POLITICS-UN: Libya Asks for Time to Study New Lockerbie Deal

By Farhan Haq Reprint | | Print |

UNITED NATIONS, Aug 26 1998 (IPS) - Libya’s government has indicated that it is studying a new compromise deal which would allow two Libyan bombing suspects to be tried in the Netherlands, but has asked for time before the United Nations acts to approve it.

The U.N. Security Council is set to approve the compromise this week, possibly as early as Thursday. The new deal, agreed to by the United States and Britain, would send suspects Abdel Basset al- Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah to the Netherlands for trial.

Libya, however, sent a letter to Security Council President Danilo Turk of Slovenia arguing that, since it took months for London and Washington to negotiate the compromise – which was announced Monday – the Tripoli government should have time to study its contents before any further action is taken.

“Libya’s judicial authorities need to have sufficient time to study those documents and to request the assistance of international experts more familiar with the laws of the states mentioned in the documents,” the country’s deputy ambassador at the United Nations, Ramadan Barg, wrote to Turk.

Britain and the United States are anxious for quick action by the 15-nation Council nearly one decade after Pan American flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing all 259 passengers and 11 people on the ground.

Although the Netherlands-trial plan was only announced Monday, it is similar to a compromise pushed by the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) earlier this year, which Libya accepted, noted British Ambassador Stephen Gomersall. He argued that Libya had also had sufficient time to study the Scottish judicial system, which, in a unique instance, will be implemented at a venue in the Netherlands, in a trial presided over by Scottish judges.

“There is no time limit on the acceptance by Libya” of the plan, Gomersall added.

However, in order to lock in Libya’s acceptance, Britain has brought a draft resolution before the Security Council which offers the suspension of six-year-old U.N. sanctions if Libya complies, and the threat of tougher penalties if it does not.

The draft resolution states that a ban on travel to or from Libya, and measures against trade in oil-related machinery, “shall be suspended immediately if (U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan) reports to the Council that the two accused have arrived in the Netherlands for the purpose of a trial”. However, the draft adds, the Council should “consider additional measures if the two accused have not arrived or appeared for trial promptly”.

U.S. and British officials reportedly are considering pushing for a full oil embargo against Tripoli as one of the “additional measures” if Libya, despite its stated support for a trial in a neutral country, does not hand over al-Megrahi and Fhimah.

Few other Council members are eager to implement any new sanctions, particularly given the frustration over the duration both of the Libya travel ban and of the now eight-year-old embargo against Iraq. Dismay over sanctions in Africa and the Arab world prompted both the recent OAU push for the Netherlands compromise and several direct trips to Libya by regional leaders in contravention of the travel ban.

If Libyan leader Col. Muammar Qaddafi does not hand over the suspects, Council diplomats predict at the very least that his chances of obtaining the lifting of the sanctions will fade – even though two key Council members, France and Russia, have been pleading Tripoli’s case.

The worry for Libya is if either suspect pins the blame for the bombing on the Libyan leadership. Al-Megrahi, who is accused of buying several items found in the same suitcase as the bomb which allegedly brought down the flight, is said to belong to an influential Libyan family with members in the top leadership.

(Fhimah is accused of placing the bomb onto the Pan American flight in Malta.)

Nevertheless, many of the African and other leaders – including South African President Nelson Mandela – who have mediated the trial standoff are voicing increased hopes that Libya is prepared to accept the deal. Mandela said the compromise “should lead to the resolution of this matter”, while Esmat Abdel-Maguid, secretary-general of the League of Arab States, called the proposal compatible with previous offers which Libya accepted.

For years, in fact, it was the U.S. and British governments which resisted the idea of a third-country trial, pushing the Security Council in 1992 to impose sanctions until Tripoli turned the suspects over either to the United States or Britain. As recently as this spring, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook rejected the Netherlands compromise by arguing that a Scottish court would have no jurisdiction outside Scotland.

Now, however, Gomersall and U.S. envoy Peter Burleigh noted in a letter, the two governments were able to work out a trial formula with the Netherlands that is satisfactory to all sides.

“It would be a Scottish court and would follow normal Scots law and procedure in every respect except for the replacement of the jury by a panel of three Scottish High Court judges,” the letter noted. “The Scottish rules of evidence and procedure, and all the guarantees of a fair trial provided by the law of Scotland, would apply.”

If al-Megrahi and Fhimah are found guilty, they face a maximum sentence of 30 years in jail in Britain. If acquitted, they would be guaranteed safe passage back to Libya. The deal also provides for the interpetation of all court proceedings into Arabic and visits by international observers.

A few details about the trial remain vague. Initially, the OAU and others had proposed that it be held at the facilities of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. However, the deal does not specify where in the Netherlands the trial take place.