NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.
| 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 Press Briefing, Israel-Syria Peace Talks Shepherd College, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, January 9, 2000 |
MR. RUBIN: Greetings. Welcome to -- why don't I call this Day Six of the Shepherdstown Peace Talks? It's certainly been my -- it's my sixth briefing so let's use that as the way to formulate the calendar. Let me bring you up to date, a little bit, on the activities of the last 24 hours, and then take some of your questions. With respect to the last 24 hours: Yesterday was not a working day. Secretary Albright did join the Israeli delegation Friday night for a Shabat dinner. She then joined the Syrian delegation on Saturday for an Eid celebration. She also took Foreign Minister Barak (sic) to her farm, which is nearby in Hillsboro, Virginia, and they had tea at her house. QUESTION: Barak or Shara? MR. RUBIN: Shara. Isn't that what I said? Let's rewind that tape. Take two: The Secretary took Foreign Minister Shara to her house, her farm in Hillsboro, and they had tea. Today, Secretary Albright and Prime Minister Barak and Foreign Minister Levy and some of the other members of the Israeli delegation, went to Antietam where they watched a movie about the Battle of Antietam, and then they visited certain sites there. Secretary Albright and Prime Minister Barak, I believe, were taking a short visit through Harpers Ferry, and then they were going to go to Secretary Albright's house for lunch, and Secretary Albright and Dennis Ross were going to be at lunch with Prime Minister Barak and a couple of his advisors and ministers. That is the activities of the leaders of the delegations over the last 24 hours. I believe the White House has announced the President is returning later today. When he gets here, we'll have more for you on his agenda, and what we expect to take place tonight. On substance, to the extent that I can offer you any, by the next 10-15 minutes, all of the committees will have met. "All of the committees" means the Borders Committee -- in alphabetical order -- the Normal Peaceful Relations Committee, the Security Arrangements Committee and the Water Committee. So today, Sunday -- on Day Six, within a week of the talks beginning -- all of the committees have met, and they are working at their substantive work. As I indicated to you on Friday, the President and the Secretary presented a working document to the parties. For those of you who wrote that it was seven pages long, you were credible, and had high credibility, and were accurate. And it is intended as a tool, a procedural tool, to focus the work, and it has served that purpose, and we do feel that the responses have been positive, in the sense that it has helped work to continue. Neither the Israelis nor the Syrians have agreed to this document, but it has served its intended purpose of focusing the work. And so we do expect to be working here tomorrow. Beyond that, I can't really say, at this point. QUESTION: I'm sorry to keep harping on the document. It's still, obviously, unclear. You said neither party agreed to the document. I didn't think the document was something you either agreed or disagreed with; that, basically, it laid out where you are, what's happened, what's been done. What's in there to agree or disagree? Are there American ideas in there that they would agree or not agree with? MR. RUBIN: It is a document that both summarizes the issues -- QUESTION: (You said specifically last week that it wasn't a summary.) MR. RUBIN: Well, it's not a summary, but it does reflect what the issues are that need to be decided. It does contain what we believe to be those areas where agreement has either been reached in the past or could be perceived to have been reached here as a result of discussions, and then it obviously identifies those areas where there is not agreement. So the document is something that, if both sides wanted to agree, would move the process forward rapidly. But, again, it's a procedural tool at this stage. It's a preliminary document, and I don't want to overstate it. But I do think both sides felt that the document has helped focus the work, and the work does continue. QUESTION: Jamie, is this a document with which, with some refinement, could turn into a peace treaty? MR. RUBIN: Well, in order to get to a point where you have what I have described as a core agreement, you have to start somewhere and, yes, this is a starting point for that. QUESTION: Did you receive any remarks from either party, the Syrians or the Israelis, disagreeing? I understand they welcomed the document, but did you receive any remarks from them on it? MR. RUBIN: Yes, we have, in the course of the last two days, received comments, clarifications and discussions based on what's in the document, and I think the committee work will track the work of what is contained in the document. And as I indicated on Friday, the document does track the structure of the committees, so it would be natural that in each of the committees that would happen. QUESTION: On Friday you described this document as laying out the two positions, but a little bit shy on the new American ideas about how you would actually bridge these. Is the purpose of the President's visit, tonight, to begin that next step of saying, now that we've all seen the document, now that there's rough agreement that the document reflects the positions, here are some ideas about how you could step into the middle of these areas? MR. RUBIN: At this stage, we have not put forward bridging proposals, and when and if we put forward bridging proposals of some kind or another, I will do my best to state that fact to you. But we haven't at this stage. QUESTION: Jamie, my question was: Is the purpose of the President's visit -- MR. RUBIN: I heard you, and I just don't want to -- at 1:00 -- preview precisely what it is the President is going to do. Normally what happens is that he gets briefed by Secretary Albright, and then makes some decisions about what he wants t do. I think personally -- my impressions -- is that it's a little early for dramatic bridging proposals. Now that they have the document, and they can then talk about its substance in the committees, that there is a fair amount of time one has to go through in both sides understanding the logic, the rationale and the motivation of each other's positions, before we could get to a point where we say that there is a solution to Issue X if we did the following. So it's a little early for that, but I don't want to rule out that the President will make a decision to do that. QUESTION: If I could just follow up briefly? Is it your intent that that process would happen before the end of this round of talks, or is that something that you suspect -- MR. RUBIN: Well, I think on a preliminary way, in side conversations and exploratory discussions, you know, some ideas may be formed. But I think it would be unlikely that we would put forward -- as I put it -- dramatic bridging proposals on some of the bigger differences at this stage right now. QUESTION: Jamie, just a question on the way this document is put together: Are the various items of discussion listed in alphabetic order so that, for example, you would presumably have borders first, and then so-on-and-so-forth down the line? Can you tell us if it's in alphabetical order? MR. RUBIN: No, they're not in alphabetical order. In the document they are structured according to the logic of an agreement. QUESTION: And if it differs from alphabetical order, can you give us some sense of how -- MR. RUBIN: I was putting them in alphabetical order publicly for you, because that seemed like the safest way to avoid making a statement of one kind or another, by the order in which I presented you the names of committees. QUESTION: Right, but in terms of the logic of an agreement, what sort of information would be first? Would it be some sort of historical preamble or -- MR. RUBIN: Normally, these things have preambles, yes. QUESTION: And one other question on just what's going to transpire now: Barak apparently has said he's going home tomorrow. I understand Shara will as well. Do you expect their technical experts to go home with them, or to come back to Washington and continue work? MR. RUBIN: I don't think they've made that decision yet, as to what the teams of experts will do during the break that we expect very shortly. QUESTION: Jamie, can I ask you a follow-up on that real quick? Need the Secretary -- the President, the Secretary, what level -- need be on hand for the US to table bridging proposals? Can they be put forward in a meeting of experts? MR. RUBIN: Certainly, I doubt that we would be putting forward -- as I put it -- dramatic bridging proposals on the big issues in the absence of the Secretary or the President. I doubt that. QUESTION: (Have you been) told by the two leaders that they are going to return on such-and-such date? MR. RUBIN: When we have a decision to announce to you about how the next round will unfold, I will do that. I'm not going to do that prior to any such decision being made. QUESTION: Can you comment at all on the Al-Hayah report today, which sort of outlines all four of the committees and what their opening proposals are, and specifically on the issue of borders, where it says that Israel's opening position is to retreat to the British mandate border of 1923? The Israelis are saying that that does not exist in the document. MR. RUBIN: On the Al-Hayah report, I urge all of you to polish your Arabic, and read it very carefully, before you draw conclusions about what you think it purports to say or not say about what's in the document. Let me distinguish for you: There has been conventional wisdom that has developed around these talks -- in the media and in commentary -- about what the Israeli position and the Syrian position is on the various issues. That's the nature of media: being able to speculate in ways that they, obviously, have a basis to do so, of some kind or another. That is different -- conventional wisdom -- than the document, and as I read the Al-Hayah report as it was translated to me, it doesn't purport to contain the document's substantive reflection of the positions of the Israelis and the Syrians. Now, I know some have read it differently than that -- as actually containing a description of what our American document says about the Israeli and the Syrian position. And, you know, there are translations and there is going to probably be some further discussion about that. But what I can certainly confirm to you is that the description of positions, and particularly in relation to the border issue, is not what is in the document. I've read the document, and I've read the Al-Hayah report, and in serious ways it differs from the document, including on the border issue. So if you were going to give credibility -- whether zero or a hundred would be up to you -- to that description of what is purported to be contained in the document, as to the Israeli and Syrian positions, it differs in major and substantive ways. However -- and this in fairness to the different translations -- a conventional wisdom has developed as to what the expected position of the Syrians is, the expected position of the Israelis. To the extent that the report is a recitation of conventional wisdom of what is expected, I am aware of the conventional wisdom and some of it is quite -- the conventional wisdom and what the report purports to say is expected to be the positions of the two sides is similar. But that's a very different thing than saying that the document contains -- our document -- contains a description of the Israeli position, as defined in that Al-Hayah report. That is not in the document that I've read and, to my mind and my understanding, it was not a part of the discussions that the various committees have had, either informally or the discussions that have taken place between the experts. So to that extent, your second part of your question : it is not an accurate description of the document; it is an accurate description of what some have expected the positions to be of the two sides. But it is not an accurate description of the document. QUESTION: Jamie, can you say as a result of the comments and clarifications that you've received from the two sides on the document, whether the document has actually grown in size from how many pages it was on Friday? MR. RUBIN: I don't think a new version has been distributed, to my knowledge. QUESTION: Can you say whether maps have been added to it? MR. RUBIN: Maps? Not to my knowledge. QUESTION: Thank you very much. Could you please tell me, (what) are the conditions of the border contract that the United States Government may print extended to -- or this -- in providing a $70 billion dollars subsidiary, if once accepted in the Congress? And will it be a loan and by which organization: the Ex-ImBank, or the United States provid(ing) this money, such an elevated sum of the subsidiary? And (is it) Mr. Berger, the Security Advisor, which is revising the sum of the money? And how do you going -- how are you going to persuade the US taxpayers to provide such a subsidiary to Syria? MR. RUBIN: I'm taking a deep breath. I think your question was about aid, and how these billions of dollars of aid would be forthcoming. I think in response to questions about this in the last week, I have said that from our point of view -- the American point of view, not the Israeli point of view or the Syrian point of view but from the American point of view -- discussions of massive assistance are premature. And that is our view at this point. We have begun prelminary consultations with the Israeli Government about aid. We do believe that in the context of peace that there will be economic opportunities in the Middle East that did not exist before, and that people need to think about that. And Secretary Albright and the President have had some general discussions with Members of Congress, about the fact that this kind of an agreement does carry with it enormous security benefits for the United States, and might require American commitments to assistance. But those discussions have been preliminary and general, and any discussion of specifics, in terms of American agreement to specific large aid plans, are premature. QUESTION: Jamie, after this meeting adjourns or recesses, how soon would the President like it back, and like to see it reconvened, ? And is there any concern within the administration about an apparent lack of urgency in the constituencies in Israel and Syria to see this happen? MR. RUBIN: I think the short answer to your question is, no. We recognize that the decisions that are being contemplated here, at Shepherdstown and beyond, are enormously portentous decisions. They carry with them enormous implications for the peoples of Israel and Syria, and the governments of those two countries and, frankly, to the whole geo-political makeup of the Middle East. And we don't expect those decisions to be able to be made in a matter of days. We've been at this here in Shepherdstown for six days. We had meetings in Washington at Blair House for two days, I believe, so this is still in the "matter of days" category, and we are not frustrated that big, big decisions haven't yet been made. We did want to find a way to develop a concrete work program, so that we could formulate ideas and use this procedural tool to organize the work. So that, when and if the leaders are ready to make the big decisions, that we've done the preparatory work to quickly turn those big decisions into a core agreement that could then be implemented. So we don't expect this to be done quickly. We don't think it should drag out for years, but we do understand that these are very monumental decisions that will take time. QUESTION: Jamie, is the US position, now, that there should be an interval before the next round of high level talks? Does the US feel that there is momentum that should be kept going, and that the interval should be as short as possible? And is there any US position now on whether there ought to be a return, at some point, to Shepherdstown? MR. RUBIN: Yes, I think we think it would be appropriate for this round to have the leaders of the delegations return to their homes, and we expect that to happen shortly. The only outstanding procedural question is: Would some technical people stick around and try to do some work, and would that be valuable or not. That's something we're wrestling with. In terms of when the talks should be reconvened, we do think that if a core agreement is going to be achieved, that the leaders are going to continue to have to do their work, and that means that at some point we're going to have to reconvene -- sooner rather than later. But how soon is something that we will work out, and the President, I expect, will be talking to the leaders about tonight. QUESTION: That process you have underway: The concrete thing you have is a piece of paper, and for lots of reasons -- which we needn't take time reciting, like disagreements over where you were four years ago -- will the US make an attempt, or intends to have them either initial or sign or, in some way, signify that at least the summation -- MR. RUBIN: With respect to this working document? QUESTION: Yes, so that you don't have to go over that ground -- unearth that ground all over again. Will you try to give it some force by signature or initials? MR. RUBIN: I am aware of no plan to do something like that. This is a preliminary working document, designed for the purposes I stated, and if we wanted to get some agreement in principle, I indicated we could have sought that. We didn't seek that. And as far as making sure that the next round starts where we left off, the document and the discussions and the work of the diplomats is the best way to ensure that people start where they left off. QUESTION: First of all, will you let us know as soon as the Border Committee starts to meet? MR. RUBIN: You can assume it's now met. QUESTION: OK, can you explain why this was the last one, and can you tell us whether -- what formula you found for persuading the two parties to get together on the border issue? MR. RUBIN: Again, I think you and others have asked me these questions during the course of the week, as to why a particular procedure met the needs of one or other parties, and what I've tried to do is tell you what the procedure was, and what it wasn't, and allow you to draw your own conclusions and make your own judgments about that. The Water Committee met first this morning, I believe at 9:30. The Security Arrangements and Normal Political ( sic) Relations I believe met at 11 o'clock, and this was scheduled for 1:30. There are a variety of factors that go into the scheduling of these committee meetings. This schedule met the needs of both sides, and we at some point have to make a decision about how to organize the meeting schedule, and that meeting schedule took place, and both sides came to the meetings. And we are pleased by that. I think during the course of six days, working days, we've had a lot of bilateral discussion between the Israelis and us, and the Syrians and us, at the President's level and quite a few at the Secretary's level and a number at lower levels. We've now had all the committees meet. Some of them have met extensively. I would expect the Security Arrangements Committee to work most of the day, and some of the other committees will continue their work throughout the day. So we have also put down this working document. So between those three procedural devices -- bilateral meetings, trilateral meetings and the committee meetings and the document -- we think we've used all the procedural tools that we think we need to do, to get at substance. And substance has been dsicussed. There have been a number of very practical discussions, in the committee meetings and in the bilateral meetings, that have advanced the process. Obviously, there have been a number of conceptual discussions as well. And sometimes in order to get an understanding of the practical, you have to discuss things in a conceptual way, and that has certainly taken place as well. QUESTION: You just mentioned to us the order in which the committees held their meetings this morning. Will it be the same order tomorrow morning, or do you have plans of changing -- MR. RUBIN: When I have tomorrow's schedule, I'll give it to you. I mean, this is the current schedule, and I don't think that it's written in stone. Some of the factors relate to who's in what committees, and where they are, and whether they can meet. There have been some informal committee chairs that have met from time to time, so it will vary. QUESTION: Based on the feedback from the working document that you've gotten so far, do you see any areas where, if you made bridging proposals -- which you've said you're not ready to do yet, but if you made bridging proposals during this round -- where one of those four key areas -- borders, normalization, et cetera, where you might be able to reach general agreement during this round of talks? MR. RUBIN: I don't want to speculate on what might happen if we make bridging proposals. Let me simply say the document is organized both to reflect the past, to record areas of disagreement, and to allow -- through bracketed disagreements -- a focused discussion on the problems that have to be overcome if we're going to get an agreement. That is what its purpose is. If and when we're ready to offer bridging proposals on one area or another, I may or may not be able to tell you, but I'm certainly not going to speculate on what we're going to do in the future right now. QUESTION: I guess I was asking do any areas seem to be moving along faster than the others? MR. RUBIN: There are big, big decisions that need to be made in all the areas. There has been discussion here in Shepherdstown that has gone beyond the past, that has involved formulations and ideas that we consider new, and so we're going to be working with those and seeing where we can make progress. QUESTION: Jamie, I'm curious, with the document coming out Friday morning, these committees meeting today, also rumors of some suggested emendations by the delegations -- MR. RUBIN: Some suggested -- I'm sorry, I didn't hear? QUESTION: There have been some rumors of some possible emendations or suggested emendations. Will there be a Version Two? Will there be a Volume Two before you all leave town? MR. RUBIN: I wouldn't rule out that, at some point, we decide to update it if we think that would be useful. I don't believe we've done that now, and I'll try to let you know tomorrow if we've done it by tomorrow and beyond. QUESTION: Jamie, as we ponder a second round coming up, at what point do you potentially run into problems of scheduling with the Palestinian track? MR. RUBIN: The general understanding is that the February time-frame is one in which, if the basis has been laid, Secretary Albright would consider recommending to the President the possibility of a summit: a three-way type meeting. That is certainly a factor in any planning of a calendar, but I think in substantive terms we saw this week that both the Palestinian track and the Syrian track can advance simultaneously. Because we saw breakthroughs on remaining issues in Sham el Sheik, even while we saw us move forward here on the Syria track in Shepherdstown. Now, clearly, there are some calendar issues. If you were going to organize a meeting with the Palestinians and the Israelis, you wouldn't necessarily want to have another round of Shepherdstown during that period -- and that's a fair point. Chairman Arafat is coming to the United States, I believe, on the 20th. Deputy Special Middle East Coordinator Aaron Miller is going to be meeting with the Palestinians to prepare for that visit, and to see where things stand on the Palestinian track over the coming days, so we'll know a little bit more about that, and we'll know probably a little bit more on the 20th, having met with Chairman Arafat about what that calendar might look like. QUESTION: The Israeli Foreign Minister, David Levy, said in an interview today that the discussion regarding borders will be now only theoretical discussion, not something very concrete, not real negotiation. Can you agree with these things? MR. RUBIN: Yes, I think it was probably more like a press conference than an interview, but my understanding of what has gone on is that these issues -- a number of them -- carry with them a great deal of history, and a great deal of emotional and historical significance. And it would be unlikely that you could have a practical discussion if you weren't having an conceptual discussion. The way you get a practical solution to a problem is by understanding the conceptual underpinnings of it, and then you can propose a practical solution. It is our view that there have been both conceptual -- or theoretical, in his words -- as well as practical work that has been going on on a number of issues here in Shepherdstown. All of the issues have, in one form or another, had both a conceptual and a practical aspect to them. But I would certainly agree with the Foreign Minister that, in order to get to practical solutions, there needs to be a very good conceptual underpinning, and that's certainly been part of what's gone on here. QUESTION: Two questions, please. One of them is about the formality. Did the Syrians wear casual clothes today, and is the rapport improving? And the other question is: Did the Syrians raise the issue that in 1923 there was no Israel, so why (does) Israel insists on those borders? MR. RUBIN: On the second point, I think I can easily refer you to my answer to one of the earlier questions. There was a suggestion that that formulation was contained in the document, as in a position of the Israelis, and I indicated to you that it has not been put in the document as a position of the Israelis. So that expression of a particular border is not one that has been put in the document. With respect to the formality and warmth, let me say that Secretary Albright very much enjoyed her discussion with Foreign Minister Shara yesterday at her farm. I believe he was not wearing a tie at the farm. That should be evident from some of the pictures, that I hope will be made available to you. It is our sense that with the holiday of the Syrians now over, the Ramadan ending, that that changes their ability to -- they can work and have an approach to the work and the informal discussions that's different than they could before. And I think, as I said Friday, this isn't warm and fuzzy but I think the warmth is growing. QUESTION: Concerning your description of conventional wisdom represented in the Al-Hayah report, can you, according to your scale from zero credibility up to ten, tell us what is your rating about the report in comparison with the document, Friday's document? And then, once you've found out there in Al-Hayah very credible facts about your document Friday, have you complained to the Syrians about the leakage, since you were so sensitive about the way the Israeli media is covering the conference? MR. RUBIN: Well, that would have been easier had there not been a press conference today. But let me say that, on the first question, I gather that some -- not all of you, just some, a few of you -- one, two, I don't know, but some don't particularly like me to assign adjectives or adverbs to my descriptions of what is premature, or accurate, or non-credible. So I will, for at least another day, avoid using adjectives to further define my nouns. But suffice it to say that to the extent that it purported to indicate what the Israeli position on the border was in the American document, it was not credible. QUESTION: In those bilateral meetings you mentioned between Syrians and Americans, were there any issues of concern to the US and to Syria mentioned, put on the table? MR. RUBIN: I'm sorry, could you repeat that? I missed the first half. QUESTION: In those bilateral meetings, any issues of US concerns and Syrian concerns put on the table? MR. RUBIN: Yes, there were. In the bilateral discussions, that is one of the things that we've done with Syria is express our concern about a particular problem and how are we going to solve that problem. I can assure you the Syrians expressed their concern about a particular problem. QUESTION: What are these problems? MR. RUBIN: On -- QUESTION: On what? What problems are they? MR. RUBIN: Which problems? QUESTION: Yeah. MR. RUBIN: I mean, I think I've tried to avoid the kind of discussion where I tailor for you a description of which side has which problem because that is more substantive than I am paid to get -- to get publicly -- more substantive than I'm paid to get publicly from this podium. QUESTION: Jamie, we have focused a lot on process, and I wonder if you can say sort of in plain English what has been achieved here in the last six days. I mean, what's going on? MR. RUBIN: I think it's fair to say that in the last six days, by tabling a working document, by having a number of meetings of all the relevant committees, we have been able to develop a work pace that allows us to hold out the hope that a core agreement can be reached. We have avoided procedural breakdowns and we've accelerated now the work pace so that we're quite satisfied that the two sides are wrestling with these difficult issues in an organized way so that we can see that an agreement is possible. Whether an agreement is likely or whether it will be achieved is an open question given the enormous difficulties of these issues. QUESTION: (Inaudible)? MR. RUBIN: As I indicated to you at the beginning of the week, we did not expect to achieve a core agreement this round. We do hope that the process will yield a core agreement, and we still don't expect to achieve a core agreement this round. QUESTION: Jamie, the Syrians were said to be very pleased when they saw the working document. And I know that you're not supposed to refer to specifics and so on, but just if you could give us some sense of why they were pleased. Does this document in any way resemble the so-called deposit or historical record that the Syrians have been looking for from the United States for some time that they expected when Secretary Albright went to Damascus in September? Is it similar to that? MR. RUBIN: I would answer your question as follows: It was our impression, a very clear impression, that both the Syrians and the Israelis were pleased by the document because they felt it accurately reflected their views and it reasonably accurately reflected where things have been, and it enabled both sides to get down and roll up their sleeves and begin working with paper and pencil on a specific document. So it's not my impression that one or the other side was more pleased by the document. QUESTION: (Inaudible) to what the Syrians (inaudible) have been reports of (inaudible)? MR. RUBIN: I'm not prepared to get into that kind of good but highly substantive question. QUESTION: Jamie, I'm a little confused about the answer you gave when you were saying what you think the progress has been in the last six days. You ended by saying we can see that agreement is possible, but whether that will happen or not is still uncertain. Well, that's exactly what you said when you came in to Shepherdstown. That's what the Secretary is saying. So how have things been pushed forward? MR. RUBIN: I welcome your excellent memory, but it is not a foregone conclusion that when you begin work, when two political leaders get together and do this work on a sustained basis, that everything will continue to proceed on a good and constructive path. There is often, especially when you're dealing with countries that are in a state of war, a very high possibility that things will go off track. So the fact that we're still on track, having now rolled up our sleeves and beginning to work with paper and pencil on the specific substantive issues, means we're moving in the right direction and our hopes are now more justified. But whether that means we're going to get an agreement, we didn't expect to come out of Shepherdstown telling you, "Now we know we're going to get an agreement." We indicated we hope to obtain progress towards that end, and we are doing that. QUESTION: So is what has made the hopes more justified the fact, simply the fact, that you've been able to take both sides' longstanding positions, which have been made publicly either vocally or however, and actually put them on paper? MR. RUBIN: Well, I welcome your phony quizzical question, but the fact is that I've said several times that there have been new ideas and new formulations presented in Shepherdstown, as well as the procedural positive path together is a movement in the right direction. QUESTION: Do you expect another trilateral today? MR. RUBIN: When I have plans to announce to you about the events for this evening, I'll try to call in or we'll do that through the pool. The President is arriving about 5:00. QUESTION: Just as a matter of our own planning, can you give us a sense of what time you think the last briefing would be today? MR. RUBIN: Let's talk about that after this and maybe I can come up with some mutually convenient way of communicating the little information I'm able to impart each day. QUESTION: (Inaudible) later assessment of the situation, would you say that an agreement now is much more likely than when these talks -- MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to make that kind of speculative remark. QUESTION: I don't think we've asked you to characterize the President's return, why he's coming back. Before it was sort of rescue missions and -- MR. RUBIN: Well, that's what you said. I always said that I wouldn't -- QUESTION: But would you characterize, why is he coming back if things are moving along pretty well at this point? Can you give us just some insight? MR. RUBIN: Well, I believe that I have indicated to all of you that I wouldn't see dramatically good developments or dramatically bad developments as necessarily being related to the President's comings and goings. We have a work plan that includes a fair amount of time that the President has committed, and each day is a little different than the last, and I'll try as the day unfolds and closer to the arrival of the President to give you a little bit more of a flavor of what he's doing. The Secretary believes that as the end of this round approaches that it would be appropriate and helpful for the President to continue the work that he's done here, and he is ready, willing and able to do so. Beyond saying that right now, I'll have to wait until he comes to give you more specifics and maybe that will become more apparent to you when I can. QUESTION: Any statement from the President at the end of this round? MR. RUBIN: I wouldn't assume that. QUESTION: I think that you mentioned (inaudible) conference that the US -- MR. RUBIN: I'm sorry, you need to speak up a bit. I can't hear you. QUESTION: I think that I remember that you told us at the beginning of the conference that the US is encouraging confidence-building measures like you were referring, I think, to a question about -- MR. RUBIN: On humanitarian issues. QUESTION: Yes, Eli Cohen, the Israeli hero agent in Damascus being hanged there in 1965 and since then his remains never were given by the Syrians to Israel and that the destiny of Israeli missing soldiers. Any news about it? MR. RUBIN: I don't have anything new to report to you today. QUESTION: Was it a procedural maneuver or a conceptual understanding which got the Border Committee to work? MR. RUBIN: Procedural. QUESTION: Thank you very much. Besides the National Security Advisor, is there any person from the State Department, or Defense, who is taking part in these Peace Talks in the range of the security problem? Is there any possibility that a department of the UN or of US troops, after the pulling out of from the Golan Heights? Is there any concrete talks concerning the national theater missile defense system, which is now under (consideration) between Syria and the United States in this occasion? MR. RUBIN: There are senior military officials, including General Kerrick, Assistant Secretary Frank Kramer, who are here. There is also a continued discussion about the other issues you mentioned. [end of document]
|