ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NEAR EASTERN AND SOUTH
ASIAN AFFAIRS EDWARD DJEREJIAN BRIEFING ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE
SEVENTH ROUND OF THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE TALKS
Location: State Department Briefing Room
Time: 3 p.m.
November 19, 1992
EDWARD DJEREJIAN (Assistant secretary for Near East and South Asian
affairs): Good afternoon. I would like to start with some remarks on the
latest round of negotiations, and I'll be pleased to take your questions
after that.
Unfortunately, this round was marked by external events that affected
the negotiations. There was regrettably an upsurge in violence in the
region, especially in south Lebanon. The United States and others
expended significant efforts to bring about an end or reduction of the
violence, and to prevent escalation. We worked very hard to ensure that
the peace negotiations continued during this difficult period. As we
have often stated, we deplore this violence and want to see an end to
the suffering and hardship that it causes. We do not want to opponents
of peace to benefit from their efforts to harm this process.
And we succeeded. The Madrid process of negotiations again proved its
durability with the parties continuing to engage at the negotiating
table despite the challenges on the ground. The negotiations themselves
produced no headline- grabbing breakthroughs this round. However, two
points need to be made as this round ends.
All the parties have told us they remain seriously committed to pursuing
these negotiations with the objective of reaching a just, lasting, and
comprehensive peace settlement on the basis of United Nations Security
Council resolutions 242 and 338. All the parties are focused on the
substantive issues, issues relating to the corps concerns of land,
peace, and security.
The real challenge for the parties now is to develop approaches that
will enable each of them to begin meeting one another's requirements on
their basic concerns. Much hard work remains on the road ahead.
On the Israeli-Palestinian track, both sides are clearly frustrated by
the slow pace of negotiations. But they continue to engage at several
levels, in plenary, and in informal discussion groups, to try to
elaborate the complex issues associated with Palestinian interim
self-government arrangements. In informal groups, the sides explored the
concept of interim self-government arrangements, including the size,
structure, and jurisdictional issues. They discussed control and
authority over land, and they engaged in economic issues and on human
rights.
In these Syrian-Israeli negotiations, the parties continued their
efforts to reach an agreed statement of principles. They continued to
focus on the core issues of land, peace, and security. This remains a
difficult and ambitious undertaking. But one which is central to moving
forward to an eventual agreement between the two sides. More work is
needed to come to an agreement. Despite the difficulties, both sides
have demonstrated a real commitment to sustain this effort. We hope both
will keep at it and build on the progress that has been achieved to
date.
On the Lebanese-Israeli track, the most significant achievement of this
round was that the two sides persevered in the face of the violence in
the region. They did not allow the opponents of peace to get the upper
hand. We praised both sides for their demonstrated commitment to peace,
despite very difficult circumstances. Continuity and sustained
engagement have been the keys to working through very trying
circumstances. As the situation on the ground calmed toward the end of
the round, the parties were able to refocus on the effort to reach
agreement on a formula for military expert talks within the overall
framework of the negotiations. This is clearly a vital issue for both
sides. Further progress will allow the Israelis and Lebanese to explore
each other security needs and concerns which should be the focus of the
next round.
And the Jordanian-Israeli negotiations, as I noted in my last press
briefing, the parties achieved substantial agreement on the direction
and principles concerning the negotiation. An agenda outlining these
principles was agreed ad referendum. The exact language of the agenda
has not yet been finalized but we think it is important to bring this
issue to closure. In the meantime, the sides engaged in in-depth work on
key issues. Informal groups focused on water, energy, economic issues
and the environment.
Now, taking a look ahead. The co-sponsors of these talksthe United
States and Russiaremain firmly committed to the Madrid process and its
goal of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace based on U.N. Security
Council resolutions 242 and 338. We continue to work quietly and
intensively with the parties. We have no illusions about the magnitude
of the task at hand. But the parties should have no doubt about our
commitment. The United States is in this for the long run and will work
as long and as hard as needed to see these talks succeed.
Further, we have made it clear to all the negotiating parties that they
should not be distracted by our transition. The best thing they can do
in fact is to maintain a strong commitment to these negotiations with a
view towards obtaining positive results during this period. Both
President Bush and President-elect Clinton have made clear the high
priority we give to the Arab-Israeli peace process. In sum, it is
important to maintain the momentum of the negotiations and explore all
possible ways forward. To this end, the co-sponsors have invited the
parties to return to Washington for an eighth round of bilateral talks
to start on December 7th.
I'll be glad to take your questions.
Q: Ed, your appraisal, please, of Israel's willingness to discuss what
you call control and authority over land. Is that the beginning of
Israel's setting in motion the transfer of territory to the
Palestinians? Does that mean the Israelis have set in motion or have
accepted the notion that at least some of the West Bank should be
controlled, owned, under the sovereign care of Palestinians?
DJEREJIAN: Well, the discussions at this phase, Barry, in no way
contravene or contradict the basic framework of the Madrid process,
which is basically in terms of the Israeli- Palestinian track in two
phases. And what is being negotiated now are interim self-government
arrangements. And then once that self-government authority is in place
beginning the third year, final status negotiations where the
fundamental issues which you referred to under the aegis of 242 would be
discussed. So nothing has changed in the fundamental parameters of how
the parties are approaching this phase of the negotiations in that
track.
Q: But you, as a seasoned diplomatic, specializing in that part of the
world
DJEREJIAN: Flattery will get you nowhere.
Q: You can smell the nuance probably faster than any of usthe Israelis
called it management today of parts of the territory. You called it
"control" I thinkan authority over land. Do you as a Middle East hand,
see this as the beginning of Israel relinquishing its control of part of
the West Bank as the Palestinians want the Israelis to give up all of
the West Bank and Jerusalem besides?
DJEREJIAN: No, we see it as a phased approach to negotiations under the
Madrid formula.
Q: This is not intended to be another flattery remark, but as a former
ambassador to Syria and one who's quite familiar with the Syrians, do
you detect some pulling back here on the part of the Syrians, as some
people suggest is taking place? Do you see a reluctance of them, of the
Syrians, to attend the next round, and do you see the Syrians being
unwilling to go further steps down this road under the current
circumstances?
DJEREJIAN: Well, the Syrians have reiterated to us their full commitment
to this peace process and to these negotiations. I met with the head of
the Syrian delegation last night and I was given no reason to believe
that there's any pulling back. Now, we have our proposal on the table
for the next round to start on the 7th of December; we will await for
the responses from all the parties to that. But we think it's essential
that the momentum be kept up and that the parties keep at it, that they
keep seriously engaged at the table. And what we have seen during the
course of these negotiations is that sometimes the movements forward
occur sometimes when it's the least expected where the tone and the
substance of the dialogue bring the parties to an arrangement that they
can both live with or at least refer back to their capitals and make
forward movement. So it's important that the parties keep at it.
Q: I'm struck by the constrast in your assessment now and the assessment
you gave us when they broke for the recess. What in your opinion has
produced this change? And regarding the violence to which you referred,
one of the parties to that violence is Hezbollah, which is not a party
to the peace process, and may indeed want to destroy the peace
processwho is pulling the strings of Hezbollah, and what has Syria's
role in reining them in, restraining them, been over the last couple of
weeks?
DJEREJIAN: Well, Alan, I think the one factor that occurred between my
last press briefing and this one in terms of the round when the parties
went back for consultations is the situation on the ground in Lebanon,
and the outburst of violence. And, as I made clear in my remarks, this
cast a real shadow on the talks. It affectedcertainly affected the
tone of the negotiations, and much time and effort had to be spent in,
if you will, avoiding an escalation of the violence in south Lebanon
that could have seriously threatened at least some of the parties at the
negotiating table. And we were very quick to go to the parties
immediately involved in terms of what was happening on the ground in
southern Lebanon and northern Israel to assure that the situation was
not only controlled but to avoid an escalation in the situation.
These effortsand the parties acted accordingly and the situation was
calmed. I cannot tell you for how long that situation will prevail. We
have made our position on Hezbollah abundantly clear, that we think that
Hezbollah is diametrically opposed to the Arab-Israeli peace process.
You don't have to be a genius to figure thatthat is their stated
position. They are supported by the Iranian government. Iran has stated
explicitly its opposition to the Arab-Israeli peace process. We have
gone to all the parties, including Syria, to assure that every effort is
made, to Syria and the Lebanese, to assure that every effort is made to
control Hezbollah's activities and its ability to not only affect the
peace process, but also, let's be clear, affect negatively the situation
within Lebanon on just in the aftermath of the formation of a new
government. That for all the indications we have, is serious about
moving forward on national economic reconstruction and pulling the
country together. And this is to say that there are many victims of such
outbreaks, including in the first instance the innocent lives lost and
the people injured.
Q: You mentioned that President-elect Clinton had vowed for continuity
and you urged the parties not to be distracted by the transition here.
Can you tell us a littlehave the Clinton people been in touch with
you? Have they been receiving briefings? Are they up to speed? Are they
showing any interest?
DJEREJIAN: Well, theas you well know the transition that is underway
is at, going on at various high levels, as witnessed by the meetings in
the White House yesterday, and the transition team is not yet in place
here, and therefore we have not had any direct contacts with any
transition team members to date.
Q: And to what extent do you think the parties are paying attention to
your advice, not to pay any attention to the transition which is
underway in our country? Do you see any evidence that any of the
governments are listening to you?
DJEREJIAN: Yes. I think first of all, they are seriously engaged at the
table. I think that's the real test, ifis thenot only the
commitment, but the level of engagement we see in each track of these
negotiations. So we have not seen a drawing back either on the part of
the negotiators, what's happening at the table, or from any signals that
we've been getting from the governments and the capitals.
Q: But you've had a static round, you admit?
DJEREJIAN: Well, I don't call it static. I mean again, these rounds
areit's complex. I don't think I would use a, one term to say it was
static. There was certainly progress, as I've noted, in certain fora of
negotiations and there was a temporary pause in the Lebanese one because
of the situation on the ground. But quite frankly, as I said, no
headline grabbing breakthroughs, but certainly engagement that's moved
this process a little further forward.
You've got to remember, too, that a lot of these issues are so
fundamental and so complex, that it's going to take time for the parties
to engage, ask all the questions they need to, try to get the responses
they're going to get to before we get to that next level, whereby we
could see some breakthroughs.
It's my own view that I think these negotiations, if you were going to
look at a trendline, I think you would see that these negotiations are
reaching, are coming close to the point where various substantive
thresholds can be reached, and where substantive progress can be made on
a timely basis. But we've got to keep working at it. We're not there
yet.
Q: And how have you been abletalking about the transition, how have
you been able to convey to the parties that one side or the other might
be better off, or not better off waiting for a transition. I know you
asked them not to be distracted by the transition, but they're realists,
they read the papers, they talk to people. If all we have, if all you
have is what Clinton and Bush have said at the White House, how have you
been able to convey to them that there would be no difference or that
there might be differences if they waited until a new administration?
DJEREJIAN: Well, I think the statements that have come out, both from
President Bush and President-elect Clinton have been very strong
affirmations of the priority of the Arab- Israeli peace process, and in
terms of continuity of certain fundamental interests of U.S. foreign
policy. These are very strong statements. And the other factor is that
the parties themselves have an interest in this process. And the parties
themselves have an interest in seeing it succeed.
I don't think there's any party to these negotiations that doesn't have
a vested interest in seeing their negotiation succeed. And I think as
I've said from this podium before, in our view, in the Middle East, and
especially in terms of the Arab-Israeli negotiations, stasis, or status
quo or pauses can be a formula, not for standing still, but for going
backwards, and things unraveling. That's why it's very important for
these negotiations to proceed forward.
Q: You don't that any sideyou have been able to tell them that none of
the sides will benefit by waiting for a new president.
DJEREJIAN: What we have told them is that the sides all the sides will
benefit by trying to get accomplished as much as possible now. And that
when the new administration comes into power that the most viable
package of peace process negotiations is available to carry forward.
Q: And would it be useful or helpful to you or to the process to have at
least an observer from the Clinton camp by December 7th?
DJEREJIAN: That would be up to the transition team to decide.
Q: (inaudible) point of saying that
Q: To what extent has the U.S. been involved in this round in bridging
proposals or bridging discussions with the Syrians, especially with the
Jordanians and perhaps with the Palestinians and Israelis? Have you had
any joint meetings, for example?
DJEREJIAN: We have been quite active in certainly volunteering out ideas
in various forum on how certain gaps could behow certain differences
could be narrowed. And we have done that consistently. And especially
during the last two rounds. But I really can't get into the details,
Ralph, of exactly what we're doing, with whom, and when.
Q: The assurances that the Palestinians are asking for now because of
the fact that the administration is among all of the Palestinian
negotiators, of the lack of progress, especially you talked about the
lack of frustration again. What are the assurances thatare you ready
to talk about new assurances, new guarantees for the Palestinians to
come back and resume the talks? Due to the fact that the spokesman of
the Palestinians this morning or this afternoon early spoke about
increased violence against the Palestinians' round of detentions, and
people are being beaten up by a new wave of violence, a new wave of
iron-fist policy is being reused again in the territories. What are the
assurances that you would give the Palestinians if they would come back,
they would have possibly a better deal?
DJEREJIAN: Well, I think the framework of assurances that we gave all
the parties, including the Palestinians at the very beginning of this
process are very important. And they cover the major issues. And that is
a sort of a bedrock of the United States is coming from. I think it's
also not insignificant that the Israelis and the Palestinians are
discussing human rights issues. This is important. And they are engaged
on these very issues. So this isthis could help promote the types of
outcomes the parties desire.
Q: Excuse me if I might
Q: There are certain fundamental issues or questions that seem a bit
lost in the discussions over the past year. First of all, let me ask,
before I ask this question, about Secretary Baker. Is he or isn't he
going to be involved in the Middle East process?
DJEREJIAN: Well, no decision has been taken for Mr. Baker's involvement
at this point.
Q: Who's going to make the decisionPresident Bush?
DJEREJIAN: Well, the president
Q: Or togetherwith Clinton? Did they talk about it yesterday?
DJEREJIAN: I think President Bush would make that decision, but no such
decision has been made. And I know that there's a lot of speculation in
the press and the media on this but I think it would be premature to
conclude that this option has been decided or that it's being actively
considered at this point.
Q: Let me ask about the fundamental issues. Way, way back when 242 was
enacted, Secretary of State Rogers said that the United States position
is that there would be insubstantial changes on the Israeli borders of
pre-June 1967. Is that still the position of the United States? And does
Russia agree with that completely?
DJEREJIAN: The position of the United States is that all these issues
have to be decided at the negotiating table between the parties under
the frame of reference that we have established at Madrid.
Q: Well, then we don't know what the U.S. position is as of now.
DJEREJIAN: I just stated the U.S. position.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, again on the letters of assurancelast December the
head of the Palestinian delegation answered a question in public at the
Brookings Institute and he said the American letter of assurance, given
to the Palestinians before Madrid or at Madrid said the following. That
United States policy was against the formation of a Palestinian state.
However, if the parties were to agree on the creation of a Palestinian
state, the U.S. would support a Palestinian state. Last month I spoke to
him again. I gave him the quote and he said he stood by it. Question:
First, what is the U.S. position on creation of a Palestinian state; and
second, did we in fact give such a letter of assurance or such an
assurance to the Palestinians?
DJEREJIAN: A very elaborate question. I am not going to discuss the
letters of assurance.
Q: I had a feeling there
DJEREJIAN: Those letters are confidential. And we have stated our
position on the issue of a Palestinian state repeatedly and there has
been no change.
Q: The prime minister of Israel expressed his frustration this week with
what he sees as the lack of readiness on the part of President Assad to
convince his people and the Israeli people that he really is striving
for peace. Do you share this frustration? If so, how are you trying to
serve as a catalyst to make President Assad satisfy Prime Minister Rabin
and try to extract this kind of expression of readiness from him?
DJEREJIAN: Well, we think the focal point of all these efforts has to be
at the negotiating table. And at the end of the day, what is truly
important is what the parties with the authority obviously of their
leadership table at the negotiating fora. That's where progress is going
to be made and where progress is not going to be made. So, as I said
earlier, we have seen no drawing back on the commitment of any of the
parties to this process at the negotiations. Andnow, the question that
you're raising is what can be done publicly and thatof course, we
can't tell respective governments and leaders what they should be saying
or not saying publicly and I'm not going to get into that. But certainly
we do believe that it is important that all the parties address their
public opinion in a positive a manner as possible to encourage this
process that's taking place at these talks in Washington.
Q: I just wanted to ask you. I mean, I'm struck as by, by the difference
in tone. At the end of round, the previous round, you said there'd been
progress, but yo said that they
DJEREJIAN: The previous round or the beginning of this round?
Q: Both, both; at the end of last round and beginning of this, you said
that there'd been progress, but you said two pointsthat they remain
seriously committed and they focused on substantive issues. Now you're
just saying that they remain seriously committed and focus on
substantive issues. Has there been any movement forward in this second
half of this round whatsoever, in any of the tracks?
DJEREJIAN: I would say that incremental progress has been made, but no
breakthroughs. But again, don't expect that each round is going to sort
of have the same performance level. The sixth round, many positive
things were accomplished in the sixth round. Some incremental progress
has been made in this seventh round which was marred, unfortunately, by
the events that I described. But the seriousness of the negotiators at
the table, the incremental progress that has been made, and the intent
to build on what has been achieved in the sixth and the seventh rounds
is there. So I mean it'sthere's no contradiction in our portrayal of
what's happening. We're just being as realistic and objective as
possible in giving you an account of what happens in the track.
END BRIEFING