| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
 |
James P. Rubin, Spokesman Press Briefing, Israel-Syria Peace Talks Shepherd College, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, January 7, 2000 |
MR. RUBIN: Greetings. Welcome to this fifth day of the Shepherdstown Peace Talks. Let me start with giving you an update of what has transpired today. President Clinton and Secretary Albright hosted a three-way meeting with Prime Minister Barak and several members of his delegation, and Foreign Minister Shara and several members of his delegation. That went from about 11:05 to about 11:30. During that meeting, President Clinton presented to the two delegations an American-drafted working document. This working document provides a summary of the issues to be decided and the differences between the parties. It is designed as a procedural tool to focus the substantive discussions and to help bridge the differences that now exist between the two parties. Following that larger meeting, President Clinton held a one-and-one meeting with Foreign Minister Shara and Prime Minister Barak for about 40 minutes or so. As I understand it, after a short meeting with Prime Minister Barak that's going on now, the President will be returning to Washington. So the new development today is that we have presented the working document that Secretary Albright prepared yesterday and that President Clinton has now presented to the parties. We hope this will focus the work and allow substantive discussions to take place. And the two sides are now studying that document. QUESTION: Well, I guess you may have just answered my question. What was the response when the two parties saw the document, or is it too early to say? MR. RUBIN: I think a formal response will obviously await their studying it. I think they both regarded this as a good way to move the process forward and they are now having their experts study the document. And I think it will help us as a tool to focus the discussions in the coming days. QUESTION: But can you give us an idea of what the document looks like? Is it the four issues as headings and then a breakdown of what has been -- what each side has said to the U.S.? MR. RUBIN: It is a working document. It reflects the discussions held so far and our view of what can help focus discussions on where there are remaining differences. It does track the working groups because the working groups-- the committees, rather, deal with the main issues. So the working document does track that. So we expect that it will help focus the discussion because in each section, obviously, it deals with issues where there have been differences. QUESTION: A distinction here, and I want to see which it is. Is it the compilation that in your view, the U.S. view, will help focus the discussion, or in that document are there expressions of U.S. views, new ideas, to help focus the discussion? In the piece of paper itself, or are you providing any of your new ideas that the other day you said would be -- and always, of course -- are forthcoming in such talks? MR. RUBIN: I think it's fair to say that it reflects our understanding of what has transpired here in Shepherdstown, what transpired in conversations the President and the Secretary had prior to Shepherdstown, and obviously some of the work that was done in the previous talks. This document reflects all of that. And I think it's fair to say that, at this point, we are using this as a procedural tool more than as an American proposal halfway between the sides but; rather, an American attempt to focus the discussions because these are obviously extraordinarily complex issues, and by focusing the discussions through the working document we can hopefully move the process forward. QUESTION: And it summarizes the points of convergence. Does it summarize points of divergence? MR. RUBIN: The short answer to your question is yes, although I would dispute only the word "summarizes." It's not written as a summary; it's written more concretely than that. QUESTION: Where do we stand now on committee work? Did the President and his team try to persuade the parties to get back to committee work, and will there be any committee meetings today or possibly on Sunday? Do you have anything firm on that? MR. RUBIN: Right. I think the discussions we've had and this working document, to an extent, supercedes the committee work for now, and the rest of today will be, I suspect, focused on studying and maybe seeking clarifications of what's contained in this working document. We do expect the committees to meet before the week is out. Let me define "the week" in the following way: We got here on a Monday, and a week normally contains seven days. QUESTION: Basically you answered my question. Just to follow up on one point, while it's quite obvious that the Syrians have been very eager to address the border issue, can you give us any idea of whether that was a central or the central focus of this morning's trilateral? MR. RUBIN: I think the first trilateral meeting focused on the President and the Secretary explaining the purposes of this document and why we think it's the best procedural tool to use at this juncture. I think the second meeting was much more of a political discussion, a lot of face-to-face discussion between Prime Minister Barak and Foreign Minister Shara, with a lot of interaction about their various needs and their views. I don't think either of the two meetings were a bargaining session on one issue, and so there will be a lot of time for that. And as far as -- to get back a little bit to the previous question -- the schedule, obviously there are both religious observances for the Israelis and the Syrian delegation in the coming 24 hours, and what I would expect to see happen is that, after those, the remainder of today will be focused on working and studying this document, maybe seeking some clarifications on certain points. And then the remainder of time between the beginning of the Sabbath and then the Eid will be a non-working day between tonight and tomorrow night, at which point they will pick up and we do expect there to be committee meetings within this seven-day, week-long meeting here -- round here -- at Shepherdstown. Obviously, after that, it's possible there could be a break and this round could take on a different character where the leaders possibly could leave. But that has not been decided as to precisely when that would happen but, as I indicated to you all along, that has been envisaged. QUESTION: Jamie, could you tell us why this working document, since it's based in part, as you say, on the discussions that took place before Shepherdstown began, couldn't have been presented to the leaders on the first or second day and kept you from having to sort of spin the wheels the way much of the week seems to have been? MR. RUBIN: That's a good question. I think the short answer to it is that there are different procedural ways to approach a negotiation this complex, and the organizers -- the hosts, the United States, Secretary Albright, the President -- have to decide what is the best path to achieving forward movement. And we are going to need committees. Committees are going to have to work. Informal discussions are going to have to take place. And what it was our view that as that was occurring, that we thought that a way to jump-start the process was to present the working draft that Secretary Albright asked her team to put together during the course of the week directly to the parties and that that, combined with expected committee work and the informal bilateral discussions, is the way to move forward. So it wasn't ripe at the beginning of the week to start the week off that way. We needed to organize a work plan and a committee structure, and the work plan envisaged committee meetings and informal contacts on certain subjects and then, with the round coming to a close, presenting a working document so that there will be time for the parties to absorb that, work on that, before this round comes to a close. QUESTION: Jamie, I remember on Tuesday it was a couple of days -- we'll let you off on that, anyway. MR. RUBIN: "Couple" is one of those words. QUESTION: All right. Does the administration expect the Gulf states to contribute handsomely -- let's be optimistic, if we reach an agreement here somehow -- to the Syrians and the Palestinians in any agreement? MR. RUBIN: Well, we certainly do believe that all the countries in the region that have an interest in peace and that have expressed very vocally and loudly their interest in peace to share in the costs of peace. And we certainly think it would be helpful as the Syria-Israel track moves to closure -- and we hope it will -- that other countries in the region will begin to see the benefits of peace for the whole region and try to look at ways, both economic and diplomatic, to encourage the closing of the circle of peace so that all the peoples of the Middle East can gain the benefits of peace. QUESTION: Could parts of the working document, the agreed upon parts of the working document, be used as verbatim and in its entirety? MR. RUBIN: Could be used -- I'm sorry? QUESTION: In its entirety, as part of the future peace treaty between Israel and Syria. And what we are watching now is the part-by-part building of a draft for the Syria and Israeli peace treaty? MR. RUBIN: That's a very interesting interpretation. QUESTION: Jamie, can you give us a sense of what proportion of the working document is ratification of where talks left off in '96, and what proportion is progress this week? How much progress has been made? MR. RUBIN: Well, I think I indicated that my definition of progress is going to be where we've moved forward, where new ideas have gelled, and when I'm ready to report progress I will do so. It's certainly progress to have a working document before the parties, with all the potential that that document carries with it for the future. But we have very limited expectations of what can be achieved in one round. This is a long, longstanding dispute. It is one that is very emotional and very substantive, and carries with it enormous security implications. We don't expect, in a few days, for those kinds of issues to move dramatically forward. We do expect to be able to combine this work on a working document with discussions here in Shepherdstown, so that, at the end of the round, we feel like we're closer to the objective of a core agreement being achieved between Syria and Israel. And so when the round is over, at that point I'll be prepared to address the question of whether we are closer to that. But certainly in a procedural sense, I think the working document itself indicates that. QUESTION: It's just a follow-up. We were chugging along, trotting. What is it today? MR. RUBIN: Working, working: Let's see -- chugging along, trotting, and we're moving on down the track. Moving on down the track. QUESTION: Jamie, you mentioned we're getting close to the end of this first round, that the leaders may leave. You didn't say they will; you said "may." Does that mean some of the diplomatic teams might stay behind for more work? MR. RUBIN: Yes, I think that's a possibility. Certainly one path might be to have the leaders return to their homes, and get on with some of the business they might have, while leaving some of the teams available to work. But that decision hasn't been made: and where they would work -- here or elsewhere. QUESTION: Did either side bring their own working documents to these talks and attempt to present it, or has only the United States thought to introduce a summary of what's been done in the past? MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of either delegation having brought a working document along the lines that we are presenting today. QUESTION: Could I follow up on that? MR. RUBIN: Yes. QUESTION: (Inaudible)? MR. RUBIN: Sorry? QUESTION: (Does the document contain illustrations)? MR. RUBIN: No. QUESTION: Was the working document -- was there any contribution from the Syrians, or was there any request from Mr. al-Shara that there be something written? As the Syrians, as we know, have complained that the European agreement before was denied always, by the Israelis, that there wasn't -- that they didn't really reach an agreement on the pullout from the Golan? MR. RUBIN: I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question. QUESTION: Well, the Syrians have complained in the past that, in the 1996 talks, they had reached an agreement for a full withdrawal from the Golan. But the Israelis said no, that was not our understanding. Did the Syrians ask for this working document to be done? Was it their suggestion to have this document, or was it totally the United States? MR. RUBIN: Let me give you two answers. First, I would say the idea of this working document being presented to the parties is an American idea. It's not a Syrian idea or an Israeli idea; it's an American idea. With respect to what transpired in the past, this working document, like the previous discussions, operates on the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. And that's a very important principle, that applies here in the context of this document, as well as in the context of previous discussions. QUESTION: A couple of quick questions. What is the difference between the work that the committees are doing being broken down into four different areas, and then presenting this working document to them for them to review and what-not? Haven't they already agreed to the breakdown of the issues in the committees? MR. RUBIN: Right. This working document is not intended to get them to agree to a breakdown in the committees. On the contrary, and in partial response to some of your colleagues' previous questions, this working document is what Secretary Albright and her team put together, that reflects what's gone on in committee meetings, that reflects what's gone on in contact between the parties, that reflects what has gone on in discussions the President and the Secretary have had in Damascus, in Israel and on the telephone. So it reflects those discussions, and then is incorporated into this working document. So it's another way to focus the discussions. But regardless of the existence of this working document, there will be a need for the experts on a particular issue -- be that water or borders or security arrangements or normal peaceful relations -- to talk about not only what's in the document, but what words mean, and that it's not a simple matter of just getting words on a piece of paper. It's a very important matter that both sides understand what those words mean. QUESTION: Secondly, just very quickly some of the Syrians that we've spoken to have said that a side benefit that has come out of the talks so far is the relationship that they have begun to establish now with their American counterparts: that they feel that they're actually developing one. Is that something that is reflected on the U.S. side and, if so, how would you characterize it? MR. RUBIN: I think that's a fair point. I mean, Secretary Albright has traveled, I think, a total of four times to Damascus -- some of you who have been on the plane might correct me, but I think it's four times -- has met Foreign Minister Shara in the United States, but I think that in five days of talks now, has had an opportunity to have discussions with Foreign Minister Shara and other members of the Syrian delegation in a more relaxed setting, in a more comprehensive way, in a more informal way, a little bit more as people, and what their histories and hopes are for the future, rather than in formal bilateral meetings where there are note cards and agendas and talking points. So I think she has certainly had that, and others on the American side -- for example, Frank Kramer and General Kerrick, her military advisor -- as I indicated earlier, had lengthy discussions with Syrian military officials. So, yes, there has been an opportunity to talk more, to understand each other better. I think that's one of the benefits of being in a setting like this. QUESTION: Jamie, can you be as clear as possible on what the schedule is from here on? I gather you have indicated that they're going to be working Saturday night and Sunday. Is that true? Is it likely to go on into a second week on Monday, and what is your briefing schedule going to be from here out? MR. RUBIN: OK. I intended to be clear in saying that, following the religious observances, that work would begin. Those observances, as I understand it, end in the evening on Saturday; so that means from that point on work, more formal work, can take place. And I do expect there to be work on Sunday. As far as a second week is concerned, again I would remind you that the week began on Monday and so we'll have to see whether we go into a second week. I think it's possible that there will be a break early next week, or at the end of this week, depending on how you count your weeks. But you should expect that we'll be here Saturday night, working, and Sunday, working. My intention would not be to brief tomorrow. Depending on what happens, I would expect to brief on Sunday, in some form or another. Whether it will be this setting a more informal setting, I don't know. And Monday, as long as we're here, I will be briefing -- as much as I can. So my commitment is to try to brief at least once, hopefully more than once, each day that there is a formal working day, and that would apply on Sunday. It wouldn't necessarily apply on Saturday night, however. QUESTION: Is this your last briefing today? MR. RUBIN: I think so, because I don't think there's going to be much more to say after this exhaustive session with many hands raised. QUESTION: Back to the working document: When you say that this reflects the American perception of what's happened, that -- as I understand, it wouldn't necessarily reflect the Israeli -- it wouldn't necessarily be the same as the Israeli perception or the Syrian perception. Is there going to be an opportunity for input on this document? Is there any procedure that it has to be agreed to, if this is where we're going to work from this point out? What if one side says, "That's not how we see it at all"? Are there going to be changes to it before it's considered "the working document" for this round? MR. RUBIN: I think the working document -- as the host and the organizers, we are an honest broker. And I think the delegations have found that we don't express the agreement of the two parties or the views of one party inaccurately; and they haven't found that there are different perceptions between what the Syrians or the Israelis feel about a different issue, and what the United States thinks the Syrians and the Israelis think about a different issue. So this document incorporates our understanding of where the Syrians and the Israelis have a different view. And I don't think there will be -- I would be surprised if the Syrians or the Israelis challenged our understanding of their views. But I do think what will happen is: In clarifying the document, in working in the committees, in discussing it further, in discussing the issues further both formally and informally, hopefully we can narrow the areas of disagreement, and use this document to narrow the differences between the parties. QUESTION: (Would you call the document a draft agreement)? MR. RUBIN: I've used a term I'm comfortable with. QUESTION: Will the committees -- and, of course, I take it as the four committees -- meet before the end of the seven-day week? MR. RUBIN: Their week, yes. QUESTION: (laughter) OK. Are they going to start meeting simultaneously? MR. RUBIN: I would -- especially given the composition of some of the committees, I think that's probably not possible. But I would expect that they would meet -- you know, there would be a number of meetings fairly quickly, once work began in the committees. But I don't think it's possible to have -- since some of the delegations are the same -- to have exact simultaneity. QUESTION: Could you give us an idea of how long the document is? Is it like 50 pages -- more, less? MR. RUBIN: Less. QUESTION: That was precisely my question. I'm just trying to get a sense. A couple of pages, a dozen, two dozen? And how much common ground does it reflect? MR. RUBIN: I would say if you had, on one hand, a couple of pages and you had, on the other hand, several dozen, that if you were in the middle there you wouldn't be too wrong. But I really don't want to give you the exact number of pages. QUESTION: Could you just say, Jamie, how much common ground is reflected in this thing? MR. RUBIN: A fair amount. There is a fair amount of common ground that exists now, having been here in Shepherdstown, and all that we brought to Shepherdstown. But -- the remaining areas are big differences, and they are emotional differences, and they carry with them substantial security implications and political implications. So even small -- if the number of words different were small, it could still be a huge, huge difference. So there is a substantial amount of agreement here in Shepherdstown, but there is also very, very important and substantial disagreement. QUESTION: Jamie, would the Presidential involvement be a permanent fixture in these talks? MR. RUBIN: Presidential involvement? QUESTION: Right. MR. RUBIN: Yes, I think it's fair to say that the President has made it clear, and I think Joe Lockhart has made it clear on his behalf, that he is committed -- this is his highest priority right now -- to work on this important and difficult process. But each day is going to be different, in terms of his involvement. As I indicated, I expect him to be leaving very shortly, and I don't expect him to be here Saturday night. Again, that can always change. And as far as Sunday is concerned, I think as we get closer to Sunday, we'll know more about that. I think Joe has said that the President has got a trip on Monday night, and that that is his intention to go out west, but again that's subject to Secretary Albright talking to him about what the needs are here in Shepherdstown. QUESTION: Just a follow-up on my question from yesterday. Have you been able to ascertain -- MR. RUBIN: There has been some work that has gone on on that, and I do hope by the end of today to be able to get you something on that. QUESTION: With all the information we're getting, maybe I -- MR. RUBIN: (cellular phone rings.) I hear a jingle somewhere. Somebody's jingling. QUESTION: Maybe I missed this, but does the working document include U.S. recommendations for resolving these differences: specific U.S. recommendations or new ideas for resolving these differences? MR. RUBIN: It's a very good question. I'm not sure I can give you a fully clear answer, for a variety of reasons. I think it's fair to say: In recording and writing down and presenting a working document that contains our views and our understandings of where we are, there is always going to be a little bit of creativity that has to go into that, in order to move us down the track. And so, yes, there will be new -- perhaps new ways of drafting that contain creative ideas within. On the other hand, with respect to big, substantive differences that exist and that continue to exist, I don't think we're quite yet at the point where we're putting bridging proposals together. So it's one of those yes-and-no answers, but I hope that it was helpful. QUESTION: Is there a deadline for an answer from the parties to this working document, and is the work of the committees dependent on that answer of those parties? MR. RUBIN: I think the short answer -- we're not expecting a yes or a no, based on this document. What we're expecting it to do is to focus the discussions, by making clear what we believe there is agreement, on and where we think the differences are. We hope to bridge those gaps, through informal discussions and committee discussions. QUESTION: Was it decided last night that this document was going to be presented today? And, also, is there a way you can tell us the number of the pages, or is that a secret? MR. RUBIN: I think, yes, last night the team developed and completed a document. They discussed this with -- Secretary Albright discussed this with the President this morning, and together they decided to present it today. With respect to the number of pages, let me just say that it's not several dozen pages, and it's not a couple of pages. And if I feel that I can give you the number during the course of the day, I'll call in and Phil can go up to the microphone and just yell a number, and you'll know what he's talking about. QUESTION: Can you tell me if the possibility of putting U.S. peacekeepers in the Golan has come up? This may be in connection with the so-called Israeli wish list, that was received several weeks ago. They talked about it at the Pentagon a little bit yesterday, and although, like you, they would not confirm any sort of numbers -- dollar amounts -- peacekeepers seem to be a little bit more open for discussion, as I understand it. MR. RUBIN: Yes, to my knowledge, the question of American peacekeepers has not been a topic of discussion here at Shepherdstown, or even in other bilateral discussions with the Israelis. I think our view on this for some time is that: We recognize that peace between Israel and Syria is a major historic development with huge and positive geo-strategic significance and that, in that context, we have begun preliminary discussions with Israel, about what it sees as its needs in the context of an agreement. They are preliminary. We have not agreed on types, or amounts, or questions in any detail at all. We've had preliminary discussions. To my knowledge, the question of American peacekeepers has not been part of that. Our traditional position on that -- which has not changed -- is that we're not ruling that out at this point. QUESTION: Does that working document include the question of borders, which has not been dealt yet formally never between Israel and Syria? And, if so, does it reflect the Israeli position of the future border and the Syrian position of the future border? MR. RUBIN: As I indicated in response to one of your colleague's questions, it does track the categories of the committees, and Borders is a committee. So, therefore, yes, it includes that question. I think it would be a mistake for me to begin, on any of those questions, to tell you what's in the document, whether it's on the borders or the water or the security arrangements or on the normal peaceful relations. Generally speaking, what the document tries to do is reflect areas of agreement, and include ways to focus discussions on areas of disagreement. QUESTION: How would you describe the chemistry between the two -- the Israeli and Syrian leaders -- during this trilat? MR. RUBIN: I think President Clinton felt, and the Secretary felt, that after the trilateral the chemistry was improved. There were good discussions, and there was a lot of face-to-face give and take. So this is not warm and fuzzy, but it is businesslike and professional and, obviously, personal to some extent. QUESTION: If the two leaders go back to the Middle East, does that, at that point, constitute the end of this first round? MR. RUBIN: We'll have to figure out how we decide when the round ends. I mean, certainly if the leaders were gone and the working teams were still here, technically speaking, the round wouldn't end -- but it might end the daily briefings. QUESTION: To follow up on that point: What impact would the leaders leaving and leaving the working groups have on the personal, on-site participation of the Secretary and the President? Would they likely also not be -- MR. RUBIN: I certainly wouldn't expect the President and the Secretary to be devoting the time and energy they have been devoting heretofore, in the event that it was reduced to a more technical level. Beyond saying that, I just couldn't say, other than if the leaders left I don't expect Secretary Albright to stay, and I wouldn't think the President would be "choppering in" on a regular basis. QUESTION: One short one on your document: To what extent would this working paper be analogous to a preliminary draft of an agreement? MR. RUBIN: That's another interesting question. QUESTION: I want to be sure, when I write about this document, I do get my descriptions correct. I understand it's not a summary. I take it that means it has some detail in it. I also take it there's not just four general issues; there's several points under each issue, or a number of points under each issue? (Mr. Rubin nods assent.) Anything else to help me with my adjectives? MR. RUBIN: You're doing great. You're doing great. QUESTION: Thank you. QUESTION: Jamie, a lot of us have written about problems of sequencing dividing the two delegations. I wonder if you perceive this document as somehow surmounting the problem of sequencing. MR. RUBIN: Well, in a sense, it supercedes the committee work, the formal committee work, because it includes all of the subjects that would be discussed in the committees, and it reflects the committee structure. So it certainly has, in one place, the discussion of all of the issues. QUESTION: So that's a yes? MR. RUBIN: Well, you know that words like "sequencing," "dispute," begins the ping-pong process and I'm not going to help the ping-pong process as to who got what they wanted. I'm telling you, like the meeting of the committees, I'm telling you what's happening. And if you feel that you need to engage in the who's up and who's down and the scorecard, I recognize that that's part of your job, but I do not want to contribute to that effort. QUESTION: Actually, I was thinking more of portraying this, rather than in ping-pong, in terms of overcoming that whole ping-pong battle. MR. RUBIN: I know, but one side -- when it comes to the subject of sequencing and which committees meet first and when they meet and all of that -- carries with it baggage, because each of the different delegations have said different things to you about what's important to them. So the facts, the procedural facts, are: All the committees were constituted, earlier in the week; we still expect all the committees to meet, in one form or another, by the end of the week; number three, two committees met formally, on Wednesday, for the times that I gave you yesterday; other issues before the other committees were discussed in a variety of ways, including direct contact with the United States and discussions; and, now, this document was presented this morning, which contains all of the subjects that would have been the topics and the agenda for all of the committee meetings. So that's now in there, it's been presented to both sides. And, again, once the holiday period -- the religious observance -- is over, we would expect all the committees to have met by week's end. Those are the procedural facts, and the other words that carry with them a little bit of that, and I just don't think it would be helpful to the process to contribute to that. QUESTION: Jamie, I go back to the price of peace in the Middle East. We talked before about the Gulf States or the people of the area's expected contribution to the price of peace. I'm sure they would like to have an idea what sort of money we're talking about. The Israeli press is reporting today that they would be asking the United States between 65 and 70 billion dollars, instead of the 17.4 (inaudible.) Is this whole figure exaggerated, or some other -- MR. RUBIN: Well, at the risk of giving the Israeli press issue more currency -- QUESTION: I didn't say speculation of the Israeli press. It's just -- MR. RUBIN: Look, there are a lot of reports in a lot of different Israeli media outlets. Some of them I have commented on specifically, during the course of week, and I'm not going to generalize about the Israeli press -- contrary to what some might think. When it comes to specific numbers in an Israeli media outlet, or in an Arab media outlet, or in an American media outlet, I think it is premature to begin to discuss, publicly, numbers, when the preliminary consultations have just begun. QUESTION: Getting to the last -- what's the schedule of the rest of the day if the President is leaving and the committees -- MR. RUBIN: I expect there to be informal contact, clarifications and discussions about the draft. I think a lot of studying of the draft will take place by both sides, and when I know a little more about the Secretary's schedule after the President leaves, I'll try to call that in to the filing center. QUESTION: If the heads of state leave, and the technical committees continue next week, is that sort of on a way to a gallop? MR. RUBIN: On a what? On the way to a gallop. I see, yes. Boy, I'm going to be sorry I started these metaphors. QUESTION: My question would be -- MR. RUBIN: Soon I'll be hopping on to the stage, galloping . QUESTION: Do you expect -- MR. RUBIN: Cantering. QUESTION: Well, I was thinking of the word "cantering." MR. RUBIN: Or posting. QUESTION: Anyway, do you expect that they might be able to cover a number of the key issues, so that at some point there might be a return of the leaders or closure? I mean, what is your estimate there? MR. RUBIN: I don't want to get ahead of where we are. Where we are is that I expect work to continue Saturday night and Sunday. Each day, I think, I told you I'd try to give you a flavor of the schedule. I've tried to do this today so that all of you can make your own arrangements. After Sunday, I can't give you an answer. If, indeed, the leaders do leave sometime early next week or at the end of this "technical" week, then I think it's fair to say that the high-level political involvement of this round will have come to a close. And, hopefully, we will have set the stage for moving to an accelerated work program, where we can begin to narrow the gaps and overcome some of the important differences. QUESTION: (Can we move to other subjects?) MR. RUBIN: Maybe I can just do that with you afterwards and we can just -- the other subjects. QUESTION: Have you all had any side discussions with the Syrians, about the concrete or technical steps that they might take in detail to get themselves off of the terrorism list? And by the way, have you had any sort of side discussions with the Israelis about what the results of the high-level review about Pollard might be, since it's been, I think, about a year? MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of anything on the Pollard issue here. On the first issue, I think in numerous contacts with the Syrians over the years, they know precisely the steps they need to take. QUESTION: (Can we ask you about other subjects?) MR. RUBIN: I said I would try to do other things. QUESTION: (Inaudible.) MR. RUBIN: I don't have anything new for you on that. QUESTION: Yasser Arafat is going to be here, I think, on the 19th or the 20th. MR. RUBIN: The 20th, yes. QUESTION: Is it any summit between the President, the Prime Minister and Chairman Arafat is intended to be at the end of this month, the beginning of next month? MR. RUBIN: Yes, Secretary Albright has been very concerned about the Palestinian track. She was quite pleased with the developments earlier in the week, where some of the aspects of Sharm el Sheik that were outstanding were being worked on. And Aaron Miller, Deputy to Dennis Ross, is going to be going out to the region over the weekend, and he will be trying to assist them as they begin to work on -- and continue their work on -- the permanent status negotiations. It's my understanding that the Secretary's recommendation to the President would be, if there is a sufficient basis for a meeting in February at the President's level, to try to achieve the framework agreement that was made as a goal for February. But we haven't made any such recommendation at this time. [end of document]
|
