10 January 2002

U.S. Repeats Libya's Obligations to U.N. Resolutions

Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs William Burns met with Libyan officials in London January 10 as a follow-up on earlier discussions regarding Libyan compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions on Pan Am Flight 103, State Department deputy spokesman Philip Reeker told reporters at regular briefing January 15.

He said the meeting did not represent a shift in U.S. policy. "Libya must comply with its U.N. Security Council obligations and put its terrorist past behind it. There can be no shortcuts around these obligations, and we continue to call upon Libya to fulfill those obligations," Reeker said.

Asked about Israeli media reports on the kidnapping and murder January 15 of an American citizen in Israel, Reeker confirmed the death of an American citizen, apparently by an act of violence, but could offer no further comment pending incoming information.

Reeker noted U.S. officials are in contact with Israeli and Palestinian officials to gather the facts, saying the death "underscores the necessity in bringing an immediate end to violence and moving quickly towards implementation of the Tenet security plan and the Mitchell committee recommendations".

The deputy spokesman also said Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton will visit Israel January 16 to 18 for regular consultations on non-proliferation issues related to both bilateral issues, including the transfer of American technology, and issues of regional concern.

Reeker noted U.S. support for the transfer of the Israeli-produced Phalcon radar system to India, but added "we'll continue to have the consultations with Israel on the capabilities and timing related to that".

Following are excerpts from Reeker's January 15 briefing regarding Middle East issues:

Question: New subject, since I guess there's nothing more to say on that. Do you have anything on Assistant Secretary Burns' recent talks with the Libyans in London? And it seems as if the Libyans have been offering a lot of cooperation, comments from the region. Can you say what Libya needs to do at this point to get itself off the state sponsors of terrorism list, and would you say that their cooperation in the war on terrorism has grown since September?

Mr. Reeker: First, as you led off with in your question, you know that officials from the United States and the United Kingdom, including Assistant Secretary Burns, held discussions with a group of Libyan officials in London last Thursday, January 10th. This was a follow-up to the last such meeting that they had conducted back in October of 2001.

There is no new initiative or shift in relations here. It's one of a series of meetings that have taken place in New York and London since the Lockerbie verdict. And the goal of this, the aim, is to discuss the Libyan response to the requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions on Lockerbie, and the discussion focused on those requirements.

So, first and foremost, our position with Libya is the need for Libya to comply with the requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions on the Lockerbie -- the Pan Am 103 bombing. Our policy, our message on that, have never varied, regardless of the channel or the particular interlocutors: Libya must comply with its UN Security Council obligations and put its terrorist past behind it; there can be no shortcuts around these obligations; and we continue to call upon Libya to fulfill those obligations.

So that type of dialogue, that delivering of the message yet again, is what occurred in London last week. We have had talks previously, as I indicated, since 1999. No shortcuts there, and that is what we will continue to stress with Libya as a first and most important step in terms of what they can do to show that they have tried to change their way.

I would refer you to the annual report on terrorism, Patterns of Global Terrorism, in terms of Libya's presence, continued presence, on the list of state sponsors. I can't speculate on what the future of Libyan behavior may entail or what our future decision might be. The list itself, of course, is a tool to call attention to behaviors that must change, and that goes for all the state sponsors. It goes for those organizations that we also list as Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

Question: Can I follow up?

Mr. Reeker: Sure.

Question: So, but can you say exactly what Libya has to do to get off the list? Is it merely to comply with these resolutions, and if so, could you just review what they have to do? And were there other issues related to terrorism that Libya has to comply with in order to get off the list?

Mr. Reeker: First and foremost, Libya must comply with their obligations under the UN resolutions. The need for them to do that has never changed. That is what we have continued to emphasize, and they must comply with that. As I said, once again, there are no shortcuts around that. That is the first and foremost step. We would need to look at a number of other things. We would continue to review Libya's behavior regarding terrorism and a number of other channels, but I can't speculate at this point on what steps we might take, or what steps indeed Libya will take.

But certainly, first and foremost, fulfilling their obligations under the new UN thing. And if you want to go through all of those, we can get you the details of the UN Security Council resolutions and what they require.

Question: Can you say that the Libyans have been helpful in other areas of the US war against terrorism, not related to Lockerbie?

Mr. Reeker: I don't know that I can provide you any particular readouts on that. Obviously, there are many different aspects of our war on terrorism, as we have said, and there are different contributions. We have called on all states to make contributions in different ways, and we will leave it to individual countries, including Libya, to suggest to you steps they may have taken.

Question: Can you say anything about what these talks actually achieved (inaudible) comment, it seems as if nothing, except --

Mr. Reeker: I don't know why you would necessarily draw that conclusion from what I said. We have had talks before to reiterate the position that we have that has never varied. We do this in conjunction with the United Kingdom, and we deliver the same message, the same position. I think there may be additional talks in the future to hear from the Libyans how they are going about complying with this, and for us to reiterate the fact that there are no shortcuts, that they must comply, that that is the first and foremost -- the most important aspect in terms of living up to their obligations, and hopefully putting their terrorist past behind them.

Question: You say there may be additional talks; do you mean more talks like these, or do you mean that an agreement --

Mr. Reeker: Yes. I mean, we have had these before. The last one was in October. We had one again then last week. I don't have anything scheduled at this point, but certainly the possibility would remain to do that.

Question: And Burns was there?

Mr. Reeker: Burns was the person that did that last week, Barry, on the 10th of January.

Question: Have you seen any results from these meetings? Have you seen any change of behavior, or their beginning to comply with these resolutions?

Mr. Reeker: I don't think I could characterize at this point, other than to say what I have already said, and that is that our position remains very much the same. There are no shortcuts around this, and they need to fully comply with that. That's what we will be looking for; that is the bottom line.

......

Question: Different subject? Do you have anything on an American who was killed today in Israel, or the Palestinian territory?

Mr. Reeker: I can confirm the report that earlier today an American citizen was killed in the region. We are trying at this point to reach the American citizen's next of kin to convey our deepest condolences and to offer our assistance in this time of grief. We are in contact with Israeli and Palestinian officials regarding the incident and trying to ascertain the facts.

Certainly the incident, the death of this American citizen, underscores the necessity of bringing an immediate end to violence and moving quickly towards implementation of the Tenet security plan and the Mitchell Committee recommendations, as we have called for for so long.

Question: Can you say where this took place?

Question: So it wasn't an accident or anything?

Mr. Reeker: I don't have the facts. I'm sorry. We can try to follow up this afternoon. I think that is really all I had.

Question: You don't know whether it was in Israel or in the Palestinian territories?

Mr. Reeker: I don't know specifically where it took place. It was an American citizen, I believe resident in the region. We are trying obviously to reach next of kin as a first step and trying to ascertain the facts. Until I have any more facts, I just wouldn't want to go beyond that.

Question: Can you say whether he was killed by somebody or if he was just killed by --

Mr. Reeker: I don't have all the facts. I'm sorry. We will continue to look at that. It was what appeared to be an act of violence. This was not just an accidental death, I don't believe, but we need to establish the full facts before we can talk about it further.

.....

Question: Back on the Middle East, has this building endeavored to find out from Yasser Arafat whether his cease-fire remains in place or not? And the other one I'll ask in a minute officially -- the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade's statement saying that the cease-fire is dead.

Mr. Reeker: I have seen a variety of statements. I am not aware of any particular conversations with Mr. Arafat in particular. You know that we have made quite clear that the progress toward peace can not be made unless serious and sustained action is taken by Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority against terror and violence. And certainly those words still apply. We would want to see continued movement immediately in that direction.

Question: And the other one. Have you expressed any view to the Israeli Government about their delay in accrediting Palestinian journalists, which a group of 29 media organizations, media officials --

Mr. Reeker: I would have to look into that. I wasn't aware of that. I will be happy to check on it.

.....

Question: Still on the Middle East, do you have anything on Under Secretary Bolton's trip to Israel to discuss nonproliferation issues?

Mr. Reeker: Sure. "Anything" is a good factual set of points here that Under Secretary Bolton will travel to Israel from January 16th through January 18th for our regular US-Israel consultations on nonproliferation matters. And I guess that is about all I have to say about it.

Question: What does our concept of nonproliferation mean, so far as -- I know what it means, but what does it mean apropos Israel? Proliferation of American technology? Proliferation of weapons generally? Because Israel has military relations with Greece and with Turkey, and you spoiled a very lucrative sale they had lined up with China. Is that what we're talking about, the transferring of technology to other countries?

Mr. Reeker: I think it can be a broad dialogue on nonproliferation matters. It is a regular dialogue that we have, this type of consultation at that level. And so I will leave it for them to discuss these specific topics that they want to, and then I will be happy to see if we have anything further to say after they actually have those talks.

Question: Well, what I am trying to distinguish here is there is a general proliferation concern the US has in the Middle East, and then there is a specific concern the US has had as to what Israel -- which is far more advanced than any of the other countries -- providing advanced technology, or even concern that it might be American technology, to other countries.

Which of these two areas is the point of the Secretary's visit?

Mr. Reeker: I don't know if I could tell you that. I think it is an opportunity for them to discuss nonproliferation issues, and it may include all of those or both of those subjects. I will say in response to some of the recent press reports I saw regarding, for instance, transfer of a Phalcon aircraft to -- Phalcon radar to India, that we actually support the transfer of that. We are discussing with the government of Israel consulting further with them about the transfers, including the systems capabilities and the timing.

So that is the type of discussion that could take place in those meetings. I just can't tell you of the specific agenda. I would be happy, as those meetings take place, to discuss that. But we do support the transfer of the Phalcon to India and we will continue to have the consultations with Israel on the capabilities and timing related to that.

Question: When you say you consult on timing, I assume that you wouldn't want this to happen while India and Pakistan are on the brink of going to war.

Mr. Reeker: I think certainly we always encourage other countries, including Israel, to take into account the impact of their weapons sales. And so while we have these consultations, I am not aware of any particular time frame. The established timing and, as I said, the capabilities are the subjects that we would have in terms of consultations, and that may be part of what Under Secretary Bolton can raise when he is out there.

Question: Will this include nuclear in the discussions with Bolton?

Mr. Reeker: Again, I just don't know that I can predict exactly what they will talk about in terms of the framework for nonproliferation discussions. Nuclear issues, in terms of proliferation, is certainly a part of concerns that we have, that the Israelis have, and I think it is something we have talked about in the past and certainly could talk about in this current set of discussions.