Lockerbie victims press Congress to keep squeeze on Libya
Washington wants to resume diplomatic relations but families claim Gadaffi has not paid up under a 2002 compensation agreement, report Demetri Sevastopulo and Alexander Kliment
It is not every day that the Bush administration finds itself caught in a tug-of-war between the victims and perpetrators of a terrorist act. But recently it has been drawn into a legal battle between Libya and the families of the victims of the 1988 bombing of a US airliner over Lockerbie in Scotland.
Responding to the decision by Colonel Muammer Gadaffi, the Libyan leader, to renounce terrorism and give up his weapons of mass destruction, the US is this week expected to remove Libya from its list of state sponsors of terrorism. That should have paved the way for the two countries to Ã'Â-reopen full diplomatic relations for the first time in a quarter-century.
But the administration is running into opposition on Capitol Hill, where the House was preparing yesterday to vote on a measure that would prevent Washington from sending an ambassador to Libya until it pays Dollars 540m (Euros 430m, Pounds 298m) in compensation that the Lockerbie families say they are still owed. The Senate recently passed a non-binding resolution calling for the same result.
In 2002 Libya and the Lockerbie families reached an agreement under which Tripoli agreed to pay Dollars 2.7bn in compensation in three instalments following the cessation of UN and US sanctions and the removal of Libya from the US terrorism list. Libya has refused to make the final payment because, it argues, the US did not remove it from the list before a deadline stipulated in the agreement.
"This (amendment) is not what Libya expected," said Ali Aujali, head of the Libyan liaison office in Washington. "We thought the issue of Lockerbie was over. I am sorry to see this negative measure taken against Libya at this critical time."
The Lockerbie families say Libya is hiding behind a legal technicality and argue that it would have been removed from the list earlier had it not been implicated in other terrorist acts, including an alleged assassination attempt on a member of the Saudi royal family.
"It is perfectly obvious that its conduct over the last couple of years delayed its removal from the list," says James Kreindler, a lawyer representing the families. "If we were in litigation, we would say that is a breach of the good faith provision (in the settlement agreement)."
The Lockerbie families say the US is abandoning them by not putting more pressure on Libya. The State Department says it will urge Libya to "act in good faith" but not get involved in a private legal dispute.
"If the families' lawyers believe the Libyans are in breach of their legal obligations, they should explore legal remedies and not hold US foreign policy hostage to a personal financial settlement," said a State Department spokesman.
Rob Andrews, a Democrat congressman, says the ad-ministration action is "indefensible" because the families will have little leverage over Libya if it is taken off the terrorism list before the final payment is made. And John Sweeney, the Republican congressman who sponsored the House amendment, says the State Department is playing a risky game.
"This bill will go to conference (with the Senate) if the State Department continues to play this. I think they are going to see an angrier Congress respond," says Mr Sweeney. "The Libyans trying to hide behind a legal technicality after all these years is an obscene - and not to be tolerated - action."
The administration says the congressional moves would send the wrong signal to Iran and North Korea, by signalling that the US does not uphold its side of the deal when another country agrees to renounce WMD. The State Department also argues that an embassy in Tripoli is necessary to promote peace in the Darfur region of Sudan and encourage economic and human rights reforms in Libya.
"Attempting to deny the president the ability to carry out these essential tasks because of the final interests of private claimants is not in the best interests of the US," says the department.
These comments anger Mr Sweeney, who replies: "If this is to be a victory in the war on terror . . . it has to be done in full consideration of past action and past agreements . . . Diluting and underÃ'Â-mining agreements between parties - one that was an admitted state sponsor of terrorism - would do the same."
Despite the apparent strength of Libya's legal position, some experts believe that the ever-shrewd Col Gadaffi will ultimately pay up to avoid squandering the hard-won political capital that Tripoli has recently gained in Washington.
"They've gone through so much turmoil to get to where they are, and I think this is too important an issue for them to stick to the legalities," says Dirk Vandewalle, a Libya expert at Dartmouth University.
Quelle: Financial Times 30.06.2006