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. |
Question: There is a report in the Israeli press that President Clinton has suggested appointing a special envoy to use shuttle diplomacy between Syria and Israel. Is it true and who is he? And I have another question, please, afterwards. Mr. Foley: Well, there is no need to answer the second part of the question because my understanding is that the first part is not true. Question: And the second one is that there is also talk that President Clinton has asked Israel to delay the withdrawal by three weeks. And how does the United States view the withdrawal from Southern Lebanon in absence of any deal on the Syrian side? Mr. Foley: Well, I don't believe that first bit of information that the US has asked Israel to delay something is true. I've not heard that. It would surprise me. I think it's untrue. Our policy on Security Council Resolution 425 is long-standing. It goes back to the time we voted for the resolution, which is that we would like to see it implemented and we would like to see all foreign forces withdrawn from Lebanon. We've stated, as has the Prime Minister of Israel, that it is our preference that that withdrawal be effected in the context of a negotiated settlement that would address the needs of all sides, and we still continue to hope that that will be possible. Question: Where do you see the Syrian track right now? Is it a failure right now? Mr. Foley: I wouldn't say that. It hasn't produced success yet, but the fact is that the parties met here at Shepherdstown; the President had an important meeting with President Assad in Geneva; and the process continues--a difficult process, clearly. But we are going to continue to work to overcome the differences that exist between the parties, and this process is certainly not over. In terms of where it stands, I think President Clinton was pretty clear about this yesterday. As you know, the United States has been trying to clarify the needs and positions on both sides, and we arrived at a certain point in terms of clarifying the Israeli positions to such that the President was able to convey Israeli ideas and perspectives to President Assad. He was not in a position to accept those points, and; therefore, as the President stated yesterday, we believe that it is now the turn of the Syrians to formulate responses, formulate ideas of their own. And so that's where the matter rests at the moment. Question: Are you going to help them formulate these responses? Mr. Foley: Well, we have been playing a role of communicating with the parties, trying to gain a better understanding for ourselves and for them of the needs, the perspectives, the requirements, for a successful outcome, and to help them overcome those differences. And we will continue to play that role in consultation with both sides, but this is not an American effort to generate American ideas. This is something that is going to have to be solved by both parties. Obviously, we have an important role to play that we will continue to play. Question: However true that might be, your description of the President's remarks are accurate but they left a little bit out because he made the point also that he, too, had presented some additional ideas; in other words, that he had presented Assad with a combination of Israeli proposals, which he called very significant, and American ideas as well; and that Assad's posture was to simply stick to his guns. Mr. Foley: I'll have to-- Question: No. So-- Mr. Foley: I'll have to check the record on that. I'm not aware that he spoke about American ideas. Question: He didn't use the word "ideas" but he--our options. He spoke of things of an American input--trust me--and I'll get you the text if you'd like. But that's just a setup. That's to lead the question. The point is that the President has worked up the Israeli ideas and Americans have been involved in embellishing-- Mr. Foley: Well, I'm not going to accept that formulation. We've been communicating with both sides, we've been trying to gain a better understanding. And the President conveyed certain Israeli ideas and perspectives, which he called specific and comprehensive and significant. Question: Very significant. Mr. Foley: Yes. Question: Well the question then--forget if you don't accept my construction and we said, let's move to the other side or something. Mr. Foley: Sure. Question: Maybe you'll disagree with my description of his description of Assad's posture, which is, basically, he's sticking to his demands and that's that. And he has to be more forthcoming, the President said. Is the U.S. going to consult with the Syrians in an effort to sort of suggest some ideas to them that might make their position a little bit more forthcoming with the aim, of course, of starting these negotiations going, which isn't going right now with Israel? Mr. Foley: I am not going to be able to share your premise about American ideas. You're returning to it again. Our role has been to try to facilitate the parties coming together and reaching agreement. And we talked to the parties. What we say in particular, neither I nor Jamie Rubin nor Joe Lockhart have gotten into. We want to be helpful. We're not substituting ourselves or substituting our ideas for the ideas and positions of the parties. But we are trying to help them see their way through to common ground which, of course, is the necessary predicate for an agreement. And that effort yielded certain results on the Israeli side that the President noted, which the Syrian president rejected. And the President made it clear that we believe now, having responded in Geneva, that the Syrian side ought now to come back with a further elaboration of points and perspectives from their side. Question: Let's get back to Lebanon, if we could. Mr. Foley: Sure. Question: We know your preference. The preference is that Israel's pullout should be part of an overall agreement. But Mr. Barak said, after Sunday's meetings, that the next step, it seemed to him, was for Israel to go ahead with a pullout. Will the United States--does the United States object to a unilateral withdrawal? I know what you prefer. Does the United States object to a unilateral withdrawal? And there have been rumors--pretty well, I think, disputed by talking to people in this building, but let's just check it out anyhow--that the U.S. is looking for ways to help Israel because Barak said this could be, you know, a dangerous situation, a difficult situation. Is the U.S. taking steps or will the U.S. take steps to try to assist in that withdrawal just to make sure nothing doesn't blow up? Mr. Foley: Well, I tried to chase down those reports and rumors as well and met with the same response that you apparently have, Barry, so that is not anything I can confirm. I can restate our position in favor of the implementation of Security Council Resolution 425. Our focus is on helping the parties achieve a negotiated settlement that would address the needs of all sides, and we're going to continue working with the sides as part of that goal. Your other question, though, about if push comes to shove where would we stand in the event of an Israeli unilateral withdrawal is a question I've gotten several times now in the last week. Mr. Rubin's got it. And I will just repeat what we said, which is that we voted for Resolution 425, we stand by it, we would like to see it implemented, we would like to see all foreign forces withdrawn from Lebanon, and we would prefer to see that happen in the context of a negotiated settlement. But at the end of the day, we support the implementation of that resolution. I think my meaning is clear. Question: Change of subject? Mr. Foley: Yes. Question: Is it fair to say, then, that the United States does not expect any new proposals to come from the Israeli side towards President Assad and that now the ball is in his court and nothing more will happen until he's come up with an alternative solution? Mr. Foley: Well, if I may revive the end-of-the-day formulation I just used with Barry, at the end of the day both sides have needs that must be taken into account and addressed. You can't have an agreement unless they reach common ground. But it is accurate, though, to say and for me to restate now for the fourth or fifth time what the President said yesterday, which is that we are looking to the Syrians to come forward now with more specific responses, ideas, perspectives, in light of the fact the Israeli side has done so. [end of excerpt] Full transcript of Daily Press Briefing on 3/30/00
Peace Process | Near Eastern Affairs | Department of State | Secretary of State |
