Content provided in partnership with
Government Industry
Secretary's interview on "This Week with David Brinkley." - James A. Baker
US Department of State Bulletin, June, 1989
Secretary Baker was interviewed on ABC-TV's "This Week With David Brinkley" on April 9, 1989, by David Brinkley and Sam Donaldson, ABC News, and George F. Will, ABC News analyst.1
Q. You heard [Israeli] Prime Minister Shamir [previous guest]. Do you hear anything new?
A. I think it was interesting that the Prime Minister said that we were in the process, really, of starting a political negotiation. He said that that political negotiation ultimately would consider matters of permanent status; and he said, in effect, that all options would be considered during that negotiation, particularly the one involving permanent status. I think this is new. I believe it's different, really, than Camp David-it's not just warmed-over Camp David-and I think it is a very useful first step that will enable us, hopefully, to engage Arabs and Israelis in a negotiation that might lead to peace.
- Most Popular Articles in News
- The Ten Best Laptop bags
- Tata plans cheapest-ever car for Indian market
- GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD
- Corn is good for you; Corn is not only a tasty treat, but also a cereal that ...
- THE 50 BEST STYLISH HANDBAGS TO CARRY
- More »
Is it a small step? Yes, it's a small step. But as someone indicated a couple of days ago, this is the most intractable foreign policy problem that many U.S. Administrations have faced, and we ought not to be dissatisfied with small steps.
Q. Even though a small step, the Palestinians have already rejected it or opposed it.
A. That's correct. We think it has potential, and we hope that anyone who is interested in peace would give it a chance. There are positions that have been taken on the other side as well that some would characterize as perhaps too rigid, and we will hope that there is a potential for some of those to moderate as we go through this process.
Q. I would like to go back to this very basic question raised by the President's statement about Israel leaving the occupied territories, and that is: What is the U.S. position as to whom those territories belong? Is it still the U.S. position that the West Bank is part of the unallocated portion of the Palestine mandate belonging neither to Jordan nor Israel nor anyone else until negotiation between the two parties directly?
A. It's the U.S. position that the permanent status of those territories will not be determined except through direct negotiations between the parties, and whatever those direct negotiations bring about that lead to peace will be supported by the United States.
Q. The "parties" being? A. Being Israelis and the Palestinians.
Q. Jordanians?
A. Palestinians.
Q. What happened to [UN Security Council Resolutions] 242 and 338?
A. [Resolutions] 242 and 338 we support.
Q. Then is it-
A. And we support-
Q. I didn't realize that 242 said through negotiations those territories may, in fact, become Israeli land.
A. But we also support the idea of direct negotiations. We do support, as you know-and we differ here from the position of Israel-we support territory for peace. We support direct negotiations, though that will provide for Israeli security and for Palestinian political rights.
Q. But the Prime Minister just indicated that the intifada-the uprising-which is now in its 17th month on the West Bank and Gaza, must stop before he can proceed with elections toward this autonomy plan. Do you think that's a reasonable position?
A. I think that what the Prime Minister said, if I could interpret his remarks, is that it's pretty tough to conduct fair and democratic elections in an atmosphere of violence. I do not read him to be saying that, as a requirement for negotiations with Palestinians about how the elections will be handled, what the details will be, what the modalities will be, there somehow has to be an end to the intifada in advance. I don't think that would work, and I don't think that that is something the Palestinians would agree to.
Q. We didn't ask him that. As far as negotiating toward reaching a process to hold elections to find people to negotiate, we didn't ask him that question.
A. But you have to do that. It is a step-by-step process. As we have been saying for some time, I think, we have got to find ways to improve the climate on the ground, to improve the atmosphere if we are ever going to find the parties in direct negotiations that could lead to peace.
Q. Will people in east Jerusalem be allowed to vote? Would Palestinians-
A. That's a good example of the kinds of details and questions that will have to be answered-
Q. What do you say the answer is?
A. -not just Palestinians in east Jerusalem but what about Palestinians outside of the territories? It's one of
Q. What about them? Let me ask you whether you think they should be allowed to vote.
A. Let me say that the only way we're going to make progress here is not to set hard-and-fast preconditions before we get this process of negotiations started. That's one of the things, frankly, that Palestinians and Israelis are going to have to decide with respect to these elections: Who is eligible to vote? After these people are elected, what is going to be their responsibility? What is it that they're going to do? How will that fit in with the negotiations on permanent status? All these things have to be determined.
Find Research Guides for:
Find Featured Titles for: Reference
- Academe
- African American Review
- African Arts
- African Studies Review
- Afro-Americans in New York Life and History
- Alabama Heritage
- Alabama Review
- American Mathematical Monthly, The
- Anglican Theological Review
- Annals of Dyslexia
- Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ)
- Auk, The
- Australian Journal of Anthropology, The
- Christian Century
- Natural History