Press Briefing by MFA Senior Deputy Director General Biran on the Resumption of the Multilateral Talks - Jan 30- 2000

Jerusalem, 30 January 2000

This afternoon the Foreign Minister Mr. Levy and a few of my colleagues, members of the delegation, will leave for Moscow for the meeting of the Steering Committee of the multilateral track. This meeting, in practice, in itself signifies the renewal, the resumption of the multilateral track. We welcome the meeting and, needless to say, we welcome the resumption of the work of the multilateral track.

You may recall that the multilateral track is part and parcel of the Madrid Conference framework for promoting peace in the Middle East. The Madrid Conference in October 1991 established two parallel tracks - the bilateral and the multilateral - to bring peace to the region, and we always felt that the multilateral track is of great significance. It has been active for a number of years, and regrettably, later on, for the last three years, the formal part of it was kind of frozen, although certain activities of significance were still held by professionals meeting in various specific projects, workshops, seminars and discussions, and some significant work still went on.

The multilateral track is important. The multilateral track in itself and its resumption is not the goal. The multilateral track is an instrument, as indeed the bilateral track is an instrument. The bilateral track is an instrument to bring peace, to establish comprehensive, long-lasting and just peace between Israel and all its neighbors. While the multilateral track is an instrument to strengthen this peace and to add another important dimension of regional cooperation, regional collaboration, between the various countries of the Middle East in the broadest sense of the word Middle East.

What the multilateral track aims to tell all of us in the Middle East is that peace in the Middle East will not be only the end of war and not only bilateral, normal, peaceful coexistence, reconciliation between peoples of the Middle East - but that the multilateral track offers the Middle East an added value and an important added bonus. Not only will the peoples and states of the Middle East be capable during peace to concentrate on construction, on development, on improving the standard of living of the population, but they have here the instrument to cooperate together among themselves, with the interest, involvement and assistance of many actors outside the region.

You may recall that the multilateral track is composed of the Steering Committee and five regional working groups on economic development, on the environment, on water, on the question of improving the standard of living of refugees, and regional security. Among its participants are a number of foreign countries outside the region who have shown interest and willingness to be involved. It is led by two co-sponsors - the United States and Russia - and among its active members are those whom we call the "gavel holders" - those who lead the various working groups, which are the United States, Russia, the European Union, Japan and Canada. Within each of the working groups there are "shepherds" - countries, many of them outside the region, who took upon themselves to lead a specific item, specific project, a specific theme - not only leading, but making their own contributions.

We are very happy with the renewal of the multilateral track. It has been regrettably suggested by Syria in the past as something of a "prize" to Israel. This in explaining why they refrained in the past and still refrain from participating. It is indeed a "prize" - but not for Israel. It is a prize for the whole of the region. I won't go into details to check what each of the member states of this region has profited from the various activities by the multilateral track up to now. But I would guess that you won't find Israel at the top of the list in terms of tangible contribution to its own immediate needs. But this is not the criterion for me to judge the importance. Even if other countries profit more in tangible, direct, specific terms than Israel, I still believe that we in Israel should support it, as indeed we do, because it's a prize, as I say, to the whole of the region. It allows the region to aspire to a higher level of cooperation, and therefore to a higher, more facilitated, more rapid development of the whole of the region.

We have had discussions, of course, with the co-sponsors. I myself was in Moscow last Thursday with a colleague of mine to meet with the Deputy Foreign Minister and his team to discuss preparations for the meeting. And we look forward to the meeting, hoping that it will indeed set a positive pace to the continuation, the resumption of the multilateral track. What we hope to see in Moscow is indeed a serious concentration on the discussion of what have we achieved up to now in the multilateral track, and how do we go forward in future to making even more effective, more constructive, and bring about more tangible results in the not too long distance.

We, on our part, will bring to the meeting our appraisal of what has been achieved, and our suggestion to continue and expand the working of the various working committees in various fields which are of significance to the Middle East and which present a potential for further development, be it in the field of agriculture, be it in the field of tourism - there is tremendous potential for the area in encouraging tourism, and if we can offer foreign tourists not just a visit to Israel or a visit to an Arab country, but kind of packages to enable them to visit various parts of the region, I believe we can encourage them further. We also have ideas in the field of commerce, in the field of environment, water development - providing more water to the region which is in need of water and which is suffering from a shortage water - and similar ideas in various other fields.

We hope that the Moscow meeting will indeed bring about the resumption of the work of the various working groups. We understand that there are already tentative suggestions about meetings of the various groups in the coming months beginning in February, and during March and April in various Arab countries and outside the region. We are given to understand that countries like Tunisia and Oman have already expressed their readiness to hold specific working groups' plenary meetings, following requests by the gavel holders, and we expect to have similar meetings in Amman and in Canada.

We hope that the work of the Steering Committee will indeed concentrate on this area of expanding further the multilateral track negotiations rather than be an arena for further polemics and politicization. We are aware that certain members are tempted, so to speak, to try and turn the coming meeting into a kind of an additional general debate of the UN General Assembly. While with all due respect, political issues indeed should be discussed in such an arena, we believe that the Steering Committee of the multilateral track should dedicate its efforts to constructive, positive work of the multilateral track rather than for polemics. As I said earlier, the multilaterals do not constitute a substitute to the bilateral track. They don't aspire to take over from them. Issues of the bilateral track, which are obviously very important, very significant, should be left for the bilateral track rather than be brought into the multilateral.

So we look forward to the meeting. We will make our modest attempt to make suggestions for further work of this track, and we hope to see cooperation in the meeting which will bring about not only the resumption of the Steering Committee and the various working groups, not only the resumption of the multilateral track, but its development into a higher level of regional cooperation for the benefit of the peoples.

Q: You mentioned polemics. Are we talking about Egypt, which will be in attendance? What is the significance also of Syria and Lebanon being absent?

A: Judging by a public statement by Egypt and by the representative of the Palestinian Authority, they suggested that they will discuss in Moscow the state of the bilateral negotiations. While the bilateral negotiations are of great significance, and in no way would I underestimate the importance, I believe that what we need in the multilateral track is not further polemics, public exchanges of accusations, allegations, but serious concentrated work within the framework of the bilateral negotiations. Furthermore, the multilateral Steering Committee meeting should be dedicated to bringing about the renewal, expansion and improvement of the quality of - and adding a new dimension to - the very significant, constructive work of the multilaterals to bring about further, deeper and stronger regional cooperation with the involvement of other non-regional actors who are ready to give their hand to it.

As far as Syria and Lebanon, they have not participated before in the multilaterals, claiming that they are a 'prize' for Israel. I believe that their absence is regrettable, but I believe that in view of their continued absence - and as I said this is nothing new - we should nevertheless continue our work in the multilaterals with those who do participate, and happily most of the countries of the region do participate. Those who lose by the absence of Syria and Lebanon, I'm afraid, are first and foremost Syria and Lebanon. Their participation could have indeed contributed further to the working of the multilaterals, and in this respect all of us, Israel included, would welcome them if and when they decide to join. The multilaterals are important to the whole of the region, and therefore to Syria and Lebanon as well.

Q: What do you think about the Russian efforts to make the resumption of the multilateral track possible, and about the formula which was found to come back? I don't understand completely why the Egyptians were convinced to take part, because they were strictly against taking part without the Syrians and the Lebanese before.

A: First of all, we welcome the Russian active involvement in bringing about the resumption of the multilateral track, and we welcome their hosting the meeting in Moscow tomorrow. Likewise, of course, we welcome of the working of the other co-sponsor, the United States, which collaborated with Russia, and they together brought about the resumption of the negotiations. We are gratified for their efforts.

As far as Egypt, you say you don't understand what made them decide to join in. I didn't understand what made them decide not to join in the first place, because as I said earlier, the multilateral track serves a very important and constructive purpose and goal for the whole of the Middle East, for all the countries of the Middle East. It has its own vitality and its own justification to be continued and be expanded in view of the results which have already been achieved in the years it was active.

At the time Egypt stated that it objected to the resumption of the negotiations on the multilateral track because of the absence of Syria and Lebanon and because of the absence of bilateral negotiations between Israel and Syria. Following the resumption of bilateral negotiations between Syria and Israel, Egypt found it possible for her to agree to resume its involvement in the multilateral track. Although, frankly, we had our view about the reasons suggested by Egypt in the first place not to encourage the resumption of the multilaterals, we are very happy that they found the way to join in together with all of us in the region and outside the region, and to participate tomorrow in Moscow in the Steering Committee meeting, which indeed will bring about the resumption of the work of the multilateral track.

We look forward to full cooperation with Egypt, all our neighbors in the Middle East, with Syria and Lebanon when they decide to join, as well as with many gavel holders, shepherds and foreign participants in the multilaterals, because it can bring about a very positive result to the region and strengthen - and I stress, strengthen - the spirit of peace in the Middle East, and therefore encourage also the bilateral negotiations which are held separately between Israel and its neighbors.

Q: You said that the multilateral track had positive results during the time when it was working. Can you give us some examples?

A: Let me make it clear. Issues of a non-political nature - problems of environment recognize neither de jure nor de facto borders. If you have an environmental problem, it crosses borders. We have engaged in a number of very important projects about the environment - whether it has to do with the quality of the water of the Mediterranean, whether it's a question of cleaning shores, whether it's a question of fighting epidemics, etc.

Likewise I can point to a number of important works that have been done in the field of water. This region cries out for water, and the major problem of the region is how to bring about more sources of water - whether it's through desalination, whether it's through purification of water, whether it's through more effective use of existing water through effective pipe systems, etc.

I can think, off the cuff, for example, of a center for the research of desalination of water in Muscat in Oman, in which a number of countries participate, Israel included, which presents the whole of the area, including many countries which have no formal relations with Israel; the prospect of enjoying the fruits of concentrated effort to improve desalination systems. And there are specific projects which are built on the knowhow of such a center. Various seminars, workshops and studies have been done by experts representing various countries in the Middle East.

Beside the very practical results, we see also a very welcome phenomenon of people meeting with people, thousands of experts from Israel and Arab countries - whether it's in the field of water, environment, economics, transport - you name it, we had it. Needless to say when you as an Israeli expert discuss professional issues with a neighboring expert, when you talk the same language, both of you find it very easy to accept that not only are you two professionals sharing the same profession, but most probably you are two human beings sharing much more than just professional knowledge. I think it's a wonderful contribution to the encouragement of reconciliation in the Middle East, and this is an added bonus emanating from the work of the multilateral track.

Q: In your opening remarks you said Israel would be making some modest proposals. Can you tell us something about them?

A: I think I've already enumerated certain areas where we will be suggesting added projects, ideas and directions of development. With your permission I won't elaborate more. First of all, I don't want to compete with my boss. But more seriously, because this will be discussed in Moscow and this will be elaborated in Moscow. During the meetings there, there will be a special session dedicated for the various members to suggest and iron out ideas about further and additional directions of development. I only gave you an initial taste, but I would, with your permission, leave details for Moscow. It's a matter of another two days.

Q: Is the refugee working group under Canadian chairmanship going to be convened?

A: Yes indeed.

Q: The Canadian government reports speak very clearly about the Arab refugees' inalienable right of return as mentioned in UN Resolution 194. Isn't Israel moving itself into kind of a 'gang rape' situation when the entire group will be talking about the right of return and you're talking about the refugees' welfare?

A: The group will discuss what was decided in its terms of reference, and this is precisely what I said: improving the standard of living and the welfare of the refugees in their present locations, without of course prejudging the political issue and the political outcome of bilateral negotiations between Israel and its neighbors regarding this issue. So Canada and other countries may have their views regarding the political aspect of the issue - right of return, compensation, etc. But these are not within the framework of the working committee in the multilateral track. As I said, there, one concentrates on the wellbeing of the refugees. Rather than waiting for the political outcome, it was then decided in 1991, that it is justifiable - and I believe rightly so from a humanitarian point of view - to try and improve the standard of living even without and before the final political settlement of the problem. So these are two separate issues - one to be discussed in the multilateral track, and the other is to be discussed in the bilateral negotiations between us and the Palestinians.

Q: Has Israel made a representation to Canada to object to this phraseology, to say that there can only be an improvement if there is a right of return?

A: We have had ongoing discussions with our partners in this working group, and needless to say with the gavel holder. I can't count the number of times we have met with the Canadians on this issue. Our position is clear to them, and what is important, that the real working of this working group on refugees is based on the terms I suggested to you. It concentrates not on political issues but on the improvement of the standard of living of the refugees.

Q: I'd like to ask you whether there will be a working group meeting on regional security and arms control, and do you expect the cooperation of Egypt - at least until the NPT review in New York in April - given the statements by Amr Moussa who said that in every single regional group he will raise the issue of Israeli nuclear weapons?

A: I've already referred to the working group on regional security and arms control, and mentioned that it was active in the past. On our part, our position is very clear. We have not only no objections, but we have full readiness to resume the working of this working group on the basis of the agreed agenda and from the point where it ended in the past. We realize that a lot has been achieved before this working group was frozen, and more can be achieved. There are additional issues on which there are differences of views, but this should not be a reason not to continue the working group. We would welcome the resumption of the working group. If this working group will not be resumed because of objection by another party, at least it won't interfere with the resumption of the working of the other four remaining working group.

As far as your other question which referred to our relations with Egypt, recently we have heard certain suggestions from Egypt which in a way suggest expansion of exploration and dialogue between us and Egypt regarding various aspects of our cooperation, and I hope that this will materialize and, rather than freezing, as you suggest, there will be resumption and expansion of bilateral cooperation between Israel and Egypt from which both countries can profit irrespective of existing differences that may be in other areas.