Call Gadhafi's Bluff: Hold a Trial at the Hague

By Aphrodite Thevos Tsairis

Aphrodite Tsairis is chair of Terrorism Watch: Pam Am 103, a lobbying group formed to push for the extradition of the Libyan bombing suspects. From 1989 to 1993, she was chair of the Victims of Pan Am 103, one of the groups that represent families whose relatives died in the bombing.

Sunday, October 26, 1997; Page C03 The Washington Post

As I sat down to collect my thoughts about what I should say in this article, something struck me: I realized how many times I had done this before. I realized that I have addressed dozens of different audiences in the nine years since Pan Am Flight 103 blew up. I realized how hard it is to control my frustration with the ineffective U.N. sanctions against Libya and the snail's-pace work of the Federal Aviation Administration in deploying bomb-detection equipment. Today, I feel a deep disappointment in our government's failed foreign policy coupled with an intense longing for a final resolution to the murders of my daughter Alexia and 269 others.

The sanctions have proved ineffective ever since they were imposed six years ago. The indicted Libyan bombing suspects have yet to go to trial. In the interest of preserving the integrity of the evidence that remains sealed in the dust-collecting indictments, we must admit that the tortuous political and diplomatic efforts to bring about justice in the Lockerbie affair have come to an unresolved end.

Along with some of the other Pan Am family members, I have concluded that the time has come to pursue the Libyan offer of a trial at the World Court under U.S. or Scottish law. The Scots have agreed to allow their law to apply in such a setting. Of course, certain provisions must be met: The accused Libyans must be delivered to the World Court in the Hague and they must remain in custody there until the conclusion of the trial. the U.N.-imposed sanctions must remain in place until a verdict is rendered. I believe this is a workable, doable compromise.

I do not agree with President Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright or most of the other Pan Am families on this issue. In the early years after the bombing, there was a consensus among the various family groups and independent family members that we should stand behind our government's policy. But about two years ago, with no resolution in sight, I broke away from the main group.

My support for an ad hoc trial at the International Court of Justice in the Hague runs counter to the American government position. Finding no support and in utter frustration with the failed U.S. policy, I and some other family members boycotted the 1995 dedication of a Scottish cairn as a stone memorial to the victims in Arlington National Cemetery, at which President Clinton spoke. A group of us met with Attorney General Janet Reno to request, at the very minimum, public release of the evidence in the Lockerbie case. This was denied.

Criticism of my position abounded. Most families remained loyal to the Clinton stance on Libya. Since that time, however, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act has been passed, allowing individuals to file civil suits against nations for monetary damages. Now, some family members have changed their minds and are calling for a release of the evidence. But I do not want money; I want justice.

Libyan Revolution leader Moammar Gadhafi has been thumbing his nose at the United States in full view of the international community. Libya periodically floats propaganda about its willingness to have a trial in a neutral country. In response, the U.S. government huffs and puffs about how it will stand strong on terrorism while underscoring its continued support for the ineffective U.N. sanctions. I submit that this is a comfortable position for the Clinton administration officials: The bombing did not happen on their watch, Gadhafi is in check for the moment and the Pan Am families -- at least the ones that Clinton listens to -- are going along. I am not. I suggest we call Gadhafi's bluff and push for a Hague tribunal.

How would it work? Since the World Court at the Hague has no jurisdiction in criminal matters, the United States would have to ask the U.N. Security Council to form a tribunal, as was done for the Bosnia and Rwanda crimes against humanity. All Congress has to do is to agree to pay for it. Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter gives mandatory enforcement powers over such a tribunal to the U.N. Security Council. What is required is the national and international will to make this happen. I believe it is the only solution to a botched handling of this wanton act of terrorism against innocent Americans. The murder of 189 Americans and the destruction of an American civilian airliner was a heinous and personal crime against the United States. Yet, to date, neither the American government nor the Security Council have felt compelled to act decisively in bringing the indicted Libyans to justice. The rhetoric of the political landscape has been littered with vacant gestures and veiled threats from both sides. It is time to stop the posturing, to remember the victims and to bring about justice.

Over the past nine years, I have generated boxes and boxes of congressional testimony; scores of letters written to newspaper editors; hundreds of pages of faxes sent to legislators, journalists and presidents; countless packets of meeting agendas, buttons, stationery, pictures, photos, placards, business cards of congressional aides who no longer work on Capitol Hill, several Rolodexes of media contacts whose numbers and employers seem to change monthly, phone numbers of Scots, Libyan dissidents, etc., etc. Why does it take so much, by so few, to accomplish so little? Why does it take so much to do what is right?