Well at the end of one of those weeks when the Secretary of State worked largely behind closed doors, we have no public remarks or statements directly from Madame Secretary today. She did begin today with a very early morning phone conversation with UK Foreign Minister William Hague. In today's press briefing, P.J. Crowley highlighted the topics discussed. (I put Madame Secretary's picture here instead of P.J.'s because she's prettier. I am sure P.J. would agree,)
Philip J. CrowleyAssistant Secretary
Daily Press BriefingWashington, DCJuly 16, 2010... this morning, the Secretary had a conversation with Foreign Secretary Hague. The primary purpose of the call was to compare notes prior to Prime Minister Cameron’s visit to Washington next week. But she also used the opportunity of the call to thank the United Kingdom for its support of the new U.S.-EU agreement regarding the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. And the two agreed on the importance of continuing our efforts to prevent terrorists from using our financial systems to launch attacks.They also talked about the situation with respect to Mr. Megrahi. Both the Secretary and the foreign minister agreed that in our mutual views, the release of Mr. Megrahi last year was a mistake. The Secretary just signaled to the foreign secretary ongoing congressional interest in this matter. And I think we’ll have more conversations with the British Government on this as we – as Congress continues to focus on the issue.
QUESTION: Where is the foreign minister right now? I don’t think he’s in London. He’s traveling, I believe. Anyway, that’s neither here nor there if you don’t know. Did they talk about the Iroquois case at all?
MR. CROWLEY: They did not.
QUESTION: So basically, that’s a dead letter as far as you’re concerned?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, from our standpoint, we’ve done what we can do. And it would appear to us at this point that the UK has made their final determination.
QUESTION: Okay. And on the BP thing, have you been invited – has anyone from State been invited to the hearings that Senator Kerry is going to be holding and --
MR. CROWLEY: At this point, no.
QUESTION: Do you expect to have someone at the hearings?
MR. CROWLEY: Again, that’s up to the chairman to decide who he wants to attend them – Kerry.
QUESTION: And what would – when you say that more conversations with the British are likely on this subject, what – why would more conversations be necessary after --
MR. CROWLEY: Well, obviously, the Secretary’s mindful that she has a request by the – a handful of senators to look into this matter if we haven’t decided what steps we will take. But clearly, the information that would need to be revealed by any follow-up action is resident within the UK Government and the Scottish Government. So, in anything that we do, we would need their cooperation. So she mentioned the issue, mentioned its importance not only to the Congress, to our government, but most importantly, to the families of the 103 victims. And I think we will be – continue to work with them to see how we can answer the questions that have been raised in recent days.
QUESTION: Did she specifically ask for cooperation from the British Government?
MR. CROWLEY: At this point, we have not made a specific ask of the British Government. The purpose of the --
QUESTION: Well, in general?
MR. CROWLEY: Right, but this was to alert the foreign secretary of the importance of the issue, and in fact, obviously, I think that’s already recognized within the UK. BP has put out statements in the last couple of days. So has the new government in the UK. Again, in the conversation, they agreed that in our joint view, this was a mistake. But we’re still evaluating how we can best work through the requests that the senators have made of us.
QUESTION: Did they indicate that the British Government might be amenable to cooperating if such an investigation is launched? And did the Secretary say that this was likely to come up when the prime minister visits next week?
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, the Secretary indicated that it might be appropriate for the British Government to communicate with Congress as well to make sure that they fully understand what transpired a year ago. That was something mentioned. Again, I’ll defer to the British Government to decide exactly what precise action they’ll take.
QUESTION: And how about the meeting next week? Is it likely – did she say that this might be on the agenda when the prime minister visits?
MR. CROWLEY: It was not that specific. I mean, the Secretary and the foreign secretary will also see each other in Kabul.
QUESTION: About how long was the call and how much of it was devoted to this --
MR. CROWLEY: It was 12 minutes. And the bulk of the call was devoted to specific issues related to the prime minister’s visit next week.
QUESTION: Which did not include the BP, so how much of a – what percentage of those 12 minutes were devoted to the BP issue?
MR. CROWLEY: (Laughter.) I can’t tell you. Seven minutes and 43 seconds. I can’t go --
QUESTION: Oh, so then most of it then.
MR. CROWLEY: I don’t know. I don’t know. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: P.J., what exactly does Congress want the Secretary to do, to find out?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I don’t have the letter in front of me from the four senators. I think they want us to look into circumstances surrounding the decision by Scottish authorities a year ago. Obviously, there have been more than one correspondence. There are questions regarding the medical advice – who gave it, how was it considered, how did the Scottish authorities reach a judgment that on humanitarian grounds, based on an understanding that Mr. Megrahi had a relatively short time to live, that they would make this decision to release him on humanitarian grounds. That’s one area. And clearly, some questions have been raised about the fidelity of the medical information that entered into the Scottish authorities’ thinking.
On the other hand, there are questions about BP and its contacts with the UK Government in a kind of – in an earlier timeframe regarding the negotiation of a prisoner transfer agreement between the UK and Libya. And I think the UK has been clear that these two issues were worked on separate tracks.
So, we are – the purpose of her mentioning it today was simply to highlight for the foreign secretary this is a very important issue to the American people and it is going to be something that we will be addressing for a period of time. As we have pledged, we will respond to the four senators, and like I say, we’re working through how – what is the best way to provide the perspective to the Senate that they’ve requested.
QUESTION: Can we change the subject?
MR. CROWLEY: Sure.
QUESTION: Can I just ask one more on that? Is there any attempt or is the State Department looking into any type of pressure that it could put on Libya to reverse Libya’s original decision? Or actually, I should say to reverse the return of Mr. Megrahi to Libya. Is there anything that the U.S. could do – some are asking?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, again, this – I mean, in terms of pressure, obviously, we continue to express our concern and to state categorically that every day that Mr. Megrahi spends as a free man in Libya is an affront to the families and victims of Pan Am 103. That is how we believe and that’s – I think that’s a firmly held belief by the American people.
From a legal standpoint, this – his sentence was – the case was carried out and the sentence applied under a special Scottish tribunal. We respect the fact that this was a decision that the Scottish authorities had the authority to make. We regret that decision. As to whether we have any legal recourse, these are the kinds of things we’re looking into. It’s unclear that we do.
Personally, I think this call was much more about that letter from the senators and BP's alleged involvement in the release of Al Megrahi. We know Secretary Clinton is a woman of her word. We LOVE that about her! If she says she will do something, she will. On the other hand sometimes she says she will not do something and then later she changes her mind. We love that, too.
If she told the senators she would look into this matter, that was probably the central reason for this phone call. She was not happy with that release last year and made it very clear to then FM David Miliband. I think she wanted to warn Hague that this is a BIG ISSUE here where BP has already earned demerits. If the Prime Minister and a delegation are visiting DC next week, Americans are sure to expect this issue addressed. Any press availability during this visit will be vulnerable to this topic. I think Secretary Clinton wanted him to know he had better come armed for this. Anyway, that is my two cents.
