African leaders give Libya a hand

By Rasha Saad

The US had pressured the UN Security Council to impose an air and arms embargo against Tripoli in April 1992 for refusing to hand over for trial in either the US or Britain two Libyans allegedly involved in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 271 people.

The regular six-month review of sanctions by the Security Council is due in September.

The African leaders said they will ease the air embargo imposed on Libya by the UN in religious and humanitarian cases, as well as those related to OAU business. OAU spokesman Pascale Jayama said during a press conference after the decision was adopted that the African body had even invited Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi to defy the air embargo and fly to Burkina Faso to attend the summit's closing session. "This will be a completely legal action in our viewpoint," he said.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Moussa welcomed the OAU decision, saying that it was inspired by the positive and flexible stance adopted by Libya when it offered to let the two Libyan suspects be tried in any neutral country, other than the US or Britain.

Arab League Secretary-General Esmat Abdel-Meguid also hailed the OAU decision on Libya. He said it was "important and shows the fairness of Tripoli's position." Abdel-Meguid has repeatedly tried to convince American, British and French officials to lift the sanctions. This week, he met British Foreign Minister Robin Cook and discussed the Lockerbie issue.

However, the US criticised the OAU decision, describing it as "irresponsible".

Yet, the OAU move was not really a surprise. Last year, during their annual meeting in Harare, African leaders conveyed what was interpreted then as a warning message to the US and Britain. In its final communiqué, the OAU warned that it would devise its own means of sparing the suffering of the Libyan people if the Security Council did not seek an end to the six-year-old air and arms embargo.

Tripoli, supported by Arab and African countries and members of the Non-Aligned Group, has offered three alternative solutions to the crisis: the two suspects could be tried at the International Court of Justice in the Hague by Scottish judges and according to Scottish law; the trial could be held in any third country other than the US or Britain; or a special court could be established to try the suspects in any country accepted by the Security Council.

But the US has rejected all three options, and has repeatedly threatened to tighten sanctions against Libya. However, most observers agree that Libya scored a point in its dispute with the US when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague ruled in February that it has the jurisdiction to rule in the Lockerbie case. The US insisted that the sanctions were decided by the Security Council, and that it was the only world body with the authority to lift them.

The US position was weakened further when families of the British victims of the Lockerbie bombing also approved trying the suspects in a neutral country and criticised the US and British governments for their stubborn stance. A delegation representing the families of the victims led by Jim Swire met with Arab League Secretary-General Abdel-Meguid earlier this year and discussed what could be done to ensure that a trial takes place as soon as possible.

Yet in Washington there is still strong resistance to lifting the sanctions. Last month, a group of 18 influential senators urged the US State Department not to waive sanctions against foreign companies that invest in Libya's oil or natural gas industry, as it had done with Iran. They said that if this happened, the UN sanctions could be undermined.

US officials have previously conceded that maintaining the sanctions was not only related to the Lockerbie case, but was also a kind of punishment for Libya's alleged role in supporting terrorist groups and Gaddafi's vehement opposition to the Arab-Israeli peace process.

The OAU decision, however, has put the Arab League in an awkward position. Its previous statements on the case now seem weak compared to the stand adopted by the OAU. Nor have the final communiqués which are usually issued after regular meetings of Arab League foreign ministers included any threat of defying the embargo.

According to Arab political observers, inter-Arab disputes and the strong relations between several Arab governments and Washington are the main reasons behind the Arab League's failure to take a stronger position on lifting the sanctions against Libya.

However, Arab League spokesman Talaat Hamed insisted that the Arab countries are not subject to foreign pressure. He also denied that the League's opposition to the sanctions is weak and said there was continuous coordination between the seven-member committee of the Arab League (formed in 1992 to support Libya's attempts to lift the sanctions) and a similar five-member committee of the OAU.

Hamed also explained that the decisions announced by the OAU are usually taken by heads of state, and not foreign ministers, "hence it is easier for them to adopt decisive resolutions."

However, it has also often been hinted that the strong African support for Libya, which culminated in this week's OAU decision, is a result of Libya's financial aid to several African countries, rather than a belief in the fairness of the Libyan case.

Salma Rashed, Libyan representative at the Arab League, rejected these claims. She said that the main reason for African support is that the interests of these countries have been harmed by the sanctions. "The Africans are very much concerned with the Libyan crisis because of their strong economic interests which have been deeply affected after six years of sanctions," Rashed said. "We do not deny mutual economic benefits between Libya and the African countries, but we do not use financial aid to buy their support."

She added that another main reason for the African leaders' backing is their deep respect for the Libyan leader, who supported them in their independence struggles. Rashed cited "the support which South African President Nelson Mandela gave Libya by visiting it twice in one week" late last year. She said it was an expression of Mandela's gratitude to Gaddafi for the support he had given to the struggle against apartheid.