Relatives of MH17 and Lockerbie tragedies brought together

[This is the headline over an article published this afternoon on the website of The Herald newspaper. It reads as follows:]

Families affected by the Lockerbie disaster have met relatives of victims of the MH17 crash to share their experiences.

The Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lampur was brought down in a rebel area of Eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. All 283 passengers, including 80 children, were killed in the crash.

The Lockerbie bombing which brought down a trans-Atlantic flight in 1988 is still fresh in the mind of the families who lost loved ones. Pan Am Flight 103 was targeted in a terrorist attack that resulted in 259 passengers being killed as well as 11 people on the ground.

Silene Fredriksz lost her son Bryce and his girlfriend Daisy in the MH17 incident. The young couple was travelling to Bali when the plane came down.

The Fredriksz family met John and Lisa Mosey, whose daughter Helga died in the Lockerbie disaster, for a documentary filmed by BBC Alba's Eorpa which shows how the families are coping with their loss.

Ms Fredriksz said: "It's a nightmare. Every time you close your eyes you see how that airplane exploded with them in it."

During the conversation between the Moseys and the Fredriksz family, they spoke about the importance of forgiveness in helping them to come to terms with what happened.

The Dutch family also met Jim Swire who continues to campaign for what he believes was a wrongful conviction over the Lockerbie bombing. Mr Swire lost his daughter Flora who had been travelling to the USA to spend Christmas with her boyfriend.

He said: "Seeking truth and justice was my way of coping with the loss of that lovely girl of ours - our eldest daughter Flora and to a great extent, I'd felt that I had been doing that for her."

After meeting the other relatives whose family members were killed more than 26 years ago, Ms Fredriksz said: "It was very emotional but very good that we did it... I think we can learn a lot from this. They have a positive outlook and can still enjoy life."

The programme will be shown at 8.30pm [tomorrow, Wednesday] on BBC ALBA Eorpa.

Support of an unsupportable verdict

[The following are excerpts from two items -- (1) Lockerbie father: al-Megrahi is innocent and (2) My trip to bid dying bomber goodbye -- posted on this blog three years ago on this date:]

From The Times:  The doctor who lost his daughter in the 1988 Lockerbie  bombing has reaffirmed his belief that the Libyan man convicted of the attack is innocent.

Jim Swire said he was convinced that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice, despite the belief of the new Libyan governement that al-Megrahi is guilty of the mass murder of the 270 passengers.

Dr Swire was speaking last night after an ITV documentary in which he was shown visiting al-Megrahi, who is dying of cancer. He also consulted representatives of the Libyan leadership that toppled the dictatorship of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi last year.

In one exchange Ashour Shamis, an adviser to Abdurrahim al-Keib, the Libyan Prime Minister, told Dr Swire: “As far as the Libyans are concerned, the Gaddafi regime, Gaddafi personally, are involved in planning and executing the atrocity. There is no doubt about it. They are involved, the regime are involved.”

Mr Shamis added that al-Megrahi was involved in the bombing, if “only a small player”. He went on: “Megrahi is an employee of Libyan security there is no doubt about it — of Libyan security. And if he was told to do something, he would have done it.”

Dr Swire said he had not accepted that argument. Mr Shamis, along with the rest of new government, had simply not had time to consider the case with any thoroughness.

“I found Tripoli percolated with the desire to pin everything imaginable under the sun on the defunct Gaddafi regime, because the people are so delighted to have got rid of him,” said Dr Swire. “Mr Shamis certainly believes al-Megrahi was guilty. I tried to make plain that if you look at the evidence that it is not at all likely.”

Dr Swire added that he hoped the documentary would re-awaken interest in al-Megrahi’s conviction, in a Scottish court at Camp Zeist, in the Netherlands, in 2001. The Libyan was released from Greenock prison on compassionate grounds in 2009 because he is suffering from terminal cancer.

“The verdict is vulnerable and would be repealed if there were a full inquiry into it,” said Dr Swire. “The Scottish public should understand what’s going on in their name: the support of an unsupportable verdict.”

From The Sun:  A dad who lost his daughter in the Lockerbie bombing has travelled to Libya to "say goodbye" to the man convicted of the atrocity.

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, 23, was among 270 people killed in the 1988 terror attack, said Abdelbaset al-Megrahi "does not have much time left".

Megrahi, 59, was freed on compassionate grounds from Greenock jail in August 2009, after being diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer.

Dr Swire — who said he was "entirely satisfied" that Megrahi was not guilty — revealed he had spent just over a week in Tripoli. The 75-year-old, who lives in Gloucestershire, said: "It was very much a trip for me to say goodbye to him.

"It may seem unusual but I have come to regard him as a friend."

Compensation negotiations following Lockerbie trial

[What follows is the text of a report published in The Independent on this date in 2002:]

Millions of dollars for bomb victims' families if Gaddafi accepts responsibility  

Relatives of the 270 people who died in the Lockerbie bombing stand to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation from Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in a secret deal being finalised by senior officials from Libya, Britain and the US. Senior Libyan officials met their British and American counterparts at the Foreign Office in London this month to discuss the deal, which would also see Tripoli accept general responsibility for the 1988 attack on Pan Am Flight 103, which killed all the passengers and crew and 11 people from the small Scottish border town. In return, the way would be opened for the north African country to resume oil deals worth billions of dollars. The negotiations are going on as Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the Libyan intelligence officer convicted last year of planting the bomb that destroyed the airliner, prepares for his appeal, due to start on Wednesday at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. His co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, was found not guilty.

"A meeting took place on 10 January to discuss Libya's response to the requirements set down by the UN Security Council," a Foreign Office spokesman said. "There are two requirements – that Libya accept responsibility for the actions of its officers and that it pay compensation to the families of the victims." The meeting was the latest in a series of three-way engagements that have taken place since Megrahi's conviction last year. One person with knowledge of what transpired at the most recent meeting said: "Libya wants to get out of the shadow of Lockerbie, and the only way it can do that is to accept responsibility." Underlining the importance of the 10 January meeting, all three countries sent officials of the highest level. The US was represented by William Burns, the assistant secretary of state for the Middle East, while a spokesman for the Libyan embassy in London said that a special negotiating team was dispatched from Tripoli. Britain said it sent a senior Foreign Office official.

It is not clear how much compensation will be paid. Dr Jim Swire, who leads the group of 31 bereaved British families, said the relatives had been asked that they keep private the sums being discussed but that the total would come to "many, many millions". (...) 

Dr Swire said the families supported the efforts to bring Libya back into the international arena. "Our view is that it would be unhelpful to look at Libya now as it was in the mid-1980s," said Dr Swire, whose daughter, Flora, died in the bombing. "We feel it would be more of a memorial to our loved ones if we can play a small part in [ensuring Libya does not return to the path of terrorism]." Glenn Johnson, the chairman of Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, the group that represents the vast majority of the families of the 169 US victims, was also encouraged that Libya was taking part in the talks. "Over the last 13 years I have spent around $100,000, pursuing the case," said Mr Johnson, who lost his 21-year-old daughter, Beth, in the incident.

Libya, which has already regained diplomatic relations with Britain, has much to gain from a normalisation of relations with the US – most importantly, the resumption of oil deals worth billions of dollars. The US believes that Libya is no longer involved in terrorism and was heartened by Colonel Gaddafi's comments condemning the attacks of 11 September. The US imposed its own sanctions in 1986, after Libyan agents bombed a Berlin disco frequented by US soldiers, killing two of them. US President Ronald Reagan responded by bombing Tripoli. The UN sanctions, suspended in 1999 after Libya handed over the two Lockerbie suspects, were imposed in 1992. The UN requirement that Libya pay compensation is not dependent on the outcome of Megrahi's appeal. After last year's verdict, Mohammed Azwai, Libya's ambassador to Britain, said Tripoli would pay if the conviction was upheld. "After the appeal result, at that time we will speak about compensation. We will fulfil our duty to the Security Council."

Forthcoming attraction

On Thursday, 22 January 2015 at 7pm GMT, I’ll be doing a live Skype chat on Lockerbie with David McGowran in the Independence Live Events series.

A deliberate perversion of justice

What follows is an item first published on this blog seven years ago on this date:

Rewards for Justice

The Sunday Post, the Scottish Sunday newspaper with the largest readership, published the following article by Adam Docherty about payment to witnesses in the Lockerbie trial on 13 January 2008:

'The US justice department paid for evidence that helped convict Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing.

'With the next hearing in Megrahi's High Court Appeal due to take place next month, the admission casts a dark shadow over testimony at the original trial -- and the safety of the conviction.

'The Washington DC-based 'Rewards for Justice' organisation boasts that it has paid out more than 72 million dollars to over 50 people who have provided information that prevented international terrorist attacks or have brought to justice those involved in prior acts. Included on its website, in a list of those brought to justice, is Megrahi. Due to a strict policy of confidentiality Rewards for Justice will not name the witnesses nor divulge the exact amount paid to them.

'In June last year the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred Megrahi's case back to the Court of Appeal after a three-year inquiry. They found six areas of concern and are believed to have uncovered a £2-million reward paid by the CIA to key witness, Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci.

'Gauci was the only witness to link Megrahi directly to the bomb, and was therefore instrumental in convicting him on 31 January 2001. Gauci told the trial that Megrahi bought clothes in his shop, which were later used to wrap the bomb.

'At the trial, Gauci appeared uncertain about the exact date he sold the clothes in question, and was not entirely sure that it was Megrahi to whom they were sold. Nonetheless, Megrahi's appeal against conviction was rejected by the Scottish Court in the Netherlands in March 2002. Five years after the trial, former Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, publicly described Gauci as being "an apple short of a picnic" and "not quite the full shilling".

'Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the 1988 bombing, is convinced that Megrahi is innocent. Yesterday he said that such huge sums offered to witnesses could encourage them to perjury.

'"Many jurists would consider that promises of money to secure 'evidence' from any individual do not accord with the principles of justice," he explained.

'"It is the timing of such promises rather the payments themselves that determine whether the 'evidence' is likely to be degraded. To many such witnesses such sums would alter their lives.

'"And such promises of money, if concealed from court -- or perhaps divulged only to prosecution -- could be considered a deliberate perversion of justice.

'"Witnesses are supposed to serve the truth. But the old Scots adage holds firm here - 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'.

'"This document gives some idea of the scale of the payments. It also removes any doubt as to whether payments were, indeed, made in this case."

The newspaper also published an article containing Dr Swire's detailed reactions to the revelations. These included the following:

'I entered the Zeist trial believing (as the British Foreign secretary had told us) that there was conclusive evidence of Libya's guilt, and none concerning the guilt of any other nation.

'This was the reason that we, the UK relatives, had made every conceivable effort, including three visits to Colonel Gaddafi, to persuade him to allow his citizens to undergo trial under Scottish criminal justice.

'Within days of the start of the trial at Zeist it became clear that fundamental requirements for the collection of evidence for a criminal trial had been breached, when the court was told that a suitcase, belonging to one of the US passengers had been removed from the crash site, by persons unknown, cut open, and then returned for the Scottish searchers to find, with some of its contents put back and even labelled with the name of the owner.

'The court accepted that the rectangular cutting into that suitcase could not have been a result of the explosion, but appeared unfazed by the possible implications for other items allegedly recovered as evidence. This had intense relevance later in the case to the question of a fragment of timer circuit board, the key forensic 'link' to the credibility of the bomb ever having started from Malta.

'There was evidence of the presence of numerous unidentified US agents roaming the site at a very early stage - a situation which the resources of the Scottish police could never have been expected to anticipate or control.

'From this unhappy start, the picture grew of how certain intelligence agencies had contributed to the assembly of much of the evidence. Intelligence services act in support of the perceived advantage of the countries for which they work: this may or may not be consistent with seeking the truth.

'Remember that for this trial there was no jury.

'Now, as you report, we have the proud exhibition by 'Rewards for Justice' in Washington DC of their use of 'more than 72 million dollars' in persuading witnesses to give evidence in terror-related cases. Former Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie's, post trial assessment of the key witness, Mr Gauci, as being 'one apple short of a picnic' was not vouchsafed to the court, but can only serve now to emphasize the possibility that an offer of cash might have affected the evidence that Mr Gauci was willing to give.

'As a layman, I emerged from the Zeist hearings convinced that the verdict should never have been reached.'

Amal Clooney representing Abdullah al-Senussi

[The following are excerpts from an article published yesterday on The World Post website, hosted by The Huffington Post:]

While Amal Clooney's resumé reads like most human rights activists' wildest dreams (stints working for the UN, heads of states, and ambassadors are not easy to come by) the term "human rights lawyer" is somewhat misunderstood by the public to mean "saint." (...)

Clooney's client list includes not only the ostensible "good guys" like former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, but also very questionable characters like the King of Bahrain and Abdullah al Senussi. (...)

Abdullah al Senussi, another one of Clooney's clients, served as Muammar Gaddafi's intelligence chief and was captured in Libya in 2011. The International Criminal Court charged him with crimes against humanity in 2011 for his role in Gaddafi's brutal government as well as the Lockerbie bombing. [RB: I can find no evidence that charges have been brought against Senussi in relation to Lockerbie.] Clooney's decision to continue to work on his defense drew some fire after she became engaged to her current spouse, as if her professional life might take a backseat to her then-fiancé's humanitarian image. Clooney's primary role in the case appears to be appealing the decision to hold the trial in Libya's domestic courts, however, claiming her client's right to meet with his lawyers was denied by the ICC.

Clooney herself justified her choice to work on behalf of al Senussi, saying that everyone has a right to a defense lawyer (extremely true) and criticizing the International Criminal Court for violating the rights of her client. Even though this may seem ironic, given the charges of human rights violations against al Senussi, due process is an integral, essential part of the international legal structure, and failures to uphold due process undermine the entire system. When it comes to those accused of war crimes or human rights violations, this includes the right to a defense, which Clooney provided professionally and convincingly in al Senussi's case. What's more, Clooney, while being many other laudable things, is also a lawyer, and lawyers make their living and reputation from acting as both prosecution and defense.

Clooney's defense of al Senussi and legal advising to [Bahraini King Hasan bin Isa] al Khalifa is part of her success as a lawyer, and defense as well as prosecution is essential to ensure the functioning of international human rights law. It is a reminder that human rights lawyers are still lawyers, professionals who need to make a career by playing both sides of the courtroom.

More on the Megrahi prisoner transfer machinations

What follows is an item originally posted on this blog on 16 January 2009. It follows on from an article published first on 15 January 2009 and re-posted on this blog yesterday.

Follow-up on prisoner transfer

Today's issue of The Herald has a follow-up article on the alleged moves (which would involve abandonment of the current appeal) to secure Abdelbaset Megrahi's transfer back to Libya to serve the remainder of his sentence. It reads in part:

'The father of one of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing [Dr Jim Swire] plans to meet the man convicted of carrying out the atrocity to discuss a diplomatic deal which would allow the Libyan to return home, ending any prospect of an appeal.

'As revealed by The Herald yesterday, official talks have been held in secret on allowing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi to serve the remainder of his 27-year sentence in Libya but any appeal proceedings would have to be dropped for the transfer to be agreed. (...)

'He wants to raise the issues at a meeting with Megrahi which he hopes will take place "fairly soon" but he said he would not ask the Libyan, who is suffering from advanced prostate cancer, to stay in Scotland simply so the evidence can be heard in court.

'He said: "I couldn't possibly go to him and say Please continue the appeal because we want to get to the truth'. I couldn't possibly take that attitude. He is an intelligent man, an honest kind of guy. I wouldn't be surprised if he is mulling over his decision, considering the effects of it on people like myself, people who want to get to the truth.

"I wouldn't want him hanging back on the decision to go home because he thought that he shouldn't, out of loyalty to people like me." (...)

'Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial at Camp Zeist, said it was "very important" that evidence collated for a future appeal should be released even if legal proceedings are dropped.

'He said: "Theoretically all of this material is Megrahi's. He is the client and he, or his wife and children, would make the decision. I can't think of any reason why the material that Megrahi's lawyers have gathered for the appeal shouldn't simply be released into the public domain.

'"It would be a very unusual step and there are difficulties. Some of the material that has been discovered will be, I think, highly defamatory so if it is simply disclosed without any legal protection that could cause legal difficulties."

'Dr Swire, who first met Megrahi more than three years ago, said: "I would hope some outlet for the evidence could be found but it would have to be used in a format where there was credibility."

'During First Minister's Questions at the Scottish Parliament yesterday, the "prisoner transfer agreement" was raised by Conservative leader Annabel Goldie, who asked whether the integrity and principles of the Scottish justice system would be upheld in relation to any plan to release Megrahi. Alex Salmond replied "yes".

'The Tory leader then asked if Megrahi would be returned to Libya, adding that releasing the bomber would cause "deep unease". Mr Salmond said he could not prejudge or comment on a decision he might be asked to make.'

The Scotsman also has a brief article on the matter. It can be read here.

Behind the scenes manoeuvring to return Megrahi to Libya

What follows is an item originally posted on this blog on 15 January 2009:

Secret talks on deal to return Megrahi to Libya

[This is the headline over a front-page article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. It reads:]

Official talks are being held in secret which could result in the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing dropping his appeal and being freed from Greenock Prison and sent back to Libya under a diplomatic deal.

The Herald can reveal today that senior civil servants from both the Westminster and Holyrood administrations have met a delegation from Tripoli to discuss how to resolve the impasse over Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.

It is understood an agreement could be reached within months which would see him serve the remainder of his 27-year sentence with his family in Libya.

Megrahi is suffering from advanced prostate cancer but has been denied bail by judges pending his appeal. The appeal is due to begin on April 27, but could last as long as 12 months because of the complexity of the case and volume of material to be examined.

However, while he wants to clear his name, it is far from certain that he would survive such a long appeal case, and now there is an opportunity for the UK and Libya to settle the matter away from the courts and through diplomatic channels.

According to Libyan officials, senior civil servants at Whitehall have actively "encouraged" them to apply for prisoner transfer for Megrahi - a move likely to be highly unpopular with campaigners and some of the relatives of the victims of the bombing, who want to hear the fresh evidence in open court.

A Libyan source said: "We have been encouraged to apply for the prisoner transfer option once the agreement is ratified, but there are concerns as to whether the UK Government can be trusted."

The Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) was signed off by a delegation from Tripoli and senior UK officials in November and is due to be ratified by the UK and Libyan parliaments in March.

It would take months for an agreement on such a transfer to be reached, partly because Megrahi is serving a life sentence and his case would have to be reviewed by the Scottish Prison Service and the Parole Board.

The final decision will ultimately lie with Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary - a point clarified last year during the very public argument which followed the Scottish Government's discovery that it had not been privy to the details of the Memorandum of Understanding signed between Tony Blair and Colonel Gaddafi in May 2007 as part of the "deal in the desert".

While Whitehall officials denied the deal and subsequent PTA had anything to do with the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, the row between the Scottish and UK Governments highlighted the fact that it was about Megrahi.

Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial at Camp Zeist, said: "If this happens [if he decides he wants to go home and is allowed no other options] it will leave a stain on the Scottish criminal justice system because lots of people now believe there is something wrong with the conviction.

"But is that really the path a civilised legal system should be taking? Compelling him to go down that path would leave serious questions about the criminal justice system unanswered."

Neither the Foreign Office nor the Scottish Government is able to comment publicly on the fact they are encouraging an application for a transfer, such is the sensitivity of the case.

A UK Government spokesman said: "HM Government continues to engage positively with Libya, but it remains the case that any decision relating to an individual prisoner will be for Scottish ministers to take."

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said: "There have been no recent meetings between Scottish Government officials and representatives of the Libyan government. However, if the Libyan officials were to seek further meetings for factual information, we would be happy to provide that.

"The meetings last year were purely to provide factual information. No encouragement or advice was given on any of the procedures open to Mr Megrahi."

[A further article headed "Libyan may not live to see conclusion of appeal: Try to clear name or return home: Megrahi faces decision" appears in the inside pages.

A leader headed "The Megrahi dilemma" ends with the following paragraph:

'Megrahi's return home under the PTA might seem a neat solution but it ignores several factors. Megrahi continues to plead innocence and wants to clear his name (the main witness against him has been largely discredited). Testing all the evidence, including the secret document, in an appeal hearing offers the best hope of establishing the truth about the Lockerbie bombing. The opportunity will be gone if there is no appeal. The prospect of securing any subsequent convictions, should that be a possibility, would be remote as the world has moved on and relations with the countries suspected of involvement, including Libya, Iran and Syria, have changed. If, however, the integrity and independence of the Scottish judicial system is paramount, the appeal process should be allowed to run its course and make a final determination. Justice should be blind, not thwarted by political or diplomatic convenience.'

The issue has also been raised in the Scottish Parliament. The exchange between Annabel Goldie, the leader of the Tory group and First Minister Alex Salmond can be read here.]

US-Libya rapprochement following Lockerbie trial

[The following are excerpts from an article by Robert S Greenberger published in The Wall Street Journal on this date in 2002:]

Libya's Col Moammar Gadhafi, is attempting a rehabilitation.

Top US and Libyan officials have held several unpublicized meetings in England and Switzerland in recent years to discuss improving ties. Public-relations campaigns and lobbying efforts on Libya's behalf are under way, funded in part by oil money and driven by a desire to cash in on future deals or resume business interrupted by sanctions. The Libyan leader himself has been taking steps and sending signals that suggest he may want to get out of the terrorism business, US officials say.

The Gadhafi makeover could be reaching a critical moment. Last week, a top US official and a Libyan intelligence operative met near London in another attempt to talk about the steps Libya must take before ties can be resumed. Later this month, a Scottish court is scheduled to hear the appeal of a Libyan intelligence agent found guilty in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103, over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people, including 189 Americans. Libya has signaled to US officials directly and through intermediaries that when the legal process ends, the Gadhafi government may compensate the victims' families and take responsibility for the bombing, US officials say. Many US officials believe Col. Gadhafi himself was involved in the Pan Am bombing, the bloodiest terrorist attack on Americans before Sept 11.

In October, William Burns, the assistant secretary of state for the Middle East, who was at last week's meeting outside London, addressed a congressional committee about the purpose of US diplomacy toward Libya. He said it was meant "to make clear that there are no shortcuts around Libya ... accepting responsibility for what happened and also for paying appropriate compensation" for the Pan Am bombing.

There's a lot to be gained on both sides from rapprochement. Resolving the bombing could persuade Washington to lift the sanctions imposed in 1986. That would open the way for American companies to do business with the oil-rich country and for Libya to do some much-needed repair work on its economy. (...)

Still, the diplomatic dance between the US and Libya has produced a stark change in Libya's previously sharp anti-American rhetoric. It began in secret more than two years before Sept 11, in a series of meetings on the outskirts of London and in Geneva, Switzerland. Those meetings brought together senior officials of the Clinton administration, British officials and a top Libyan intelligence operative, Musa Kusa, according to US officials.

The idea to meet emerged in February 1998, when the US was embroiled in one of its periodic crises with Iraq. British Prime Minister Tony Blair telephoned President Clinton to discuss growing complaints by moderate Arab allies that the West was dealing unfairly with Arab states. Mr Blair suggested it might be helpful to resolve the Libya issue in some way, a Clinton administration official recalls. (...)

President Clinton didn't move until after Col. Gadhafi agreed in April 1999 to hand over two Libyan suspects in the Pan Am 103 bombing. The White House then sent Martin Indyk, the assistant secretary of state for the Middle East at the time, and Bruce Riedel, the top White House Middle East staffer, to meet with Mr Kusa, who often handles delicate missions for Col Gadhafi. Mr Kusa has been associated for more than 20 years with Libyan intelligence, which has been connected to assassinations of Libyan dissidents abroad and the Pan Am bombing. (...)

In the highest-level contacts since President Reagan imposed sanctions in 1986, the US held four meetings in which Clinton administration officials laid out the steps Col Gadhafi must take to warm up relations with Washington. US officials hammered away at one theme: Libya must compensate the families of Pan Am 103 victims and take responsibility for the terrorist bombing to make normal ties possible. A United Nations resolution also calls for Libya to compensate the victims' families and take responsibility for the bombing.

Then, the day after the Sept 11 terrorist attacks, Col Gadhafi condemned the actions publicly as "horrifying, destructive." In October, in a previously planned secret meeting, Mr Kusa met in England with Mr Burns. Mr Kusa talked about what he called their common enemy, terrorism, according to a diplomat familiar with the session. Mr Kusa offered information on the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which is believed to be linked to al Qaeda and which also targets Col Gadhafi.

On Dec 5, the US included the group on an expanded list of terrorist organizations whose members will be automatically barred from the US or expelled if found here. At last week's meeting outside London, Mr Burns reiterated the American stance on Pan Am 103, according to a State Department official. (...)

Turning over the terrorism suspects also bolstered a public-relations and lobbying campaign conducted by Libya and its supporters, with quiet help from American companies. Four days after Col Gadhafi agreed to the handover, the US-Libya Dialogue Group held its first meeting, in Maastricht, the Netherlands. Mustafa Fitouri, a Libyan who is an information-technology professor at the Maastricht School of Management, helped arrange the session. He says the nonprofit group was set up "to show people in both countries, away from government, that people can communicate, work with each other." (...)

Mr Fitouri says some funds for the meeting were provided by US and Libyan companies, which he won't name. He adds that he doesn't know where all the money comes from because it's handled by a person, whom he also won't name, at a Libyan university. Until the Pan Am 103 case is resolved and sanctions are lifted, US companies don't want to be identified as being close to Tripoli.