US wants an extension of Palestinian-Israeli talks beyond May 4th
Palestine-USA, Politics, 3/24/1999

Palestinian President Yasser Arafat did not make comments following his meeting yesterday with the US President Bill Clinton at the White House on Tuesday on what had been discussed during the meeting which centered on the issue of declaring the Palestinian state on May 4.

But yesterday, a senior state department official who did not want to have his name disclosed briefed reporters and said "Chairman Arafat came here and told the president that he wanted to consult, especially on the issue of May 4th; he wanted to hear what the president's views were, and he did hear what the president's views were. The president basically said that we are against unilateral declarations of statehood or unilateral acts that would change the realities on the ground; that we believe strongly in the Oslo process, the Oslo framework; that the way to resolve permanent status issues is through negotiations."

He added "I won't say that Chairman Arafat has made any decision as a result of the meeting today. That was not what he intended to do; we didn't expect it. He was clear that he was going to consult with the president. He said several times during the course of the meeting that it was very important for him to be able to consult with the president. He has told us he will be consulting with others, and he will also be consulting with his own colleagues about the decision he will make. He reaffirmed to the president his absolute conviction that there can be no return to violence and that all of the issues need to be resolved, all disputes need to be resolved peacefully."

As to whether the US would accept a date certain for declaring a Palestinian state in return for a Palestinian delay of such a declaration, the US official said "We don't favor -- our view is that, you know, there is a principle of negotiations for solving these issues. And the balance obviously to be struck is between preserving the principle of negotiations and having a process that looks like it's simply open-ended and will never come to a conclusion. So we accept the idea that the process should not be open-ended. But we don't accept the idea that you ought to pick a date and a date if things aren't worked out by that time, then that settles everything. So we believe you have to -- these issues do have to be negotiated, but not in a way that leaves it open-ended and with a kind of indefinite quality.

When asked by a reporter "how you can have something which is not open-ended and yet at the same time, not set any -- not put an end to it, not set an end to it. I mean, it seems contradictory," the state department official said "Well, I mean, first of all, Oslo has had dates built in. So in a sense it's not -- one can certainly create target dates or target periods. We haven't made any judgment in that regard, but one can do that as a way of trying to ensure that you don't have an open-ended process. But I think it's a combination of how you work that process as well as whether or not you set certain kinds of targets that you would try to achieve."

Regarding whether a legal framework after May 4th and what would it would be called (Middle East peace process or Oslo, the US official said "it's obvious that we're not going to reach agreement by May 4th. There's not going to be a peace settlement by May 4th. I'm not going to get into a discussion of legal interpretations. I'll simply say that from our standpoint, we strongly believe that both parties should continue to carry out all the obligations, responsibilities and arrangements that are in the existing agreements. Now, that's one of the reasons I also say that we want to see a resumption of the permanent status negotiations on an intensive and accelerated basis; that it can't be open-ended, it shouldn't be indefinite, and we will look for ways to try to ensure that it is -- in fact, that the process is accelerated. And, I mean, we wouldn't exclude -- the earlier question was -- we wouldn't exclude coming up with some kind of target period or target time frame, something of that sort. We wouldn't exclude that, but we haven't made any decisions in that regard."

Asked about Palestinian statements that the least that would be expected from the Clinton administration is an acknowledgement of the people's, of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination, and whether the US has done this and if not, what is the problem of the U.S. saying the Palestinians have the right to self-determination?," the US official said "First, that's not language that we've used before, number one. Number two, we have a special role to play in this process. And we understand the special nature of our role. Number three, I would say we have been very careful in this process to avoid staking out positions on permanent status issues precisely because we want the parties to have a chance to engage on those permanent status issues. The Palestinians have their aspirations, and they'll certainly bring their aspirations and their needs as they define them to the table. The Israelis have their views, and that's what going to have to be negotiated. To have the U.S. staking out positions on the permanent status issues we don't think is productive to coming to an agreement, at least at this stage. So we haven't."

Meanwhile, when asked if the USA is indirectly saying that the Palestinians cannot get the money (resulting from Wye accord) unless the Israelis get it, asking "It's quid pro quo, right?" The US official said "Well, I think -- you know, our focus is on getting Wye implemented, and when Wye is implemented, then, you know, we certainly expect that the money is then going to be -- it will be forthcoming."

Previous Stories:
  Albright - Arafat   (3/23/1999)
  On Chirac - Arafat meeting in Paris   (3/23/1999)
  Jordanian, Palestinian, Egyptian meeting on Saturday   (3/17/1999)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search