• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

14 December 1999

Text: Senior Clinton Administration Officials Brief on Israeli-Syrian Talks

(Confidence level high for talks, Official says) (4960)
Washington -- Two senior Clinton Administration officials briefed on
the background at the White House on December 14, a day before Syrian
Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak
are scheduled to begin their historic peace negotiation.
The officials said that there are few hopes for an immediate
breakthrough. The two days of meetings will begin with a White House
gathering hosted by President Bill Clinton.
When asked where the peace negotiations between the two countries are
now, the official said, "the way I would characterize it is, there is
no doubt that over the last few months each side reached a level of
some confidence about the direction of negotiations."
However, the senior official said, "they understood to come in and
reach agreements you had to come face-to-face. And that's really where
we are. They're going to have to come in, and they're going to have to
negotiate and come to an agreement, and there's still a lot of work to
be done in that regard."
After the trilateral meeting with President Clinton, the Israeli Prime
Minister and the Syrian Foreign Minister will cross the street to
continue their discussions at the Blair House.
Asked what the role of the U.S. will be during this negotiation, the
official said, "we will have a continuous role; we will be available
and present; and that's pretty much the way day one will work."
"The focus of these first two days is much more on determining how
they will proceed, what's the best way to proceed," said the senior
official. "And, obviously, they'll deal with not only the how to do
that, but when to resume."
When asked about the speed and pace of the overall Middle East Peace
negotiations between Israelis and the Palestinians and now the
Syrians, the official said, "I think our view has been that each track
proceeds on its own merits. We are not going to artificially try to
constrain one or the other. We're going to try to work both."
Reporters asked about how long the negotiation would take. The senior
official said, "I know that there is a sense of urgency on both sides.
I know there's a commitment and a clear determination, as reflected by
the level. I mean, the level tells you a great deal about the sense of
determination and the sense of commitment."
However, he did note that "there are differences. The whole idea was
to get back to the table so they could resolve their differences."
Following is the transcript of the remarks given on background by two
Senior Administration Officials:
(Begin text)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
December 14, 1999
BACKGROUND BRIEFING BY
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS
ON ISRAELI-SYRIAN PEACE TALKS
The Briefing Room
2:30 P.M. EST
MR. LEAVY: As you guys know, the President will be hosting talks
between the Israelis and the Syrians tomorrow. We have a briefing to
help answer your questions by two senior administration officials ON
BACKGROUND. Two senior administration officials.
Senior Administration Official number one.
Q: I recognize the general outline. A little light might be helpful.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay, in conclusion -- (laughter) --
Q:  Would you lower expectations on -- would you do a Q&A?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I just did, so that's why I said
"in conclusion."
Let me make a few very brief comments, and then turn it over to your
questions. Let me say something about how it will work tomorrow.
Tomorrow, both Prime Minister Barak and Foreign Minister Shara and
their delegations will come to the White House at 10:00 a.m. and there
will be a trilateral with the President. Following the trilateral, the
President will meet separately with each of them. First, he'll see
Prime Minister Barak, and then he will see Foreign Minister Shara.
When those two sets of bilaterals are completed, they will go to Blair
House, meaning Prime Minister Barak and Foreign Minister Shara will
go. When the President is seeing Prime Minister Barak, Secretary
Albright will be seeing Foreign Minister Shara, and then they'll flip.
When he is seeing Foreign Minister Shara, the Secretary will be seeing
Prime Minister Barak. Q Is that all at Blair House?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: What I've just said, that's all here
at the White House. When that sequence is over with, meaning
trilateral, bilateral, bilateral, then the Israelis and Syrians will
go to Blair House. The Secretary will go with them when they go to
Blair House. We will be available and present over at Blair House;
precisely when we'll be sitting in the room with them, if there will
be times when we're not, that's something that we'll discuss with
them.
We will have a continuous role, we will be available and present, and
that's pretty much the way day one will work. In terms of -- I know
this will thrill you -- in terms of dealing with the press, many of
you will recall the Wye rules with great affection. (Laughter.) Those
are going to operate again. We will be --
Q:  With outside --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, this is a little different, at
least in terms of the set-up. In terms of any comments, the comments
will be -- statements will be done by us on behalf of the parties. And
I would not exaggerate the amount of commentary that will be
available. The reality is, we do have a two-day beginning. I think we
have to keep that in perspective. The focus of these first two days is
much more on determining how they will proceed, what's the best way to
proceed. And, obviously, they'll deal with not only the how to do
that, but when to resume.
I think the odds are very high that the resumption will take place
here in the U.S. We haven't made any decisions on where that would be.
Here again, that will be part of the discussions that they have and
that we have with them.
Q:  When, perhaps?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Right now I couldn't tell you. I mean,
I think, obviously, we're not looking at a lot of time going by. But
we have to sort of sort out what works best for all three of us in
terms of the timing.
Q:  -- first appear after the first meeting?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I can't tell you at this point. I can
tell you that, obviously, we feel there's momentum and we are going to
want to be building on the momentum. These first two days are going to
be geared much more towards process than anything else, and that
process will very much be focused on how best to proceed, what's the
best way to proceed in terms of getting to where both sides want to
go, which is to an agreement. But I think the first two days will be
much more geared towards organization and the process than anything
else.
Q: That being the case then, we can then hope for results, concrete
results and announcements, perhaps, at the end that there has been
agreement on when and where to actually begin the talks?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I would certainly say that's --
the main focus of what they will be doing will be on that. I'm not
going to prejudge exactly what will emerge at the end, but clearly the
focus is going to be on when they will resume and how best to organize
themselves for those discussions.
Q: Given that there is a deadline for the framework agreement between
the Israelis and the Palestinians of mid-February, is it better and
more realistic to assume that the Syrian-Israel track would pick up
after in February, or in order to keep the momentum going and possibly
even to spur the Israeli-Palestinian talks, is it better for the
Syrian track to go ahead in January?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think our view has been that each
track proceeds on its own merits. We are not going to artificially try
to constrain one or the other. We're going to try to work both. They,
each -- Prime Minister Barak has made it very clear that he wants to
move on both tracks. We have made it clear that we think both tracks
-- presume both tracks -- is something that can be done and needs to
be done, and one track should not somehow be at the mercy or at the
expense of another.
So I don't believe that we will try to structure this in a way that
somehow holds it up artificially. There is momentum in the sense that
you have a political-level meeting for the first time in
Israeli-Syrian negotiations. They very clearly want to move ahead, and
we certainly are going to play our role in terms of helping them do
that.
Q: Do you have any indication yet as to what level and what people
will take the thing on when you finish this first two days?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I believe that after the first round,
you will still see a political level involved. It isn't to say that
there won't be technical people with them, but I think you will still
see the political level involved.
They obviously will make their own judgments about how best to
proceed. And that means not only when, but it also means precisely
what the structure should be, who should be involved and the like. But
every indication we have from them is that they would like to keep the
political level involved because they very much want to focus on
trying to move forward as quickly as they can.
Q: Do you envision the next set of talks, the resumption of it at a
secluded site like Wye? And also, number two, would this be the final
set of talks, or would there be one in a series, do you envision?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: On the first part of it, I certainly
wouldn't exclude that as a possibility, but I don't want to prejudge
it because, again, I think a lot of this depends upon -- they will get
together, they will have these discussions -- in the end, it has to
reflect what they consider to be most effective from their standpoint.
I mean, I can't predict how long this will take. Foreign Minister
Shara talked about being optimistic in terms of several months. Trying
to get into a prediction of exactly when these things will be
concluded or what will be the decisive phase, I can't say. I can say,
if you look at the history of this process, usually when people make
predictions, it usually tends to take longer than they predict. And
that even comes from people like me, who tend to be cautious.
I know that there is a sense of urgency on both sides. I know there's
a commitment and a clear determination, as reflected by the level. I
mean, the level tells you a great deal about the sense of
determination and the sense of commitment. But there are differences.
The whole idea was to get back to the table so they could resolve
their differences. And I think when you're dealing with negotiations
on what are issues that are very fateful in the eyes of both parties,
one should assume that the negotiations would not necessarily just
move in a linear direction. There will be difficulties, and you can't
predict exactly the time.
Q: Do you think the timing will be affected in any way -- both the
timing of negotiations, and also the time of the withdrawal -- be
affected by the human element involved in people being forced to give
up their homes on the Golan Heights? In other words, you remember
Rabin didn't think both could go down at the same time. Presumably
Barak thinks both the Palestinian deal and the Syrian deal can go down
at the same time. But still, people will be uprooted. Do you think
this will necessitate some stretched-out process of negotiations
and/or withdrawal?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'm not going to try to anticipate
what it is that the Israelis feel are the most important issues to
them in this process. Prime Minister Barak has talked about painful
decisions that will have to be made. And he will be the best judge of
what it is he is prepared to do, which factors affect his calculus of
what makes for a good deal. I have no doubt that, knowing Prime
Minister Barak as I do, that he will -- in his eyes, whatever
agreement he reaches is going to be an agreement that makes Israel
stronger, not weaker.
So what combination of factors go into producing what is an acceptable
agreement -- which, by the way, includes the time factor. We have
often said over the last several years that there were four elements
that went into an agreement, and both sides understood these four
elements had to be part of an agreement -- withdrawal, security, peace
and timetable. So timetable is one of those elements.
Q: No, but also, we're in the midst of talking about logistics, and
you were addressing there will be one more round, several, or
whatever. I'm mostly asking you if you think it will have to be some
sort of a stretching out to acclimate the Israeli people to what
they're about to lose.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Again, that's going to be -- what the
Israelis decide in terms of timing relates to obviously what they feel
-- what makes sense from their standpoint. Again, I'll repeat what I
said. Knowing Prime Minister Barak as I know him, if he's going to --
if an agreement is reached, it's going to be an agreement that, in his
eyes, given the fact that he's spent his whole career in the military,
makes his will stronger, not weaker.
Q: Just on coverage, how do you plan to break a story during the
talks? Are you going to do a pool arrangement like we did at Wye?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: All I know is the kind of rules I
described will apply --
MR. LEAVY: We'll probably have Joe come down here or 450 at the end of
the day tomorrow.
Q:  What time?
MR. LEAVY: Joe will do his normal briefing, and then we'll do one
special briefing on this.
Q:  And is there going to be a pool spray at the top of the trilat?
MR. LEAVY: No, there will be no pool sprays tomorrow. There will be
some sort of public something tomorrow, and we're not there yet. But I
don't see pool sprays --
Q: How would you describe the U.S.'s and the President's role in these
talks? Are we mediating these talks? Are we facilitating them? How
would you describe it?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think facilitation is probably the
best term. We are obviously going to be there, we're going to be
available. No doubt, if there are problems, we'll look for ways to
help overcome the problems.
Oftentimes, people look for an easy handle to describe the rule. And
we can't always describe it in advance. The negotiations end up having
their own dynamic. Our rule is to help in whatever way we can do help
them reach an agreement. The President's made it very clear that he
will do whatever it is that he can to help in that regard. The
Secretary will as well. And I can tell you that all of us will be
doing everything we can in that regard.
Q: When President Barak was here in July, he suggested that the U.S.'s
most useful role might be to step back and not be involved day to day,
hour by hour in Israel's discussions with its neighbors and
adversaries. It looks as if we're planning to play a much more active
role than that envisions.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think you have to put in perspective
what we said. At the time, he was coming in at a point in which there
were no meetings, there could be no discussions, nothing could be
worked out, the parties themselves never solved the problem,
everything was done by us. We were negotiating for the sides. Now,
that was in the Israeli-Palestinian context, because there were no
direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Syrians.
What he was saying is that kind of a role for the U.S. means that the
parties themselves don't negotiate. All along, our objective was to be
in a position where the parties would be negotiating, and we would
help. I define our role in the current context as being one in which
we're there to help. Obviously, helping takes on lots of different
forms, including, when you have problems, helping to find ways to
overcome the problems.
Q: Do you have, or do the parties, have to renegotiate, or is there
already an understanding in two areas of security I'd like to ask
about. One would be the thinning of Syrian armor units, the regiments
south of Damascus. Is there already an understanding in principle on
that, or does that have to be negotiated? And the other question
dealing with security is, is there an understanding over who sits atop
Jabal ash Shaykh? Is it Israeli, or is it American with Israelis? Can
you give us some idea on what's been agreed to there?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, A, I'm not going to go into the
details. B, I think it's important to understand that they still have
issues that they're going to have to negotiate. Clearly, in the
security area, they still have issues they're going to have to
negotiate. Just to --
Q:  Are those issues that have to be negotiated?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I'm not going to comment
specifically. But I'm just saying that in the security area, they do
clearly have issues to be negotiated.
Q: Do they have issues that don't have to be negotiated, that have
been negotiated already?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I would say that --
Q:  Through the U.S.?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The way I would characterize it is,
there is no doubt that over the last few months each side reached a
level of some confidence about the direction of negotiations. But they
understood, to come in and reach agreements, you had to come face to
face. And that's really where we are. They're going to have to come
in, and they're going to have to negotiate and come to an agreement,
and there's still a lot of work to be done in that regard.
Q:  Can you give us some idea of how pre-cooked this process is?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I wouldn't exaggerate "pre-cooked."
What you have is, you have the two sides agreeing to resume the
negotiations where they left off. And obviously, they have had lots of
talks between each other and with us. And those talks, including
what's happened over the last couple months, have been such that they
have a level of confidence about what could happen once they come back
to the table. If they didn't believe their needs could be met, they
probably would not be at the table. They obviously believe their needs
can be met, but there's still a difference between can being met and
actually being met, and in the negotiations they're going to have to
see if they can come to an agreement.
Q: Do you anticipate a three-way press conference, a shaking of hands,
something that --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't anticipate a three-way press
conference.
Q: Do they have -- are they in agreement as to where they "left off"?
And does the U.S. know where they "left off"? You have -- does the
U.S. have an opinion of that, without asking you what it is?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I know. But we have been very careful
to say that we're not going to get into the details, and what we're
looking at right now is, a, understanding they have a level of
confidence about coming to the table about their needs, and believing
that their needs can be met, and b, they understand that they've got
to get down to business, face to face, and that's what this is about.
Q:  That wasn't even close to my question.
Q:  That wasn't even close.
Q: It wasn't even close. You could come closer than that. I mean, you
can tell us -- Tuesday and it would be closer.
Q:  Give it another go.  (Laughter.)
Q: Look, I'm wondering if you're spinning back to the original
position, okay? Because last week -- and I happened to be on the trip
and I followed all the spin -- last week, one of the incredible
breakthroughs that you guys were jumping in the air and clicking your
heels over was that the two sides had agreed to enter the talks with
their own notion of where they left off. And now, you're saying
flatly, they're going back where they left off. I'm trying to figure
out if something's happened in the last week to put them together on
this, that they've come together on this, or you're just speaking sort
of in shorthand, and what was said last week still applies.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I'm not going to get into the
issue further.
Q:  But people did last week.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I didn't, and I'm not going to
go further. What I will say is --
Q:  -- ambiguity exists?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I simply say, look, the reality is
they have had lots of talks between themselves and with us. And it was
on that basis that they have resumed, and to resume where they left
off. Going beyond that is just something I'm not going to do.
Q: Are you concerned about the vote in the Knesset yesterday on the
talks, and that they may undermine the political mandate or the
resolve of Barak?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think Prime Minister Barak has a
very strong resolve, and I think Prime Minister Barak believes that if
he can reach an agreement, the agreement will be good for Israel, and
he'll be able to present just how it is good for Israel and how it
serves Israel's interests.
Q: When do you expect negotiations between Lebanon and Israel to
begin?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't know yet. That's one of the
things that -- we have had some initial discussions with the Lebanese
--
Q:  Is it on the agenda for these two days?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, we will certainly talk -- we
obviously need to talk to the Lebanese further; we need to talk to the
Israelis. And we'll get a better sense of when those talks might
resume.
Q: Did Israel and Syria have any direct talks recently? Did Israel and
Syria have any direct talks recently?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I'm sorry, say it again?
Q:  Did Israel and Syria have any direct talks recently?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, not that I'm aware of.
Q:  Do we know anything about the refusal of --
Q: Did you discuss or include Turkish-Syrian problem regarding the
water?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I'm sorry, I didn't.
Q: Yes, the problem between Turkey and Syria regarding the water --
did you include that subject to put the two sides together to let them
--
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It's not -- water clearly will be an
issue as part of these negotiations. But obviously the focal point
will at least initially be the Israelis and the Syrians.
Just one other comment on the issue of water. Across the board when
you deal with water issues, there are bilateral dimensions to water
issues and there are regional dimensions to water issues. And at some
point, one probably has to deal with both, not just the bilateral.
Q:  Why is this happening now?
Q: I have a clarification, to use the vernacular, and then a question.
So what we're going to see tomorrow, when the talks move over to Blair
House, is direct face-to-face talks between Barak and Shara, number
one? Number two, would the United States, should a peace agreement
arise from this process, would the United States help financing the
cost of it, which is estimated, as you know, $10 billion, $20 billion?
And would the United States be willing to put U.S. peacekeeping troops
on the Golan Heights? Other than that, I have no -- (laughter.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The answer to your first question is,
yes. And the answer to your second question will be provided by my
colleague. (Laughter.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think Joe already spoke to you about
what you know, which is the fact that U.S. commitment to Israel is
longstanding and multidimensional. But in regards to these talks,
neither of the parties has asked us for troops, observers, or put
forward any request for financial or military assistance. So it is
premature at this point to talk about what that would be. Obviously,
if they do put forward such requests, we will consider it, and we will
consult closely with the Congress on the merits of such requests.
Q: I have a follow-up -- can I ask a straight follow-up? Because I had
the same, more limited question than Lee. Every U.S.-guided peace
accord or land-for-peace deal has involved aid assistance, large
amounts, to both sides. What may be different this time is one of the
parties, Syria, is on a State Department list as a country that
sponsors terrorism. That carries certain legal obligations. So
irrespective of whether they asked or they didn't ask, or what you
might do or what you might not do, my question simply is, is there any
barrier that you know of, any -- I can't think of the legal phrase --
anything that stands in the way of lubricating this deal with
assistance to Syria? Or are they ineligible, as it stands now, for
them to get aid? Now, you should be able to answer that. There's
nothing hypothetical about that.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: First of all, each one of these
agreements is unique and different, and has been over time. And if you
look at them, you'll see the U.S. role in them has been catered to the
particulars of each one of these agreements. Syria is on the terrorism
list, and that does put legal restraints on what levels of aid, what
kind of interactions we would have. And one of the considerations,
obviously, we would have to make in response to any request is where
Syria is on the terrorism track.
Q: Wait a minute. Will the administration then try to -- and this you
could say is hypothetical -- will the administration then try to clear
a way to provide Mr. Assad with buckets of dough by getting them off
the terrorism list?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Obviously, we would like to see Syria
take those steps regarding terrorism, which would get it out of being
on the list. It's as simple as that.
Q: Wait a minute, no, no. The last report said that they no longer
directly support them. They seem to be halfway off the list. Do you
see this process continuing in the positive direction it seems to be
going, so they might be off the list?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: If you look at the reports over the
last several years, you'll see that this fundamental point has been
the same, which is, Syria's not been directly implicated in active
terrorism, but we continue to have concerns about the presence of
several terrorist organizations in Syria, and Syria's relations with
organizations like Hezbollah.
Q: Do you have information about Shara refusing to shake Barak's hand
in public? And is this the reason that there wouldn't be any photo in
the beginning of the meeting here?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The only thing I would say about that
is I think that the idea of a photo op is not governed by
considerations of that sort, number one. Number two, we're focused on
getting these negotiations at a level that they've never been held
before underway, and we're not so much focused on symbolism.
MR. LEAVY:  Terry, then we've got to go.
Q: One more on the American commitment here. While you say it's
premature to say anything, is there anything that you would say the
American people need to prepare themselves? What should they expect
about the kind of commitment they're going to be expected to make?
Money? Peacekeeping troops? Is it all on the table?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'm not going to speculate on that.
When we see requests, concrete and specific requests, we'll consider
them on their merits.
Q: Can I ask a question about funding for the Syrians? I mean, there
is a way around that -- you get the Europeans to fund the Syrian aid
package. Is that not a possibility? And then the United States sort of
wiggles out of the Syrian terrorist list problem. Is that being
considered?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'll say it one more time. I'm not
going to state that if we don't have a request.
THE PRESS:  Thank you.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State.)