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: I've got a question about the Middle East talks last night. Mr. Rubin: Sure. Question: Could you give an explanation of how you see the schedule in the months ahead, between now and September 13th? Obviously, there are some more talks later this month, but it seems it's going at a somewhat magisterial pace, considering that there's a deadline coming up in just about 3 weeks. Mr. Rubin: Well, look, it's not easy to push forward on an issue that has resisted resolution for a long, long time. We're talking about profound issues--Jerusalem, water, refugees, borders--questions that have defied solution for many, many years. So it's no surprise that this is hard. This is a tough piece of business. But we think there is new momentum and a new resolve on the part of the leaders--Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Barak--to work these problems. We have a new development at the next round of talks which will begin, I think on the 1st day of May, give or take a day or two, in the region, in that Ambassador Ross and his deputy, Aaron Miller, will be at the table much more continuously than they've been in the past. So there will be a new American involvement in the day-to-day operations of the negotiations. But we know that it's a tall, tall order to overcome the nature of some of these problems, but we think as a result of the President and the Secretary's meetings with Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat that there is a new resolve on the part of the leaders to get the job done. But it's an extraordinarily difficult enterprise, and we have tried to impress upon the leaders the need to come up with realistic solutions, and we hope that will begin to happen when, as you know, at the end of the last round they each had drafts of what they called a skeleton agreement that would have the necessary elements so that we can move toward a framework agreement and then, ultimately, an actual agreement. And so the skeleton agreements have been exchanged, and those will then be discussed in greater detail. And to the extent that we can put flesh on the bones of that skeleton through the process in the region, we think we will be able to help. Question: But it sounds like it's an incremental change rather than a significant change of American participation. You say they'll be at the table more continuously than they had been. It's pretty hard to measure, you know. It doesn't seem like a change. Mr. Rubin: Well, let me make the difference between occasional chairing of a meeting and constant presence. That's the difference. So I probably underplayed that, which is my wont, as you know, to underplay these things. And the involvement was something that the parties thought was appropriate and that we think is a way for us to be helpful. But, again, we think that the will appears to be there. Now we have to find a way to get there. Question: Could I ask, can you tell us a little more about the specifics of what Mr. Ross and Mr. Miller will be doing at these meetings? Mr. Rubin: Yes. There are the issues that we've outlined. They're not new to you--water, refugees, borders, Jerusalem, the third further redeployment. These are issues that the two sides have views on. They have been exchanging views on their concerns, their needs, their objectives, their bottom-line conceptions, during their own negotiations prior to coming to Bolling. At Bolling, we then tried to get some brainstorming to be done so that we could find places where there were common elements, and that is what the skeleton process is designed to achieve. And what Ambassador Ross and his deputy, Aaron Miller, will be doing in the region is looking to expand those elements where there is common ground, and doing that by pushing each side to fully explain their position, to focus on the practical and not the theoretical, and see how far they can get. That's what they'll be doing. Question: Jamie, Dr. Erekat said today at the National Press Club in his briefing that they don't view the May date as a deadline, but more as a flexible timeline. You said yesterday the United States has always seen some flexibility with that. Is everyone trying to tell us to move away from the May date and not expect anything--the outline--to be ready by then? Is that what everyone is trying to tell us? Mr. Rubin: I think you've cracked the code. It's enormously difficult to imagine getting a framework agreement just a few days after the talks resume in the region. It's possible, but it's enormously difficult. It's not impossible. But, for us, what's been important is not so much the framework agreement and the time frame of that because, you know, a framework agreement could have more or less in it, depending on the desires of the parties. A fully formed framework agreement could have most everything you need for a final agreement. It depends. It's a diplomatic device to give momentum, and so you would choose--if you had a fully formed framework agreement that had every element practically there except a few details, and you had that done by mid-summer or late summer, you still might be able to meet the September 13th deadline. So part of the timing of this depends on what kind of framework agreement people decide they want, but it's been our view that we want it as soon as possible. But what we're focused on as the date that counts, obviously, is the September 13th goal of full-fledged agreement on the permanent peace. Question: Jamie, do you know anything about Arafat's health, maybe, because he didn't show up for a briefing this morning? Mr. Rubin: Well, I had received no indications from the Secretary that there was anything new or different about his health during her discussions with him yesterday. Question: (Inaudible) quiet last night with the President and he was--didn't show up this morning. Mr. Rubin: I don't have anything new on that, but maybe-- Question: He said he had another meeting this morning, some follow-up talks, do you know anything about those? Mr. Rubin: I don't think the meeting was with us. Question: No, they said with the Palestinians. Question: So are there any follow-up talks with him today, or is he just leaving town? Mr. Rubin: An internal meeting within the Palestinian Authority, right. You know, I have enough trouble keeping track of all the State Department officials' schedules. But I'm not aware of when he's precisely leaving, but we'll try to-- Question: Seven o'clock tonight. Mr. Rubin: There you go. Seven o'clock tonight. Question: They said he would still have his meeting with Wolfensohn today. Mr. Rubin: Okay. Question: So after the Barak meeting, you said that this will be the time to draw some conclusions about how the process proceeds. And I just wonder if you could-- Mr. Rubin: Did I say that? Question: Yeah. Mr. Rubin: Really? I just hate it when you read those old transcripts. Question: So could you just give us your take on how the United States will put forward ideas to try to bridge the gaps? You've talked about the parties obviously trying to find it themselves but, with the United States in the chair, how do you see that really-- Mr. Rubin: Well, in response to one of your colleague's questions, I did give a flavor of how I thought that Ambassador Ross and his deputy, Aaron Miller, would operate in these talks; in other words, being there all the time, they'd be in a better position to pick up on common elements and suggest that there were creative compromises that could be made. That is different, however, than a US package, a US set of ideas that is designed to bridge the gaps. And when and if we come to that point, I will be happy to report that to you. I suspect that may happen after I'm no longer in a position to report such things to you, but that is not envisaged right now, nor am I aware that it's envisaged for the opening of these talks. But, rather, a more continuous presence, a more constant presence, may allow us to help package their ideas in a way that we think could move it forward, but not move to a phase where we're putting down our solution to these issues. Question: But this phase could come? Mr. Rubin: I wouldn't rule it out. Question: Yesterday you contrasted it with Wye River, and that's what you're doing now: saying this is clearly not headed toward that direction yet, although it could be, right--the US involvement part of it? Mr. Rubin: Yes. In Wye River we--prior to Wye River, we had a US percentage, 13 percent to bridge the gap between a single-digit percentage of the Israelis and a--I believe as high at certain times as 50, 60 or 70 percent position of the Palestinians. And we said an appropriate way to get the process back on track was 13 percent, that we thought that was doable and met the needs of both sides. And, ultimately, that's what happened. But that has not been our posture vis-à-vis Jerusalem, water, refugees, borders, statehood, to date. Question: Is it because the United States doesn't see it useful at this time to be as involved with specifics as it was leading up to Wye? Is it just not the time for that, or is the US hoping that it doesn't have to become so involved in the bilateral-- Mr. Rubin: Well, ideally, in these cases we can avoid that because it's not--we try to play as much or as little a role as the parties and we think it necessary to get the job done. And so far we think they've been in a position to have their discussions, be creative, brainstorm together, work on exchanging these skeletal drafts for the agreement--skeleton drafts for the agreement. And the time may come where we do make some suggestion or another. I'm not saying we're going to have a whole package across the board of all issues, but on one issue that time may come. It just hasn't come now. And what has come is a time for us to get down to the business of rolling up our sleeves with the negotiators continuously to see where the problems are and see what we can add to potential solutions. Question: Jamie, Dr. Erekat also said that yesterday they stressed to the Administration their hope that the Syrian and Lebanon talks would pick up again as well. Can you give us a characterization-- Mr. Rubin: I have nothing new to offer on the Syria track. On Lebanon, we've obviously been working very closely with the Secretary General and the United Nations, and we want to support their effort to get implementation of the resolution. We've welcomed the Israeli decision to withdraw unconditionally from Lebanon. We find it hard to imagine why anyone would oppose or stand in the way of such a decision, and we expect all the parties involved to be as constructive as possible as the Israelis seek an orderly withdrawal. With respect to the negotiating track, I don't have much new to offer you. Question: But can you explain to me better about what the Palestinians said yesterday in terms of do they view how much they respond in their own talks to what they view as progress being made in the other talks? Mr. Rubin: I think it's the rhetorical position of the Palestinians that they want the Syrian track to be resumed--accelerated and resumed. Question: By going along with UN plans to increase the peacekeeping force in South Lebanon and to move into the areas vacated by the Israelis in July, has the United States effectively abandoned its support for Lebanese army control of these areas? Mr. Rubin: Well, I think that's probably reading a bit much into it. What we're supporting, as opposed to abandoning, is the implementation of the Security Council resolution, and allowing the Secretary General to make a judgment on what kind of troop numbers he thinks he needs. There is plenty of room between the existing deployment and the authorized level, which I believe is 7,000, and so it may or may not require a new resolution. We strongly support the sovereignty, territorial integrity, of Lebanon and the Lebanese Government, and it is that government, working with the UN, that needs to work on such problems. Question: Okay. But in your talks with the Lebanese Government on this, have they in effect refused to consider plans for an early deployment of Lebanese army forces in those areas? Mr. Rubin: I would prefer not to speculate on what the Lebanese army is going to do inside Lebanon at this time. We want this to be a safe and orderly withdrawal. The details of how to make that happen is what the Secretary General and Mr. Larsen are working on. We are assisting them and working with them, and we don't think it would be wise to publicly speculate on all sorts of possibilities at this time. Question: What's your position on the continued presence of other foreign forces in Lebanon? Mr. Rubin: It's been our position for some time that all foreign forces should leave Lebanon, and that the Lebanese Government's territorial integrity and sovereignty is something we believe strongly in. Question: Have you discussed with the Syrians the possibility that they might also want to consider withdrawing their forces at this time? Mr. Rubin: I think it's a stated position. The Syrians know our views. I'm not aware of any renewed dialogue with Syria to that effect, nor would I think that we would imagine that would have much of an impact. Question: Speaking of the Syrians and the dialogue, is there now consideration to going back to the Syrians to ask them to start spelling out what they really mean by some of these hints that have been in the press and from senior officials? Mr. Rubin: Well, we've been in a dialogue with the Syrians about this question through our Embassy. Obviously, the Secretary General's representative will be doing to Damascus in the coming weeks, and we do think it's very important that all parties--and we expect all parties--to behave in such a way that a safe and orderly departure of Israeli forces can be accomplished. Question: On the other issue between Syria and Israel, what is the status of the dialogue? Mr. Rubin: I think I was just asked that question by one of your colleagues. I said I have nothing new to offer, but I'd be happy to repeat previous formulations. Question: Last night, the Administration briefer said that a response is being prepared to Assad's oral message that came in through the Embassy. I'm just wondering if you have any more details on that. Mr. Rubin: Well, that was some days ago we received that oral message. And we've been in contact with them since that time, and I'm not aware of any new development of significance on the Syria track. Question: Have you had any clarification of the various hints that they've been putting out from senior officials and through media reports about a desire to resume the negotiations? Mr. Rubin: I'm not aware we've received any indicators that there is something significantly new that would give new hope to the chance of moving the Syria process forward. [end of excerpt] Full transcript of Daily Press Briefing on 4/21/00
Peace Process | Near Eastern Affairs | Department of State | Secretary of State |
