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. |
Middle East Peace ProcessQuestion: A Middle East question?Mr. Rubin: Yes. Question: Do you have anything on the talks yesterday? Mr. Rubin: Yes. On the President and the Secretary's talks with Prime Minister Barak--sorry? Question: Who is in the book. Mr. Rubin: Who is in the book, yes. Those talks were serious and productive. They focused principally on the Palestinian track and they also obviously discussed the withdrawal from South Lebanon on the Syria track. The Israelis and the Palestinians have committed to reaching a framework agreement as soon as possible, and a comprehensive agreement by September 13. Obviously, this is going to require hard work and enormous effort, some very tough decisions to overcome the significant gaps that remain. We expect as a result of President Clinton and the Secretary's discussions with Prime Minister Barak that there will be an intensification of this process; there will be a new momentum as a result of these discussions and the discussions we expect to have next week with Chairman Arafat, so that both sides can come up with new ideas and fresh formulations that can contribute to a solution to these big, big problems. The President and the Secretary do feel there is new momentum and they want to build on that momentum with Chairman Arafat. So the discussions at Bolling will continue as a way to develop formulations and ideas, that when Chairman Arafat gets here and we can intensify this process, perhaps some of those ideas can bear fruit in discussions with the leaders. Question: With the framework agreement,, you're saying that would be as soon as possible, and the final agreement on the 13th of September? Mr. Rubin: Correct. Question: But the framework agreement actually also had a date. Is there any slippage? Mr. Rubin: Well, one date has slipped, which was last--2 months ago--whether we can meet the next suggestion that it's in May, you know, is an open question. This is a very, very difficult process. The issues are very emotional and existential when it comes to Jerusalem and statehood and borders and water and refugees. They are profound issues that don't lend themselves to simple snap formulas. And that's why we think the kind of brainstorming sessions that have been going on at Bolling are a necessary prerequisite for the kind of formulations and ideas that will be required if we're going to overcome these hurdles. Question: Now, at a certain point it is possible that the parties may want to turn to the United States. Are we nearing that point? Mr. Rubin: Well, the United States has been a part of this process all along. The Bolling talks are hosted by the United States. I admit and agree that most of the discussions there are bilateral between the parties, but Dennis Ross and Aaron Miller, when appropriate, have met with the delegations together, and Secretary Albright may do that as well. With respect to the substantive question of new ideas presented by the United States, I don't think we're quite there yet. We think there is plenty more exploratory work that needs to be done to see where people's real concerns and needs are before it would be appropriate for us to come up with bridging proposals. Question: And a last question on that point. Administration officials said that following this next round--this current round of Bolling talks and Arafat's visit that it would be--that's the appropriate time to make an assessment and try to figure out what kind of bridging proposals might be made. Mr. Rubin: I'm sorry, that was said by some anonymous official? Question: No, an Administration official who was a briefer last night. Mr. Rubin: He said that that might be appropriate to do that when? Question: After the Bolling--the current round of Bolling talks and after Arafat's visit. Mr. Rubin: Well, right. But that's not now, and Arafat hasn't got here yet. And so what I indicated in response to your question is we're not there now. And so we need to finish the Bolling talks, which is where you develop, brainstorm and discuss their needs and concerns in such a complete and fulsome way--I guess fulsome is a mistake, I see Barry putting his hand on his head--in a full way, in a comprehensive way--I did go to Columbia, and I'm sorry about that one--that you then know enough to put forward a proposal that you think can work. Question: To follow up Roy, especially his first question--off the plane, the first shot off the plane, with Barak's arrival in Israel--is that Barak has agreed to--acceded to--a Palestinian-U.S. request that the United States play a more active, mediating role. First of all, I wasn't there and, second, there are no quotes in that account, so in a sense I can't verify that is being said by the Israelis, although it's on the AP wire-- Mr. Rubin: What wire? Question: AP. Question: Plenty of quotes in other stories. Question: By anonymous people, though. We don't quote anonymous people. Mr. Rubin: Never? Question: No, not by direct quotes. "Like, we did a great job." We leave that to AFP. Mr. Rubin: You leave that to who? Question: AFP. But, seriously, you obviously what all of us are waiting for and asking in various forms. When is the United States--has the United States, even now, agreed to jump in and start telling the Israelis what to do about Jerusalem, what to do about a state? I mean let's not beat around the bush. That's the whole point. Those are the main sticking points. And the Palestinians say the talks are a waste of time. They want you in there moving things along, and they obviously--and they have their demands, so they know--we know where they want to move Now, has Barak now agreed that the U.S. should have an enhanced role now? Mr. Rubin: Let me say this. With respect to suggestions that the Bolling talks are a waste of time, we regard those statements as unhelpful and inaccurate. And I think that people should focus on the seriousness of the peace process rather than the seriousness of public relations. With respect to our role and how it will evolve, I think it's fair to say that our role ebbs and flows as necessary by the circumstances, and as far as us getting to a point where we tell Israel what to do about Jerusalem or statehood or borders, that is not envisaged at any time. What we could imagine is a time in which Israel and the Palestinians both ask us to come up with ideas bridging their gaps. That is not the same as telling Israel what to do and telling Israel what would be good or not good for its security. Only Israel can make a judgment as to what is an acceptable formulation and is one that can meet the needs of the Israeli people as well as their security interests. So the suggestion that we would get to a point where we tell Israel what to do on issues like that strikes me as not likely to happen at any time. What we might get to, however, is a point where both the Israelis and the Palestinians realize that they've done all the brainstorming, all the discussions that they can, and now they need some new ideas. Some fresh ideas. First we want to see if they can come up with those themselves. That's what you do when you have a meeting with Prime Minister Barak and what you do when you have a meeting with Chairman Arafat next week. We encourage them to come up with new ideas, because if they don't come up with them, and they don't come up with new formulations, it's going to be hard to get this process moving forward. Could we get to a point where, as on the basis of new ideas from Israel and new ideas from the Palestinians, we formulate some suggestions? Yes, that point could come. It hasn't come today, and if it comes after the Arafat meeting with the President and the Secretary, I will be happy to inform you of it. Question: Back to that in a minute. Two quick fact points. I thought the talks--and maybe I was wrong--and the briefer yesterday was puzzled, he wasn't sure. Weren't the talks supposed to wind up this round, like tomorrow? Mr. Rubin: Over the weekend. Question: And wasn't Albright to say goodbye to them before taking-- Mr. Rubin: My understanding is that the talks are scheduled to end this weekend. Question: And--second point--she will though meet with them tomorrow? Mr. Rubin: Well her schedule, as you know, has been adjusted several times, so I don't want to tell you what her schedule is tomorrow and Friday, given the scheduling issues. But if she can, I'm sure she would want to. Question: Excuse me--it wasn't an initial schedule that had to be changed. Now can you just--this is going to be existentialist perhaps? Mr. Rubin: No. She's not-- Question: No, no. Mr. Rubin: You see. You've got your colleagues all upset here in the front row. Question: I'll talk to them later. Mr. Rubin: She now thinks that we're leaving on a different day. They're holding their heads, and they're planning their lives, all because of a misunderstanding between you and me. Question: No, they shouldn't be mis--they'll have to be talked to later. Existentialist. You used "security" twice. You know, it's a little early in the game to ask these kind of questions, maybe-- Mr. Rubin: But why not? Question: But, again, you know, you won't be here forever. You used "security" twice. I don't suppose the U.S. Government and its mediators--Mr. Ross and Mr. Miller, especially--consider Jewish occupation or Jerusalem as the eternal Jewish capital simply a matter of security or an existentialist issue, do they? Mr. Rubin: When you said "especially," did you mean especially Mr. Miller, or especially Mr. Ross and Mr. Miller? Question: I think they're sort of two peas in a pod. Mr. Rubin: All right. I have a different characterization of them-- Question: There are shadings of views among all people. But I wasn't including Albright nor the President. The people that are doing the mediating. Mr. Rubin: Let me just suggest to you that our views on Jerusalem are not ripe for public discussion, and I think that's something we've been quite clear about. This is a permanent status issue. We think to get into our views about Jerusalem would be unhelpful and harmful to a process that has enough hurdles already. Question: I only asked you because--and I'll drop it--because you made reference to security twice as an issue in these talks, and I wondered if the Administration thought Jerusalem was entirely a security problem, because there is always a way to get around security or to deal with security. Mr. Rubin: What I said was that the Israel security is obviously something for Israel to make a judgment about. The permanent status talks have several key issues--Jerusalem, borders, refugees, water--all of those issues. And we do believe that together all of those issues will have security implications for Israel that they need to take into account and make a judgment as to whether it would be wiser for them to improve their security by making a peace agreement as a result of this--and in dealing with those four issues. That's a decision for Israel to make. If they make that decision and they seek our assistance in trying to improve their security by making adjustments in their ideas for that proposal, we obviously would consider responding to an Israeli request to be helpful. Question: Another comment that came off the plane was that the President and the Secretary and everyone else that met with Barak yesterday told him that things would become uncomfortable and problematic if Israel went ahead with its sale of-- Mr. Rubin: Well, I know the issue of the arms sale to China did come up with both the Secretary and the President, and both Secretary Albright and the President expressed our deep concerns on this issue. Prime Minister Barak indicated that he understood these concerns and that we will be discussing this issue further with Israeli officials. Question: But is that an accurate characterization? Mr. Rubin: I wouldn't want to quote--confirm quotes from the President's private meeting with the Prime Minister of Israel. Question: The briefer spoke, quoting the President, said there was a new energy and a new momentum in the talks. But I noticed it seemed like the one thing we've gotten today is that the May 13th deadline may slip. So where is the new energy? What is the evidence or how do you document the new energy? Mr. Rubin: Well, I don't see how those two are logically related, but I will try to answer your question. There is obviously an objective reality prior to the Prime Minister's arrival in terms of the prospect of getting an agreement by September 13. That's the goal: get an agreement by September 13. Whatever number you put the scale at the day before yesterday--and I'm not going to give you that number, but whatever number you put it at--we believe as a result of the Prime Minister's visit, the number is higher. And so, therefore, there is a new momentum, a new resolve, to try to get the job done. Now, we hope we see the same resolve when we see Chairman Arafat next week, in which case the prospect of getting an agreement, which is the goal. The framework agreement is a path to getting an agreement; it's not a necessary prerequisite; it can be helpful. And we think it could be helpful, but it's not a necessary prerequisite. That's the important thing is to get the agreement by September. We see a new resolve to get that. And if we see the same kind of resolve next week on the part of Chairman Arafat, we'll obviously be more encouraged than we are now. Question: You know, last night--it was quite late, about 11:45, and it didn't go on forever. But the briefer said that now the U.S. will respond to Syria's response. Okay? And if we remember how the Secretary saw it--no "give" in it was her word--but the U.S. is going to respond. Can you elaborate on that at all? Does that raise new possibilities that this track may become unblocked? Mr. Rubin: I don't think we believe that there is a new momentum in the Syria track. We did receive an oral message from President Assad. As a result of studying that, we do not believe we are closer to resolving the gaps that remain between Israel and Syria. But we intend to continue discussions with Syria and Israel at the diplomatic level to try to see whether we can resolve these issues and overcome these gaps. Question: That sounds a little--that sounds good. I understand that. Essentially, discussion continues; it isn't like a point-by-point response to their latest proposal? Mr. Rubin: I think that would be a fair summary of what I was trying to say, in less words. Question: The oral response, was that-- Mr. Rubin: Oral message. Question: Oral message. Was that from official to official? Can you be any more specific? Mr. Rubin: No. Normally--I'm not going to say what it was in this context, but I'll tell you what an oral message normally means. How about that? An oral message normally means an ambassador is called in and given an oral description of a message from a leader. He then takes that message, goes back to his office, and reports that message to Washignton. That's considered an oral message, as opposed to a letter or as opposed to a briefing on current thinking by the government. So if it's an oral message, it normally has the imprimatur of the leader of the country. Or sometimes the Secretary of State delivers--has an oral message delivered where her ambassador goes in and reports a message in her name. That's what an oral message means. Question: Do you have any more indications from the Syrians about the meaning of Mr. Al-Shara's statement to the last few days, you know, that land is not negotiable but water is? I mean, there have been a number of hints in the Syrian press. Yesterday, I think there was some statements that this is the time for the United States to come in with proposals to solve the Israel-Syria dispute. Mr. Rubin: Well, it's up to, obviously, our diplomatic judgment as to what the best course is to make progress. We regarded the best course earlier this year is to bring the sides together for the first time at a political level to discuss these issues in full. We then had a number of extensive conversations with Prime Minister Barak in understanding what his needs were and obtaining from him his proposal, which we regarded as a very serious one. The President then sought the opportunity to communicate that serious proposal to President Assad of Syria in Geneva, which he did, the result of which was quite clear and the President answered quite clearly the questions as to what happened at that meeting. Since that time, we have heard, as I said, an oral message from Syria. We do not think that message indicates that we're any closer to resolving the issues or closing any of the major gaps, but we're going to stay in contact with both sides. That's what we believe is the most productive thing to do at this time. Others may have their own views as to what we should do, but I think our proven track record in Jordan, on the Palestinian track and with Egypt demonstrates that we are a pretty good judge of how best to pursue and move forward the peace process--and that's what we're going to do. Question: On Al-Shara's statement, is there any kind of a glimmer of a hope in that? Mr. Rubin: Well, I'm not going to try to parse--you know, he said a lot of things. I've read numerous accounts of things that the Foreign Minister of Syria has said since the Geneva meeting, and there are many different points that he's made. What we can work with, and where we will get glimmers of hope or no glimmers of hope, is from the messages we receive from the Syrians privately. Question: (Inaudible ) --since the Assad oral statement? Mr. Rubin: Which was recent. And that's where we think things stand. Question: Is Turkey part of this discussion even in a collateral way--the water discussion? Mr. Rubin: We have been briefing Turkey regularly about the Syria-Israel track. Question: Can you elaborate at all whether Turkey is a likely or a potential contributor to ease this problem? Mr. Rubin: I don't want to speculate. All I can tell you is we consult closely with Turkey on this issue during the course of the Israel-Syria track. Question: Going back to the Palestinian talks again, on the framework agreement, again, is it then the considered view at the State Department which, as you say, does know how to do these things, that a framework agreement really is not--you said not a prerequisite but, in fact, it's probably just not necessary. You might just want to drop that? Mr. Rubin: No, we concede the value of a framework agreement. Question: But is there a willingness to drop it then if it has to--if it will help to-- Mr. Rubin: I don't want to go three steps ahead. Right now, we're working on the idea of pursuing a framework agreement, which we think can be helpful in getting a full agreement by September. As I indicated, we don't think it's a necessary prerequisite, but it can be helpful. When we get to a different point and I want to say that we don't think that's true, I will. And it won't be the result of the prodding but it will be the result of a new view of the State Department. Question: And, also, Arafat is coming here next week, I think on the 20th, is it? And I think Barak is going to be back in the country also. Mr. Rubin: I'm not aware of the next time a visit-- Question: Is there any possibility of the-- Mr. Rubin: There's always a possibility of high-level meetings, and it's my practice to not rule out such meetings as a matter of practice. But I have no reason to offer you new information that such a meeting is in the works, but I will never rule them out given the nature of this business. [end of excerpt] Full transcript of Daily Press Briefing on 4/12/00
Peace Process | Near Eastern Affairs | Department of State | Secretary of State |
