- The Washington Times - Tuesday, August 19, 2003

What price would you place on the head of your nearest and dearest? Most of us would recoil at the thought of anything so awful as to profit from the death of someone near to us. How could any amount of money compensate for the loss of a child, a spouse or a parent?

It is certainly no wonder that families of the victims of Pan Am 103 have reacted with anger and outrage at Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi’s blatant new attempt to buy Libya’s way back into the company of civilized nations. How could they do otherwise, given all they have been through for the past 15 years?

On Friday, Libya signaled that it is finally willing to accept some kind of “responsibility” for the terrorist attack that, in 1988 ,blew the American airliner Pan Am 103 out of the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people. “Libya as a sovereign state accepts responsibilities [sic] for the actions of its officials,” Libyan Ambassador Ahmed A. Own said in a letter delivered to the U.N. Security Council.

As will be recalled, two Libyan officials went on trial for this terrorist act in 1999, and one was convicted in 2001. Col. Gadhafi has always previously denied any personal involvement, even though terrorism on the magnitude perpetrated by Libyan agents in the 1980s clearly could not have happened without his approval.

“We know that Gadhafi did endless horrible things. The minimum is that we should never deal with Libya while he is in power,” says Susan Cohen, whose daughter, Theodora, a Syracuse University drama student, was killed in the attack.

“We are very unhappy about the way the offer is structured,” she adds. “It is a bribe, which almost makes the families agents of Libya.”

What Libya is offering is a cold and calculated installment plan. Each family may get as much as $10 million, but the money comes with conditions. The first $4 million will be delivered when U.N. sanctions are lifted. Another $4 million will follow if U.S. sanctions are lifted, and delivery of the final $2 million will be contingent upon Libya’s removal from the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Mrs. Cohen says that she and her husband will accept the payment derived from the U.N. sanctions, but not a dime from the lifting of U.S. sanctions, which they regard as a personal bribe to influence U.S. policy toward Libya.

As a consequence of the Libyan statement and offer, the U.N. Security Council may vote to lift U.N. sanctions this week. The U.S. and British governments appear willing to go along, but the Bush administration ought to take a public stand against it. This is just not right.

Ironically, it may be the French government that does the right thing for the wrong reason. French families of victims of a Libyan terrorist act against a French airliner over Niger in 1989 have previously received a settlement of $35 million. The French government is now finding this amount woefully insufficient by comparison with the amount offered the Americans. As a consequence, France may veto the Libyan settlement in the Security Council.

(Why the difference in compensation, you might wonder. Well, France does not have a record of bombing Libya in retaliation, as did President Ronald Reagan after the Libyan bombing of a Berlin disco in 1986, which killed two American servicemen.)

But there is more to this case than settling old scores. Under Col. Gadhafi, Libya will undoubtedly continue to be a sponsor of terrorism. An unclassified CIA report to Congress earlier this year stated that Libya has a “continuing interest in nuclear weapons” and “still appeared to be working hard” in 2002 to develop biological and chemical weapons.

And Col. Gadhafi’s hand shows wherever there’s trouble in Africa. He’s a friend of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. The disastrous Charles Taylor, the ousted Liberian dictator, is one of his proteges. Col. Gadhafi reportedly tried unsuccessfully to send Mr. Taylor one last shipment of weapons and ammunition before the latter was forced into exile last week. Having fallen out with other Arab leaders, Gadhafi now oddly sees himself as an African leader, promoting “Africa for Africans.” His leadership is surely the last thing the struggling continent needs. What is clear, though, is that Col. Gadhafi has grand ambitions.

We should not help him fulfill those ambitions by lifting sanctions and allowing Libya to tap into lucrative U.S. oil. contract, which await him. If Col. Gadhafi really wants to take responsibility for the tragedy that Libyan agents inflicted on American and British families over Lockerbie in 1988, he ought to resign. Bet you he never thought of that.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide