Scenesetter for President Mubarek's Visit to the U.S.

 Real Audio of Briefing 

        SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: (NOTE: Event fed in progress) -- discussions as part of a process of consultation with our regional partners as the administration sorts out how best to move ahead in the Middle East. And it's obviously very important as part of that process to hear from President Mubarak. And the president is very much looking forward to their conversations up at Camp David. I think that really is the best context in which to set the Mubarak visit. This is obviously an important regional ally of the United States, someone who has been a long-time partner with the United States in trying to promote peace in the Middle East, and the president is very eager to hear President Mubarak's views about how best to move ahead. So I'll be happy to take your questions. Yes, sir?

       MODERATOR: If you could just wait for the microphone and identify yourself.

       Q Mohammad Arami (ph) with -- (inaudible) -- Television. Sir, as you know, President Mubarak is bringing with him his own initiative or ideas or plan, whatever you are going to call it. Do you think that there is room for additional proposals, initiatives, plans in this crisis? And when you say the U.S. is engaged, what do you have to show for this engagement?

        SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: All right, let me take the second question first, if I may. I think there are several potential or at least potentially positive things going on that are flowing from U.S. engagement in the region.

       If you'll go back to the president's April 4th statement on the Middle East, he said at that point that if we are going to make progress all parties, not just the Israelis and the Palestinians, although certainly they have responsibilities, but all parties -- our regional partners, our international partners, and of course the United States itself -- we all have responsibilities that we need to meet. And I think we are seeing some very promising movements in that direction.

        I would note, for example, with the Egyptians we have had some really very constructive and high level engagement by the Egyptians with both Israelis and Palestinians over the last few weeks. President Mubarak of course sent his political advisor, Dr. Osama Al- Baz, to meet with Prime Minister Sharon and the Israeli officials. The Egyptians have been playing a very helpful and constructive role in trying to get restructuring of Palestinian security services off the ground.

        And you could point to other players in the region who are trying to play a more constructive role, more engaged role now in the aftermath of the president's speech. And I think that's a very positive development. Certainly the Saudis with their peace initiatives and all that has flowed from that, they certainly have been trying to play a constructive role. We have been getting really strong support from our international partners in the context of the quartet. If you look at the way that the quartet has matured and become more active since the president's statement, I would view that as a very positive development.

        And I think another item I would mention is we are seeing now a deep and I think very genuine groundswell of agitation within Palestinian society for reform of their political and economic institutions. And you are seeing I think really something coming close to an international consensus behind the idea that the international community needs to support Palestinian efforts at reform, not impose some blueprint on the Palestinians -- certainly not -- but to support genuine indigenous efforts at reform among the Palestinians. And I think in keeping with the president's statement that is going to be a very important piece in helping us move forward toward Arab-Israeli peace. So I think there are some things, some very important things that you can point to since the president's April 4th speech that are already quite positive developments. Obviously we need to keep building on those to keep the momentum going. But I think we are beginning to head in the right direction on a number of fronts.

       Q Whether there's room for additional --

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Ah, sorry, yes, room for additional initiatives. We'll see what President Mubarak brings. I mean, I am certainly expecting that President Mubarak is going to have some fairly specific ideas to put to President Bush about how we should work together to move forward. I am not aware of what you described as an Egyptian plan in the sense of something that might get publicly put out, and this would be the basis for moving forward. And we are very eager to hear President Mubarak's ideas. We welcome Egyptian involvement leadership in this process. But I think, you know, there are already a lot of ideas, proposals, initiatives out there on the table. There is in a way no shortage of vision. What we need now is to get together and with our partners figure out the best roadmap for realizing those visions for peace.

        Q Jean-Michel -- (inaudible) -- AFP, Agence France Presse. Ari Fleischer said President Bush would listen to Ariel Sharon and Mr. Mubarak. When do we expect -- or do you expect a Bush plan before an international conference on the Middle East?

        SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: There has been a certain amount of speculation about what the United States might say or might offer following this period of consultations that we are still engaged in at the present. I think it's a little bit misleading to look at it in terms of expecting a Bush plan -- that the United States is going to come forward with a map showing where final boundaries should be drawn -- you know, here's our plan for dealing with Jerusalem, here are precise numbers for resettlement of Palestinian refugees -- these kinds of things. I wouldn't anticipate that the administration is going to go that route.

        What we are considering -- and I would stress that no decisions have been taken at this point -- but what we are considering is laying out some ideas, perspective, principles, parameters about how we might move forward to realize the president's two-state vision.

        Now, I think it was a very historic step for President Bush to lay out the two-state decision and call for the creation of a state, Palestine, that would live side by side with Israel in peace and security.

        Now what we are considering is the next step -- you know, what are the principles, parameters, ideas, that should guide our efforts as we move forward to try to realize that two-state vision? And so I think it's a bit misleading to speculate or expect a Bush plan. But I think what we are thinking about doing is laying out a more specific road map or set of ideas for realizing the two-state vision.

        Q A follow-up, if I may. Is such a framework -- could we call it a framework -- going to be published before an international conference in the Middle East?

        SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: As I said, there are still fundamental decisions that have to be taken that we think in the end this really is the best way to proceed to lay out this -- if you want to call it a framework, okay. We still have to sort through that decision. Obviously if we decide we want to do it, the question of timing is going to come up as well. And whether, assuming we go with an international conference at some point this summer, what is the best timing in relationship to that meeting or conference is obviously going to be another question we have to sort through.

        Q Hi, Janine Bakearia (ph) with the Jerusalem Post. In Tel Aviv this morning, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said that the U.S. is considering seriously the idea of trading settlements for the right of return: Israel gives up settlements, the Palestinians abandon right of return. Similarly, there was a report about -- this morning -- about basing the negotiations along the '67 border. Are these some of the general principles that you are talking about for the framework? And, also, could you comment on Israel's incursion into Arafat's compound yesterday? Is that the kind of response that you anticipated?

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Okay. On the incursions, we were not consulted about the incursion. We were not notified about it -- not that we necessarily would have expected to be notified, but the fact is that we weren't notified. We had no advance knowledge of the incursion. And I think any reaction to the incursion -- frankly we don't really know what the point of the incursion is at this juncture.

        On your first question, I saw those reports in our and other places in the Israeli press too, and talking about the very specific trade-off -- borders, refugees, things like this. I would say there are a lot of ideas that are on the table right not that we have generated in our own internal discussions. And as we have gone through this process of consultation with our partners, other ideas have been introduced. Do you have a timeline? Not a timeline? If you have a timeline, what should it be? There are a lot of substantive issues that we need to come to closure on, and there are a lot of ideas on the table about each of those ideas.

        What I would say at this juncture is there have been no decisions on any of those issues about what specifically would be the U.S. position.

        Q Michael Avali (ph) from Tokyo Broadcasting System. One is a logistics question. For those of us who have to work on Saturday -- (laughter) --

        SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: I do too.

        Q -- do you know how the day is going to work, what time the press conference is going to be, what time President Mubarak is expected to leave Camp David? Those type of logistics on Saturday, if you could help us out with that.

       Second, there's been mixed messages coming from the White House about Arafat. Yesterday morning in the gaggle Ari said that he -- that the president views him as ineffective and untrustworthy. Then later on in the briefing he said the president still looks at him as the person to work with. Is there disagreement in the administration about how to proceed with Arafat? And what does the president -- how does the president expect to broach the subject of Arafat with Mubarak at Camp David?

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Okay, let me do your logistical question, then we can talk about Arafat if you like. I'm doing this from memory, but I think that it's accurate. The working meetings between the Egyptian and American delegations will get going around nine o'clock on Saturday morning, and there will of course have been previous discussions on Friday evening between the two presidents. But there will be working meetings starting around nine o'clock up at Camp David. Those will break sometime shortly after 10. I think we are anticipating the press availability starting around 10:20 roughly -- go for about half an hour. At that point there'd be some personal time, staff time. And my recollection is that Mubarak will depart Camp David around 11:30.

        Yes, yes, you could make plans for the afternoon safely, I think. I certainly a.m.

        You asked about Arafat. I think that really what we want to focus on right now -- not just in our conversations with Mubarak, but I think you can see this emerging as an important element in our policy -- what we want to talk about is reform and development of Palestinian institutions in anticipation of Palestinian statehood. What we want to focus on, frankly, at this point is state-building for the Palestinians, and supporting, as I said, Palestinian efforts to build those kinds of institutions that will give the Palestinian people an economically viable, politically viable democratic state run according to standards of accountability, transportation, all the good governance criteria. That is the focus of our effort right now in dealing with the Palestinians. We really want to talk about the system and the structures that we are trying to build, rather than about particular individuals. I mean, we recognize, as we have said repeatedly, that Arafat has the position that he has as leader of the Palestinian Authority. And it is -- it is not our place to determine the leadership of the Palestinian people. But what we want to focus on is state-building, working on building the kinds of institutions I talked about, and at an appropriate point in that process, you know, you would -- you would want to have Palestinian elections.

       Q If the president views Arafat as ineffective and untrustworthy, how does he fit into that new nation-building that you want to focus on?

        SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: It's -- it's not for us to say how he -- how he fits in. The Palestinians are going to be working on -- with international support -- on building the sorts of institutions that they want to have. And they're going to be having their own electoral processes at an appropriation -- at an appropriate point in the state- building exercise to empower their leadership. And it's going to be up to them to sort out who has what role in the prospective Palestinian state.

        Q Hoda Tawfiq from al-Ahram. You mentioned that there is no plan as such, American plan, but there are ideas. So, would this ideas have in it the sentiments, the principles of no settlements, of removing settlements, the principle, because you said the ideas are connecting with the Palestinian state? So, would it cover all the important elements to be a Palestinian state, in order to emerge a Palestinian state?

        SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: The president has already said in the April 4th statement and in other settings that -- his view that Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza is unhelpful, not conducive to making progress. And he's even said flatly that settlement activity must stop. I think the president's view on current settlement expansion, the creation of new settlements, is very clear. The issue of settlements in the context of a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is obviously going to be an important topic that would need to be addressed in whatever framework or set of ideas that we put forward.

        Q A follow-up -- so the idea of trading off the settlements for the right of return really is -- does not stand.

        SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: No. What I said was is that there are a number of ideas that we've developed in the course of our own discussions and that our partners have suggested to us. And we are sorting through all of those ideas right now and trying to make the best determination that we can if we go forward with this kind of statement that I've talked about -- what's the best substance to have in that statement. But, we are still making -- making our own decisions about with the U.S. position should be on some of these issues.

        Q Okay. Thank you. Just one last point. What do you want to get -- to come out of the summit tomorrow, on Saturday?

        SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: With President Mubarak?

        Q Yes.

        SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: I think, first of all I'd say that the summit itself, in contrast maybe to some other meetings between world leaders that you can point to from time to time, where the meeting may be basically a platform for announcing some treaty or agreement or concrete initiative that's already been -- been pre-cooked.

       I'd say this summit, the way -- the way I would suggest you look at it, is as an opportunity for President Bush to receive President Mubarak's advice and counsel as we are going through our own internal deliberations about next steps in the Middle East. We -- the president is going to have the chance to take President Mubarak's advice and counsel, to interact with him on important questions of substance, timing, what is best for the United States to do. And, in certain ways, the conversation that the two presidents have, and that the delegations have up at Camp David, in contrast to some other summits you might point to, the conversations themselves are very important for this meeting.

        MODERATOR: Time for just a couple more.

        Q Just to be clear about it --

        Q (Off mike.)

        Q Hmm? No, I'm on background -- (laughter) -- just to be clear --everybody's on background. If you're on background, I'm on background. But just to be clear about it --

        Q (Off-mike.) (Laughter.)

        Q Just to be clear about it, it's -- you've touched on it now -- I've been -- I've had my hand up for a while, so there's been several questions that sort of touched on the same question I have. You almost said, but I'd like to be clear about it, that right of return, as it's called, is a legitimate item for discussion, for negotiations. You've danced around settlement. You've spoken of settlement activity, which generally means expanding settlements, in fact, even during negotiations, and several administrations have called that not helpful. But you've also sort of suggested that maybe wiping out all Jewish settlements is an entertaining -- is a thought to entertain, according to the Bush administration. So, could you clarify what you think of those two things: removal -- forget activity -- removal of settlements and piling 2 or 3 million Palestinians into Israel or what remains of Israel, are legitimate items for negotiation.

        SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Look, on refugees, really all I'm saying is that we recognize, as administrations have recognized for some time, that refugees are defined as a final status issue and ultimately need to be dealt with in a final settlement. I haven't said anything to suggest an administration view on what is the appropriate way deal with that.

        Q (Inaudible.)

        SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Refugees, of course, are a subject for negotiations between the parties, absolutely. But don't draw from that statement a particular administration view on the -- on the issue.

        Q (Inaudible) -- so you wouldn't reject the notion of a trade-off. You said there were a lot of ideas out there, but that's okay, you didn't come out with a statement as to how refugees should be dealt with.

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: It's not -- it's -- ultimately it's not for us, the United States, to say how refugees are dealt with. If maybe at some point we think as part of a statement of our own views on how to advance the process, we might think we need to say something on -- on refugees, but that doesn't mean that we have a magic wand to wave and that American view becomes reality on the ground overnight. Ultimately, it's still a negotiation between the parties.

        Q And on the issue of eliminating settlements, not expanding them, eliminating them.

        SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Uh-huh.

       Q That's a fit subject for discussion too?

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Settlements are also -- have long been defined as a final status issue. The fate of the existing settlements has long been defined as a final status issue.

        Q (Inaudible) -- you're the first administration to -- (inaudible) -- Palestinian state.

        SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Yes.

       Q The Clinton administration, which made great demands on Israel, stopped short of entertaining the thought of letting all these refugees go into Israel, but you guys are willing to entertain it. So, there are changes all the time. The policy isn't static.

        SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: I didn't say we were -- I didn't say we were entertaining it. I said we recognized that refugees are an issue that needs to be dealt with.

        MODERATOR: I think you're the next person waiting, and this'll have to be the last one.

        Q Sorry. I wondered whether -- Paddy Smith, Irish Times -- I wonder whether you're sympathetic to the idea of a time frame on the establishment of a Palestinian state, whether you're going to say to Mubarak that you will press the Israelis on this?

        SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Certainly, the issue of a time frame is something -- or the possibility of a time frame is something that has been suggested to us very strongly by some of our Arab partners in particular. I am sure some of you will recall that when King Abdullah was visiting Washington that he said publicly during that visit to Washington that he believed a three-year time frame was -- was an appropriate way to go. We've heard other ideas about time frames. We've also heard arguments about why it's not a good idea to have a time frame. I think I indicated this is going to be one of the I'd say more important issues that we need to sort through for ourselves, what -- how we think is best to handle that. But no decisions have been taken on it at this point.

       MODERATOR: Thank you all very much.

        SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Thank you.