[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 60 (Wednesday, May 13, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E849-E851]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT DISCUSSES THE MIDDLE EAST 
                             PEACE PROCESS

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 13, 1998

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, no American Administration since the 
presidency of Harry Truman has been as supportive of Israel as has our 
current Administration. The President is personally engaged and 
committed to the safety and security of the state of Israel, and he has 
affirmed on many occasions--most recently in a letter I received from 
him dated May 5th--that our nation's unshakable support for Israel's 
security ``has been and will continue to be a central feature of the 
U.S.-Israeli relationship and a guiding principle for this 
Administration's role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.'' He 
noted that ``fighting terrorism is not optional; it is a basic premise 
of the peace process.''
  Our distinguished Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, has 
personally played a critical role in working to move along the peace 
process, and she has devoted a great deal of time, effort, and energy 
to make meaningful progress. Our Secretary of State's personal 
intellectual and emotional commitment to move the peace process forward 
is one of the principal reasons for the progress that has been made.
  Mr. Speaker, in the past several days, there has been considerable 
heat, but little light on the status of negotiations and the role of 
the United States in that process. Secretary Albright yesterday spoke 
at the National Press Club on the ``Middle East Peace Process'' and 
outlined the framework and the focus of the Administration's policy in 
this regard.
  Mr. Speaker, because of the acrimony and misconceptions that have 
been magnified in the press, I think it is important for my colleagues 
to see for themselves first hand a concise and coherent discussion of 
our policy. I submit Secretary Albright's address at the National Press 
Club to be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to give 
thoughtful attention to her excellent remarks.

                     The Middle East Peace Process

(Delivered by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright at the National 
                              Press Club)

       Thank you very much. I am very pleased to be here.
       Two weeks ago, before departing for Asia and talks in 
     London on the Middle East, I attended a dinner sponsored by 
     Seeds of Peace.

[[Page E850]]

     This is a group that brings young people together from all 
     around the Middle East to learn about and from each other, to 
     go beyond the stereotypes and to understand how much they 
     have in common.
       At that dinner, I was given a letter signed by Arab and 
     Israeli youngsters, which I hand-delivered in London to Prime 
     Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat. I want to begin my 
     remarks today by quoting from that letter: ``In our history 
     books, the Middle East has always appeared as a magnificent 
     crossroads. Yet we have not tasted its grandness, for we are 
     blinded by its destructive wars. We at Seeds of Peace had a 
     taste of what it is like to co-exist peacefully. We learned 
     to accept the fact that both sides, Arabs and Israelis, have 
     a right to a home in this disputed holy land. We are writing 
     this letter as people who have experienced peace temporarily 
     and we enjoyed the taste, but we want the whole pie. However, 
     this is up to you. It is up to you to shape or build our 
     future.''
       That is a part of the letter that I delivered.
       I would have liked very, very much to have been able to 
     return to the United States this past weekend with the news 
     that the prayers of those young people had been answered and 
     that a new milestone in the Middle East peace process had 
     been reached. It was our hope that this week would have 
     marked the start of permanent status negotiations between 
     Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat, hosted by 
     President Clinton.
       Unfortunately, despite exhaustive and exhausting efforts to 
     remove them, there remain obstacles to an agreement that 
     would allow those permanent status talks to begin. However, I 
     look forward to meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu here in 
     Washington tomorrow to see if it is possible to clear the 
     way.
       Today, I want to do two things. First, on behalf of 
     President Clinton, I want to reaffirm America's commitment to 
     the pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace and our determination to 
     continue exploring every possible avenue for helping the 
     parties to achieve it. We do this because it is in our 
     interest and because it is right. The people of the Middle 
     East deserve a future free from terror and violence, a future 
     in which they can prosper in security and peace.
       Second, I want to explain the logic of our approach and 
     provide some perspective about what we have been doing in 
     recent months to overcome the impasse that has developed in 
     Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
       The past year has been the most disappointing since the 
     Oslo Accords were signed in 1993. It was 16 months ago that 
     active US mediation helped to produce an agreement on Hebron. 
     Since then, a crisis of confidence has arisen between 
     Israelis and Palestinians that has stalled at the bargaining 
     table and put at risk both historic accomplishments and 
     future hopes.
       In only two years, we have gone from a situation where 
     Israel had some form of peace negotiation, relationship, or 
     promising contact with every Arab state except Iraq and Libya 
     to a stalemate which has eroded regional cooperation on 
     issues such as water, economic integration, the environment 
     and refugees, stalled Arab-Israeli contacts, and caused 
     optimism to be replaced by a sense of fatalism and 
     helplessness about the future.
       At the root of the stalemate is a crisis of partnership 
     between Israelis and Palestinians wherein short term tactical 
     considerations have too often trumped broader understandings 
     of common interest and cooperation. Indeed, we have gone from 
     a situation where no problem was too big to solve to a 
     situation where every issue is argued about. We have seen 
     tragic incidents of terror, unilateral actions and 
     provocation rhetoric undermine the historic accomplishments 
     of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
       For more than a year now, the United States has been 
     working hard to revive the missing spirit of partnership. We 
     have been trying literally to restore the ability of the 
     parties to talk constructively with each other, to overcome 
     mistrust, to solve problems, to arrive at agreements and to 
     implement obligations.
       Early last year, we were approached by Prime Minister 
     Netanyahu with an idea for reorienting the process. He argued 
     that the confidence building period provided for under the 
     Oslo Accords had begun instead to destroy confidence; and he 
     was right. The Prime Minister argued that it therefore made 
     sense to move directly into final status negotiations, and to 
     do so on an accelerated timetable. He asked President Clinton 
     to help achieve this purpose; and as Israel's ally and 
     friend, the President decided to try to do so.
       Beginning last spring and throughout the summer of 1997, we 
     sought an agreement that would put the process back on track 
     by focusing the parties on the importance of getting to 
     permanent status talks. In August I proposed in a speech here 
     in Washington that the parties ``marry the incremental 
     approach of the interim agreement . . . to an accelerated 
     approach to permanent status.''
       Then last September the Israelis and Palestinians agreed to 
     a four-part agenda that included accelerated permanent status 
     talks and three other issues: security with the emphasis on 
     preempting and fighting terror; the further redeployment of 
     Israeli troops; and a time-out on unhelpful unilateral steps. 
     There followed several months of intensive discussions on 
     that agenda along with resumed negotiations on key interim 
     issues.
       During this period there was some narrowing in the 
     differences between the parties, but very substantial gaps 
     remained. Despite our efforts, we could not get the Israelis 
     and Palestinians to agree to an accord. Both urged us, 
     nevertheless, to persist and to help them find a way to 
     bridge the differences. By early this year we had come to the 
     conclusion that even if the parties could not be responsive 
     to each other's ideas, they might respond to ours. Working 
     closely and quietly with both sides, we began to share our 
     views on how the parties might resolve their differences over 
     the four-part agenda.
       In January, here in Washington, President Clinton met with 
     Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat. And I met with 
     them when I traveled to the region in February, and then 
     again in Europe in March. Ambassador Ross and Israeli and 
     Palestinian negotiators have been in almost constant contact. 
     Throughout, we continued to urge the parties to sort out the 
     issues directly with each other.
       Unfortunately, none of these discussions produced 
     sufficient results. It was clear that tough decisions were 
     required if Israelis and Palestinians were to reach an 
     agreement that neither side was prepared to make.
       Having worked since January to share our thoughts 
     informally with the parties at the highest level, it was 
     logical that we should at some point share a more fully 
     integrated set of ideas in an effort to facilitate decisions. 
     We took this step not because we wanted to, but because there 
     seemed no other way to break the dangerous logjam that had 
     developed.
       Our ideas stemmed from intensive consultations with both 
     sides and take into account both the obligations each side 
     has accepted and the vital interests each must protect. They 
     are balanced, flexible, practical and reasonable. They are 
     based on the principle of reciprocity--another concept 
     stressed by Prime Minister Netanyahu and embraced by us 
     because of our belief that parallel implementation of each 
     side's obligations is the only way to restore the partnership 
     between Israelis and Palestinians.
       In presenting our ideas, we made it clear that we were 
     offering them as suggestions, not as an ultimatum or an 
     effort to impose a settlement. Both parties have their own 
     decision-making processes and interests, which we respect. 
     Our purpose was only, in response to the parties' request, to 
     help them find the way forward.
       The role of the mediator is never an easy one. The 
     challenge is how to meet the needs of both sides in a way 
     that is acceptable to the other. Logically, that presents 
     both sides with the need to be flexible and to make decisions 
     that reflect the concerns not just of one party, but of two. 
     In this regard, our ideas were designed to find that balance 
     and to persuade each side that the balance could be struck in 
     a way that addressed their particular requirements.
       Now, let me try to explain our approach as it relates to 
     addressing Israel's requirements, foremost of which is 
     security. Let me say at the outset that there should be no 
     doubt about the commitment of the Clinton Administration or 
     of America to Israel's security. That commitment is 
     unshakable and has been demonstrated over and over again, not 
     only in words but in actions; in our joint struggle against 
     terrorism; in the assistance to Israel that the American 
     people have so long and so generously provided; and in the 
     steps we have taken to ensure Israel's qualitative military 
     edge.
       These include providing Israel with the F-15-I, the most 
     advanced fighter aircraft in the American arsenal; the pre-
     positioning of American military stock and material in Israel 
     for joint use; and jointly-funded research and development 
     projects designed to enhance Israel's ability to protect 
     itself against long range missiles and Katyusha rockets. And 
     let me add that our to Israel's security does not come with a 
     time limit. There is no expiration date. It will continue 
     today, tomorrow and for as long as the sun shall rise. I said 
     that in Israel last year and I meant it. And that's true 
     whether there is progress in the Middle East peace process or 
     not--or whether we have differences with Israel at a 
     particular moment or not.
       At the same time, we have agreed with Israeli leaders from 
     Prime Minister Ben Gurion to Begin and from Rabin to 
     Netanyahu that the key to long term security for the Israeli 
     people lies in lasting peace. That is why we have been 
     working so hard to resolve the present impasse. In so doing, 
     we would not for a minute assert for ourselves that right to 
     determine Israel's security needs. That is--and must remain--
     an Israeli prerogative.
       Moreover, both in our ideas and in the way we presented 
     them, we took fully into account Israeli concerns both about 
     process and substance. For example, we have given the parties 
     many weeks to consider our ideas in private. We did not 
     launch a public campaign on their behalf. And in response 
     primarily to Israeli requests, we allowed more time and then 
     more time and then more time for our suggestions to be 
     studied, considered and discussed.
       Moreover, the ideas we presented posed some very difficult 
     choices for the Palestinians. They were required to make 
     substantial changes in their negotiating position. 
     Nevertheless, Chairman Arafat agreed to our ideas in 
     principle.
       The real centerpiece of our efforts to address Israeli 
     requirements focused on dealing with Israel's fundamental and 
     legitimate security concerns. It was no coincidence that 
     security was the first point on our four-point

[[Page E851]]

     agenda. Creating the right environment for negotiations had 
     as its focus the issue of ensuring that Israeli-Palestinian 
     security cooperation was functioning at 100 percent, and that 
     Palestinians were exerting 100 percent effort to take 
     effective unilateral steps against terror. That's why our 
     ideas on security create a structure to ensure that the fight 
     against terror will not be episodic, but that it endures.
       From the beginning, we have made the security issue the 
     center of our dialogue with the Palestinians. We have pressed 
     them to understand that the fight against terror is a basic 
     Palestinian interest. And what we have seen, especially over 
     the past several months, is a concerted Palestinian effort--
     even in the absence of an agreement with Israel on the four-
     part agenda--against those who would threaten peace with 
     terror and violence. The Palestinian Authority deserves 
     credit for taking on such groups, but it is essential as they 
     do that others in the region who tell us they support peace 
     refrain from greeting with cordial hospitality and financial 
     backing the enemies of peace.
       Our suggestions for Israeli redeployments were also 
     formulated with Israel's prerogatives and concerns in mind. 
     We recognize, as reflected in the Christopher letter, that 
     further redeployment is an Israeli responsibility under Oslo, 
     rather than an issue to be negotiated. But it is in the 
     nature of partnership that Israel should take Palestinian 
     concerns into account, while following the terms of its 
     agreement. Otherwise, the peace process cannot move forward.
       In presenting our ideas, we did not define the areas from 
     which Israel should redeploy. Our ideas placed a premium on 
     Israel retaining overall security responsibility in the areas 
     affected by the proposed redeployment. And our suggestion 
     about the size of the next redeployment came down far closer 
     to Israel's position than to that of the Palestinians.
       Why did we suggest a size? Because that is the only way to 
     reach the agreement on launching permanent status talks that 
     Prime Minister Netanyahu asked us to achieve. In presenting 
     and discussing our ideas, we have acted with discretion and 
     patience. Because we realize the difficulty of the decisions 
     the parties were being asked to make, we have gone the extra 
     mile--in fact, the extra 20,000 miles, back and forth across 
     the Atlantic many times. And we have done so without 
     complaint, because America will always go the extra mile for 
     peace.
       I want to mention at this point also that America's 
     commitment to peace and security in the Middle East has 
     historically been a bipartisan commitment, stretching from 
     the administrations of Truman and Eisenhower to Bush and 
     Clinton, Because that commitment involves the security of a 
     cherished ally and the vital strategic interests of the 
     United States, our leaders have historically stood together 
     in support of Israel, and shoulder to shoulder with our Arab 
     friends in pursuit of peace. If America is to play its proper 
     role in promoting stability in the Middle East, it is 
     imperative that our leaders now--in the Executive Branch, in 
     Congress, and within the Jewish-American and Arab-American 
     communities--continue to work together on behalf of shared 
     goals.
       Tomorrow, I will meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu again, 
     and I very much look forward to the meeting. We are working 
     hard to overcome differences an I hope we will be able to 
     make progress.
       But the key point that I have been emphasizing to both 
     Israeli and Palestinian leaders is that although America 
     remains committed to the pursuit of peace, it is up to them--
     not to us--whether peace is achieved.
       Over the past months, we have played the role of mediator, 
     counselor, friend, shuttler, cajoler and idea-maker. We have 
     responded whenever called at literally any time of the day 
     or night. We have done this because we care about Israel 
     and its people; and we care about the Palestinians and 
     Arabs; and we care about the future peace and stability of 
     the region.
       We are not giving any ultimatums, and we're not threatening 
     any country's security. We are not trying to make any party 
     suffer at the expense of another. All we are trying to do is 
     find the path to peace, as the parties have repeatedly urged 
     us to do. And what we have especially been trying to do in 
     recent weeks is to issue a wake-up call. The leaders of the 
     region have reached a crossroads. Act before it is too late. 
     Decide before the peace process collapses. And understand 
     that in a neighborhood as tough as the Middle East, there is 
     no security from hard choices, and no lasting security 
     without hard choices.
       The parties must understand, as well, that there is urgency 
     to this task. For time is no longer an ally of this process; 
     it has become an adversary. The historic accomplishments that 
     flowed from the Oslo process represented a strategic 
     opportunity for peace that is now being put at risk. Consider 
     that just two years ago, at Sharm al-Sheikh, representatives 
     from Israel and a host of Arab states gathered at the Summit 
     of the Peacemakers to say no to terror and yes to peace. They 
     saw Israel as a partner. Unfortunately, that exhilarating 
     sense of partnership has been lost.
       Second, the very idea that negotiations can peacefully 
     resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict is now under threat. Unless 
     the leaders are willing to make hard choices, the field will 
     be left to extremists who have no interest in peace.
       Third, the clock continues to tick. The interim period 
     under Oslo concludes on May 4, 1999--less than a year from 
     now. Those who believe that drifting is acceptable, or who 
     believe they can declare unilateral positions or take 
     unilateral acts when the interim period ends, are courting 
     disaster. Both sides must understand that the issues reserved 
     for permanent status discussions--including the status of the 
     West Bank and Gaza and of settlements--can only be settled by 
     negotiation. That was the spirit and logic of Oslo.
       America's interest and goal is a comprehensive Arab-Israeli 
     peace based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, 
     including the principle of land for peace. That will require 
     decisive progress on all tracks, including the Israel-Lebanon 
     track and the Israel-Syria track.
       We are not a party to the negotiations. As President 
     Clinton has repeatedly emphasized, it is not our right, nor 
     our intention, nor is it within our capacity, to dictate 
     terms or impose a settlement. At the same time, our 
     credibility and interests are indeed affected by what the 
     Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs do or fail to do. We are 
     prepared to support their efforts as long as we judge they 
     are serious about wanting to reach an agreement--and serious 
     enough to make the decisions necessary to achieve it.
       For too long, too many children in too many parts of the 
     Middle East have grown up amidst violence, deprivation and 
     fear. Too many lives have been cut short by the terrorist's 
     bomb, the enemy's shell and the assassin's bullet. Too many 
     opportunities have been lost to heal old wounds, narrow 
     differences and transform destructive conflict into 
     constructive cooperation.
       Everyone with a stake in the Middle East has an obligation 
     to do what can be done to seize the strategic opportunity for 
     peace that now exists, and thereby to make possible a future 
     of stability and prosperity for all the people of the region.
       The United States believes this kind of future is within 
     our grasp. But the peoples of the region will not realize 
     that future if their leaders do not reach out with a vision 
     as great as the goal to overcome past grievances, treat 
     neighbors as partners and undertake in good faith the hard 
     work of cooperation and peace. All that is required is for 
     each to accord dignity and accept responsibility, and to act 
     not out of passion and fear, but out of reason and hope.
       For the peoples of the region who have suffered too long, 
     the path out of the wilderness is uphill, but clearly marked. 
     The time has come now, before the dusk obscures the 
     guideposts, to move up that road; and by so doing, to answer 
     the too-long denied prayers of the children--all the 
     children--of the Middle East.
       Thank you very much.

       

                          ____________________