Lockerbie families wait for verdict

The trial of two Libyans accused of bombing Pan Am 103 in 1988 is nearing its end. The reaction of American officials and the public will be critical for post-trial developments. No matter what their hopes, American oil companies are unlikely to see sanctions lifted on Libya.

It has been dubbed "the trial of the century". With a good 99 years to go, that may be somewhat overblown. Still, the pivotal moment approaches in the case of the two Libyans accused of carrying out the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The panel of three Scottish judges is considering the evidence before reconvening the court on January 30, when it will set a date for the verdict. That might be soon, or it may take months before a decision is made.

Will the charges of mass murder against Abdel Basset al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima end in the verdict of guilty, not guilty or, as is possible in Scottish law, not proven? The outcome is, of course, crucial for the families of the 270 people who perished in the worst act of terrorism ever seen. It is important, too, for Libya's relations with the outside world, and conversely, for American companies considering investment in the Libyan oil industry.

As the judges mull over the evidence, diplomats are furtively meeting on the sidelines. The UN Ambassadors of Libya, the US and UK met on January 23 to discuss the outcome of the trial. Washington and London have consistently maintained that UN sanctions against Libya cannot be formally lifted until the trial ends, and Tripoli accedes to the verdict and meets some other demands. Yet to a certain extent, this is of marginal importance. UN sanctions - an air embargo and ban on importing some oil equipment - are suspended and cannot be revived without a vote in the UN Security Council. This will not happen.

US unilateral and extraterritorial sanctions on Libya are the crux for American business. Non-US companies are operating in Libya relatively normally. The only restrictions are on importing US-owned technology, and even then, sidestepping the sanctions doesn't pose too much of a challenge. Few companies pay much attention to the Iran-Libya Sanction Act (ILSA), which threatens punitive sanctions against non-US oil firms investing more than $40m in the Libyan hydrocarbons sector. Yet Libya remains off-limits for American oil firms, some of whom want to get back into the oil-soaked North African state. And despite his anti-US rhetoric, Libyan leader Col Muammar Gadhafi wants to welcome them back. Over the next couple of years, juicy exploration contacts will come under the auctioneer's hammer.

America's reaction to the verdict is crucial. The victims' families (split into moderate and radical camps) have an extremely powerful voice through the American media and on Capitol Hill. President George Bush will have to take note. "The victims' families frame the public debate on this issue," says Ray Takeyh, research fellow at the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, a think tank. A guilty verdict would provoke machinations over compensation and, possibly, pressure for military action against Gadhafi. Takeyh doesn't believe that military action is a viable option. But a guilty verdict would certainly pull the rug from under attempts to foster bilateral trade and investment. European energy firms would clean up.

Not guilty or not proven verdicts provide US oil firms with more hope. They would, at least, open up an avenue towards rapprochement, presuming that Gadhafi holds his tongue and refrains from bringing a lawsuit for compensation against the US government. Secretary of State Colin Powell recently affirmed his intention to review US sanctions policy. ILSA drops off the statute books in August 2001. Then Bush could prove his friendship to the oil industry by pushing through legislation to drop the 12 separate unilateral US sanctions on Libya.

But oil executives should keep the champagne on ice. Such is the popular demonization of Gadhafi, and a lack of democratization in Libya (as opposed to Iran, where sanctions are more likely to be lifted), that Bush would face a mountain of resistance to the lifting of sanctions. The gains for the few oil companies interested in Libya would be made at immense risk to his political reputation. Skepticism over the Scottish court's ability to carry out an effective prosecution would provoke a flurry of civil suits against Tripoli. "Sanctions won't be lifted, whatever the verdict," says Eric Thomas of USA*Engage, a business coalition which lobbies against US sanctions. "The political will is lacking."

Either way, it's all down to Lords Sutherland, Coulsfield and MacLean, the judges in the case. eCountries is not a betting company; nor is your correspondent a legal expert. Nonetheless, if forced, it is a reasonable bet that the court will plump for a not proven verdict. The prosecution, it seems, has not corralled enough direct evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Much of the evidence, while convincing, is circumstantial. And some of the star prosecution witnesses, including a Libyan informant for the CIA, have wobbled while testifying. It is, however, a complicated and confusing case, and the Scottish judges may still send the two Libyans to Glasgow's Barlinnie prison.

What happens if the defendants walk? This is where speculation draws on the conspiracy theories surrounding the trial. The most common theory is that a Syrian-based Palestinian terrorist group, the PFLP-GC, carried out the attack, placing the bomb on board Pan Am 103 in Frankfurt, not in Malta, as the prosecution alleges. An extension of this theory asserts that Iran funded the attack to avenge the US Navy's downing of an Iranian airliner in the Gulf in 1988. There is a slight possibility that judicial attention would be drawn to such theories. More likely, though, would be for diplomats to get back to diplomacy, and try to draw a line under the matter. In the meantime, the victims' families, and, no doubt, some oil executives, wait with baited breath.

eCountries is an international media company and online services marketplace focused on the global economy. By merging the strategic value of news analysis and research content with the power of an online marketplace, this comprehensive resource provides individuals and corporations with a valuable tool to successfully penetrate new markets and conduct business worldwide more easily. 

* provides incisive, up-to-the minute news analysis and research on the political developments and business environments in each country; 

* has a team of writers, led by Michael Elliott, former editor of Newsweek International and Washington bureau chief of the Economist;