to a particular border that you asked about, I'm not going to address that kind of a substantive issue, for the obvious reasons that I've stated and Prime Minister Barak and others have stated throughout the process that began when Secretary Albright went to Damascus and then met with Prime Minister Barak, and that led to the President's calls to the Prime Minister and the President of Syria, and the announcement of these talks. And the talks began where they left off.

And we believe that both sides decided to go to Blair House, and to come here to Shepherdstown because they believe that their needs can be met - all of their needs can be met. The question is: Will they be met? Will the work that's done here in Shepherdstown meet the needs of the Israelis? Will the work that's done in Shepherdstown and beyond meet the needs of the Syrians so that a core agreement encompassing those needs can be achieved? That is the objective of this process. We still believe that Israel's and Syria's needs can be met, and whether they will be met is the exercise we are undertaking.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. RUBIN: Any time you use that level of specificity, you make my answer easy, which is that I think we've been quite clear that we're not going to get into that kind of a question.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) analysts in Israel who conclude or say they have concluded that Israel can survive very well, thank you, without the Golan Heights. Is that the US view, simply, that Israel does not need the Golan Heights for its security?

And the second question is a different area. It's that declaration. Is this anything someplace between a memorandum or a consensus? I mean, you know, there was trouble for four years as to where they left off last time and what was actually said last time. Is this an attempt by the US to set the record straight? Does it represent in any way -- will it represent in any way a tripartite understanding up to a certain point?

Can you deal with those two things?

MR. RUBIN: I assume when you meant declaration you meant the working document I referred to. Okay, on that, let me say that Secretary Albright asked her team to put such a document together so that she could -- the document could reflect not only the discussions that occurred before the talks suspended in early '96 but also the discussions that have been held by the Secretary with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister here in Shepherdstown, discussions and contacts that occurred at high levels before that, and discussions that have occurred at medium and lower levels here at Shepherdstown in committee meetings and through informal discussions. So that's what the working document is focused on, using our judgment as to how to reflect and exploit the discussions that have gone on heretofore.

With respect to your first question, let me simply say that we believe that Israel has legitimate security needs and we believe those needs can be met, and the exact way in which they can be met is the kind of substantive answer that I'm not prepared to give.

QUESTION: To follow up, if I understand your brief description of the Security Committee meeting, wouldn't it be fair to say that those examples you gave are alternatives to current situations or supplements to what is available now? Aren't they intended to replace the Golan Heights? And if they're intended to replace the Golan Heights, doesn't that mean the US has come to the conclusion that Israel can live very well without the Golan Heights?

MR. RUBIN: Israel is going to have to make that decision. The Prime Minister of Israel has made clear that whatever comes out of this process will be one that he submits to his parliament and to his people for a national decision. They are the ones that are going to have to make that decision and we will be guided by that result.

So I'm not going to say that the United States does or doesn't have a position on all of the issues in question here. Our role has been to try to take concerns the Israelis have with respect to the issue you raised and their objectives, their needs, and help to see that those needs are met.

Similarly, with respect to the Syrian needs and objectives, can they be met? We think it's our judgment that the two parties returned to talks at Blair House and then in Shepherdstown because they believe that their needs can be met. So that's the best I can offer in answer to your question.

QUESTION: There are many reports about arrests and a crackdown on those who are opposed to the peace negotiations in Syria. Any comment on that?

MR. RUBIN: I haven't seen any specific reports but, obviously, it's a view of ours that freedom of expression and freedom of speech are universal values that the whole world recognize and; therefore, interference with universal values such as freedom of speech and freedom of expression is something that we oppose.

QUESTION: Is it the hope that the working document will be a foundation of a core agreement?

MR. RUBIN: I think I've gone as far as I can. It's a very good question and I think I've gone as far as I can in describing that working document.

QUESTION: Would you please clarify to my mind -- I'm sorry we are coming back to the same point -- has Israel agreed that there would be simultaneous meetings of the three -- of the four committees or not? I mean --

MR. RUBIN: Well, let me state the situation and then you answer the question for yourself. The situation is that all four committees were constituted at the same time. All four committees will meet this week. Two committees have met yesterday for the first time, and yesterday informal discussions and contacts occurred on all the issues. So you have to make the judgment about simultaneity. That's not for me to make, but that's the situation.

QUESTION: Is there any hope, expectation or even possibility, that the working document might result in some type of public communiqué by the two sides at the end of this week or sometime next week?

MR. RUBIN: I wouldn't see that as its objective.

QUESTION: About the working document, when did the Secretary decide that she wanted the staff to do this, and did she do it as a way to overcome some of the controversy about the order of procedure - the procedural --

MR. RUBIN: I don't know when it first was ordered. I would say it was here at Shepherdstown in the last -- it wasn't before that.

As far as its purpose with respect to overcoming potential procedural problems, let me simply say that it was her judgment that we should have a combination of informal discussions, committee meetings and the creation of a working document, and that that was the best way for us to move from a chugging along to a faster track.

I'm not going to be that specific for you, but here at Shepherdstown.

QUESTION: Just one more on the working document. Is this a unilateral American document that will remain a unilateral American document, or is it a document with brackets that might ultimately turn into a three-way agreement?

MR. RUBIN: That's a very good question, and I've described the working document as much as I intend to describe it.

QUESTION: When there is a meeting, let's say, between Mrs. Albright and Mr. Shara and afterwards a few paragraphs or pages are put into this working document to describe what they talked about, are both the Syrian and the American sides signing off on the text?

MR. RUBIN: I don't think your assuming that after a meeting several paragraphs are put in, that you're accurately describing the process. I've described the process as much as I intend to describe it. There have been contacts at high levels before we got to Shepherdstown. There have been the high level contacts the Secretary and the President have had here, and then there have been informal discussions and committee meetings. All of that -- and, frankly, the negotiations at Wye in '95 and '96 -- are the sources for this working document.

QUESTION: After you (inaudible) working document, do you intend to keep updating --

MR. RUBIN: After what?

QUESTION: You release the -- you're not going to release the working document?

MR. RUBIN: I never said we were going to release that.

QUESTION: Okay. So are you going to keep updating it after you get it put together?

MR. RUBIN: I wouldn't assume that at all, but I welcome your entrepreneurship in trying to get it, yes.

QUESTION: I have two questions, if you may allow. First, there is a report today from Jerusalem that Russia is hosting or planning to host next month a multilateral peace meeting that would be on the level of foreign ministers. Is that true, and have you received acceptance from major countries like Egypt, who is conditioning any multilateral resumption on two things; first progress on the Syrian track and, second, a third phase of withdrawal from the West Bank?

That is for my first question.

MR. RUBIN: Foreign Minister Ivanov has announced that the US and Russia will co-chair a ministerial meeting of the Multilateral Steering Group in Moscow on February 1st. Secretary Albright has agreed to attend. The purpose of the meeting will be to mark the formal revival and to resume the work of the multilateral track of the peace process. The Secretary will, in Moscow, also have time to pursue a bilateral agenda with senior Russian officials, including on important issues of arms control, nonproliferation, regional issues and economic reform -- and I'm sure Chechnya will come up as well.

Invitations have not yet been sent out but the meeting would be held at the level of foreign ministers. As you correctly point out, the Steering Group members include the core regional parties, including Egypt, Israel, Jordan, the Palestinians, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Syria, Lebanon, as well as Canada, the European Union, Japan and Norway as key international supporters of the peace process. Invitations have not been sent out and so it's not possible for me to tell you what invitees' intentions are. You'll have to ask them yourself.

With respect to Syria and Lebanon, they have always been invited in the past and they would be invited again for this meeting.

QUESTION: Has there been any consultation with the other members of the group before the invitation would be sent, before even the announcement was made, or are they just a question that Moscow and Washington have got together and decided to send - to call for this meeting? The question is consultation. Has consultation taken place or not?

MR. RUBIN: The answer is yes, consultation has taken place.

QUESTION: My second question has two components regarding statements you made in the last two days but I didn't have a chance to ask about.

MR. RUBIN: I hope you liked them.

QUESTION: Thank you. The day before yesterday you said that, in answering a question about what is painful for Syria --

MR. RUBIN: What is the benefit?

QUESTION: What is painful.

MR. RUBIN: Painful.

QUESTION: Or what kind of a painful decision Syria would make if they are getting back the Golan Heights. And you said wait until you see the security arrangements. Did that mean --

MR. RUBIN: That's not what I said. One of your colleagues made a -- how shall I say -- a dramatically formulated and pointed remark about how this was a one-way street, and I said to him, "You have not seen the security arrangements." And I think there is a difference between what you said I said and what I actually said.

And in that regard, let me simply say that Syria has obviously had a posture towards Israel that has been based on the fact that there is not peace, that has involved a whole number of activities and behavior that has been outside the circle of peace, and that that has been one of the aspects that has defined Syria in the region.

And if Syria were to change that posture from one that has existed in the past, that would be a very different situation and, in their own context, a painful decision.

QUESTION: The other statement was yesterday and I had a problem in translating it into Arabic, so please help me.

MR. RUBIN: My Arabic is very poor.

QUESTION: In talking about peaceful -- normal peaceful relations, you elaborated by saying it would involve some kind of intercourse. What did you mean by that?

MR. RUBIN: Well, you know, I once got into trouble with a similar use of the English language with some of your counterparts from Israel. Let me say interaction and intercourse are, in diplomatic terms, synonyms.

QUESTION: Yesterday you said that James Wolfensohn from the World Bank had been consulted. Have any of the other IFIs been consulted or the United Nations? What has been done in those areas? With regard to any economic arrangements, are you talking public-private partnership, loans, a combination of those kinds of things, for economic help?

MR. RUBIN: Thank you for that question. I am, unfortunately, going to be very limited in my response. There have been, as I said, some discussions with James Wolfensohn at a high level. I suspect at lower levels there has been some contact and other international organizations and countries have been in touch with us, the European Union and others, about what the potential implications might be for a successful achievement of an agreement here.

I don't really have more detail to offer you at this time, but let me see what I can try to gather and direct it in your direction.

QUESTION: In 1998 at Wye, President Clinton's intervention alone didn't help. You had to bring in King Hussein to sort of get both sides to overcome differences, and he was seen as an inspiration. Do you have somebody in mind now that might be able to intervene as King Hussein did then, or it is all --

MR. RUBIN: I don't think I would accept your characterization of what transpired at Wye. But having said that, if we intend to ask others to come here, I'll let you know at the time. I'm not aware of any plans to do so.

QUESTION: Why aren't Prime Minister Barak and Foreign Minister Shara meeting directly, a tete-a-tete meeting, and how important does the Americans see meeting like this as something that is essential to any progress?

MR. RUBIN: I don't think one should underestimate or overestimate the significance of that kind of direct contact. There has been some direct contact. I would describe it to you - let me get my days right. The day before yesterday, the President hosted a trilateral meeting and then hosted an informal social gathering, at which the two were there and talked directly to each other. So that has happened.

As I said in response to one of your colleague's questions, we do not believe that the face-to-face procedure is the be-all and the end-all of getting to yes. It can be useful and when we think it's useful we encourage it. When we don't think it's ripe and won't necessarily add to the chances of getting to yes, we don't recommend it. But we have not found a reluctance to respond to the recommendations that we've made.

QUESTION: If you could refresh our memory on the multilateral process, when did that collapse? Where and when was the last meeting of that process? And would you expect this to be just sort of a general reintroduction rather than dealing with some specific --

MR. RUBIN: Let me get you a full description of that after the briefing.

QUESTION: And one other aspect. It's my recollection that Syria and Lebanon have never attended; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

QUESTION: So if they were to attend this time, that would be something you would regard as significant?

MR. RUBIN: That would be new.

QUESTION: Jamie, one of the people released by the Indians as a result of demands of the people who took that plane hostage, that there was a British citizen. The British Foreign Office has said they would welcome him home. Now, many of the passengers who were hostages on that plane were absolutely furious at the response of the Foreign Office, and I wondered since we - what is the concern of the United States, as you say who has a special relationship with the British, that they are welcoming with open arms this character who the Indians were forced to release in order to prevent the hostages from being killed.

MR. RUBIN: Let me say with respect to the British Government's decision in that regard, I will have to check what the facts are before I can answer you directly.

With respect to the issue more broadly of the speech of Masood Azhar, we find it deplorable and unacceptable -- his reported remarks about destroying America and India. Such language feeds a climate of hostility against both countries and incites violence. Pakistan must assure the safety of Americans, Indians and all foreigners in Pakistan. We would hold the government of Pakistan responsible for Masood's activities which threaten the lives of our citizens. Masood Azhar is the secretary general of the renamed terrorist organization. No country should permit terrorist activities to be organized from its territory, and we urge Pakistan to investigate carefully whether his actions have violated any Pakistani law. If so, he should be prosecuted accordingly.

QUESTION: If this gentleman remains in Pakistan, would Pakistan necessarily be placed on the list of countries that support terrorism or harbor suspected terrorists?

MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to speculate on the future. I think I used some quite strong language about our views on Pakistan's responsibilities here. When and if the Secretary places any new countries on the terrorist list, I will inform you, and I don't think there is any need to speculate in advance of that.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) on whether Elian Gonzalez' father has applied for a visa?

MR. RUBIN: With respect to that, let me simply say we briefed Cuban Government officials both in Washington and in Havana on the decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. We have not yet received any official response. We stressed to them that this was a decision by the INS made according to rules and procedures in consultation with the Justice Department, including the Attorney General. The Cuban Government was advised that it was important that INS speak directly with Elian's father and it facilitated two interviews of the father for that purpose. The State Department was not involved in this decision-making process.

With respect to the father travelling to Miami to be reunited with his son, this is a decision Mr. Gonzalez will have to make. He has not yet applied for a visa to enter the United States. Should he make a non-immigrant visa application, we are prepared to expedite the consideration of it.

QUESTION: If the father does not come to Miami, can the child be brought to Cuba with some sort of an INS official or State Department official, bring the child without the father coming?

MR. RUBIN: Yesterday's INS decision addressed the issue of who can legally speak for Elian on immigration issues involving the child. INS's decision was not a custody decision. What happens next will depend on what Elian's relatives in Miami decide to do. I cannot speculate on what decision that might be. INS has appealed to the family to work out arrangements to return Elian to his father.

As far as the three ways that this could unfold, Doris Meissner suggested three ways, including the father going to Miami to pick him up, the family could escort him to Cuba, or a third party could assist. So those are potential ways. With respect to whether the father decides to seek a visa, I answered that we haven't received any new word on that.

QUESTION: The government of Cambodia has approved the format for the Khmer Rouge trial, and it has been harshly criticized by a bunch of human rights groups because it allows for the Cambodians to reject any foreign participants, which is something that the US and the UN had been very keen on. I'm wondering what the State Department's reaction to that is.

MR. RUBIN: Our Ambassador in Phnom Penh has met with senior Cambodian officials, and our clear understanding is that the government continues to seek an agreement on a tribunal with the UN Secretariat. They have told us they would welcome the UN's participation in a tribunal and that they are continuing their discussions with the UN.

We strongly support the ongoing discussions between the United Nations and the government of Cambodia to reach an agreement that will assure justice for the Cambodian people and end the climate of impunity that has prevailed since the terrible crimes committed by the Khmer Rouge. We would encourage the government to continue to show flexibility in the legislative process in order to reach a lasting agreement. There is still no agreement yet on a draft law between the government of Cambodia and the UN, but we would encourage the government to continue to show flexibility toward that end.

QUESTION: I just wanted to know if it would be fair to understand the working document as something that is meant to prevent future disputes over what occurred here. Would it be fair for us to understand it that way?

MR. RUBIN: No.

QUESTION: So then can you explain --

MR. RUBIN: I've done the best I can in telling you -- what I said was it's a source. Its sources are the previous negotiations, the high level contacts that preceded Blair and Shepherdstown, the meetings Secretary Albright and Foreign Minister Shara and Prime Minister Barak had here in Shepherdstown, meetings at lower levels. Those are all the sources that are being used to put together this document.

QUESTION: Why is it necessary to have a document?

MR. RUBIN: We believe it's appropriate and useful in trying to pick up the chugging-along pace.

QUESTION: Is there a precedent for this in any other peace talks?

MR. RUBIN: Sure.

QUESTION: With what?

MR. RUBIN: You know, there were working documents developed at Wye. There were working documents developed at Camp David. There were working documents developed in other peace negotiations.

QUESTION: What about four years ago before this round broke out?

MR. RUBIN: I would not compare this to what was done there.

QUESTION: You were encouraging yesterday when you said that there were some expression in the Syrian media concerning peace and reconciliation. We have combed through the media over the last month and we haven't found any. I would like to know if there are specific quotes you have from the Syrian media in Arabic because we keep hearing the same diatribe calling for a war for the liberation of Palestine.

I would also like to know from the follow-up from this morning, the terrorist groups that are still in Damascus and that are on the list of State Department terror groups think that they have an assurance that they will be allowed to stay and stay armed and continue their struggle.

MR. RUBIN: On the first one, I already see many of your colleagues shaking their head in disagreement with what you said.

QUESTION: Well, they may have another political point of view.

MR. RUBIN: No, the factual question of whether there are certain statements is a factual question. It's not a political point of view. I'll try to answer your questions.

QUESTION: Last question. Another colleague brought up the human rights issue and the State Department has a very clear position stated yesterday and today. Will the human rights issue become part of one of the working groups?

MR. RUBIN: With respect to the presence in the Syrian media of comments supportive of this peace process, I will see if our office can get you at least a couple of examples of that. I will get you what material we can offer you. If you decide it's not sufficient or responsive to your question, I'm sure I'll learn about that.

With respect to the second question, I looked in the Syrian media and I saw the account that you referenced and it didn't resemble what you said. The way I read it was that the organizations that have an objective and a political bent that you or others might disagree with might be permitted to stay in a political form. That's what I read in the Syrian press. And it's certainly fair to say that one of the aspects of normal peaceful relations and security arrangements and peace is to have some confidence that the other party is not going to be supportive of those third parties who would be taking non-peaceful actions against a state.

QUESTION: I'm sorry you have to keep repeating yourself, but can you just recap again what the President is going to be doing when he gets here? I understood you to say he's coming for a briefing from Secretary Albright. Will he be meeting with the two principal leaders of the delegations, or just one?

MR. RUBIN: Let me tell you that I can't be fully responsive to your question. I know the President is coming mid-afternoon. He will receive, first off, a briefing from Secretary Albright and her peace team about developments so far. I fully expect him to meet with the other leaders. Exactly when and where and how has not been decided as of yet.

[end of document]

Flag bar

Peace Process | Near Eastern Affairs | Department of State