Thursday, 9 October 2008

US says Libya puts "substantial" money in fund

The Reuters Africa website reports that a US official has stated that Libya has deposited a substantial amount of money (though not yet the full agreed amount) in the compensation fund for, amongst others, the relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie disaster. The first few paragraphs of the report read:

'Libya has deposited a "substantial" sum of money into a compensation fund for victims of terrorism but payments cannot be made until Tripoli gives the remaining agreed amount, a senior U.S. official said on Thursday.

'"We have received a substantial amount of money in a U.S. account towards compensating the U.S. victims and families with terrorism-related claims against Libya," said the official, who declined to be named.

'He refused to say how much money the Libyans had handed over but the fund is estimated eventually to total about $1.8 billion. It was agreed on in August by the United States and Libya to settle terrorism cases on both sides from the 1980s.

'"We believe that direct deposit of these funds into a U.S. account is evidence of Libya's commitment to fully implementing the claims settlement agreement," the official told reporters.'

The full article can be read here.

11 comments:

  1. ome of the Lockerbie victims Families (PanAm 103 aircrash)
    say the cordial and truth words:
    It is to be believed absolutely that all relatives of the victims of Flight PanAm-103 would gladly repay any 'compensation' money from Libya if he could just have our loved ones back.

    To the memory:
    The trial under Scottish law, the accused Mr Al Megrahi was found guilty on Jannuary 31, 2001, of mass murder (270 killed) and is serving a life sentence (27 years) in Greenock prison at Glasgow in Scotland. Mr Megrahi and protests till today his innocence.
    The Scottish judicial review commission (SCCRC) came across important relieve-evidence (some that was available to prosecutors but not the defense during Megrahi's trial) suggesting that the Libyan was framed and the the legal judgement was in all probability a miscariage of justice!

    Entitled question for the Lockerbie victims Families group (PanAm 103 aircrash)?:
    Which will happened with the 'compensation' money of US$ 2,7billion from Libya Foundation, if Mr Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, of the same Scottish jurisdiction, as innocent revived?
    I believe that the entire world population then expected, that then the unauthorized received 'compensation' will pay back to the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation from Saif el Islam Gaddafi.
    The reproach would be then incorrect that the survivors are greedy and have required on the back of their victims blood money.

    by Edwin & Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd

    ReplyDelete
  2. Given that Mr. Bollier has 'expectations' of a substantial 'reward' on the release of Mr. Megrahi, I (and I suspect many others) will find his comments on the 'solatium' payment freely made by the Libyan Government deeply offensive and un-called for.

    Given his averment that the relatives should all willingly repay the funds they accepted is both inaccurate and, to be honest, ridiculous (Many of the families have had to use those funds to try and reorganise their lives.)

    Mr. Bollier seems also to be ignorant (a) of the fact that some relatives HAVE DECLINED TO ACCEPT ANY PAYMENT FROM LIBYA and (b) under the terms of the legal agreement drafted under the United Nations supervision and accepted by Libya and the legal representatives of the relatives, specificially rules out any possibility of repayment of the monies so far paid or currently due.

    I look forward to Mr. Bollier asking the seried ranks of lawyers who deducted THIRTY PERCENT of all monies paid to the relatives, (before the relatives received a cent!) for them to repay their fees...it could make for a rivetting and expensive court case!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes it is understandable that the relatives want to rebuild their lives but when Megrahi is proved innocent then the rebuilding of their lives is at the expense of the Libyan people who will have suffered firstly from the loss of this huge sum of money and secondly from the terrible suffering they had to endure because of sanctions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I really admire those relatives who have refused to take money from Libya but those who hold onto it when Megrahi is proved innocent will in fact be worse than greedy. The law will uphold their rights but in reality they will be in possession of stolen property. Libya was put in a position where it was forced to give up this money.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dear Ruth,

    (1) Libya was never FORCED to give up this money.

    (2) The agreement over the cocept of what some people have mis-called 'compensation' but what in law should be called 'solatium' was required under a United National Resolution.

    (3) Libya, for whatever reasons (and they are several and complex) agreed to pay and then quite properly with-held the third payment of $2 Million per family when the United States Government failed, for a variety of reasons to stick to a previously agreed timescale.

    (4) To quote Saif al-Islam Ghadaffi in his interview in the recent documentary 'it's all a game, a game my friend', demonstrates the cynicism both in Tipoli and Washignton over the matter,

    (5)The 'poor' Libyans are NOT that poor, they are sitting on 9% of the world oil reserves!

    (6)Since the United Nations imposed sanctions were lifted there has been a virtual tsunami of foreign companies dashing into Tripoli who have thereafter signed up TRILLIONS of dollar deals - the Libyan economy has experienced it's biggest boom since Colonel Ghadaffi took power.

    (7) NOT A SINGLR relatives has ever demanded money: the concept of 'blood money' in fact originated both in the lands of Arabi, Sharia law and was then raised at the United Nations (NOT by the relatives)

    (8) Saif al-Islam Ghadaffi was both inaccurate and offensive when he claimed in the interview when he stated the relatvies were 'demanding more and more, money more... and trading in the blood of their sons and daughters'...THE RELATIVES NEVER DEMANDED OR EVEN ASKED FOR A CENT..
    the solatium, was a concept born and raised in the United Nations. Some relatives were not even aware of the possibility until after the trial when their attorneys contacted them!

    (8) The lawyers were voracious in their demands as to the amount to be paid: they held cast iron (Or solid gold if you wish)contracts with the relatives from the civcil case against Pan Am and it's insurers that they (the lawyers) would deduct THIRTY PERCENT for every dollar given in compensation to therelatives (and, indeed before the relatives received a cent!)

    (9) Your averment that the relatives are in receipt of'stolen' money is flawed in law, emotive and inaccurate.

    (10) While the Libyans were 'suffering from this huge loss of money' the sons of the Libyan leader have spent $ MILLIONS all over the world having purchased expansive mansions and other items such as dangerous pets (in Switzerland) and several million dollars on a party at a festival in Venice!

    (11) The 'terrible suffering' of the Libyans caused by the sanctions cannot be blamed on the relatives or their legally agreed compensation. The relatives played no part in the drafting of or authorising of the sanction.

    (12) Detailed research will demonstrate (a) One of the najor effects of sanctions was that Libya had a highly positive trade balance as many Countries continued to purchase Libyan oil.
    (3) As with other sanctions around the world, for every person whoobserved the sanctions... there were many who became dedicated into breaking them. This arose in evidence during the trial.

    Lastly, for the record, (as you have claimed I was 'attacking Mr. Bollier) and may now feel I am attacking you, I am not. I will defend your right ot post comment but also exercise my rights to correct inaccurate or emotionally flawed comments.

    Also for the record, I can substantiate anything I post on site: careful research will provideyou with verification of any of my comments.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Of course Libya was forced into this deal. Sanctions had a devasting effect on the economy. Sanctions have the same result as a siege used in medieval wars which were used to make the enemy surrender.

    The Libyans suffered severely under sanctions. This is a fact. It is also a fact as you pointed out that Libya has huge resources. Under sanctions Libya was prevented from developing these resources.

    Seif Gadaffi is absolutely right; it is a game, a game in which the main players, the USA , UK and Israel, in their desperation operate without rules or principles. Blow up people, fix trials. Whatever to get their hands on resources that don't belong to them.

    If Megrahi is proved innocent and the money is not returned to the Libyans then the relatives will be holding onto money acquired by force and they are not entitled to it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear Ruth,

    Your are, of course entitled to a somewhat simplistic view about this matter.

    The use of the word 'not-entitled' is completely wrong.

    1: The concept of 'compensation' was authorised under an AGREEMENT between the United Nations, Libya, the Unites States and the United Kingdom. (There have been no reports of Libyan claiming 'duress' either at the United Nations or elsewhere.

    2: For MANY of the famillies their main wage-earner perished in the bombing. The amount of compensation was reached after months of negotiations between Libya, the United Nations and the attorneys representing the relatives (from 21 nations in total)

    3: Your averment that 'they are not entitled to it' is inaccurate and flawed in law.

    4: The decision accept any of the 'compensation' was entirely the choice of each family - many (some in the UK) were uncomfortable about the way in which the whole matter was handled but their own circumstances left them with little or no alternative but to accept the funds.

    5: The fact that you feel Libya was 'forced' into paying is also flawed - detailed research over the history of the Libyan People's Jamaharya will demonstrate they have never been 'forced' into anything.

    6: Over the years their leader has constantly made choices that have caused dramatic results for his nation - the Lockerbie case is no different in this respect from many others.

    7: The four parties in thiscase were, Libya,The Unites States, The United Kingdom and the United Nations, Israel played no part in the case.

    8: As for the suffering in Libya - I DO accept there has been a degree of suffering - I respectfully suggest that you take that questions up with the Libyan leadership and his family who were being extremely profligate with vast amounts of money THAT COULD HAVE BEEN USED TO ALLIEVIATE THE suffering of the masses!

    9: In one specific case one of the relatives, after much thought and prayer, gifted an intensive care, all terrain, state of the art Ambulance to a Libyan Children's Hospital...it cost approximately the same as two of the luxury armoured limos - driven around Libyan by senior figures...maybe they should be questioned about the degree of suffering of the masses.

    10: Again, and for the avoidance of doubt:
    a: To the best of my knowledge none of the relatives has evinced any with to inflict suffering on the ordinaty people of Libya.
    b: Libya was and is still extremely rich and getting richer with each barrel of oil it sells on the world market. It was selling oil throughout the sanction period. Libya, for the past 20 years has been investing trillions of dollars, through the Libyan Ivestment Corporation around the globe.
    c: The moral questions about compensation and suffering should properly be referred to the Libyan Government and NOT the famillies of the 270 victims from 21 nations and seven faiths, who meerely accepted what they were offered.

    PLEASE do not confuse moral and political imperatives - I know that I would struggle immensely were I to be faced with the prospect of $10 Million (Less, of course 30% for the attorneys) were you to offer me it. I stand in awe of the two famillies that I know declined to accept - many I know accepted, had little or no choice caused by mountainous financial challenges caused by the murder of their loved ones!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Can you tell me what the purpose of the sanctions were?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Ruth,

    The sanctions against Libya were enforced by a vote of the General Assembly to require Libya to comply with an earlier UN Resolution to surrender the two accused... that resolution was passed by vote of the majority General Assembly as were the 'continuation' of the sanctions every so many weeks for over six years.

    YES some countries did vote against but on each occasion the MAJORITY did vote for the sanctions (or their continuance)

    Careful research of the UN archives will reveal the convoluted and labyrinthim twists and tunrs of the sanction, where to be honest, Libya did NOT help itself diplomatically or politically.

    I DO ACTUALLY believe that Megrahi IS innocent. I WAS at the Zeist trial. I WAS disgusted at some of the things that went on. I was amazed at the conduct (or lack of it) by Megrahi's defence team. I was even more amazed that the Libyan Govt. used the SAME people to conduct the first appeal. I have a great deal more confidence in Megrahi's current appeal team, although slightly concerned that ittook the SCCRC to find FOUR of the six grounds for appeal.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Unfortunately, you haven't really given me a full picture of the purpose of the sanctions. Of course they were there ultimately to bring about the surrender of the two accused. But to effect that the country had to be brought to its knees. Maybe you should look at the damage caused by sanctions on the health and welfare of the Libyan people between 15 April 1992 to 31 December 1995.
    "1. Some 15,750 persons living in the Jamahiriya are suffering from serious
    medical conditions (cardiovascular disease; fractures of the spinal column
    and thorax; fractured skulls; chronic eye diseases; detached retinas:
    serious burns; cancer and malignant tumours) which require emergency
    treatment (neurosurgery; spinal marrow transplants; kidney transplants;
    corneal transplants; fitting of prostheses). Owing to the continuation of
    the aerial embargo, these individuals, who could not be treated in local
    hospitals and health-care facilities, could not be evacuated by air for
    treatment in other countries or for necessary medical examinations and
    surgery in hospitals and specialized health-care facilities with modern
    equipment. Because they could not obtain treatment, most of these patients
    died in tragic circumstances.

    2. More than 780 seriously injured patients (most of whom were the victims
    of road accidents) died in ambulances en route to airports in neighbouring
    countries so that they could be transported by air for treatment abroad in
    spite of the difficulties of the overland journey.

    3. There have been 1,135 stillbirths and 514 women have died in childbirth
    in the various hospitals owing to the shortage of medicines, serums and
    vaccines. Prior to the aerial embargo, such supplies had been imported
    regularly by air, with the usual precautions being taken to preserve their
    efficacy and usability. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was able in that way to
    meet its needs in this area, particularly in emergency situations.

    4. Owing to the aerial embargo and the consequent increase in overland
    traffic, there has been a rise in the number of road accidents. As Libyans
    have had to take to the roads linking the major cities in the country,
    hundreds have been involved in accidents in which they have been killed or
    suffered permanent disability. There have been some 15,260 victims of road
    accidents, including 2,560 fatalities. The remaining 12,700 victims are
    suffering from serious injuries or permanent disabilities.

    More than 18,200 public and privately owned vehicles have been damaged,
    for an estimated cost of $1,450,000.

    5. The number of diabetics who have died has increased, owing to the
    unavailability of serums and medicines.

    6. The shortage of poliomyelitis vaccine, which continues to worsen, has
    impeded the implementation of periodic or annual therapeutic, preventive
    and awareness-raising programmes connected with national and international
    immunization campaigns with specific timetables. Many Libyan and other
    children have thus been prevented from receiving doses at the prescribed
    times in accordance with the guidelines of the World Health Organization
    (WHO) and national public health laws and regulations.

    7. Therapeutic and preventive services for school health programmes have
    been suspended, as have the programmes and activities of mother-and-child
    health-care centres and centres for the mentally retarded and physically
    handicapped.

    8. International pharmaceutical companies have been slow in supplying the
    health and social welfare sector and hospital establishments with essen-
    tial pharmaceuticals and equipment needed to treat and prevent diseases.

    9. Companies specializing in the maintenance of air ambulances have
    refused to supply the spare parts needed to maintain the country's fleet
    and other on-board equipment. These aircraft, which service Libyan citi-
    zens and expatriates alike, are no longer able to perform fully their
    humanitarian mission, whether in Libya or abroad, given the country's
    extensive land area.

    10. Delays have consistently occurred in the delivery of some medical
    supplies (serums, vaccines, blood products, hormones, reagents used in
    AIDS testing, radioactive iodine, etc.) because they are now shipped
    overland or by sea. Such supplies are usually shipped by air (so that the
    normal measures can be taken to preserve their efficacy); special permis-
    sion must now be sought for the purchase of such items. When they arrive
    in Libya, most of these supplies (in particular, poliomyelitis vaccine)
    have lost their efficacy (having been stored under improper conditions)
    which has resulted in an increase in the number of deaths among infants
    and women, particularly in childbirth, and disarray in the provision of
    health services generally.

    11. Losses estimated at around $180,800,000 have been experienced in the
    health and social welfare sector owing to the maintenance of the aerial
    embargo against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, which has caused delays in the
    shipment of medical supplies. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya obtains supplies
    from specialized international companies to meet the needs of a variety of
    institutions (medical schools, technical institutes, rehabilitation
    centres and homes for the elderly).

    12. Maintenance of the aerial embargo has dealt a serious blow to preven-
    tive and curative health services provided under international technical
    cooperation agreements. The country is endeavouring to develop, strengthen
    and maintain such agreements with various countries in order to develop
    the health and social welfare sector and modernize its hospitals with the
    aim of providing improved medical, therapeutic and prophylactic services
    for all its citizens.

    13. The maintenance of the embargo has also impeded cooperation programmes
    between the People's Committee for Health and Social Welfare and the
    bodies under it, on the one hand, and WHO, on the other. Most of the
    visits which international experts and WHO teams were to make to Libya
    have been cancelled or postponed, which has adversely affected all the
    major health care and preventive health programmes and hampered efforts to
    promote and modernize the health and social welfare sector. The failure or
    stagnation of international cooperation in this area would prevent Libya
    from achieving the targets set by WHO and pursuing the WHO strategy of
    "Health for All by the Year 2000".

    14. More than 360 medical specialists and highly qualified instructors
    from universities and medical centres from around the world have been
    unable to come to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to treat patients with
    serious conditions, perform delicate surgical procedures in public hospi-
    tals, conduct examinations in the country's medical schools at different
    times of the year, and participate in conferences, symposia and courses
    organized in the country.

    15. The growing shortage of spare parts has resulted in a deterioration in
    the maintenance of modern medical equipment used in hospitals and medical
    centres. In addition, there is the lack of technical skills in most
    hospitals and health establishments in major cities and villages alike.

    16. More than 8,500 medical doctors of various nationalities have been
    unable to come to the country to work in the health and social welfare
    sector because of the difficulties and hardships presented by the main-
    tenance of the aerial embargo. Some 6,400 medical specialists in various
    fields have not renewed their contracts, which has adversely affected the
    quality of health care in the majority of hospitals and other health facilities."

    Sanctions lasted eleven years.

    I think I used the correct word 'forced' when I said Libya was forced to pay the compensation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear Ruth,

    1: Please document the source of your claims.

    2: Libya or rather its leadership successfully managed to maintain 'their' medical and other facilities throughout the sanctions - and yet you don't seem to feel that they caused all the long list above.

    3:Several European countries including Italy purchased VAST amounts of oil from Libya THROUGHOUT the sanctions. Foreign medcial staff DID travel to and work in Libya - the arrest and 'trial' of Bulgarian and one Palestinian Doctors was the one of many reasons that foreign medical staff were not inclined to work in the country (poor pay another).

    4: Sanctions has/had some terrible effects on the ORDINARY citizens but NOT on the leadership and to even attempt to lay that fact at the doors of the relatives OR the 'compensation' funds is arrant nonsense

    5: Both during the sanctions and currently Libya was and is one of the most cash-rich countries in the world.

    6:It earns(and did so THROUGHOUT the sanctions) TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS a year through oil.What has been paid so far to the relatives pales into insignificance when compared against the annual oil earnings.

    7: It would appear that you are trying to use the faults and failing of the Libyan Leadership and other GIvernments at the feet of the relatives and that is nore disgusting that I can ever adequately express.

    8: Careful research, were you interested, would reveal a list of the effects of the bombing on individual famillies during the period from December 1988 until the start of the compensation negotiations, plus an assessment of the deep psychological damage caused to many of the relatives, including THEIR children to this day!

    9: The ONLY, the ONLY people who have made profit from the long, long story has been the men and women of the legal profession in Libya, in the UK and in the USA - THAT is the REAL blasphemy.

    10: Given the fact that Libya took 11 years to reach an agreement and then, to quote Saif al-Ilsam al Ghadaffi 'It's all words, words...it's a game my friend' could I ask you to ask him why 'the game' did indeed cause so much pain and hurt to so many both in Tripoli and the West?

    12: I happen to have been one of the first to express disbielf at the verdict against Mehrahi, in the car park of the court in Zeist surrounded by the world's media. That night on 2 Vandaag Television in the Netherlands, I publicly expressed disbelief and anger at the verdict

    13: one of the more uncomfortable facts about Lockerbie and the imprisonment of Mr.Megrahi and the undoubted suffering of his family is simple truth that HIS GOVERNMENT could have done much, much more to mount an EFFECTIVE defence! WHY didn't they?

    ReplyDelete