 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 17 - 23 August 2000 Issue No. 495 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 17 - 23 August 2000 Issue No. 495
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Off-key witnesses
By Rasha SaadDuring the first stage of the Lockerbie trial, prosecutors were clearly displeased by the performance of their witnesses, described by some observers as "scandalous." On trial for the bombing of a 1988 PanAm flight which crashed in the town of Lockerbie, Scotland, two Libyans face charges of murder, conspiracy to murder and a breach of the 1982 international security act.
During the trial which opened in May at Camp Zeist, the Netherlands, some witnesses failed to appear while the testimony of others was easily discredited. A key witness for the prosecution, Swiss businessman Edwin Bollier, gave testimony over a whole week which was so contradictory that the prosecution described him as "not a credible and reliable witness." Bollier's Zurich-based firm MEBO supplied timers for explosives to Libya and may have supplied the equipment used to make the Lockerbie bomb.
Another witness failed to appear in court and was found unconscious due to alcohol intoxication. A third witness mistakenly identified a Palestinian as one of the two Libyan suspects -- Abdel-Basset Al-Megrahi and Lamine Khalifa -- in a photo lineup. The prosecution then faced another setback when a group of Maltese airport workers suddenly refused to testify for reasons that remain unclear.
Prosecutors, backing up their claims with evidence provided primarily by US and British intelligence, assert that the two Libyans, posing as Libyan Arab Airlines employees at Malta's Luqa airport, put a suitcase with stolen transfer tags on a plane bound for Frankfurt, Germany. They say the suitcase passed through an X-ray machine at Frankfurt airport and onto the New York-bound PanAm flight before exploding over Lockerbie.
Defence lawyers contend the bomb was planted in Frankfurt by Abu Nidal's Revolutionary Council -- a splinter from the mainstream Palestinian organisation Fatah.
Meanwhile, following an agreement among the lawyers to reduce the number of witnesses who will be heard, the Lockerbie trial is expected to end in a few months. In a statement issued late last month, prosecutors said that the trial, which began on 3 May and was predicted to last for at least a year, might end by September.
Approximately 60 people originally expected to give testimony will not be taking the witness stand. This group includes personnel from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation.
With the possibility that the trial might end early, speculation is rife about what will happen in its aftermath. According to some analysts, if a verdict of "not guilty" is handed down, this will put the US in a critical position. They suggest that not only will the US, the UN and Britain be criticised for imposing sanctions on Libya for eight long years, but they will face pressure to pay as much as $30 billion in compensation to Libya.
A more probable outcome than "not guilty" is a verdict of "not proven," suggested Hassan Nafaa, an expert on Arab affairs and the chairman of Cairo University's political science department. Such a verdict is the third possibility permitted under Scottish law alongside "guilty," and "not guilty." While "not proven" is effectively an acquittal, it is not a ringing endorsement of innocence. Such a verdict "will get Libya out of the trial safe and sound, and will support the validity of Libya's reluctance to hand over two of its citizens," Nafaa said.
Meanwhile, Libya is attempting to rebuild its ties with the West in a bid to emerge from international isolation and overcome the drastic consequences of the sanctions on its economy. Earlier this month Libyan Foreign Minister Abdel-Rahman Shalgam visited Moscow where he and his Russian counterpart proclaimed a new era in relations, including the military sphere.
The former Soviet Union had close ties with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, but under Mikhail Gorbachev, Moscow backed sanctions against Libya in 1992. More recently, however, Moscow has criticised Western policies toward Libya and Iraq. Russian officials have hinted they saw the West's reluctance to lift sanctions against Tripoli as motivated by political and economic interests rather than by security concerns. Russian President Vladimir Putin was quoted as urging the United Nations to lift sanctions on Tripoli for good.
Putin is expected to visit Libya in the near future but a precise date has not been set. In its support for the lifting of sanctions on Libya, Moscow's own interests are at stake as the North African country owes it approximately $2.4 billion.
Libya is working to boost cooperation with Italy, its biggest trading partner, and speed up the implementation of commitments made in a cooperation accord signed two years ago. Last year Britain reopened its embassy in Tripoli after a hiatus of 15 years.
Added to this, the US decision, announced in June, to cease classifying Libya as a "rogue state," changing its status to "a state of concern," cannot but help improve its international standing.
For their part, US oil companies are putting pressure on Washington to scrap the sanctions that have kept American energy firms out of the race in Libya. Firms expect their campaign to come to a head a year from now with the expiration of a separate US law -- the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) -- threatening sanctions against foreign energy firms investing in the two countries. In the absence of US firms, European energy companies have signed numerous deals.
According to analysts, in a year in which supply shortages have pushed crude prices to their highest level since the Gulf War, US officials acknowledge that easing sanctions on oil producers is no longer the political taboo it once was.
The case of the two Libyan suspects is being heard by a Scottish court presiding in the Netherlands as a compromise between Libya, on one hand, and the US and Britain on the other.
The United Nations, under US pressure, imposed an air and arms embargo against Libya in 1992 for refusing to hand over the two suspects to either the United States or Britain. Due to a South African-Saudi initiative, combined with Arab and African pressure, the United States agreed to hold the trial in the Netherlands and that there would be no jury, contrary to the Scottish judicial system. Libya said that after years of US and British propaganda, insisting on holding it responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, any jury was unlikely to be objective.
The sanctions against Libya were suspended a year ago after the two suspects were handed over to the Netherlands for trial.
Related stories:
Guaranteeing a fair trial 11 - 17 May 2000
In a tight spot, or down a slippery slope? 24-30 September 1998
