Fuente: The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace (Dennis Ross, 2004)
Tras las anteriores rondas de conversaciones entre las partes, en el frente sirio y bajo mediación del Presidente de EEUU Bill Clinton, israelíes y sirios se reunieron en Washington (diciembre 1999) y Sheperstown (enero 2000) para una conferencia maratónica destinada a solucionar el conflicto en el frente norte.
El 8 de diciembre de 1999 el Presidente Clinton anunció que el Primer Ministro Barak y el Presidente Assad acordaron que las negociaciones de paz israelo-sirias serían reanudadas desde el punto donde fueron interrumpidas en enero del año 1996. Las conversaciones fueron retomadas durante un Encuentro-Cumbre en Wáshington el 15 de diciembre con el Presidente Clinton, el primer Ministro Barak y el Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Siria, Farouk a-Shara, seguidas por una ronda de conversaciones realizadas en Shepherdstown, Virginia, desde el 3 al 11 de enero de 2000.
Las conversaciones no llegaron a buen puerto. Como también fracasaron las anteriores rondas entre 1994-1996.
Foto de Ralph Alswang, La Casa Blanca: President Clinton and Secretary Albright host dinner with Prime Minister Barak and Foreign Minister al-Shara. Right to left: President Clinton; Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara, Samuel Berger, Deputy Foreign Minister Yusuf Shakkur, Gamal Helal, Translator; Deputy Foreign Minister Abu Saleh, Major General (Retired) Uri Sagie, Minister Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Secretary Albright.
National Conservation Training Center, Shepherdstown, West Virginia (01/09/2000)
Las negociaciones se estancaron el 11 de enero y las partes quedaron en volver a reunirse el 19 de enero más no lo volvieron a hacer. Las autoridades
sirias e israelíes no explicaron el fracaso de las negociaciones. Una posterior reunión en la cumbre celebrada entre los Presidentes Clinton y Assad en Ginebra el 26 de marzo de 2000 tampoco produjo resultados.
Las líneas de acción del gobierno fijadas por el Primer Ministro Barak en julio de 1999 reiteran:
"El gobierno reanudará las negociaciones con Siria con la intención de llegar a un acuerdo de paz con ella; paz total que fortalezca la seguridad de Israel, que se base en las resoluciones 242 y 338 del Consejo de Seguridad y en la manutención de un sistema de relaciones normal entre dos países vecinos que viven uno junto a otro en estado de paz. El acuerdo de paz con Siria será presentado para su aprobación en un plebiscito."
Por lo visto, Ehud Barak se había comprometido a retirar los civiles y al ejército israelí hasta el límite fijado por el Mandato Británico sobre Palestina, situación que mantenía el dominio israelí sobre todo el lago Kineret (Tiberiades o Mar de la Galilea) y las aguas del Jordán, incluyendo unos 10 metros al este del lago.
Siria exigía la retirada israelí hasta la línea del 4 de junio de 1967 (Guerra de los Seis Días), lo que incluía una serie de territorios conquistados por Siria a principios de la década del 50'. El Presidente sirio Jafez El-Assad exigía, además, el acceso al lago Kineret y al río Jordán.
Jafez El-Assad falleció el 10 de junio del 2000 siendo reemplazado por su hijo Bashar. Las autoridades israelíes consideraban; con razón; que las posibilidades de alcanzar un acuerdo con Bashar El-Assad eran poco probables a mediano plazo ya que el joven sucesor debía asentarse en el poder por lo que sería incapaz de realizar concesiones en el frente israelí.
Ehud Barak había prometido durante su campaña electoral que al finalizar su primer año en el poder retiraría a los soldados israelíes de la Franja de Seguridad del sur del Líbano. Barak consideraba que, de llegarse a un acuerdo con Siria, también se solucionaría el problema con el Líbano ya que la influencia de Damasco en Beirut era determinante.
Las negociaciones con Siria fracasaron. Sin embargo, Barak decidió apostar por una retirada unilateral del sur del Líbano suponiendo que si Jizbolá atacaba a Israel, el atacado tendría legitimidad internacional para defenderse.
Fuente: La Casa Blanca
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release December 15, 1999
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT CLINTON, PRIME MINISTER BARAK OF ISRAEL AND FOREIGN MINISTER AL-SHARA OF SYRIA The Rose Garden
10:12 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. It is an honor to welcome Prime Minister Barak, Foreign Minister al-Shara, and the members of the Israeli and Syrian delegations here to the White House.
When the history of this century is written, some of its most illustrious chapters will be the stories of men and women who put old rivalries and conflicts behind them, and looked ahead to peace and reconciliation for their children. What we are witnessing today is not yet peace, and getting there will require bold thinking and hard choices. But today is a big step along that path.
Prime Minister Barak and Foreign Minister al-Shara are about to begin the highest-level meeting ever between their two countries. They are prepared to get down to business. For the first time in history, there is a chance of a comprehensive peace between Israel and Syrian, and indeed, all its neighbors.
That Prime Minister Barak and Foreign Minister al-Shara chose to come here to Washington reminds us of one other fact, of course, which is the United States' own responsibility in this endeavor. Secretary Albright and I, and our entire team, will do everything we possibly can to help the parties succeed. For a comprehensive peace in the Middle East is vital not only to the region, it is also vital to the world, and to the security of the American people. For we have learned from experience that tensions in the region can escalate, and the escalations can lead into diplomatic, financial, and, ultimately, military involvement, far more costly than even the costliest peace.
We should be clear, of course, the success of the enterprise we embark upon today is not guaranteed. The road to peace is no easier, and in many ways it is harder than the road to war. There will be challenges along the way, but we have never had such an extraordinary opportunity to reach a comprehensive settlement.
Prime Minister Barak, an exceptional hero in war, is now a determined soldier for peace. He knows a negotiated peace, one that serves the interests of all sides, is the only way to bring genuine security to the people of Israel, to see that they are bound by a circle of peace.
President Assad, too, has known the cost of war. From my discussion with him in recent months, I am convinced he knows what a true peace could do to lift the lives of his people and give them a better future. And Foreign Minister al-Shara is an able representative of the President and the people of Syria.
Let me also say a brief word about the continuing progress of the Palestinian track. Chairman Arafat also has embarked on a courageous quest for peace, and the Israelis and the Palestinians continue to work on that.
We see now leaders with an unquestioned determination to defend and advance the interest of their own people, but also determined to marshal the courage and creativity, the vision and resolve, to secure a bright future based on peace, rather than a dark future under the storm clouds of continuing, endless conflict.
At the close of this millennium, and in this season of religious celebration for Jews, for Muslims, for Christians, Israelis, Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, all have it within their power to end decades of bitter conflict. Together, they can choose to write a new chapter in the history of our time. Again, let me say that today's meeting is a big step in the right direction. And I am profoundly grateful for the leaders of both nations for being here.
We have just talked and agreed that it would be appropriate for each leader to say a few brief words on behalf of the delegation. We will take no questions, in keeping with our commitment to do serious business and not cause more problems than we can solve out here with you and all your helpful questions.
But I will begin with Prime Minister Barak.
PRIME MINISTER BARAK: We came here to put behind us the horrors of war and to step forward toward peace. We are fully aware of the opportunity, of the burden of responsibility, and of the seriousness, determination and devotion that will be needed in order to begin this march, together with our Syrian partners, to make a different Middle East where nations are living side by side in peaceful relationship and in mutual respect and good-neighborliness.
We are determined to do whatever we can to put an end and to bring about the dreams of children and mothers all around the region to see a better future of the Middle East at the entrance to the new millennium. Thank you very much.
FOREIGN MINISTER AL-SHARA: Although it's very cold, I prepared a statement, and I would like to thank, first of all, President Clinton for all the efforts that he exerted with his Secretary of State and the peace team here in Washington. And also, I what like to convey the best greetings and wishes from President Assad, and his high appreciation for the efforts which you and Secretary Albright have exerted for the resumption of the peace talks between Syria and Israel from the point at which they stopped in 1996.
Your announcement, Mr. President, was warmly welcomed, both in Syria and in the Arab world, and its positive echoes resonated in the world at large. That is because it promises, for the first time, the dawn of a real hope to achieve an honorable and just peace in the Middle East.
And as you have mentioned in your letter of October 12, 1999 to President Assad, the issues have crystallized and difficulties defined. That is why if these talks are to succeed as rapidly as we all desire, no one should ignore what has been achieved until now, or what still needs to be achieved.
It goes without saying that peace for Syria means the return of all its occupied land; why, for Israel, peace will mean the end of the psychological fear which the Israelis have been living in as a result of the existence of occupation, which is undoubtedly the source of all adversities and wars. Hence, ending occupation will be balanced for the first time by eliminating the barrier of fear and anxieties, and exchanging it with a true and mutual feeling of peace and security. Thus, the peace which the parties are going to reach will be established on justice and international legitimacy. And thus, peace will be the only triumphant, after 50 years of struggle.
Those who reject to return the occupied territories to their original owners in the framework of international legitimacy send a message to the Arabs that the conflict between Israel and Arabs is a conflict of existence in which bloodshed can never stop, and not a conflict about borders which can be ended as soon as parties get their rights, as President Assad has stressed at these meetings more than once before, and after Madrid peace conference.
We are approaching the moment of truth, as you have said, and there is no doubt that everyone realizes that a peace agreement between Syria and Israel, and between Lebanon and Israel, would indeed mean for our region the end of a history of wars and conflicts, and may well usher in a dialogue of civilization and an honorable competition in various domains -- the political, cultural, scientific, and economic.
Peace will certainly pose new questions to all sides, especially for the Arab side, who will wonder after reviewing the past 50 years, whether the Arab-Israeli conflict was the one who solely defied the Arab unity, or the one which frustrated it.
During the last half-century, in particular, the vision of the Arabs and their sufferings were totally ignored, due to the lack of a media opportunity for them which conveys their points of view to international opinion. And the last example of this is what we have witnessing during the last four days of attempts to muster international sympathy with the few thousand of settlers in the Golan, ignoring totally more than half a million Syrian people who were uprooted from tens of villages on the Golan, where their forefathers lived for thousands of years and their villages were totally wiped out from existence.
The image formulated in the minds of Western people and which formulated in public opinion was that Syria was the aggressor, and Syria was the one who shelled settlements from the Golan prior to the 1967 war. These claims carry no grain of truth in them -- as Moshe Dayan, himself, has explained in his memoirs, that it was the other side who insisted on provoking the Syrians until they clashed together and then claimed that the Syrians are the aggressors.
Mr. President, the peace talks between Israel and Syria have been ongoing for the last eight years, with off and on, of course. We hope that this is going to be the last resumption of negotiations which will be concluded with a peace agreement, a peace based on justice and comprehensivity; an honorable peace for both sides that preserves rights, dignity and sovereignty. Because only honorable and just peace will be embraced by future generations, and it is the only peace that shall open new horizons for totally new relations between peoples of the region.
President Assad has announced many years ago that peace is the strategic option of Syria. And we hope that peace has become the strategic option for others today, in order to have or to leave future generations a region that is not torn with wars, a region whose sky is not polluted by the smell of blood and destruction.
We all here agree that we are at a threshold of an historic opportunity, an opportunity for the Arabs and Israelis alike, and for the United States and the world at large. Therefore, we all have to be objective and show a high sense of responsibility in order to achieve a just and comprehensive peace, a peace that has been so long awaited by all the peoples of our region and the world at large.
Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. We're going to work.
END 10:26 A.M. EST
Fuente: Embajada EEUU en Israel
ISRAEL AND SYRIA OPEN PEACE TALKS IN SHEPHERDSTOWN, WEST VIRGINIA
(Secretary Albright says there is "no done deal")
By William B. Reinckens
Washington File Staff Writer
January 3, 2000
Shepherdstown, W.Va. -- President Clinton on January 3 opened a new round of peace talks between Israel and Syria.
Israeli and Syrian delegations, led by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara, resumed negotiations, begun at the White House in December, at the Clarion Hotel and Conference Center just outside Shepherdstown, West Virginia, a small town on the Potomac River about 70 miles (112 km) from Washington, D.C.
When Barak and al-Shara met in Washington in December, Clinton acknowledged that the negotiations would not be easy but urged both sides to make the hard choices needed to end a half-century of conflict. The President pledged that the United States would work with both countries to achieve peace.
On the eve of resumption of the talks in Shepherdstown, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said there is "no done deal" and that additional rounds of negotiations may be needed before a final settlement is reached between the two countries. "We are at the beginning of a process here, not at the end of it," she said.
The Secretary said she would participate directly in the talks in Shepherdstown, except when Barak and al-Shara choose to meet alone.
Also participating in the talks from the Clinton Administration's Middle East policy team are Dennis Ross, Special Middle East Coordinator, and Martin Indyk, outgoing Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East.
One of the key issues during the talks for the Syrians will be the return of the strategically important Golan Heights region, captured by Israel in the 1967 war. They would also like to see a dismantling of the Israeli electronic surveillance site located on the Golan and come to an agreement on water issues in the area.
The Israelis are expected to discuss security issues, including the fallback of the Syrian military and security guarantees to protect Israeli residents from rocket attacks. Israel wants assurances that terrorist organizations inside Syria will be curtailed and that its rights to water will be included in any final agreement. Both countries will discuss the issue of Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The question of what to do with the estimated 17,000 Israeli settlers living on the Golan will have to be addressed, as well as the return of other refugees from other parts of the region.
Talks between Israel and Syria broke down in 1996 after a series of suicide bombings in Israel.
While the delegations prepare to bargain, residents of Shepherdstown have adjusted their lives to accommodate the influx of an estimated 1,000 journalists and government officials. On New Year's Day, 50 people -- Christians, Muslims and Jews -- gathered for prayers at the local Presbyterian Church. Each day at noon the church will be open to offer special prayers for the negotiations.
In addition to the Israeli and Syrian track, President Clinton has pressed for a resumption of talks between Israelis and Palestinians to implement the Wye River peace accords that were agreed to in October 1998.
(The Washington File is a product of the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State.)
James P. Rubin, Spokesman
Press Briefing, Israel-Syria Peace Talks
Shepherd College, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, January 10, 2000
1:30 p.m.
MR. RUBIN: Welcome to the seventh day of the Shepherdstown Talks. Let me tell you what has transpired this morning. Secretary Albright met with Prime Minister Barak at about 10:00 this morning, for about an hour. She just finished, a few moments ago, an hour-long meeting with Foreign Minister Shara.
And let me say the following: During the course of the Shepherdstown Peace Talks this week, we have had intensive negotiations on all of the key issues. All four committees have been established and have been working, both formally and informally. We have presented a working document to the parties, that lays the groundwork for a serious effort to bridge the important gaps that remain.
We have decided to recess the talks for a short break. Prime Minister Barak and Foreign Minister Shara have agreed to return to the discussions and negotiations on January the 19th, to continue the negotiations and work further towards a peace agreement.
All of us recognize that the issues we are grappling with will have fateful consequences, both for Israel and Syria, and for the region as a whole. During these negotiations and in our discussions with both sides, we have seen a seriousness of purpose and a clear commitment to achieving peace.
The delegations will be leaving today. There will not be technical groups remaining. We, obviously, have received some initial comments on the working document we presented. We will receive additional comments and clarifications as we discuss the issues with the parties during this recess. There will be informal discussions to that end.
So that is where we are today, this seventh day, and we are now into a recess.
QUESTION: The Prime Minister of Israel said -- you remember yesterday, I believe -- that he wouldn't do anything to jeopardize Israel's security. And since this administration affirms its commitment to maintaining Israel's security, why wouldn't the United States then line up with Israel on where the border line should be drawn?
MR. RUBIN: Well, our job as the mediator and the "shepherd," so to speak, of these Shepherdstown Talks is to try to encourage the parties to make decisions themselves about what's in their best interest. We recognize that these are fateful decisions for Israel and for Syria. We recognize the important security factors that are at play here. And it's not our job to be the mediator and then to simply take the position of one side or the other. There is no question that the United States and Israel have an extremely close relationship, that we have an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security. But in the current task of being the host and mediator of these talks, our job is to explore the issues with both sides, to discuss them, to try to make each understand the positions of the others.
As I indicated yesterday, we have not presented, at this stage, bridging proposals that would purport to differ from the proposals of one or the other party. So we're not in the business of simply saying, from one party to the other, "Here are our positions." What our working document does it try to reflect the areas of agreement that exist, and to describe -- in an authoritative way -- the areas of disagreement and the major gaps.
QUESTION: Well, here's my problem with that. There is one sort of nagging problem and, you know, I think in the context of the Wye Accord when, after it was done, the U.S. was saying -- or at least one particular mediator, American, was saying that we pretty much wrote the agreement.
This document you have now, you say you hope will be a basis for an ultimate settlement. Are you saying that document -- it doesn't in any way indicate which direction the U.S. would have the two sides go on Issue A or B or C or D? Are you so pristinely neutral that you're leaving it entirely to them; or are you're kind of pushing them a little bit? And if you're pushing them a little bit, why then are you reluctant to see Israel's point of view on security?
MR. RUBIN: I think I've made very clear that we have an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security. I think that should go without question. With respect to our role here in Shepherdstown and in other discussions: Our role as we have seen it emerge was first to get the parties together. And let's bear in mind that that was something that the Prime Minister of Israel wanted. It was something that the President of Syria wanted, and so we got them here. That was something each of them wanted.
Each of them -- my impression -- is quite satisfied with the role the United States has played. I believe the Israelis have been quite satisfied with the role we have played, in trying to present not only areas where we think agreement is reflected in the document, but also areas where there is disagreement. And so we don't see the need to be "holier than the Pope" in a situation like this. We do see the need to be helpful, and the Israeli Government has wanted us to play a helpful role in trying to bridge these gaps. And that's what we will continue to do.
QUESTION: Jamie, where are the talks going to be when they resume on the 19th? Will it be here? Will it be somewhere else?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say this: First of all, let me take this opportunity to thank all the people of Shepherdstown. I think all of us who spent seven days here -- or eight days -- have found it a very hospitable place. I think we've enjoyed some of the restaurants. I hope we've done our contribution to the economy of Shepherdstown. We've certainly been heartened by the expressions of support from people in Shepherdstown, whether they be local citizens or church groups, or others who have come up to us. So we've certainly been enormously pleased with the work that has been done here, and the hospitality that has been shown by the people of Shepherdstown.
We have not made a decision as to where the resumption of this peace process will take place.
QUESTION: Can you give us some more information as to whether or not the Syrians or the Israelis offered any amendments to the working documents, and whether they have as yet been incorporated into it, and what the status of the text is?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, the text of the working document was presented a couple of days ago. We have received some informal and preliminary comments and clarifications, and we will expect those comments and clarifications to take place during the course of our discussions with the parties during the recess. So we've received responses in one form or another, and to the extent we want additional responses, we'll be seeking those.
So that is where the text stands. The two parties have it. They'll have more time to review it and raise additional issues, if they have them, or respond to additional clarifications as they're sought.
QUESTION: Two questions: Can you say whether the gaps on the border issue have narrowed; and, secondly, in the next round, has there been a request for President Asad to join, or will it just be the leaders? Will the experts be coming as well?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, let me say that, with respect to your first question, I'm not prepared to describe any particular issue and the extent to which new positions were put forward. I think it's fair to say that we feel that, in explaining their positions, in discussing their concerns, and in articulating their objectives, there have been new ideas that have surfaced. I'm not going to declare that there has been -- a major obstacle has been overcome in any of the particular areas, except to say that we feel that the pace of the work, the seriousness of the work, the determination that has been shown -- we do feel that we're on the right track.
But, obviously, this has a very important security component and an historical component for the two parties, and they have to make the decisions. We can't do that for them.
With respect to your second question: My understandings is the talks will resume in the same basic modality as they have been taking place to date, which is that Foreign Minister Shara will lead the Syrian delegation, that there will be a delegation that consists of experts on the various issues; and, similarly on the Israeli side, Prime Minister Barak will lead the delegation.
We have not found that Foreign Minister Shara has been lacking the authority to make decisions, to make suggestions and to put forward the position of Syria, so we have not found that the absence of President Asad has been an impediment. We believe -- and continue to believe -- that Foreign Minister Shara has the plenipotentiary power to do the work, and that is the basis on which we will continue.
That doesn't mean that I would rule out the possibility of contact with President Asad, but as far as the way the talks will resume, they will resume in the same way.
QUESTION: Jamie, answering the question about the Al-Hayah report yesterday, you said it wasn't credible, and that anything about the borders of 1923 wasn't mentioned in the document; it wasn't discussed by the experts or the committees. My question is: Was it discussed in a higher level?
MR. RUBIN: No, and let me be very clear on the Al-Hayah report. I said that the Al-Hayahreport, to my reading, did not purport to contain the elements of the working document. It said whatAl-Hayah expected the differences of the sides to be, and then listed on various issues their expectations of what the sides would say and not say.
I did point out that their expectation, on one particular issue, wasn't accurate and, again, I would repeat that I wasn't quibbling whether it was done at lower levels or a higher level. To my mind, that issue was not described by the Israelis in the way that it was implied by that report.
Let me say very clearly that on the borders issue, the Borders Committee has met. We have not resolved the border issue, but we are working on it and work will, hopefully, continue at the resumption of the talks.
QUESTION: Jamie, about the timing of the resumption of the talks and juxtaposed with President Clinton's comments this morning about hoping for agreements or at least movement toward -- substantial movement toward agreements within the next two months with not just the Syrian track but the Lebanese track and, of course, the deadline in the Palestinian talks coming up, this all revolves around Chairman Arafat's presence at the same time:
One, do you expect there to be any kind of a meeting involving everyone that's in town at the time around the 19th? And, two, do you agree with the President's assessments -- you can just hit this one out of the park -- optimistic assessment, I'm talking about the promise of the next coming weeks.
MR. RUBIN: Don't you want me to be the Spokesman when the talks resume? Not everyone can vote on that question.
We have said that we believe that both sides have shown a commitment to the negotiations, and a commitment to achieving peace. We have said that we don't expect this to happen overnight. We do expect it to be an issue that they work on. We think this is an issue they can move on at, obviously, a pace that they have to decide for themselves. This is an issue that will be resolved over time. It will not be resolved overnight.
So I have said since the talks began a week ago here, that we didn't expect a core agreement now, but we did hope that the process that we've started could yield, at the end of the day, such a core agreement. I think the President's time-frame is quite consistent with what I've said, and certainly consistent with what I've seen here.
With respect to meetings, let me simply say that my understanding is Chairman Arafat will be in Washington on the 20th. I have not heard any speculation that there would be some kind of four-way meeting of any kind. Other discussions I wouldn't rule out, but I haven't heard anything about a four-way meeting.
QUESTION: What about the Lebanese track?
MR. RUBIN: Well, again, we've said we would like to see the circle of peace closed, and the Syria track is only one -- a very important -- component to close that. And we would certainly hope that at the appropriate time that the Lebanese-Israeli track could be resumed, and could get on the right track the way the Syria track is, with the aim of reaching an agreement.
QUESTION: You said that Prime Minister Barak and Foreign Minister Shara will come with experts. Does that mean that the committees will not be coming with them, or what?
MR. RUBIN: No, I was trying to say the opposite. The committees are not going to stay here and work in the interim period. The talks have recessed, as of now. The delegations will be leaving early this evening from the hotel.
At the resumption of the talks, the political level will be the same, and we do expect them to bring the same basic group of people here, so that the committee work that began here can continue, as appropriate.
QUESTION: What sort of mechanism -- you said that there will be, between the ending of the talks and the resuming of the talks, that there is going to be continuing comments on clarification on the working document. What will be the mechanism for that? Will that be done through the State Department? Will there be any meetings in the Middle East or here, or any officials?
And I have another question, which is: To what extent have the talks here reflected a desire to play to constituencies back home, and to what extent do people feel that they have sufficiently convinced people back home that it's time to make compromises that are needed for peace?
MR. RUBIN: On the first question, we have, as I said, received some preliminary comments from the parties during the course of the President's discussions yesterday, and some of the Secretary's discussions today and yesterday. We would expect, through diplomatic channels -- i.e., the State Department -- to have continuing contact with the parties and there may be other contacts. So we will, as we have had prior to the talks, have an ability to talk to the Syrians and the Israelis and, during those discussions and contacts, I would expect there to be further clarifications or points raised.
With respect to what the Syrians and the Israelis may or may not have intended by their public or other commentary this week, I would urge you to talk to them. That isn't for me to say what their intentions are: what's in their head. It's something that one can speculate on, but it's not something I'm prepared to speculate on from this podium.
QUESTION: Jamie, throughout the course of the week, we've tried to get you to talk about some of the interpersonal relationships, the atmosphere, et cetera. You have used expressions like, "It's not warm and fuzzy;" you've said, "It's cordial." Can you sum it up and can you also address the broader question: Was the interaction between the Israelis and the Syrians more or less than you had hoped it would be getting them out here into the woods, as it were?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think last night was a very important development in the atmospherics department. There was the first breaking of bread between the delegations, and that is significant. There was a lengthy dinner that President Clinton and Secretary Albright hosted for the two leaders and a couple of their aides and ministers.
The rest of the delegation -- and I was a participant in this, so I can certainly tell you -- had a dinner concurrently with roughly 30 or so people -- let's see, four tables of -- 32, 33 people. And I witnessed -- directly -- a fair amount of contact, a fair amount of warmth: the kind of cordiality that I've seen at other such dinners. Again, I don't want to exaggerate. It isn't that there was enormous amounts of hugging. But it was cordial and it was friendly in the sense that it was a professional endeavor and the people understood each of their -- as individuals were performing their business as -- for their governments.
I think the President and the Secretary felt that the dinner included some real exchanges between the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Shara; and that had happened earlier in the week. So I think we're on a warming trend, but I wouldn't want to overstate that.
I will give you one anecdote because I gather -- and I don't know which media outlet wrote it, precisely -- there was an ever so slight error on the gym anecdote. And I talked to the two participants about what happened in the gym, and so let me tell you what they told me. As it was expressed to me directly by the participants, one of the members of the Syrian delegation, Buthaina Sha'ban, was on the treadmill working out, the way many officials work out. And when Prime Minister Barak, who happened to be in the gym at the same time, saw her on the treadmill, he cracked a joke to Foreign Minister Shara, who was also in the room, that -- something to the effect that she's not getting anywhere. And they indicated, I think, the response was something to the effect that, well, it's the beginning of the process.
So there was an interchange in the gym, but it wasn't a case of one side or the other inviting a joint workout.
QUESTION: (How were they dressed)?
MR. RUBIN: I don't think it would be appropriate for me to describe the dress of people in the gym, or else we might have to take pictures of what everybody -- including those in this room -- look like in the gym, and I'm not sure we want to do that.
QUESTION: Jamie, (can you talk about the Moscow Embassy incident)?
MR. RUBIN: I think some of your colleagues have some questions I'd like to answer.
QUESTION: Jamie, you had mentioned earlier about Shara having the power of making decisions and representing the regime in Damascus. I was curious if you can say that if on any issue, small or little but any substantive issue, if any decisions were made here this week?
And the second question is: Do you expect any sort of direct discussions during this recess period between the two sides in the region?
MR. RUBIN: I think on the second point, my expectation is the United States will be in contact with the two parties, and I don't expect that.
On the first point, I think we feel that by putting the document down, their ideas on the table, we feel that there were discussions that were interesting and important that have been held, new formulations and new descriptions of concerns were put down. So we feel that we've got ourselves on the right track. But we've got a long way to go, because the decisions are of such monumental security and political importance to the two parties.
QUESTION: Can you tell us, please, who asked for the recess? Was it Mr. Barak, in order to get the Israeli democracy some decisions by the government or the parliament? Or since you are describing an idyllic situation, in which such beautiful progress was made, so one could have expected that they will continue endlessly.
So I would like to know who is the behind the request for a recess, and then the second part of the question: Does it look to you a little bit bizarre or strange that, with all the need of urgency and emergency to try to arrive at peace, the Israeli Prime Minister, maybe also Farouk al-Shara, all as a matter of fact, looked like summoned by the President to arrive here on the 19th, although you emphasize again and again that peace is the will of both parties.
Does it look to you a little bit hasty, like in a Marine base: "Hey, you will come back in a week?"
MR. RUBIN: On the first point, let me say that I think when I gave the first briefing about a week ago, the rough time frame that everyone understood was envisaged was about a week or so. I said that I had packed more clothes than that just in case, but I think we all understood that this was about the time-frame that was being expected.
With respect to who sets the calendar: We set the calendar. As the hosts, that's our job, is to try to set a calendar that is understood and that is accepted by the parties. But somebody has to set the calendar, and that's one of the functions of the mediator.
With respect to your second question, we don't think it's a hasty return. We think that this is about a reasonable pace; that in the first week the committees were organized; there were positive responses and reactions to the document we laid down; there were serious discussions; there was a warming trend in the atmospherics between the Syrians and the Israelis. And you put all that together, and I think it's fair to say we're on the right track.
And we think that it's appropriate to have a nine-day recess, so that the leaders -- who have other responsibilities, certainly in the case of Prime Minister Barak -- can return to their countries and work on that. We certainly recognize in the case of Israel as a democracy, that they have a referendum that the Prime Minister has said he will put forward if an agreement is reached, and that there is a public component to a democracy. And he, presumably, has things he wants to do, and efforts he wants to make in that area. And we respect that, as we respect the democratic system that he leads.
But we think that it's an appropriate recess time, and we're pleased that both sides have agreed to return on this schedule. We have said that we want to keep ourselves on the right track and at the right pace, but that we don't believe that it is likely that this thing can be wrapped up, you know, "one, two, three." This is a big deal. It's got big implications, and it will take time.
QUESTION: Two questions: The first is, do you have any indication that President Asad was kept informed of the discussions and how things went? And, also, did President Clinton talk at all to President Asad this week?
The second question is: Was there much consideration, among the U.S. negotiators, about the juggling act you'll have to do from January 19th on?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. On the first question, I don't believe the President spoke to President Asad this week. I wouldn't rule that out in the future. I think it's really up to the Syrians to indicate what processes they follow to keep their President informed.
With respect to the question of the juggling act: Yes, we're aware that Chairman Arafat is here. One of the advantages of having a site near Washington is that the President can travel back and forth.
We know that both tracks are moving at the same time, and that has both an opportunity and a challenge associated with it. The opportunity, obviously, is to help move peace forward on both tracks, the opportunity that hasn't existed heretofore. And so that's a unique and historic opportunity.
At the same time, we recognize that there will be a lot of discussion of, "Will someone or other play one track off against the other?" We have found this week that that hasn't happened. On the contrary, just as we've made a step forward in getting the Syrian peace process on the right track, the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves have worked out critical issues on the implementation of Sharm el Sheik. So we have been encouraged that, without the United States, the Israelis and the Palestinians have made progress.
We don't think it's a prerequisite that the United States always intervene on the Palestinian-Israeli track. We do that when both sides want us to, and we think it's appropriate. We would far prefer a situation where the Israelis and the Palestinians can work problems out themselves, as they did this week. So it's a happy juggling act that obviously exists, and we don't think that the fact that Chairman Arafat will be here at the same time need interfere with the movement forward of both tracks.
QUESTION: Is it already agreed that the entire Israeli-Syria negotiation will be here in the United States, no matter Shepherdstown or some other place, bearing in mind that the Israeli position, at least in the beginning of the process, was that they want the discussions to be somewhere in the Middle East, or the close area to Syria and Israel?
The second part of the question: How long is the second round going to take? Is it going to be another one week? And what are your expectations this time? Do you expect this time a core agreement or something like this?
MR. RUBIN: Well, thank you for those two questions. You may not thank me for the answers. On the first question, until we've made a decision as to where the talks should be held, I really don't want to speculate as to what geographic region or other it will take place. We haven't made that decision, and I think we have to make it first before I can inform you about that.
Secondly, given that we're nine days away from that beginning, I think it's premature -- very premature -- for me to begin to speculate about what we hope in that next round, other than to say, as the President said, that our goal here is to get an agreement and that we want to move forward towards that end, and that we hope that continuation of this process will advance us closer to that goal.
QUESTION: Jamie, per your discussion of the warming trend, have the two leaders shaken hands? And, also, who was it who in the gym incident actually cracked, "It's the beginning of the process"?
MR. RUBIN: On the first, I haven't followed every movement of the two leaders so I can't answer for sure. I really don't know. I haven't heard that.
QUESTION: Have you seen them shake hands?
MR. RUBIN: No, but I said I'm not with them all the time so I wouldn't necessarily know if it had happened. But I'm trying to help you by saying I haven't heard that they did so, and I suspect I probably would have heard that.
I am not as clear in my mind about the second part of that anecdote as to who said it, and that's why I didn't give you a voice. I'm aware of what Prime Minister Barak said in cracking a joke about one of the Syrian delegation's esteemed members on their -- what do we call that thing again -- treadmill, and I know that the general response was something of that nature that one or the other said or that it became the sort of second comment in the joke. But I don't know who said that remark. I guess "joke" would be too strong.
QUESTION: Would you consider Shepherdstown for similar negotiations in the future?
MR. RUBIN: Well, as I indicated, we were extremely pleased by the hospitality of the townspeople. I hope all of you were as pleased as I was by the opportunity to eat at some of Shepherdstown's fine restaurants and the generally good atmosphere we found here. And certainly the hospitality of the college where we are now and the hotel facilities, I think people think everyone did a first rate job. So, yes, there is no reason that Shepherdstown shouldn't be included on any list of serious candidates for future peace talks.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)?
MR. RUBIN: I'll have to get that. I don't have that available to me.
QUESTION: The question was: Who paid for the hotel?
MR. RUBIN: I just don't have it available to me.
QUESTION: And another question is that in nine days the college will be back in session and there will be 4,500 students walking around. Will that complicate security?
MR. RUBIN: Well, the college is only they place where you are; it's not the place where the negotiators are. So, obviously, that fact that the college will be resumed will be taken into consideration.
QUESTION: Going back to the document for a second, on the 19th do you expect that there will be a revised edition of the document presented to the two sides for their perusal? In other words, are their comments and clarifications going to be incorporated?
MR. RUBIN: I don't know when a new version would be presented but, obviously, we would want to take on board the clarifications and comments we receive.
QUESTION: You had said during the meal last night there was sort of a warming between the two?
MR. RUBIN: Warming trend, yes.
QUESTION: Warming tend between the two parties. Are you hoping that in the next round of talks they'll share a dining room? I know that the U.S. had hoped that they would, towards the end of the week, end up possibly in the same dining room and they're still eating in separate dining rooms at the Clarion.
MR. RUBIN: I'll have to check that. I don't know exactly what the dining situation is, but certainly to the extent that warming trend can improve, that would be a good thing. I don't think it's a sine qua non of making a peace agreement, but it would be a good thing.
QUESTION: And one more question. You had said that on both sides there is the desire to work, to reach peace. Do you see a willingness to compromise on both sides?
MR. RUBIN: Well, what I have said is we see the desire and the commitment to this process, and when they are ready to make the decisions they believe are necessary and appropriate, they will make them. I don't want to speculate on when and if that will happen.
QUESTION: But is there a willingness to compromise on both sides?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we've seen new ideas and new discussions take place here that reflect an openness to solving problems.
QUESTION: Is the United States worried that when each side returns to its constituency and starts commenting on what happens here, things will start to unravel?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I'm paid to worry about that. Look, each of the leaders and their teams will have to make their decisions as to how to proceed based on what they think is best. We certainly hope that the sanctity of the negotiating process can be protected because that is one of the best ways to ensure that an agreement can be reached.
QUESTION: Jamie, a Palestinian negotiator tells CNN that following the talks in January with Mr. Arafat here that he expects Secretary Albright will return to the region for talks there. Is it possible, based on what you're saying about venue, that she could go to the region and the talks could resume -- the Israeli-Syria talks could resume in the region? Is there any plan for her to go to the region?
MR. RUBIN: I see your question, and let me answer it the best I can. I don't believe the Secretary has made a new agenda for a trip to the Middle East. When she left the Middle East the last time in December, she indicated that she expected to return sometime in this general time frame in order to assess whether the work had proceeded sufficient to lay a basis for a three-way summit between President Clinton, Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat. So that has been out there as a possibility that the Secretary will visit the region in this general time frame to lead up to a summit that would, if the basis were laid, that would allow us to achieve the February time frame for a framework agreement for permanent status. So that has been out there.
Aaron Miller, one of her deputies in this area, is now heading for the region to both prepare for the Chairman's visit to Washington on the 20th as well as to get an assessment of where the talks stand. So we'll probably know more after we get a report from Aaron Miller.
QUESTION: Jamie, do you have expectations for some confidence-building measures, particularly on the part of the Syrians during the next nine days? There has been much talk about this in the Israeli press. I don't know if there were discussions about this at the Clarion. I would like to know that.
And, also, would you expect that a military aid package for Israel might be pretty much finalized by the time the negotiators return?
MR. RUBIN: On the second one, I think it's much easier. I think finalizing a military aid package is a very, very difficult enterprise, and I think it's fair to say that we're at a very preliminary stage right now. We've only begun preliminary consultations with the Israelis on that.
The first question was about the confidence-building measures. I have said at the beginning of the week that we have certainly regarded this as an area where we think Syria should be helpful to the Israelis in resolving some of the humanitarian cases that are out there. They have indicated to us that they are prepared to do whatever they can in this area. I don't have any specific case or issue to report to you at this time.
QUESTION: With regard to an announcement, there is no joint communiqué being planned, obviously. Are you giving them back their telephones, and what do you expect them to follow in terms of either meetings with the press here or on their arrival in the Middle East? Has there been any discussion of that as to how to play this?
And one other question. Could you comment on the Moscow summit and its impact on these talks -- the Moscow meeting of --
MR. RUBIN: The multilateral meeting.
QUESTION: Multilateral meeting.
MR. RUBIN: At the foreign minister level?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. RUBIN: Well, the invitations are being issued. We certainly hope there will be a positive response to those invitations. I don't have a particular reaction other than to say that we hope the countries in the region see as apparently some have begun to see and take steps to that effect, that Israel and Syria are now engaged in serious negotiations, that there has been a lot of progress in the last year on the Palestinian track, and that countries in the region should be doing what they can to contribute to the climate and the atmosphere for peace by moving forward in their relationship with Israel. And some have taken steps in that regard.
With respect to the first question, I forgot. The joint communiqué. Yes, we've had discussions with the Israelis and the Syrians about how to deal with public interest during this recess, so I will leave it to them to say what they intend to say. But as I said in response to one of the earlier questions, we certainly don't hope that there isn't a kind of public discussion that harms the sanctity of the negotiating process which will make it harder to get an agreement.
QUESTION: Jamie, a couple of questions. The first, have you set the two sides any objectives for the next nine days? Have you asked them over that period do you want them to do specific things, say get all their comments in on the working document before they return?
And the second, are there any U.S. officials going to Lebanon to try and encourage that track? Is there any work being done to try and put that together?
MR. RUBIN: On the first, yes, I do expect some requests to be put to the sides with respect to this working document. I would prefer not to get into the details of that.
I'm not aware, on the second question, of any specific plan for a senior official to go to Lebanon at this time.
And those of you who want Moscow, I do have a little something on that.
QUESTION: Jamie, you've had the Prime Minister of Israel and the Foreign Minister of Syria now coming to the Washington area every few weeks. Is this an attempt to, if not pressure them, indicate a sense of urgency for them to reach a peace agreement within a few months?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think it's fair to say that we believe that there is a historic opportunity that now exists and we hope both sides seize this historic opportunity. Historic opportunities don't come around too often, or they wouldn't be historic. And so there are any number of issues that could make it harder for such an opportunity to be seized, and we think that one has to bear in mind that intervening events could make it harder. And so, yes, we would like to see this opportunity seized.
At the same time, we recognize that these decisions are painful and serious ones for the peoples of the region and the governments in the region, and so we recognize that they are going to have to proceed at a pace they're comfortable with because, ultimately, it is they who will have to make the decisions.
QUESTION: What do you think is the likelihood that the Secretary could hold this next round in the Middle East and then go straight to the multilateral in Moscow? Is there any thinking along those lines?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to speculate on where the location will be.
QUESTION: Moscow.
MR. RUBIN: Yes. On the Embassy Moscow situation, here is what I have been told, and this is basically all I know and then maybe we can break; that at 1850 Moscow time today, an unknown intruder gained entry into the compound. The individual was thought to be a Russian. His action potentially endangered the lives and safety of embassy personnel. He gained access to a vehicle and was using that vehicle in threatening ways. He was warned to stop. He was then subdued by force. The Russians were informed. The individual has been taken to a local hospital by Russian authorities and an investigation is now ongoing.
QUESTION: Was he subdued by being shot?
MR. RUBIN: That's my understanding, yes.
QUESTION: Do you have any word on his condition?
MR. RUBIN: He left the embassy compound alive, and the Russian authorities now have taken him to a hospital and I don't have the latest on that.
QUESTION: Do you have any information on anything he might have said as to why he did this?
MR. RUBIN: We are still investigating. We don't have a very clear idea. There wasn't a phone call of that kind saying that something was going to happen, so we're still investigating.
QUESTION: Was it the compound where people live as well as work?
MR. RUBIN: It's the embassy compound. I don't have the floor plan here in Shepherdstown for you, but I can try to get you that information.
QUESTION: He came over the walls?
MR. RUBIN: He gained entry into the compound, and I'm not prepared to speculate on to how he exactly gained entry. And no American was harmed.
QUESTION: Can I ask a question about Elian Gonzalez?
MR. RUBIN: I really don't have much to offer that hasn't been --
QUESTION: I just want to know if there is any U.S. position on a six-year-old boy being subpoenaed, and is there any concern of a precedent being set for the future?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think with respect to subpoenas of a six-year-old boy who is in the United States, it's not really the State Department's job to respond to that. I suspect those who are in the political arena will feel more comfortable responding to that.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Secretary Albright would go to the region between now and when the next round is set to begin?
MR. RUBIN: I'll have to check her schedule, and I can get back to some of you, especially those who might be interested in packing.
(The briefing concluded at 2:20 P.M.)
[end of document]
Press Statement by Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of State
January 17, 1999
Israeli-Syrian Talks
At the end of the last round, it was agreed that the Israeli-Syrian talks would resume on January 19th. Both sides have since been reviewing the status of the talks and the draft working document. Presently, their approaches to the next round differ, and as a result, there is going to be a delay. In the meantime, each side has agreed to send experts to Washington to meet us and provide their comments on the draft.
[end of document]
Fuente: The Washington Post, John Lancaster, 4 ene 2000
Así da noticia del comienzo de esta atnda de conversaciones el WP:
SHEPHERDSTOWN, W.Va., Jan. 3—Syria and Israel plunged into the real business of peace negotiations today, as President Clinton traveled to this historic college town for the opening of talks aimed at resolving one of the Middle East's most protracted and dangerous conflicts.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Charaa arrived early this morning at the Clarion Hotel and Conference Center, a modern brick edifice that will serve as the venue for the open-ended talks. They were joined by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and later by Clinton, who met separately with Barak and Charaa before a three-way meeting scheduled for this evening.
Although the Syrian-Israeli negotiations officially resumed in Washington last month, the Shepherdstown talks mark the first time since 1996 that the two sides have dealt with the substantive issues dividing them. The talks center on Syria's demand that Israel return the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in 1967, in exchange for normal diplomatic relations and security guarantees.
U.S. officials, while generally optimistic about the prospects for a settlement, cautioned that the current round of talks is not likely to produce one.
"We do not expect to be able to achieve a core agreement in one round of negotiation," said State Department spokesman James P. Rubin. "I think it's fair to say that we're at a time of decision, but those decisions don't get made in an instant."
But Rubin also expressed hope for "real progress toward closing some of the gaps" and held out the possibility that the round might conclude with some sort of joint statement "to record progress." The presence of technical experts in each delegation, he added, should be taken as a sign of their seriousness.
The Shepherdstown talks are in some respects modeled after the talks at Camp David that produced an Egyptian-Israeli peace deal in 1978. U.S. officials hope to profit from the intimacy of the setting at the conference center, where the two sides will stay in the same building--some of them on the same floor--and eat meals in a common dining room.
There are few distractions in Shepherdstown, a picturesque community of 18th- and 19th-century brick homes 70 miles west of Washington. Though now a venue for peacemaking, the town saw its share of strife in the Civil War, when it was flooded with Confederate wounded from the Battle of Antietam a few miles distant.
To prevent leaks that U.S. officials say could compromise the negotiations, the talks are shrouded in secrecy--to the point that Israeli and Syrian officials agreed to surrender their cellular phones, according to Rubin. Reporters covering the event have been sequestered a short distance away at Shepherd College, a liberal arts institution founded in 1871.
Clinton planned to return to Washington tonight but is prepared to come back to Shepherdstown whenever his presence is required, White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said. Albright and key members of her Middle East peace team planned to remain here throughout the talks, which have no fixed time period. Lockart said "the parties are committed to working through this week" and are prepared to remain longer if necessary.
Following the decision by Syrian President Hafez Assad to return to the negotiating table, Barak and Charaa held two days of meetings in Washington last month, focusing largely on procedural matters. The real bargaining began today. After his helicopter landed on a baseball field here at 11:44 a.m., Clinton traveled by motorcade to the National Conservation Training Center of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where he met individually with Barak and Charaa for about an hour each, U.S. officials said. Albright also met with each delegation chief.
"The president came out of his two meetings believing they were off to a good start and both sides were serious about being here," Lockhart said, adding that Clinton considers the talks a "historic opportunity" to settle the half-century conflict.
The delegations later returned to the Clarion Hotel on the outskirts of town, where the Syrians observed iftar, the ritual evening meal with which Muslims break their daytime fast during the holy month of Ramadan.
Both sides have compelling reasons for seeking a settlement now. Assad is eager to modernize his ailing economy and boost the chances that his son, Bashar, will succeed him. Barak wants to end the long-running war between Israeli forces and Syrian-backed Shiite Muslim guerrillas in southern Lebanon.
Yet hurdles remain. Syria insists that Israel return all of the Golan Heights, the strategic plateau captured by the Jewish state in 1967. To do so, however, could extend Syrian territory to the shore of the Sea of Galilee, Israel's main source of fresh water. Israel, meanwhile, is seeking security guarantees--including the presence of international observers on the Golan's Mount Hermon--that could prove difficult for Assad to swallow.
Both sides came to Shepherdstown equipped to deal with the nitty-gritty of such issues. Charaa was accompanied by top generals and an adviser on irrigation issues; water rights are sure to be a key part of any settlement.
Barak, for his part, was accompanied by Foreign Minister David Levy, Attorney General Eliyakim Rubinstein and Tourism Minister Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, a former chief of staff who was intimately involved in the earlier rounds of Syrian-Israeli talks.
"We would expect that as the negotiations get down to brass tacks that they will break up into smaller groupings," Rubin said.
Y estos artículos del New York Times sobre el tema.
Fuente: The Jewish Virtual Library
A framework for peace between Israel and Syria
The draft peace treaty presented by the Clinton administration to Jerusalem and Damascus
(Shepherdstown, W. VA, January 8, 2000)
The Government of the State of Israel and the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic:
Aiming at the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and within the framework of the peace process initiated at Madrid on 31 October 1991;
Reaffirming their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and recognizing their right and obligation to live in peace with each other, as well as with all states, within secure and recognized boundaries;
Desiring to establish mutual respect and to develop honorable, friendly and good neighborly relations;
Resolved to establish permanent peace between them in accordance with this Treaty.
Have agreed as follows:
1. The state of war between Israel and Syria (hereinafter "the Parties") is hereby terminated and peace is established between them. The Parties will maintain normal, peaceful relations as set out in Article III below.
2. The permanent secure and recognized international boundary between Israel and Syria is the boundary set forth in Article II below. The location of the boundary has been commonly agreed (Syrian position: and is based on the June 4, 1967 line) (Israeli position: taking into account security and other vital interests of the Parties as well as legal considerations of both sides). Israel will (S: withdraw) (I: relocate) all its armed forces (S: and civilians) behind this boundary in accordance with Annex -- of this Treaty. (S: Thereafter, each Party will exercise its full sovereignty on its side of the international boundary, including as agreed in this Treaty.)
3. To enhance the security of both Parties, agreed security measures will be implemented in accordance with Article IV below.
4. The time line at Annex -- sets forth an agreed schedule for synchronized implementation of this and the other Articles of this Treaty.
1. The international boundary between Israel and Syria is as shown on the mapping materials and co-ordinates specified in Annex --. This boundary is the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Israel and Syria and supercedes any previous boundary or line of demarcation between them.
2. The Parties will respect the inviolability of this boundary and of each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace.
3. A Joint Boundary Commission is hereby established. Its functions and activities are set out in Annex --.
1. The Parties will apply between them the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law governing relations among states in time of peace. In particular:
a. they recognize and will respect each other's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries; and
b. they will establish and develop friendly and good neighborly relations, will refrain from the threat or use of force, directly or indirectly, against each other, will cooperate in promoting peace, stability and development in their region and will settle all disputes between them by peaceful means.
2. The Parties will establish full diplomatic and consular relations, including the exchange of resident ambassadors.
3. The Parties recognize a mutuality of interest in honorable and good neighborly relations based on mutual respect and for this purpose will:
a. promote beneficial bilateral economic and trade relations including by enabling the free and unimpeded flow of people, goods and services between the two countries.
b. remove all discriminatory barriers to normal economic relations, terminate economic boycotts directed at the other Party, repeal all discriminatory legislation, and cooperate in terminating boycotts against either Party by third parties.
c. promote relations between them in the sphere of transportation. In this regard, the Parties will open and maintain roads and international border crossings between the two countries, cooperate in the development of rail links, grant normal access to its ports for vessels and cargoes of the other or vessels or cargoes destined for or coming from that Party, and enter into normal civil aviation relations.
d. establish normal postal, telephone, telex, data facsimile, wireless and cable communications and television relay services by cable, radio and satellite between them on a non-discriminatory basis in accordance with relevant international conventions and regulations; and
e. promote cooperation in the field of tourism in order to facilitate and encourage mutual tourism and tourism from third countries.
Annex -- sets forth the agreed procedures for establishing and developing these relations, (I: including the schedule for the attainment of relevant agreements as well as arrangements concerning the Israelis and Israeli communities in areas from which Israeli forces will be relocated pursuant to Article I).
4. The Parties undertake to ensure mutual enjoyment by each other's citizens of due process of law within their respective legal systems and before their courts.
(Notes:
(I) Components of normal peaceful relations which require further discussion: cultural relations; environment; interconnection of electricity grids; energy; health and medicine; and agriculture.
(II) Other possible areas for consideration: combating crime and drugs; anti-incitement cooperation; human rights; places of historical and religious significance and memorials; legal cooperation in the search for missing persons.)
A. Security Arrangements
Recognizing the importance of security for both Parties as an important element of permanent peace and stability, the Parties will employ the following security arrangements to build mutual confidence in the implementation of this Treaty and to provide for the security needs of both Parties:
1. Areas of limitation of forces and capabilities, including limitations on their readiness and activities, and on armaments, weapon system and military infrastructure, as described in Annex ---.
2. Within the areas of limitation of forces and capabilities, the establishment of a demilitarized zone (I: encompassing both the area from which Israeli forces will be relocated and the existing Area of Separation established under the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces of 31 May 1974) (S: of equal scope on both sides of the border). As described in Annex -------, no military forces, armaments, weapon systems, military capabilities, or military infrastructure will be introduced into the demilitarized zone by either Party and only a limited civil police presence may be deployed in the area. (I: Both sides agree not to fly over the demilitarized zone without special arrangements.)
3. Early warning capabilities, including an early warning ground station on Mt. Hermon (I: with an effective Israeli presence) (S: operated by the United States and France under their total auspices and responsibilities). Arrangements for the unimpeded, efficient and continuous operation of this station are as detailed in Annex -------.
4. A monitoring, inspection and verification mechanism (I: composed of the two Parties and a multinational component and including on-site technical means) (S: through an international presence), to monitor and supervise the implementation of the security arrangements.
Details regarding these security arrangements, including their scope, positioning and nature, as well as other security arrangements, are specified in Annex -----.
B. Other Security Measures
As further steps to ensure a permanent cessation of hostilities of anform between the Parties or from their territories against each other.
1. Each Party undertakes to refrain from cooperatinwith any third party in a hostile alliance of a military character and will ensure that territory under its control is not used by any military forces of a third party (including their equipment and armaments) in circumstances that would adversely affect the security of the other Party.
2. Each Party undertakes to refrain from organizing, instigating, inciting, assisting or participating in any acts or threats of violence against the other Party, its citizens or their property wherever located, and will take effective measures to ensure that no such acts occur from, or are supported by individuals on, its territory or territory under its control. In this regard, without prejudice to the basic rights of freedom of expression and association, each Party will take necessary and effective measures to prevent the entry, presence and operation in its territory of any group or organization, and their infrastructure, which threatens the security of the other Party by the use of, or incitement to the use of, violent means.
3. Both Parties recognize that international terrorism in all its forms threatens the security of all nations and therefore share a common interest in the enhancement of international cooperative efforts to deal with this problem.
C. Cooperation and Liaison in Security Matters
The Parties will establish a direct liaison and coordination mechanism between them as described in Annex ----- to facilitate implementation of the security provisions in this Treaty. Its responsibilities will include: direct and real-time communication on security issues, minimization of friction along the international border, addressing any problems arising during the implementation process, helping to prevent errors or misinterpretations, and maintaining direct and continuous contacts with the monitoring, inspection and verification mechanism.
1. The Parties recognize that full resolution of all water issues between them constitutes a fundamental element in ensuring a stable and lasting peace. (S: Based on relevant international principles and practices), the Parties have agreed to establish (I: arrangements that will ensure the continuation of Israel's current use in quantity and quality of all) (S: mutually agreeable arrangements with respect to water quantities and quality from) the surface and underground waters in the areas from which Israeli forces will (I: relocate) (S: withdraw) pursuant to Article I, as detailed in Annex -----. (I: The arrangements should include all necessary measures to prevent contamination, pollution or depletion of the Kinneret/Tiberias and Upper Jordan River and their sources.)
2. For the purposes of this Article and Annex ------, the Parties will establish (I: a Joint Water Committee and a supervision and enforcement mechanism) (S: a Joint Administrative Board). The composition, mandate and mode of operations of the (I: Joint Water Committee and the supervision and enforcement mechanism) (S: Joint Administrative Board) will be as detailed in Annex------.
3. The Parties have agreed to cooperate on water-related matters, as detailed in Annex ------, (I: including ensuring the quantity and quality of water allocated to Israel under other agreements concerning water originating in Syria.)
1. This Treaty does not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations.
2. The Parties undertake to fulfill in good faith their obligations under this Treaty, without regard to action or inaction of any other Party and independently of any instrument external to this Treaty.
3. The Parties will take all the necessary measures for the application in their relations of the provisions of the multilateral conventions to which they are Parties, including the submission of appropriate notification to the Secretary General of the United Nations and other depositories of such conventions. They will also abstain from actions that would curtail the rights of either Party to participate in international organizations to which they belong in accordance with the governing provisions of those organizations.
4. The Parties undertake not to enter into any obligation in conflict with this Treaty.
5. Subject to Article 103 of the United Nations Charter, in the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Parties under the present Treaty and any of their other obligations, the obligations under this Treaty will be binding and implemented.
The Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary in order to implement the Treaty, and to repeal any legislation that is inconsistent with the Treaty.
Disputes between the Parties arising out of the interpretation or application of the present Treaty shall be settled by negotiation.
1. This treaty shall be ratified by both Parties in conformity with their respective constitutional procedures. It shall enter into force on the exchange of instruments of ratification and shall supercede all previous bilateral agreements between the Parties.
2. The Annexes and other attachments attached to this Treaty shall constitute integral parts thereof.
3. The Treaty shall be communicated to the Secretary General of the United Nations for registration in accordance with the provisions of Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.
DONE THIS DAY ------ IN -------- IN THE ENGLISH, HEBREW AND ARABIC LANGUAGES, ALL LANGUAGES BEING EQUALLY AUTHENTIC. IN CASE OF ANY DIVERGENCE OF INTERPRETATION, THE ENGLISH TEXT WILL BE AUTHORITATIVE
Fuente: USA - Dpt. of State - Summit homepage
Selected Briefings are available in audio format
01/10/00: James Rubin, Press Briefing, Shepherd College, Shepherdstown, West Virginia
01/10/00: James Rubin, Press Briefing, Shepherd College, Shepherdstown, West Virginia
01/09/00: James Rubin, Press Briefing, Shepherd College, Shepherdstown, West Virginia
01/07/00: James Rubin, Press Briefing, Shepherd College, Shepherdstown, West Virginia
01/06/00: James Rubin, Press Briefing, Shepherd College, Shepherdstown, West Virginia
01/06/00: James Rubin, Telephone Briefing, Shepherd College, Shepherdstown, West Virginia
01/05/00: James Rubin, Telephone Readout to the Press, Shepherd College, Shepherdstown, West Virginia
01/05/00: James Rubin, Press Briefing, Shepherd College, Shepherdstown, West Virginia
01/04/00: James Rubin, Telephone Readout to the Press, Shepherd College, Shepherdstown, West Virginia
01/04/00: James Rubin, Press Briefing, Shepherd College, Shepherdstown, West Virginia
01/04/00: Joe Lockhart, Readout to the Pool, Clarion Hotel, Shepherdstown, West Virginia
01/04/00: Joe Lockhart, Second Readout to the Pool, Clarion Hotel, Shepherdstown, West Virginia
01/03/00: James Rubin, Telephone Readout to the Press, Shepherd College, Shepherdstown, West Virginia
01/03/00: James Rubin, Press Briefing, Shepherd College, Shepherdstown, West Virginia
Press Statements
12/21/99: Secretary Albright, Statement on the Site for Israeli-Syrian Negotiations
Fuente: Ministerio de RREE de Israel
Statement by President Clinton on Meetings between PM Barak and FM al-Shara - December 16, 1999
Press Briefing by Secretary of State Albright - December 16, 1999
Opening Remarks, the White House - December 15, 1999
President Clinton Announces Re-opening of Israel-Syria Negotiations - December 8, 1999
Joint Press Conference by PM Barak and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright - December 8, 1999
Syria puts talks on hold - 18 January 2000 (Jerusalem Post)
Ha'aretz publishes US Timetable Document - 17 January 2000
PM's Office Response to Ha'aretz Report - 13 January 2000
Ha'aretz Daily publishes US Document - 13 January 2000
Barak: Tough decisions ahead - 12 January 2000 (Jerusalem Post)
Talks resume in Shepherdstown - January 2000 (CNN)
U.S. State Department Briefing - The Israeli-Syrian Peace Talks - January 10, 2000 (Courtesy of U.S. State Department Website)
Excerpt from Daily Press Briefing (US State Department, March 30)
Barak: Assad not ready for peace - Jerusalem Post, March 28
U.S. to turn up the heat on Syria after summit failure - Ha'aretz, March 28
White House Press Secretary Statement - Geneva, March 26
White House Press Briefing by Joe Lockhart - Geneva, March 26
Fuente: World News
Fuente: USA - Dpt. of State - Summit homepage
Fuente: