Friday 25 September 2009

TIME editors interview Gaddafi

[The website of Time magazine contains an interview conducted yesterday with Colonel Gaddafi in New York. It can be read here. What follows is the one question and answer relating to Lockerbie.]

Q: I know that the Lockerbie case has come to a legal end, but there are people in the United States who would still say, in 2003, Libya accepted responsibility for its officials but it would be wonderful if it was a heartfelt expression of remorse and an apology for what happened. That might help thaw the ice.

A: It was always said that it is not us who did that and they don't accept the fact that they have a responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing. And all the nonaligned nations used to support the Libyan claim. But we go through the resolutions adopted by ... more than 150 countries, both of the resolutions of the Arab League, all of the resolutions adopted by the African Union, all of the organizations ... conflict resolutions.

But of course, Americans, Libyans, the whole world express sympathy or regret over such tragedies. No one would be happy over such tragedies, no one would welcome such a tragedy, indeed, of course. Do the American people feel happy, are the American people happy over the killing of the Libyan citizens in 1986? And is the world happy about the Gaza massacre? By the same token none of us are happy over the tragedy of Lockerbie. Up to now, if you visit the house that was bombed in the American raid, you will find a picture of my daughter, a picture of the daughter of Jim Swire, in a frame there, and everybody goes there. Our children are all victims. I mean, these pictures, just to say the fact that we are all fathers of victims.

[The report in The Times on Gaddafi's New York visit and his appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations contains the following:

"A day after losing his tent and complaining of jet leg, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi yesterday skipped a summit meeting of the UN body he has dubbed the “Terror Council”.

"The Libyan leader was the only one of the 15 Security Council statesmen to miss the meeting, which was chaired by President Obama. His no-show came as a relief to Mr Obama and Gordon Brown, who were spared having to shake his hand.

"A diplomatic source said that the notoriously unpredictable “Brother Leader of the Libyan Revolution” had decided on Wednesday to give the Security Council a miss after he delivered a long speech to the 192-nation General Assembly, in which he complained of jet lag. He did reappear last night at the Council on Foreign Relations, a high-powered American foreign policy association. In his address he denied that Libya ever had a hand in the Lockerbie bombing."

The report in The Tripoli Post contains the following:

"With regard to Lockerbie case, the Leader of the Revolution said Thursday that Libya has not accepted culpability, and only took responsibility for the actions of its citizens. "We never acknowledged any guilt ... and Libya was never indicted in any court as responsible," he said in Arabic. His remarks translated into English."]

2 comments:

  1. MISSION LOCKERBIE, the Pandora box:

    Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, QC: Is the document under 'National Security', shortly before the opening?

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The Terror Council"!

    Isn't a bit strong? Can't we just call it "a quite helpless institution, dominated by a core of the wealthiest and best armed powers of the world, who use it as a legitimization when it agrees with them, and otherwise don't feel the need to respect it when it does not?"

    OK, that is obviously also a wildly oversimplified and negative description. But in some important matters it does look exactly like that. I still remember Blair in an interview in early 2003 stating that the UN resolution 1441 was a justification for an attack on Iraq. That the same UN was clearly against a war, that was not to be respected. As Blair said "...but if UN is unreasonable...".

    Gadaffi is right when he says, that the veto right is highly inappropriate. In what other supposedly democratic institutions do we see veto-rights?

    - - -

    As for the Lockerbie cause, I understand that we turn to the UN to get an inquiry through the General Assembly where there is no veto powers. May Dr. Black's optimism in the BBC article blogged here a couple of days ago
    ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8252246.stm )
    be rewarded.

    ReplyDelete