Remarks to the UN: General Assembly
ABUZED OMAR DORDA (Libya), said conflicts were spreading and
economic conditions were deteriorating in Africa. Any increase in income
in African countries went to service debts. According to the report of
the Secretary-General on the causes of conflict in Africa, the problems
there -- including political instability and economic underdevelopment
-- were
caused by those who had drawn the political borders of that continent.
Therefore, it was time for the colonizers who exploited Africa to apologize
to the continent and pay full compensation for all the losses suffered
through colonialism.
He said collective action was required against the imposition of restrictions
on international trade and the legislation of
extra-territorial laws. Member States were called upon to support and
vote for the draft resolution on the issue being submitted to the Assembly
at the current session and to not recognize unilateral laws that undermined
the principles of the United Nations Charter. Such laws constituted a violation
of the rules of international law, encroached on the sovereignty
of Member States, while interfering in internal affairs.
He said the "self-styled" fighters against terrorism were the first
to perpetuate it and they were trying to cover up the terrorist crimes
they had committed. They had attempted to brand as "terrorist" movements
for liberation and the struggle against occupation. They had failed and
most of the fighters for freedom and independence triumphed in their struggles.
The Assembly embraced a number of such leaders every year, including
Nelson Mandela, President of South Africa.
He said any talk of terrorism needed an agreed definition. "We cannot
condemn terrorism and fight against it when it hits a certain country and
then turn a blind eye when it hits other countries or peoples", he added.
The occupation of Lebanon,
aggression against Libya in 1986, the invasion of Grenada, kidnapping
a head of State and keeping military bases on other peoples's territory
-- all were acts of terrorism. Preventing the Security Council from reacting
to missiles that were intentionally launched against a pharmaceutical plant
in a peaceful city like Khartoum, while preventing that body from sending
a fact-finding mission, was also terrorism. Libya had been one of the first
countries to call on the Organization to convene a special session of the
Assembly on terrorism.
Addressing the Lockerbie incident, he said that on 24 August the United States and the United Kingdom addressed a joint letter to the Secretary-General. They attached the text of a draft agreement between the Government of the Netherlands and the Government of the United Kingdom, together with the text of a bill. The United Kingdom intended to enact that bill as a law, which would enable the Scottish Court to conduct the trial of the suspects in the Lockerbie incident in the Netherlands. On 25 August, theUnited States and the United Kingdom submitted a draft to the Security Council. On 27 August, it was approved without "pausing to discover the poison that was slipped surreptitiously into the honey".
He said the letter to the Secretary-General, together with its detailed and complicated legal attachments, were approved without members of the Council having had a chance to study them. His Government had requested that the Council postpone acting on the draft, because its attachments required considerationby competent Libyan judicial authorities. Those who styled themselves as the opponent and the arbitrator prevented the Council from responding to that request. However, they had previously prevented the Council, during the review session last March, from studying the judgements of the International Court of Justice, under the pretext that those judgements needed to be studied by legal experts in their two countries. Such a stark contradiction in positions would have to be addressed to the Assembly.
He described in detail some of the difficulties his Government had with
both the letter of the United States and the United Kingdom and the Security
Council resolution. He said that a prompt solution lay in conducting negotiations
among all parties. Should direct negotiations prove impossible, due to
the opposition of the United States and the United Kingdom, the negotiations
could be conducted through the Secretary-General. The proposed agreement
should accurately state what all
parties are required to do, so that the trial of the two suspects would
be the final phase of implementing Security Council
resolutions, not the first one.
A. PETER BURLEIGH (United States), speaking in exercise of the right of reply to the statement made by Libya, said the Libyan representative had made several gratuitous references to the United States that sadly reflected the position of hostility and isolation from which Libya still looked out at the world. Such comments did not warrant specific response. Instead, he wanted to exercise his right of reply to encourage a quick resolution to the problem. Libya had emphasized that it was essential to observe the principles of the United Nations Charter. The United States agreed. Member States must honour all such obligations, especially those mandated under Chapter VII. He called on Libya to comply fully with Charter obligations by giving a clear, unequivocal and unconditional response to relevant Security Council Resolutions.
The United States and the whole Security Council demonstrated a unanimous
and genuine desire to resolve the problem, he said. Within the parameters
established by previous resolutions, the United States had launched an
initiative that had taken
into account the recommendations of the OAU, the Arab League, the Non-Aligned
Movement, and Libya itself. Instead of clear acceptance, however, Libya
had responded with more conditions and sharp rhetoric. Other countries
had moved to change the very laws of their society to accommodate the initiative
embodied in Security Council resolution 1192 (1998). The Secretary-General
had offered the assistance of his Office to clarify and execute the terms
for the transfer of the suspects to trial. Libya had taken no concrete
steps. Instead, it had used valuable time toretard progress towards resolution.
It had even violated the sanctions regime more times since the adoption
of Security Council resolution 1192 (1998) than at any time before.
He urged Libya to comply without further delay, and called on all participants in the Assembly to urge Libya to do so. Such an effort would lead to suspension of sanctions -- a result which the United States and the international community would welcome. He noted that Libya, in its statement, had said it would accept "a trial of the two suspects before a Scottish court that would sit in the Netherlands". That was precisely what was being offered. He urged Libya to move expeditiously to implement tha decision.
DAVID RICHMOND (United Kingdom), speaking in exerciseof the right
of reply to the statement made by Libya this morning, said the initiative
of the United States and the United Kingdom, announced on 24 August this
year, to hold a trial of the two Libyan nationals accused of the bombing
of Pan Am flight 103 in a Scottish court and under Scottish law in the
Netherlands was a genuine one. It had been put forward in good faith, because
they wished to bring the case to a close and to secure justice for the
victims of that terrible crime and their families. The United Kingdom had
recently passed the necessary legislation to give effect to the initiative
in domestic law and had signed the agreement with the Dutch Government,
which
would allow the trial to take place in the Netherlands.
Any suggestion that they were in fact intending to hold the trial in
Scotland or the United States was patently false, and he rejected it absolutely,
he said. Libya itself had, on many occasions including today, said that
it accepted a trial in the Netherlands under Scottish law. The initiative
would enable precisely that to take place -- nothing more, nothing less.
Libya had raised a number of detailed queries about the procedure of the
trial. As Libya well knew, any queries it might have
could, and were, being clarified through the offices of the Secretary-General,
for whose assistance he was most grateful. He would only reconfirm his
country'sreadiness to clarify issues where that was required.
He now looked to Libya to fulfil its obligations under Security Council
resolution 1192 (1998) by ensuring that the two accused were transferred
to the Netherlands to stand trial under Scottish law. He hoped all those
countries who had urged the United Kingdom and the United States to agree
to a trial under Scottish law in the Netherlands would now urge Libya to
act responsibly and surrender the two accused so that justice could finally
be done.
HENRY ZIPPER DE FABIANI (France) said that the this morning
that the drama of flight UTA 770, in which 170 people had died, had had
nothing to do with the subject addressed by resolution 1192 (1998).
Paragraph 8 of resolution 1192 (1998) modified the conditions that would have suspended the sanctions concerning the Lockerbie affair, he said. That was an approach he supported. However, paragraph 8 of resolution 1192 (1998) was appropriate in that it maintained the recommendation of resolution 883 (1993) relative to the UTA affair. The Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Security Council were being kept appraised by the French authorities on the subject, he added.
ISA BABAA (Libya) speaking in exercise of the right of reply,
said he wished to respond to remarks made by the United States, the United
Kingdom and France this afternoon. He reaffirmed that Libya had accepted
that the trial of the suspects in the Lockerbie incident would be held
before a Scottish court in the Netherlands so that the sanctions against
its people would be lifted. Libya wanted guarantees that the suspects would
not be extradited to the United States and the United Kingdom. His country
also wanted the other parties to take consideration of the request for
the legal rights of the suspects -- that request was supported by other
delegations and described as just legal and reasonable. Finally, Libya
was ready to
cooperate to close the file, providing the practial procedures regarding
the trial were clearly and accurately specified and in accordance with
international law.
He said Libya had responded to all the requests of the Security Council.
While Libya agreed that the suspects could be transported to the Netherlands,
he stressed that his country was still responsible for its nationals and
wanted to ensure that their rights would be preserved.
E-mail to Ahmed Abuzed Dourda: lbyun@undp.org
