STATE DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND BRIEFING ON EFFORTS TO SET
     VENUE OF THE TRIAL FOR THOSE SUSPECTED IN THE DOWNING OF
     PAN AM FLIGHT 103 OVER LOCKERBIE, SCOTLAND IN THE
     HAGUE, NETHERLANDS

SPEAKERS: JAMES FOLEY, STATE DEPARTMENT DEPUTY SPOKESMAN SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS

[*] FOLEY: Thank you. We have three senior administration officials who will brief you on the secretary's announcement on background. And the first senior official will make a few remarks, and then we'll just take your questions (OFF-MIKE). OFFICIAL: Thank you, Jim, very much.

I thought that I would amplify, just very briefly, the secretary's remarks by saying that the next steps that we will pursue, following what is essentially a coordinated joint announcement at The Hague and in London and here today, are to present to the Security Council a series of documents, copies of the (OFF-MIKE) originals also being presented concurrently to the secretary-general.

These documents outline our proposal making clear that it's a take-it-or-leave it, not a negotiating proposal, and solicit the secretary-general's assistance to effect the delivery of the individuals concerned as soon as Libya is ready to do that directly to the Scottish court sitting in Holland.

Our consultations in the Security Council will go on this afternoon, and the U.S. and the UK have a serious interest in presenting -- at the earliest possible time, perhaps as early as tomorrow -- a resolution which will put into effect this particular proposal.

In the meantime, over the past year, but particularly in recent weeks, we have been in intensive consultations, especially with the Dutch, who have to make arrangements to set up the Scottish court on their territory. It's a very unusual step. The Dutch cabinet made their decision this morning at 6:00 our time.

And we have been in discussions with the French because of UTA- 772, which was joined in the original resolutions in the demand for a -- the two fugitives, or the two accused, as we have called them. It also -- the original resolution -- demanded full Libyan cooperation with the Dutch judicial investigation into the destruction of UTA Flight 772.

So we have been coordinating closely with the French as well. Perhaps I should leave it there and then just pick up your questions.

QUESTION: Would you say something about the legal aspects of this? There is some discussion when this first was OFF-MIKE) talked about (OFF-MIKE). It's referring (ph) to a distinction on the court outside the (OFF-MIKE) in the UK. What's the status of (OFF-MIKE)?

OFFICIAL: Yes. ------------------,is the legal adviser, will correct me if I'm wrong. But after -- I'm sorry, we're on background. The legal -- a legal expert from the State Department will correct me if I'm wrong.

(LAUGHTER)

The understanding we have is that with a Security Council resolution, which would be taken under Chapter VII, the mandatory provisions of the United Nation's Charter, the British will be able to take their legislative steps through a procedure called order and counsel, which is similar to executive orders from the United States. Anonymous legal expert, is that correct?

UNKNOWN: That's absolutely correct.

QUESTION: The Libyans have said in the past publicly that they would agree to a third-country trial, but now you're actually, as the secretary said, trying to call their bluff. Have there been any contacts with the Libyans about your announcements today, and have they given any indications through diplomatic channels that they will be prepared to go along it?

OFFICIAL: No, we have not had contact with the Libyans. I don't believe others engaged in this process have had contacts with the Libyans, but they should answer for themselves.

The Libyans, on a number of occasions, have signaled their willingness. And the secretary noted some of those, including the fact that organizations, which are presumably in contact with the Libyans -- the Non-Aligned Movement, the League of Arab States, the Organization of African Unity, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

In addition, Robin Cooke, who spoke a few minutes ago, the British foreign secretary, said in his statement that a gentleman by the name of Omar Montassir, foreign minister of Libya, said in a letter on January 2 of 1998, to the president of the Security Council in Libya, and I quote, "accepted the proposal of the League of Arab States is that the two suspects should be tried by a court in a neutral company. And there is the League's proposal as endorsed by the Organization of African Unity, the Organization of Islamic Conference and the Movement of Non-Aligned countries, that they should be tried at the Hague by Scottish judges and in accordance with Scottish law." That's the end of the quotation.

QUESTION: Yes, thank you. Mr. Official, will this deal, particularly the deal -- will the British and the U.S. and the Scottish officials have direct access to these two suspects? Will these people be brought to The Hague and incarcerated there and allowed to be interviewed and interrogated?

OFFICIAL: (OFF-MIKE) proviso, because, as you know, under American law and under Scottish law, there is no provision for a trial en absentia, so the defendants in the trial must be present.

They must be available to the court for the court's activities, including interviews by the prosecutors and all of the other arrangements that are necessary to conduct an adequate trial. And the arrangements being made in Holland try to provide for such.

QUESTION: Who will hold them?

OFFICIAL: They will be held by the Scottish court in Holland.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

OFFICIAL: Initially, they will be held by the Dutch for a very short period of time, but then transferred by the Scottish court in Holland.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

OFFICIAL: You are again (OFF-MIKE) into a question in which I'm totally unqualified to respond. I do know that there are provisions in law that are (OFF-MIKE) different from the United Kingdom.

One thing I should add just for your information is that Scottish law, as I understand it, normally provides for a trial by jury. In order to avoid the great difficulties of holding in a foreign country a number of distinguished, loyal, helpful Scottish citizens as a jury in this trial, the Scottish judicial system decided that it was perfectly fine to substitute in their stead three judges from Scottish courts to carry forward the case and that that could be arranged.

And so that is the only difference I know between Scottish law in Scotland as a trial under Scottish law that is proposed to be carried out in the Netherlands.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Is that still the case? (OFF-MIKE)?

OFFICIAL: I can't comment on that. Do you want to comment on that?

OFFICIAL: Only that that's an element of Scottish law. And we don't know whether (OFF-MIKE).

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) part of Scottish law.

OFFICIAL: Scottish law and Scottish procedure will apply.

OFFICIAL: I would suggest maybe you direct your questions to (OFF-MIKE) to Scottish legal authorities on this one.

QUESTION: How would this effect the sanctions regime (OFF-MIKE)?

OFFICIAL: It's an important question. There are two elements of the sanctions regime. One is multilateral, introduced in several successive United Nations resolutions in 1991 and 1992. And the other is our own unilateral sanctions.

This will not effect our own unilateral sanctions. The effect on the multilateral sanctions will be set forward in the United Nations resolutions. We do not intend to change those. Those resolutions provide, in effect -- and this is a summary -- that when the fugitives or the wanted folks are delivered, that there will be a suspension of the application of sanctions, that sanctions will not be lifted formally and officially until some other elements of Libyan cooperation are provided for, as is stated in the UN resolution.

OFFICIAL: And we can perhaps give you copies of those, or at least citations to those after our session this morning to help you look further into what those provisions are.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) UN sanctions (OFF-MIKE) oil (OFF-MIKE).

OFFICIAL: The Libyan sanctions do not relate to the sale of oil per se.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) the United States (OFF-MIKE).

OFFICIAL: We have made clear and we will make clear that this offer is on offer for a short time. The United States reserves the right to do whatever it believes is necessary in the event that this offer within a reasonable period of time is not accepted.

We are not going to define a reasonable period of time, but I would tell you that an instance for us to review Libyan cooperation will come forward officially in the month of November when under the Security Council resolutions, the whole question of Libyan cooperation in the United Nations resolutions related to the sanctions regime will be discussed within the Security Council.

QUESTION: Yes. The secretary said the families are divided on the proper strategy. What would you say to those families who are disappointed and even feel betrayed by the proposal?

OFFICIAL: I would say, as we have continued to say to them, that first and foremost we have in mind the families, the deep and urgent desire to bring to justice these two people who have been named in the indictment, and that we have been pursuing that urgently and ardently for a long period of time. And that this particular step is solely and exclusively designed to achieve that particular objective. That's why we have put it forward.

And we believe that putting forward this particular approach, that is, an approach that is in full compliance with the UN resolution, which says that these people should be brought before and tried in an American or Scottish court, is the appropriate way to proceed. That's the direction in which we're going.

But we also said to them that we have never taken any options off the table. It will continue to be our strong and abiding commitment to bring these people to justice, and we will continue to pursue that until we can get them there.

Charlie.

QUESTION: What was the reaction in the families that were spoken to this morning to this? And how many various family members were the secretary or you in touch with?

OFFICIAL: The secretary and National Security Adviser Berger were in touch with more than a dozen, a group with whom they had spoken before. They were in touch with them on a conference call. The reactions were, as the secretary stated in her own remarks just a minute ago, there was not a unanimous view. Some were in favor and some were not in favor of the proposal. And obviously, they all can speak best for themselves.

QUESTION: You said that the U.S. has never taken any options off the table, but what options would really in all reality be left if this one doesn't follow through?

OFFICIAL: I don't want to go into excessive speculation at this point. However, I can tell you that in the conversations this morning, members of the family groups raised with the secretary the question that had come up earlier as to whether oil sanctions were possible. We have always been in favor of oil sanctions. The difficulty has been that not enough members of the Security Council have been supportive of oil sanctions to move them through.

Our feeling now is that under the circumstances in which a number of major international organizations of regional international character and a number of other countries have put forward this option and in which the foreign minister of Libya, as I quoted, is apparently putting forward the same approach. We now have if they fail to proceed what we hope and believe will be a number of very, strong supporters committed to bringing this case to closure. And open- minded and supportive, we hope, about the immediate prospect of bringing these people to justice.

OFFICIAL: And if their desire should be thwarted and ours should be thwarted, we think we are capable of building a much stronger international consensus around further steps that must be taken, whether they be the one that the families raised or the secretary.

The secretary made it very clear that she is obviously extremely interested and supportive of moving on, particularly in the direction of oil sanctions. Clearly, there are limits to what one can do.

But we hope that this nexus of events that we have put forward, the take-it-or-leave-it proposal, the ability for Qadhafi to put up or shut up, the strong and seemingly strong support for this kind of an approach for money other countries can if he fails to deliver the suspects, help us internationally to improve and increase the multilateral sanctions regime in order to make the original objective happen.

It is a test. It's a clear test for many countries around the world who have put forward this view and we hope that they will join us if Qadhafi doesn't pass the test in making the result come about.

QUESTION: Can I ask you two questions? One is if indeed they are brought to trial and convinced, where would they serve their sentences? And two, what do you say to people (OFF-MIKE) who find it ironic after (OFF-MIKE) Sudan and Afghanistan that the agent for the Libyan government has clearly stated (OFF-MIKE) our issue here and not Libyan government (OFF-MIKE) itself (OFF-MIKE). They see a great contradiction in the way (OFF-MIKE).

OFFICIAL: I think the answer to the first question is in prisons to which the Scottish judicial system normally sends convicted individuals. I presume that they would be in Scotland, but I don't know for certain. But certainly, in the United Kingdom. Yes, it is. The answer is (OFF-MIKE).

The second question is an important one, Steve. I think that touching on the critical point here, while we are seeking the two suspects or accused, in this case, if you will take a look at the indictment, which is important, a Security Council document and something submitted by the United States, it talks in frequent terms not only about these two, but about others.

And so, in fact, the grand jury had a sense, at least, that others might well follow or be part of the particular situation in which this set of issues that's been engaged. And clearly, the door is not closed on that. As you know, the families, too, are pursuing a civil suit. We believe that another value of bringing these gentlemen to trial is the evidence that can be put forward in that trial would also be of significant help to have them pursue their efforts.

Finally, we have made it clear in the United Nations resolutions and elsewhere that the issue of compensation also is an extremely important issue where Libya, now a declared and fully-fledged state sponsor of terrorism, fully up on our state sponsorship list, would, in that sense, being held responsible as a state for the action of its officials, and compensation is one method of achieving that particular result.

QUESTION: Can you just explain the (OFF-MIKE) it's been 10 years since (OFF-MIKE) 10 years since the (OFF-MIKE) mentioned (OFF-MIKE) would like to (OFF-MIKE) and (OFF-MIKE) who the agents are and who they worked for? And did you all (OFF-MIKE) your statement and the secretary's statement went to great lengths to point out the international consensus in various international groups, Arab League and Non-Aligned, et cetera, were supportive of this. How does that jibe with (OFF-MIKE) a week or so after the U.S. took (OFF-MIKE) very quick, unilateral, not consulting with our allies sort of action against terrorism? I mean, how do you, sort of, deal with this?

OFFICIAL: (OFF-MIKE) if I can. I think it's important. We have been working our way toward this question. And I think it needs to be discussed and it needs to be out on the table. And you've asked it in the direct sense in which I hoped I would get it.

First, let me go through the differences between the two cases, which is important, always against the backdrop that I said that we have not taken options off the table with respect to the case that we're now addressing -- the Lockerbie-Libya case.

First, in the Lockerbie-Libya case, as you remember, it took a long time. We did not have an immediate indication of who was responsible and, in fact, 2.5 years of, I think, really phenomenal detective work in the technical sense in particular produced a clear indication of where we should go to find the suspects.

Secondly, it was then the period of the Bush administration. I believe even earlier, the Reagan administration endorsed the idea that we should seek justice through a position of asserting a trial, bringing an indictment and bringing these individuals into the ambit of the judicial systems that could take charge of them and carry out a trial.

That was reinforced by a decision by the Bush administration in early 1991 to proceed through the United Nations with Security Council resolutions, mandatory resolutions, imposing sanctions in order to achieve that objective.

We are still on that track. The events of the last week were characterized by terrible explosions at our embassies, a very clear -- and I think we've talked to you many times from this platform -- indication that more were to follow, an urgent and serious emergent threat to American citizens, interests and buildings in a number of places around the world.

It was accompanied by a growing and then, I think, rather convincing conclusion on our part that we had reliable evidence that indicated who was responsible, and the decision of the president, therefore, under those circumstances to act in self-defense. And we were serious when we said self-defense.

We had a clear and pressing indication that if we hadn't taken those actions, we would have not afforded our people, our citizens -- both official and non-official -- and our installations overseas what was certainly America's right and so it was necessary that we were acting in our own self-defense to provide both the protection and the deterrent necessary in those cases to deal with the issue.

So the two are different in that sense. And they're different because we have opted in each case to use a different tool of American policy to attempt to achieve our objective, which was clearly protect the country, guard against threats, and bring people before the bar of justice, hold them accountable and responsible, if I could put it that way, for their actions.

QUESTION: More than 100 Americans were killed (OFF-MIKE)...

OFFICIAL: One hundred and eighty-six, I believe...

QUESTION: ... in Pam Am 103. You didn't (OFF-MIKE) -- you cited the protecting of Americans, but you also cited the deterrent effect. And yet you had agents of the Libyan government in Libya for...

OFFICIAL: It had took us...

QUESTION: ... who knows how many years.

OFFICIAL: ... 2.5 years at that time to determine that with some conclusive evidence and (OFF-MIKE) if the administration at that time decided that it would proceed to bring these people into court. That was their decision.

QUESTION: Who will be (OFF-MIKE) in this case on the bigger point? And how any decision by the court will be (OFF-MIKE)?

OFFICIAL: The -- of course, prosecution will be conducted by the lord advocate of Scotland and his prosecutorial staff in a Scottish court sitting in Holland. And the other question was?

QUESTION: And how any decision by the court would be (OFF-MIKE)?

OFFICIAL: The court -- its decision will be implemented through the Scottish judicial system. And as I said earlier, the defendants, if convicted, will serve their sentence in Scottish prisons. If they are released, they will be given passage back to Libya.

QUESTION: Could you describe what unilateral sanctions (OFF- MIKE) effectively means?

OFFICIAL: I'm not the expert, but I believe we have quite sweeping unilateral sanctions on almost all aspects of conducting business with Libya.

QUESTION: Is anything excluded?

OFFICIAL: I think -- we could give you a more detailed answer for the record, but I think very little if anything is excluded from what are essentially sanctions on contacts, trade and commerce between the United States and Libya.

QUESTION: Could we get that...

OFFICIAL: We'll give you a full one.

QUESTION: Is the United States fully convinced that only Libya was involved in the plan to bring down Pan Am 103?

OFFICIAL: I think that, Steve, we keep an open mind. I don't want to introduce new red herrings to the case. However, we're quite convinced from our evidence that the two people sought in the indictment are the two people that we now are fully enough convinced to bring before a court of justice.

But as I said, the indictment keeps the indictment open for others. I can't tell you that that is exclusively fixed on others of Libyan persuasion. But I wouldn't want to bring you down a false path. I think at the moment, from everything we know, and we continue to watch this evidence, that remains our conclusion.

FOLEY: We'll take a few more questions.

QUESTION: What would you say to people who view this as a gesture to the Arab world?

OFFICIAL: It is neither a gesture to the Arab world or a negotiation, because there are neither factors involved in it. What it is, is an effort to keep faith with families who have lost brothers, husbands, sons, daughters and want to see people brought to trial. And it is in that sense a willingness on our part to make a procedural change -- that is, the location of the Scottish court in order to achieve it -- but no derogation, no change, no shift from the use of a Scottish court, a Scottish prosecutor, Scottish law, Scottish judges, Scottish decisions and Scottish punishment.

And we believe that to walk the last mile with the families on a take-it-or-leave it proposition is the right course of action for us to take to continue to pursue and bring to justice terrorists.

FOLEY: Tom.

QUESTION: Any case like this involves at some point a cross-over criminal investigation and accumulation of evidence to be presented in court, what you might call the intelligence investigation which involves information you don't want to present. If Libya should comply with this (OFF-MIKE), are you convinced that in fact the United States is prepared to put this evidence on display in a public tribunal in this case?

OFFICIAL: This is an issue of I think significant law enforcement content. And sitting here as an official of the State Department, that's not a question that I feel comfortable, Tom, asking, and I would ask that you probably take that to Justice and see what they have to say. I have great trepidation about treading into the law enforcement thicket, particularly because on cases that are pending, we don't do that.

(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE)

OFFICIAL: I could just say, Tom, I'm reminded by my colleague, the majority of the evidence is physical evidence. A lot of that has already been discussed in public.

QUESTION: Excuse me. (OFF-MIKE) what's the maximum sentence in Scottish law?

OFFICIAL: Thirty years.

QUESTION: One last question, that's Charlie's. But also I have a question, two questions. What about, does the indictment in Scotland, does this differ at all from the indictment in the United States?

OFFICIAL: No.

QUESTION: And 30 years definitely is the maximum?

OFFICIAL: I understand that life means 30 years.

OFFICIAL: Life equals 30 years in Scotland. Life is short.

(LAUGHTER)

OFFICIAL: I'm off the record.

(LAUGHTER)

OFFICIAL: We'll take one last question.

QUESTION: Obviously, (OFF-MIKE) every conclusion in the world away from this, but is there any chance that the United States would consider military action or intends to forcibly seize the two suspects if all of these attempts fail? Although, clearly, you've talked about oil sanctions and everything else.

OFFICIAL: By definition, if we were contemplating that kind of thing I wouldn't talk to you about it. All I'm going to say is that all options remain on the table. None have come off. I wouldn't overread that.

FOLEY: OK. Thank you very much.

END