Excerpt: U.S. Sees End to Violence As Key to Mideast Peace24


International Security \| Conflict Resolution

22 February 2002

Excerpt: U.S. Sees End to Violence As Key to Mideast Peace

Boucher Confirms Feb. 21 Trilateral Security Meeting

U.S., Israeli and Palestinian officials met on February 21 to discuss security issues, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said at the regular State Department noon briefing February 22.

"It's extremely important and significant, we think, that the parties have committed to that kind of cooperation in the days ahead. So that's a very positive step with regard to getting hold of the violence and terror and taking the steps necessary to stop the violence," Boucher said.

Noting "developments" in the situation, Boucher told reporters Secretary of State Colin Powell would consult with his advisors and contact the parties when he returns to Washington.

Boucher had no comment on Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's proposal to establish "buffer zones" as a security measure, which Sharon raised February 21 in a speech to the Israeli public.

Questioned about Saudi Arabia's proposed normalization of relations with Israel as part of a comprehensive land-for-peace solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Boucher said again that the U.S. welcomed Saudi Arabia and Egypt's willingness to reach out to Israel and talk about peace.

"We think these are significant and positive steps that have been endorsed now publicly by other governments in the region, including Egypt. They do highlight the importance of not giving up the goal of a just and lasting peace and the need to do all we can to help end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," Boucher said.

Portions of the February 22 State Department press briefing related to the Middle East are excerpted below.

(begin excerpt)

Question: Change of subject? Middle East? Have you had time to have a look at Prime Minister Sharon's proposals for a buffer zone, and have you managed to extract any more details from the Israeli Government on what they intend to do?

Mr. Boucher: I think if there are any more details to be provided, those should be provided by the Israeli Government. We are in touch with the Israeli Government discussing the speech and a number of other things that are going on. We remain committed to working with them, remain committed to the process. But, no, I don't have any further comment on the speech.

Question: Well, how about any comment at all? You said you don't have any further comment. It sounds to me like you don't have any comment.

Mr. Boucher: No, I don't have any particular comment on the speech.

Question: What is the U.S. position on the idea in general of creating buffer zones and putting up obstacles between the --

Mr. Boucher: I think until one -- the idea in general is hard to comment on because it's in general. And we'll be discussing these kinds of matters with Israelis and others, and if there's something to say that's more specific, we'll say it. But at this point, no, there's nothing --

Question: All right. Well, does that mean in principle you're not necessarily opposed to it?

Mr. Boucher: No, I didn't say that. I can't say one way or the other on such a general concept until more is known.

Question: Are physical demarcations on disputed territory a violation of the Oslo Agreement? He said security buffer zones. This is disputed territory and --

Mr. Boucher: You're putting a detail to it that I don't think Prime Minister Sharon put to it yesterday. You're saying what he really meant to say was security demarcations on disputed territory. I can't do that. I don't think he did that, and I'm not about to do it on his behalf. We have always felt --

Question: He used the word "separation" and he is referring to, clearly, setting up physical barriers --

Mr. Boucher: Did he use the phrase "security demarcations on disputed territory"?

Question: He didn't use security demarcation, but he used the terms "separation" and "security buffer zones." I'm just saying, considering that the territory that he's talking about is disputed, is that any violation of the agreements that were established --

Mr. Boucher: Our positions on specific things, on particular events and aspects that might occur, our positions against unilateral actions that prejudge the outcome of negotiations is well known. Our positions on demolitions are well known. Our positions on things like reoccupation of land are well known. So those positions of the United States have not changed. But whether and how they apply to this speech, or to what you believe may have been intended by the speech, I can't do that here because I can't -- it's not for me to provide further definition to these ideas.

Question: Well, can you still say, outside of the speech, do you believe that putting down physical demarcations on disputed territory in this situation would be a violation of the Oslo Agreement?

Mr. Boucher: Are we then going to go through every possible action or interpretation that you want to make, and are you going to do that for both sides, or just one side?

Question: I don't think it's -- I think he said security -- I don't think it's (inaudible) crazy.

Mr. Boucher: I don't want to get in an argument here, but for things that have actually occurred and for which have a factual basis, I think we have been quite clear. I don't want to speculate on every possible action and give you an opinion of what that may or may not involve or entail, when it's not for me to define the possible actions.

Question:Richard, the Secretary said on the plane -- I know you don't have a transcript, but he did say he's going to spend part of his weekend on the phone.

Mr. Boucher: He also told that to Mr. Armitage, so that much at least I know. The Secretary did, I think, make clear that he was going to come back, he was going to talk to the experts back here again about the situation, because there have been developments. There has been, in fact, a trilateral security meeting last night, which we consider to be a very positive development. It's extremely important and significant, we think, that the parties have committed to that kind of cooperation in the dates ahead. So that's a very positive step as regard to getting a hold of the violence and terror, and taking the steps necessary to stop the violence. Clearly, we continue to believe the burden of performance in the security area rests with Mr. Arafat, and we continue to reiterate that both sides, in cooperating on security, are able to achieve more.

And so we're very pleased to see that that meeting, the trilateral security discussions, took place last night with those kinds of developments. The Secretary will come back and check with his experts, talk to the people here who work on those issues, and he did say that he intended to be on the phone, or at least in contact with the parties, too.

Question: Do you know whether it was just the Israelis or the Palestinians, or would there be Saudis and Egyptians?

Mr. Boucher: I don't know yet. I haven't seen sort of a list of phone calls yet.

Question: Richard, has the Israeli Ambassador been --

Question: Richard, can you bring us up to date on Mr. Haass' meetings, and can you tell us what Palestinians he met with, if any, so far?

Mr. Boucher: I don't think I can do that in any detail. We haven't been trying to do sort of ongoing reporting on his meetings. I would just go back to, he's going to Egypt, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories. He is Director of our Policy Planning staff, and it's in that capacity that he travels. He will be discussing issues all the way from general foreign policy and regional security issues to the current and future efforts we need to make against terrorism, the prospects for peace negotiations in the Middle East.

So general talks on all these important subjects, hearing from people, talking to people about the general approaches and outcomes. But this is not the sort of daily negotiating grind being mounted in another forum. There is daily contact on the issues of importance on things like the security meetings and other things that our embassies carry out on our behalf.

Question: Do you know if Zinni will be one of the people that the Secretary will talk to when he gets back?

Mr. Boucher: I don't know yet.

Question: Were you able to check since yesterday on whether we know more about how much Arafat has actually done what he said he was going to do in the letter to the Secretary regarding the Karine A?

Mr. Boucher: I apologize once again.

Question: That's okay. Can we check? That was -- it's been a while ago now. We were looking for action within days, if I recall.

Mr. Boucher: I'll see if there's anything more to say at this point.

Question: Has Ambassador Burns met with the security advisor of Saudi Arabia Abel Jubair today, or --

Mr. Boucher: I'm not sure if it's taken place -- I'm trying to check and see if I have it. He will be meeting this afternoon with Abel Jubair. He is a representative of Crown Prince Abdullah from Saudi Arabia. They are going to discuss the recent remarks by Crown Prince Abdullah and other developments in the region.

Question: Is there any more characterization you can give to the Saudi proposal, or in reference to Mitchell or the Tenet ceasefires?

Mr. Boucher: What we have seen and what we have said has been to welcome the comments that we have seen from Saudi Arabia, underscoring their willingness to reach out to Israel to talk about peace, to talk about normalization of relations. We think these are significant and positive steps that have been endorsed now publicly by other governments in the region, including Egypt. They do highlight the importance of not giving up the goal of a just and lasting peace, and the need to do all we can to help end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Our commitment to Tenet and Mitchell, to the process of getting to those negotiations remains. And I'll reiterate today, as I have before, that the first step to get there is to end the violence, and that we have made absolutely clear that we think the burden at this point is on Chairman Arafat to take concrete steps to dismantle the groups that perpetrate violence and to end the violence so that we can start down that road that leads to a rebuilding of confidence and a restart of negotiations.

Question: Dennis Ross is suggesting a 10-day ceasefire and cooling-off period in the Middle East, calling it one last chance. Does the Secretary endorse this suggestion, and, if so, how could he make it happen?

Mr. Boucher: I'm afraid I haven't had a chance to check with the Secretary and see if that idea has surfaced in any of his discussions. So I can't give you a response to that now.

Question: Can I follow up? I believe maybe it was -- should Tony Zinni be sent back to try again?

Mr. Boucher: No decision on that at this point. We have always said that he will go back when it's useful, but there's no decision of that right now.

Question: Going back to the Saudi proposal, do you think it would be useful if the Israelis responded to this proposal?

Mr. Boucher: I think I tried to make it as clear as possible, it's a significant, it's a positive statement. It is a subject that's being discussed with, as I said, the Saudis, as well as many others in the region. Whether the Israelis want to respond or say more in public than they have already is up to them. But I do want to also make clear that the issue remains where it is, in terms of practical steps to start down that road, and that's to end the violence, and the performance of Chairman Arafat in that regard is a critical issue still.

. . . .

Question: Going back to the Middle East, you said that you thought that the Saudi statement was a positive statement and you thought it was positive that other countries in the region have accepted it. I would like to ask the position on do you think it should be presented to the Arab League? Would you like to see all of the nations of the Arab League accept it? And do you think that Arafat should be at that summit, and that Israel should lift the siege on him to enable him to go to that summit?

Mr.Boucher: I think that's about four questions. I have one answer, and that's --

Question: (Inaudible.)

MR. Boucher: I think all those four questions essentially have one answer, and that is that we are not participants in the Arab League meetings, and I don't know that we have any ability or need to say what they will and they won't take up.

We have, for a long time, made clear that we felt it was important that all the countries in the region accept Israel. The President has made clear that part of his vision for the region is two states living side by side, and Israel living in secure borders, and a state called Palestine with it. So that has always been the policy of the United States. We have always urged other governments to accept Israel peacefully in the region. That remains our policy. But I don't know if it will be taken up at the -- whether that issue will be taken up by the Saudis with the others there.

Question: That would happen if all of the territories, all of the borders, went back to June 6th, 1967. And the Saudi statement was --

Mr. Boucher: That was the Saudi statement, yes.

Question: And you agree with that, too?

MR. Boucher: We agree with our policy that we've always said, and that's 242, 338, Land-for-Peace, negotiations; 242, 338, that's what we negotiate.

(end excerpt)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State's Office of International Information Programs (usinfo.state.gov). Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.