May 29, 2002

7:00 AM

Has one of terrorism's former poster children, Qaddafi, finally turned over a new leaf? At last some genuinely good news from the Middle East. Libya's offer to pay $2,7-billion in compensation to the families of the victims of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland seems to indicate so. Although the Libyans are almost certainly motivated by their desire to end sanctions against them as a 'state sponsor of terrorism,' this is a hopefully a declaration of 'mea culpa' from the 'colonel' and maybe a sign of better things to come from others in the region that still think that there is something to be gained from blowing up so-called 'infidels' in civilian aircraft.
posted by murray_kester (10 comments total)

Some of the victims families have called it blood money, but they still seem willing to take the cash, saying it would help soften the blow.

The U.S. position:
"The Bush administration has said Libya's status will not change until Gaddafi's government takes responsibility for the destruction of Flight 103 and makes clear that it no longer supports terrorists. In recent months, the State Department has credited Libya with positive steps in that direction." (Washington Post)

I think this is definitely a positive step, and hopefully the sanctions will be lifted. I find this situation ironic, however. How many times has our country had to apologize for killing the civilians of another nation, under the punishment of sanction if we refused to be repentant?
posted by insomnyuk at 7:20 AM on May 29, 2002

They still seem willing to take the cash? I don't know.

"It is a terrible position to put us in. You could give me $50 million, do you think I'm going to betray my kid's memory and suddenly become a cheering section for the Libyans?" - Susan Cohen

That's the mother of one of the victims, from today's NY Times article on the matter.

I find this situation ironic, however. How many times has our country had to apologize for killing the civilians of another nation, under the punishment of sanction if we refused to be repentant?

I don't believe that there is a legitimate analogy here, unless I'm unaware of some time at which the U.S. has funded terrorists who smuggled bombs onto civilian aircrafts. This was an overt act of murder, condoned and likely supported from its inception by a warmongering rogue dictator who remains in power despite efforts (albeit weak ones) to shake his grip on a country which he has done nothing to improve. Let's not compare apples and oranges.
posted by Dreama at 7:33 AM on May 29, 2002

insomnyuk - there's a difference between collateral damage and the deliberate targeting of civilians. And while a number of our actions in Vietnam crossed the line of acceptable collateral damage, I don't remember an American suicide bomber taking down a plane full of Russian, Vietnamese or Iraqi civilians.

The attitude of some of the families is disheartening though. I understand their anger and their thirst for justice, but I think history has shown time and time again that isolating and economically crippling a country is not the way to improve that country's behavior (Iraq). Punishing Libya isn't going to make them play nice; offering them inducements will.
posted by junkbox at 7:35 AM on May 29, 2002

acceptable collateral damage

shudder

I don't remember an American suicide bomber taking down a plane full of Russian, Vietnamese or Iraqi civilians.

Add Iran to that list and I remember a US Navy vessel taking out a civilian jet...290 lives lost. For some time Iran was the primary suspect behind the lockerbie bombing because it was thought to be retaliation.
posted by srboisvert at 7:51 AM on May 29, 2002

as far as i can remember this 'compensation' will be nicely balanced by sanctions being dropped and/or financial aid. it has less to do with admitting guilt than giving the us it's prefered scapegoat. i am not convinced that the case against the libyans is at all convincing (and i am not the only one; Jim Swire, spokesman for the lobby group UK Families Flight 103, said: "We had no part in chasing the UN to call for compensation. Our campaign has always been for truth about what happened and justice for our families." ), given that it hinged on the testimony of a man who stood to gain $$$ millions if there was a conviction.

an alternative view:

'...a private investigation agency hired by Pan Am. The agency, headed by an ex-Israeli intelligence operative, Juval Aviv, claimed that a US government body - either the CIA or the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) had been supervising a secret channel for smuggling drugs from the Middle East into the US via Frankfurt in collaboration with a Syrian drug and arms dealer named Monzer al-Kassar.

The channel allegedly got luggage onto planes without it passing through security checks first. It was supposedly either part of an undercover operation aimed at catching drug smugglers, or an aspect of the covert operation run by Oliver North and the CIA to generate cash for buying arms to swap for the release of US hostages in Beruit.'

after preview...
thanks srboisvert, some people do seem to have short memories.
junkbox - there are no american suicide bombers of note. the us spends billions on developing 'intelligent' missiles to replace them.
posted by asok at 8:07 AM on May 29, 2002

Latest: Libya denies ever having offered a 2.7bn settlement. Looks like the talks have broken down.
posted by timyang at 8:38 AM on May 29, 2002

Latest: Libya denies ever having offered a 2.7bn settlement. Looks like the talks have broken down.
posted by timyang at 8:38 AM on May 29, 2002

I highly recommend Qadaffi's book of short stories... gives a fascinating view into the man's mind.
posted by ph00dz at 8:47 AM on May 29, 2002

srboisvert, if you are equating a horrible military accident caused by poor communication and cramped operational zones among other factors with deliberate murder, you are seriously ethically challenged. You drive fast down my street, run over my kid. OK, that's bad. But I come after you, it's murder. Is this that difficult to figure out?
posted by dhartung at 9:13 AM on May 29, 2002

This is sort of unrelated to this new Lockerbie settlement, but I think it's worth knowing:

Two years ago, Libya offered to negotiate for the release of hostages kidnapped from Sipadan resort by Abu Sayyaf bandits. Mr. Gadhafi paid $1M per hostage, ostensibly as "development funds" for the Southern Philippines, and the hostages were freed and flown to Libya before being brought back to their home countries.

Less than a year later, the Abu Sayyaf struck again, using their new wealth to kidnap guests at the Dos Palmas Island Resort in Palawan, including Martin and Gracia Burnham, an American missionary couple. I believe that the new speedboat and firearms used in the kidnapping were bought with Libya's ransom money.
posted by brownpau at 9:29 AM on May 29, 2002