08/16/2001: Daily Press Briefing Excerpts

EXCERPTS FROM PRESS BRIEFING RELATING TO MIDDLE EAST
Phillip T. Reeker, Deputy Spokesman
Washington, DC
August 16, 2001

On The Record Unless Otherwise Noted
Complete Transcript of August 16, 200l Briefing

QUESTION: Can we go to the Middle East?

MR. REEKER: Anything else on Macedonia or regions near there?

Middle East.

QUESTION: First of all, a question came up yesterday about coordination with the Russians and some kind of joint statement. You didn't know anything about that. Did you --

MR. REEKER: Yes, I wasn't aware of that joint statement yesterday when I came out here. The statement released by the Russian Foreign Ministry reflects the common goal of the United States and Russia in assisting the parties to end the violence and restore trust and confidence. I think, as you all know, Russia has been a fellow partner for peace since the Madrid conference of 1991. We deeply value their constructive efforts to bring a lasting peace to the region. It is very important to us. And so their statement indicating continuing to work together to assist the parties to end the violence, restore trust and confidence, create an environment that will permit implementation of the Mitchell Committee recommendations in all their aspects.

QUESTION: Can you explain how this came about? I mean, were you consulted in advance on this?

MR. REEKER: I don't think we normally consult on every statement that we release from here, as well. I think this reflects our continuing to work together with the Russians and others in the international community. As I indicated, Secretary Powell spoke with Foreign Minister Ivanov earlier this week -- to be specific, on Tuesday -- and I know they discussed these issues in the Middle East. So I think their statement reflects again what I indicated, how much we value Russia's participation. And they, along with us and others in the international community, and the parties themselves, have committed themselves to implementing the Mitchell recommendations as the path forward in this.

QUESTION: Russian officials have said repeatedly that they favor international monitors to go into the situation. They have favored in the past UN mechanisms for inquiring into the conflict. And they have also favored the -- I guess starting political dialogues sooner rather than later. These are three positions that at least officially in the United States and from this podium you guys have not taken. So could you sort of elaborate on how you are going to be coordinating, and how are you going to work out these differences in this newfound spirit of cooperation?

MR. REEKER: In fact, Eli, I think some of your suggestions are a little bit off base. In terms of the monitoring suggestion, I will just refer you to the recent G-8 statement. You will recall that G-8 includes eight countries, including Russia. And we continue to believe, as that statement suggests, that a monitoring function -- again, approved by both parties, the Israelis and the Palestinians -- could be useful to help the parties along during the cooling-off period. But the question of monitoring has to remain secondary to the goal of moving into full implementation of the Mitchell Committee recommendations as quickly as possible.

On the subject of the UN, and work there, you know, I think we talked about yesterday. Our objective from the beginning is to end the violence and restore trust and confidence so that we can create circumstances for resumption of a political process.

We continue to believe that action in the United Nations Security Council will not contribute to these objectives. And we note that others, including Russia, our partner in the peace process since 1991, as I said, share our view that now is not the time for UN action. So what will assist the parties, as we have said, will be a continuing focus by the international community, including the United States, including Russia, on the goal of moving into implementing the Mitchell recommendations.

QUESTION: There have been stronger statements from Russian officials. And I am sorry I'm not -- I can't quote you chapter and verse here, but I have seen stronger statements on both UN and the G-8 from other officials. I mean, you can sign on to a G-8 statement obviously, and then the capital can say something else. I mean, do you expect any disagreements?

MR. REEKER: I don't know if I quite follow you.

QUESTION: Do you expect any disagreements on this question of international observers? I mean, just on that issue alone the Russians have argued for a more robust role outside of these international summits?

MR. REEKER: Eli, I just referred to you what the G-8 put out. That is our position.

QUESTION: I understand.

MR. REEKER: We understand that to be the position of the eight members of the G-8 who agreed to that, their leaders. I don't think it was a question of a statement and followed by something else from capitals, as you suggest. It was a statement put out, a communiqué, from the G-8. And in terms of the issue at hand at the UN Security Council, as I said, the Russians agree with us, sharing our view that now is not the time for UN action on this.

QUESTION: I want to go back to the Russian Foreign Ministry statement. You know, this was put out at least 24 hours or a day after the phone call between the Secretary and Foreign Minister Ivanov, and I'm just wondering -- and yet there was no mention of it here, and when I asked, this building didn't seem to be aware of this statement yesterday, which what --

MR. REEKER: Yesterday isn't the fact. When I came out to brief this, I was not aware of it.

QUESTION: Right. But it just seems to me that the Russians, by putting out a statement, not just simply responding to a question, that this has been interpreted in some quarters as being -- as some kind of a new initiative or something, a new-found -- even as Eli just said -- a new-found spirit of cooperation.

Can I interpret, or we interpret, from the fact that you made no special remark about this telephone call, or the substance of the conversation, that it is in fact not anything new, that this is something that has been going on since 1993 basically?

MR. REEKER: Since 1991, when the Russians were our partner at the Madrid Conference, we have been working closely with the Russians and others in the international community, the European Union and others obviously on this process. That has just been a continuing thing. I can't speak for the Russians and when they determine to put out statements, just as we don't coordinate that always there.

What I did indicate yesterday, I was aware that Secretary Powell had spoken with Foreign Minister Ivanov, which of course he does often. I double-checked on that; it was Tuesday that he had that call. They did discuss the Middle East, which is something they discuss often, because we are partners in the peace process.

So I don't want to keep you from making your own analyses and interpretations. I think we are working together. I think the Russians have demonstrated again that they continue to take this seriously and plan to work with us, as they have, in trying to help the parties get back on track.

QUESTION: I'm just trying to find out that why, in this current atmosphere, where you seem to be -- the US seems to be taking a lot of criticism for allegedly not being involved, that you wouldn't -- that you guys wouldn’t see fit, unless you don't think it is anything particularly new, to make -- to note that this had happened.

MR. REEKER: I don't want to get the issues confused here. I wasn't aware of it when I came out here to brief you. When you asked the question, you raised it, I went back to check on it and found out that in fact this is a statement that the Russians put out, we were aware of it, I wasn't aware of it, I hadn't asked about it. It wasn't our statement.

So I don't know what else to really tell you on that. We continue to work with the Russians. This is something we have been doing, as I said, for a decade now.

QUESTION: So we shouldn't interpret that there is anything -- from the Russian statement -- that there is anything new, or renewed, or some kind of new Russian-US idea?

MR. REEKER: Renewed may be a fine word to use, Matt. It reflects the common goals that the United States and Russia have in assisting the parties to end the violence.

Anything else on this?

QUESTION: Yes, on the monitoring question. Osama el-Baz spoke to a bunch of us this morning, and he said that the -- he called the US policy of trying to facilitate the security meetings and hold off until later on confidence-building measures is a failure, and said he is pushing for monitors now as a deterrent to further violence. Is there any sort of flexibility in the Administration towards this at this point?

MR. REEKER: I have already reflected on our position about monitoring, and of course that is ultimately a decision for the two parties. We have said, as the G-8 said, that some kind of monitoring function could be useful, but it needs to be something that is approved by both parties. In terms of Mr. el-Baz, I am not going to try to address all of his comments in the press at this point. As you know, he is meeting tomorrow with Secretary Powell, so we will wait to let that meeting take place. He met today with Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Mark Grossman, and so we look forward then to the meeting with the Secretary tomorrow morning. But I think our position on monitors is what I have said and what you are quite familiar with.

QUESTION: But what is the position that he is hearing from Grossman and likely to hear from the Secretary?

MR. REEKER: I don't want to pre-judge what the Secretary will discuss with him, since the meeting hasn't taken place, and won't for about 20-odd hours.

QUESTION: He is very mindful of Israel's sensitivities to international monitoring. He proposed today -- he said he is proposing American monitors. The Americans don't go for it, Europeans and Canadians.

The US has a position on American monitors. And of course what you just said has long been a position on monitoring generally. So specifically, is the US disposed to the idea of having an American, solely American, monitoring group go there?

MR. REEKER: I would refer you to the Secretary's comments that he made with the Seeds of Peace group just two days ago, where he addressed some of that. Rather than quote to you from that transcript, we can just provide that for you.

Our position on monitoring and our desire to do what we can to help the two parties to end the violence, to move into the Mitchell Committee is well known and continues to be where we stand. And obviously, the Secretary does look forward to his meeting tomorrow with Mr. el-Baz, and we will let that meeting take place before we try to analyze it any further.

QUESTION: I can understand -- let me just follow up -- I can understand this is not the place for you to take on item by item his various criticisms and the Foreign Minister's criticisms in Cairo, which were a little sharper and more pointed. But the monitoring idea or the monitoring proposal, as he presents it, is in a context of his saying that the US hasn't done enough, that it's time for action, that diplomacy hasn't accomplished its goal, a failure -- in fact, he uses the word "failed" at one point.

So he sees monitors as a remedy to US inaction. How do you feel about that type of proposition? You have commented on monitoring as a concept. But it is borne, he thinks, of failure.

MR. REEKER: We will look forward to hearing his views. We will look forward to letting him express his views directly to the Secretary, rather than what he has expressed publicly, before I want to get into that.

In terms of your broader discussion here, Barry, about US action, I think, as the Secretary said earlier this week -- again, I refer you to his remarks when he met with those young people from the Seeds of Peace organization -- we are deeply engaged in the process, trying to find bridges to cross the divides that have existed for so many years and have become especially severe in recent months. We are working with both sides, talking to leaders of the international community in close contact with both sides, the Israelis and the Palestinians, trying to find ways that we can restore a sense of trust and confidence between the two sides in the hope of finding a lasting, permanent solution.

The Mitchell Committee has provided the parties a roadmap, which they have embraced. And they need to find the will to set out upon that path using that roadmap. Senior officials here and in the region are continuing to have contact with the parties. Just to update you on Deputy Assistant Secretary Satterfield, whom you know met earlier with both Prime Minister Sharon and Chairman Arafat earlier this week, he has traveled to Jordan on Wednesday, where I believe he met with the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister, and to Egypt, where he met with Foreign Minister Maher, whom you referred to earlier, in Alexandria. So he has had meetings with senior officials in the region.

We are continuing to work directly with the parties and with regional leaders to encourage both sides to reduce the violence and facilitate implementation of the Mitchell Committee recommendations.

QUESTION: What he said this morning is that these officials that you are sending and these contacts they are making aren't high enough and they aren't sustained enough. And if the United States, specifically Secretary of State Powell or even the President, is not involved in some daily active diplomacy, that it is going to unleash a lot more extreme fundamentalism throughout the region and damage US interests. The opinion of the United States right now in the Arab world is that the US doesn't want to take risks for peace, is hiding behind the Mitchell Report. And can you respond to that?

MR. REEKER: No. Because, as I said, we are not going to be responding to Mr. el-Baz's statements in the press until after he has had an opportunity to meet with Secretary Powell, which he does tomorrow.

QUESTION: Have you been given some indication that he is going to say something different to Secretary Powell than he has said to everyone else in the world now?

MR. REEKER: I don't know if I follow you, Matt.

QUESTION: Do you think that it's possible that you will be off the hook and you won't have to respond to these criticisms because Dr. el-Baz will not make these same points to the Secretary as he is making --

MR. REEKER: I think I will let Dr. el-Baz make that position clear. I think we will let the Secretary of State of the United States have his meeting tomorrow before I try to prejudge the discussions that they are going to have.

QUESTION: So you are hoping that he doesn't bring this stuff up?

MR. REEKER: No, Matt, that is not at all what I said.

QUESTION: Has the Secretary spoken to any Middle East leaders or any people like Solana or anybody else who is interested in the Middle East in the last 48 hours?

MR. REEKER: I know I indicated to some of you on Tuesday -- I don't know if we brought it up at the briefing -- the Secretary did speak with Mr. Solana on Tuesday. He spoke with Foreign Minister Ivanov. As I indicated, he spoke with Kofi Annan, and there were no other calls related to the --

QUESTION: When was that, sorry?

MR. REEKER: On Tuesday.

QUESTION: Was this also on Macedonia?

MR. REEKER: I don't have a full readout on everything they discussed, but your interest in their phone calls on Tuesday -- he spoke with Foreign Minister Fischer, he spoke with Mr. Solana, he spoke with Mexican Foreign Secretary Castaneda, Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov, and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Yesterday, Wednesday, he spoke again with the Mexican Foreign Secretary Castaneda.

QUESTION: Yesterday? Sorry?

MR. REEKER: Yesterday.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)?

MR. REEKER: Tuesday.

QUESTION: And Foreign Minister Fischer is about to go to the Middle East?

MR. REEKER: I don't know that.

QUESTION: Castaneda?

QUESTION: No, Foreign Minister Fischer. And yesterday, when you were talking about the UN possible resolutions, you said that the US didn't think that it was a place for third parties to get involved. Does that not apply to the Germans or -- does this only apply to the UN, the third party?

MR. REEKER: No, I think what I said is that while we and others in the international community -- that would, indeed, include the Germans -- continue to work this directly with the parties, attempts to force a solution on the parties by a third party will only frustrate efforts to move forward with implementation of the Mitchell Committee recommendations.

QUESTION: So when you say that, do you mean that any third country that is attempting to force a solution? Or do you mean an international body?

MR. REEKER: Our belief that attempting to force a solution by a third party on the two parties, we believe that will only frustrate efforts to move forward implementation of Mitchell. That includes the UN Security Council.

QUESTION: Speaking of implementing and forcing and third parties and what not --

MR. REEKER: Yes, Eli.

QUESTION: You've said that you think that observers could be useful, and you have also said, but both sides need to accept them.

So in your diplomacy, considering the rate of success of our current diplomatic efforts in the region, have you recommended that the Israelis -- have you urged them, have you pushed them in any way, have you said, we think it would really be useful to have observers here? Because --

MR. REEKER: I think you have heard the Secretary of State give his views very clearly on observers or monitors, whatever phrase you want to use.

QUESTION: No, I'm asking in these meetings with Satterfield. I'm saying, you've got a guy there that you've said before counts as serious engagement. So I'm saying, are you proposing this in those meetings at all?

MR. REEKER: As I have said before many times, the messages that we are delivering publicly are the same messages we are delivering privately. The Secretary has made that clear to you, Ambassador Boucher has made that clear to you, I have told you that. And we will continue to do that.

So our position on monitoring is well known. We think it could be an important contribution. We think it needs to be something that the two parties agree to, obviously. And right now, our focus remains on continuing to encourage them to exercise restraint, focus on ending the violence so that they can then move into implementing the Mitchell Committee recommendations.

QUESTION: I just have a point of clarification. There is not a separate policy from this building on a completely American monitoring force or an international force at this point; is that correct?

MR. REEKER: I guess I would have to check into that. Our position has been on monitoring forces generally.

QUESTION: But we have never taken up the question of specifically if we would feel differently if they asked just Americans to go?

MR. REEKER: No, our position is that any monitoring force must be something that is accepted by both sides.

QUESTION: The history is a little more refined --

MR. REEKER: We can do a whole thing.

QUESTION: No, I am not doing a whole thing. It's rather direct here. The Egyptians say, send in Americans. The Israelis have said, we will not accept outsiders; we will accept Americans.

Mindful of that -- you don't have to be a mind reader -- the Secretary of State said, it is something that we might consider if both parties want it.

MR. REEKER: Exactly. He said it again on Tuesday.

QUESTION: All right, now it's getting -- in the weeks since that -- well, he said it again Tuesday -- but things have not turned out very well in the area. The people like the Egyptians and others are seeing a wedge to apply pressure, talking about an international -- but even they are sensitive to Israel's preferences, and are talking about an American force. So I guess what Teri and I and others have been asking, does the US have a specific position on an American force, or is it simply outside observers, if acceptable to the two parties, could be useful?

MR. REEKER: I have nothing further to add to you, Barry, on what the Secretary of State himself has said, and what I have repeated several times to you here today on the subject of monitors.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) peacekeepers should be American --

MR. REEKER: And we will allow the Secretary to have his own meeting tomorrow morning with Mr. el-Baz.

QUESTION: Seeing that both sides don't trust human beings, is there any -- (laughter) -- real choice of using modern technologies, such as drone planes, satellites, and others to monitor this?

MR. REEKER: I just think you are getting way beyond the scope of anything I have to discuss here.