-2

recent evidence related to the bombing of the La Belle disco

has shown that Libya was not involved.

The U.S. military

action against Libya was based on clear and unequivocal evidence of Libyan culpability in that bombing. We never excluded the possibility that another country may have been involved as well.

The U.S. believes the appropriate response to Qadhafi's policies remains one of isolating Libya and minimizing Libya's presence abroad to demonstrate to Qadhafi the cost of his objectionable policies and to limit his capacity to take harmful actions. The administration recently renewed its wide-ranging economic sanctions against Libya.

We do not view Qadhafi's stated readiness for a "live and let live" relationship with the U.S. as a meaningful

initiative. Improved relations between the U.S. and Libya will

not be possible as long as Qadhafi continues to support

terrorism.

What we seek is concrete evidence of a durable

change in Libyan policies, not mere words.

SOVIET NAVAL BASE AT TARTUS

Q. There have recently been reports that the Soviet Union has opened a naval base on the Mediterranean at the Syrian port of Tartus.

--Is this accurate?

--If so, what are the implications for U.S. interests and for the military balance in the region?

A:

We have indications that the Soviets are making improvements to the facilities at Tartus.

However, it is not

clear how extensive these improvements will be, nor whether they will result in the creation of a Soviet-controlled "base" at Tartus, as opposed to the Soviet use of Syrian facilities which has gone on for some time. Nevertheless, any improvement

in support facilities in Tartus would increase the capability of Soviet naval forces in the Eastern Mediterranean. Such a development will have to be taken into account by our military planners.

1. Mr. Secretary, I am confused regarding U.S. policy on the PLO Observer Mission in New York. Secretary Shultz says the Congressional law closing the office was dumb and urges it be fought and replaced. Congressional sponsors never specifically urged, to my knowledge, that international legal obligations be discarded when this law was passed; and yet the Justice Department has said that the PLO UN office must be closed, the law passed by Congress negates international legal obligations and the U.S. will go to court to force closure.

A.

The Administration strongly opposed enactment of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987. Nevertheless, the bill was enacted,

and the Attorney General has determined that it requires him to close the PLO Observer Mission in New York.

Q. Does last week's action by the Justice Department represent U.S. policy?

A.

-

By its terms, the Act is effective March 21, 1988 (90 days from the date of enactment, December 22, 1987).

2

Q. Why is the U.S. not seeking to arbitrate this issue pursuant to its agreements with the UN?

A. The Attorney General has determined that the Act requires him to close the PLO Observer Mission irrespective of any international legal obligations of the United States. The Justice Department has indicated, however, that it will take no further action to close the Mission pending decision by the courts. the matter is pending in our courts, we do not believe that arbitration is timely or appropriate.

While

Q. Why wasn't an effort made to clarify Congressional intent if there was a question?

A.

The Department advised Congress on several occasions of our view that enactment of the Anti-Terrorism Act would be viewed as violating the international legal obligations of the United States. This view was also conveyed to individual Members and their staffs and was repeated by Department representatives at the Conference Committee Congress was thus fully aware of the Department's position when it passed the bill.

Q. Doesn't this issue seriously complicate U.S. efforts to try to urge Palestinian groups and the PLO to support U.S. diplomatic efforts?

- 3

2. Several Congressmen, led by Congressman Crockett, have introduced legislation to repeal the law closing the PLO office in New York. Secretary Shultz said earlier he supported repeal.

Q. Does the State Department support this particular legislation?

A.

-

In response to a request from Chairman Fascell, the Department will be forwarding an official position on this legislation to the Congress shortly.

3.

Several UN legal experts have said that the move to close the UN PLO Observer Mission would be a treaty violation under the 1947 Headquarters Agreement and that it was a "watertight case."

Q. Do you agree or disagree with these assertions?

A. We have made our views on this issue clear on several occasions. In letters to Chairman Fascell and Congressman Broomfield dated November 5, 1987, for example, we stated that "The proposed legislation would effectively require closure of

...

the PLO observer mission in New York. Such a move would break a 40-year practice regarding observer missions by nations hosting UN bodies and could legitimately be viewed as inconsistent with our responsibilities under sections 11-13 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement. We could expect strong criticism in the UN, including from our friends. The UN could, moreover, refer the issue to the World Court, where we would probably lose and the PLO would reap a propaganda gain."