The Lockerbie Trial

Legal history was made in the Netherlands yesterday when two Libyans, suspected of involvement in the Lockerbie bombing, were…

Legal history was made in the Netherlands yesterday when two Libyans, suspected of involvement in the Lockerbie bombing, were charged with conspiracy, murder and contravention of the Aviation Security Act. The two men - Abdel Basset Ali-al Megrahi and al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah - made no plea during a five-minute hearing before a Scottish sheriff at Camp Zeist, near Utrecht. Remarkably, the hearing followed Scottish legal procedure to the letter; indeed the entire case is taking place under Scottish jurisdiction but on foreign soil.

The appearance of the two men, suspected of involvement in the worst terrorist atrocity in British history, represents a notable triumph for international law and diplomacy at a time when the war in Kosovo has led many to question their effectiveness. Only a year ago, the prospect of the Libyans ever facing trial seemed remote: but a concerted diplomatic push involving the United Nations, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, helped to persuade Tripoli that the objective was only to bring the suspects to trial - and not to undermine Colonel Gadafy's regime.

The role of the British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, in helping to broker a deal has also been widely acknowledged. Mr Cook dropped the long-time insistence on possible court proceedings in the US or Britain. By acceding to Tripoli's demand for a trial in a third, neutral country, he helped to resolve a diplomatic dispute that has rumbled on for over a decade.

All 259 people aboard and 11 people on the ground were killed after a bomb exploded on the Pan Am 103 flight from London to New York on December 21st, 1988. Charges against the two suspects were first announced three years later but negotiating a deal to extradite them has taken a further eight years.

READ MORE

It may be that Colonel Gadafy's eventual decision to hand over the suspects will come to mark a watershed in his turbulent relations with the West. While the British decision to allow any trial take place in a neutral state was critical, it is also true that Tripoli was anxious to negotiate a deal - primarily for economic reasons. Since a UN resolution in 1992, Libya has been subject to a comprehensive embargo on air travel and arms sales. While these sanctions did not explicitly ban the sale of oil - Libya's only real source of foreign income - it has raised costs and inhibited industrial development.

The Lockerbie case is the second recent case in which Tripoli, long regarded as a sponsor of international terrorism and a key supporter of the Provisional IRA in the 1980s, has co-operated with judicial procedures in the West. Last month, Colonel Gadafy - apparently in return for much-enhanced trade links with France - co-operated with French judges over the bombing of a French airliner over Nigeria a decade ago. In that case six Libyan officials were found guilty in absentia of the bombing. It remains to be seen whether the evidence is available to convict the two Lockerbie suspects and what course the trial will take if, as seems likely, they maintain that they were acting on instructions from Tripoli. For all that, the trial of the Lockerbie suspects should be welcomed, not only on the grounds of justice, but also because of the possible detente it signals between Tripoli and the West.