Paris Threatens to Veto Lockerbie Deal - U.S. Officials

[DoveTurnedHawk]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - France has privately threatened to veto lifting U.N. sanctions on Libya unless Tripoli boosts compensation for victims of a 1989 French airliner bombing, possibly jeopardizing the $2.7 billion Lockerbie settlement, U.S. officials said on Thursday.

The French position angered and outraged U.S. officials who feared it would delay or undermine a tortuously negotiated deal under which Libya plans to pay up to $10 million to families of the 270 people killed in the mid-air bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

The U.S. officials accused France of hypocrisy, saying it had long ago accepted lower compensation for the 170 victims of the bombing of UTA Flight 772 over Niger in 1989 and in the past had called for the U.N. sanctions to be permanently lifted.

<...>

One U.S. official said France told the Security Council in 1998 that Libya had met its conditions over UTA, which consisted of cooperating with a French investigation into the bombing.

"France basically sold out their own families for oil a long time ago," said the U.S. official. "It's reprehensible what they're doing here."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=7&u=/nm/20030814/ts_nm/lockerbie_dc_5

And the winner of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black award goes to...unnamed U.S. official!

DTH

[lizerdbits]

1. Well well

Looks like in the next few days it will be time to buy lots of French products again. That Petit Basque cheese I tried last time France was being bad was good, I'll get another big chunk.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

2. I Actually Disagree With the French Position Here

But I do think that the U.S. official's put-down was unbelievably hypocritical.

DTH

[lizerdbits]

3. I'm not sure I agree with France

It's just the demonization that pisses me off.

[indictrichardperle]

4. I dont accept the word of the US official

at face value, they have lied too many damned times.

France is the epicenter of Liberty, mark me down as a Francophile.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

8. Please See My Post #7

As hypocritical as the unnamed U.S. official's statement was, it does appear he or she was pretty close to the mark on the facts.

DTH

[Turley]

13. The Epicenter

Well, of course unless you're a Tahitian and France has polluted your World with nuclear tests in the face of massive world protests. (Check Greenpeace here).

Or unless you're one of Marshall Mobutu's "subjects" being tortured and murdered while France lends Mobutu the Concorde to make private shopping trips to Paris (and stay at his luxury Parisian villa).

Or unless you're a citizen in any Central or West African Nation where France props up teetering governments (with the foreign legion if necessary) so that French companies can exploit the natural resources (including a near-complete depletion of natural timber-stands in most of West-Africa).

Or unless you're an Algerian in France who gets locked up for no particular reason with a court date in 2-3 years (under what the French call preventative detention). Or if you're an Arab victim of Police brutality and the cops also has a three year wait for his court date except that HE gets to spend it at home. (Check Amnesty Int'l here)

Execpt for all of THAT stuff, yeah, I guess you're right, they're the epicenter of liberty.

[TAH6988]

15. Didn't a couple of their

agents also kill some folks near Tahiti wore were trying to block one of the nuke tests?

[Turley]

18. French Secret Service blew up the Rainbow Warrior

In New Zealand harbour. Killed one individual. NZ cops caught them trying to escape (as if there was any doubt who did it).

First incident of international terrorism by one Western State against another.

But other than that they're the epicenter of liberty.

[indictrichardperle]

25. UH, as opposed to Iraq and the west bank ?

WHO stood up for international law and the interests of peace during the greatest threat to world peace and international law in the last 30 years ??????? FRANCE

what a load of crap.......eat your fuggin freedom fries.

[Turley]

31. France

stands up for int'l law when it's in their interests and stamps on it when it's not. They are some of the worst offenders when it comes to corporate exploitation of developing country natural assets in the world.

Take the blinders off. Just because they may have been on the right side of things once does not make them any kind of angels. A cursory perusal of Amnesty Int'l of Greenpeace information material will give you a good idea of how aggressively they exploit their former colonies. And if you think that the managing board of TotalFinaElf is anything but one and the same as the Chirac gov't then you have some more learning to do.

Educate yourself and come back when you have something intelligent to say on the topic.

[papau]

5. "sold out their own families for oil a long time ago"& we got more $'s

Because our oil companies will "donate" to the fund to get back their assets and own the oil flow again.

[Paschall]

6. When something like this comes out...

...always check the French embassy website in the US. The French diplomatic corps seems to have learned during the Iraq imbroglio that they have to fight the disinformation from Washington blow for blow.

Daily Press Briefing (August 14, 2003) LIBYA
Q - There’s talk of a UN vote next week on lifting the sanctions on Libya. Is France still determined to block that initiative in the current circumstances?

Let me remind you of our fundamental position as expressed by the Foreign Ministry spokesperson on August 7:

“We hope that this painful episode can find an outcome that is satisfactory to our American and British partners and to the families of the victims. As you know, we have always maintained deep solidarity with our partners throughout this painful affair. We hope that they will do the same for the victims of UTA #772.

France believes that compensation for the families of the victims of these two abominable attacks is a fundamental component in the resolution of the Libyan case in the UN. It will not compromise on this point. That implies, in particular, that compensation in the UTA affair must be granted on the same basis as that which is to be received by the Lockerbie victims.

We maintain continuous contact with our Libyan interlocutors in order to obtain assurances that the legitimate demands of the families of the UTA victims, both French and foreign, are satisfied. We expect to see substantial progress on this point before any lifting of sanctions.”

On this basis, we are in close contact with all of our pertinent partners, to whom we have clearly reiterated our position and our determination.

The foreign minister called his Libyan counterpart yesterday about this issue. Other steps were taken in Washington and London.

http://www.info-france-usa.org/news/briefing/us140803.asp#3

It certainly doesn't seem as if the French threat to veto the lifting of sanctions against Libya was "private" after all, does it?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

7. The French Are Spinning Like Tops

That canned and self-serving response by the French doesn't delve into the more relevant issues, namely the settlement of this matter a few years ago when Libya paid France US$31-33 million (which France accepted) in compensation for the victims.

Here are a number of sources for you. First, here is a follow-up Q&A on the day following the press release you cite:

http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/actu/article.gb.asp?ART=36498

Note the dodge of the relevant questions:

Q - In speaking with certain UTA victims' associations, one has the feeling that the question of compensation for the UTA victims might have been settled too quickly and that the Americans played their hand better by putting pressure on Libya, delaying the lifting of sanctions as long as possible to obtain better negotiating conditions. What's your opinion?

I have no comment. I will simply refer you to an important expression that was used in yesterday's statement: the notion of fairness.

Q - If I'm not mistaken, that's the first time you are stressing that notion and comparing the two cases so clearly.

It's a natural response when you look at the amounts being mentioned in the two situations, which—when you get right down to it—are the consequences of two terrorist acts.

Q - Is this notion of fairness a new element in your discussions with Libya? Up to this point, it wasn't something we were hearing about.

It's a notion that seems very important to us.

Here are some news stories that verify the payment and the accompanying warming of relations:

http://www6.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/france/10/20/gadhafi.plane/

http://www.ict.org.il/spotlight/det.cfm?id=577

Finally, here is an interesting article that contains the following quote, which clearly adopts an "accept and move on" attitude:

In addition to handing over the Lockerbie suspects, Libya transferred $33 million to France in July. The payment was in compliance with a compensation ruling in a French court that convicted six Libyans - including Abdullah Senoussi, Qaddafi's brother-in-law and top security aide - in absentia for the 1989 bombing of a French UTA airliner over Niger that killed all 170 on board.

Qaddafi says the payment does not constitute an admission of Libyan responsibility, and that line seems to have been accepted in Paris. French President Jacques Chirac told French diplomats last month that "Tripoli's cooperation ... allows us to turn a dark page" in relations that were "strong and active" in the past."

http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/09/13/p7s1.htm

The French are just trying to double-dip here. I find it to be an insupportable position, personally.

DTH

[w4rma]

9. France wants compensation pairity with the U.S.

I expect that it is politically unpopular in France to allow the U.S. victims to get a bunch more money in compensation than the French victims. This would definitely be the only time they could try to get that pairity.

I also expect that the French are still quite angry at Bush and want to cause him some political damage.

In the end, France is looking after France first (which is to be expected).

[DoveTurnedHawk]

10. No Argument, But

It's still trying to take two bites at the apple, and it's still hypocritical.

They made a deal. Now they don't want to live up to it, just because someone else made a better deal a few years later.

Certainly I can understand their motivations for trying this stunt. That sure doesn't make it right, however.

DTH

[Paschall]

11. The continuing pressure for compensation...

...and imprisonment of the convicted terrorists is NOT being led by the French government, but by the families of the victims. And the 58 volume, 35,000 page French investigation was the basis for the US trials. Thanks to SOS Attentats--an association of terrorism victims--the file was turned over to US families who were then able to press charges in the US. These families never "made a deal"!

<snip> Families of the seven Americans killed in the September 19, 1989 terrorist bombing of French airliner UTA Flight 772 filed a lawsuit today against Libya and its leader Colonel Muammar Qadhafi for the bombing, which occurred 9 months after Libyan agents blew up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Libya's role in the sabotage bombings of the two jumbo jets resulted in criminal convictions of Libyan officials and agents under French and Scottish law, economic sanctions by the United Nations, and diplomatic isolation of the Qadhafi regime.

The case was filed in the federal district court in Washington, DC, and seeks 2.2 billion dollars in compensatory damages, as well as unspecified punitive damages, for the deaths of the seven Americans and related injuries to their families caused by a suitcase bomb stored in the luggage hold of the DC-10 jumbo jet. UTA Flight 772 blew up over the Niger, Africa desert while en route from Brazzaville, Congo to Paris, after making a stopover in Chad. The bomb killed all 170 passengers and crew aboard, from seventeen countries, including France, Congo, Chad, Zaire, Italy, Britain, Cameroon and U.S.A. Among the seven American victims was Bonnie Barnes Pugh, wife of Robert Pugh, then U.S. Ambassador to Chad.

This case was made possible with the help of the organization S.O.S. ATTENTATS which represents 311 relatives of the victims. It has followed with Maître Francis Szpiner, a French lawyer, the criminal proceedings over the last 13 years. </snip>

http://www.sos-attentats.org/flash_com_anglais.htm

The Families of the UTA DC10 are Angry (a comparison of the two attacks):

LOCKERBIE :
- a public trial,
- 1 suspect convicted and imprisoned,
- $10,000,000 indemnity paid per family,
- admission of guilt.

DC10 UTA :
- a trial in abstentia,
- 6 suspects convicted (including Abdallah Senoussi, Kadhafi's brother-in-law) but still at large,
- from 3,000 to 30,000 euros for "moral harm" (emotional suffering), depending on the heirs' degree of family relations,
- no admission of guilt.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/dc10-uta/

And here's an article (in French) on the inconsistency in the treatment of the two cases.
http://www.terrorisme.net/p/article_49.shtml

[DoveTurnedHawk]

22. Then They Should Be Angry With the French Government

The continuing pressure for compensation and imprisonment of the convicted terrorists is NOT being led by the French government, but by the families of the victims.

For selling them out so cheaply.

DTH

[Paschall]

12. And I suppose it might be relevant to mention...

...that the $2.7 billion promised to the US families of PanAm 103 victims--when examined--looks a bit like a bribe.

40% of the sum is to be paid to the families ONLY WHEN the UN lifts sanctions against Libya. A further 40% will be paid when the US lifts economic sanctions against Libya. And the final 20% will only be paid when Libya is removed from the US list of states sponsoring terrorism.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/05/28/libya.htm

Oh, and those French and other families (17 nationalities, by the way) that accept the 3,000 to 30,000 euro in damages for the UTA DC10 crash must sign waivers renouncing any further claims against Libya. Nice, huh?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

23. All Settlements Are Bribes

Such is the way of the world.

Cynical DTH

[Paschall]

17. One final word on this "double-dipping" piffle

I've read the decision of the special French court that ruled in the UTA bombing case. No financial compensation was rewarded. It seems the $31-33 million payment made by Libya was indeed unrelated to the French court’s decision. Because we have had at least a quarter century of terrorism in France, the government has set up a special fund to compensate victims. Regardless of whether the terrorism occurs on French soil or abroad, French victims of terrorism are indemnified, on request, from a national fund that is collected from a surtax on all home insurance policies (4 euros per policy in 2004). I have never known SOS Attentats, when it joins a class action suit, to seek financial awards for victims. The French do not litigate like Americans for cash awards. SOS Attentats usually seeks a symbolic 1 euro payment. Furthermore, if you'll look into the SOS Attentats or UTA DC10 Families websites (using BabelFish?) I think you'll see they are primarily applying pressure to get the six convicted terrorists IN jail and--in at least one case--OUT of the Libyan government.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

24. Huh?

I'm not sure what this has to do with the French government already having accepted this settlement payment from Libya.

As your own link admits:

Effectively closing off further litigation in France over the March 1989 bombing by Libyan operatives that killed 170 people aboard a French airline flight, France's highest court, the Cour de Cassation, on March 13 declared that Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi as a head of state was immune to legal prosecution (emphasis added).

DTH

[Paschall]

27. I've been unable to find any mention of that settlement on either...

...the SOS Attentats website or the UTA DC10 families website. As the link I provided (from a US military source) indicates, the settlement was paid separately from the court decision. I have no idea what it means, who has the money, or if it has been paid out. The settlement, however, has no impact on the question of further litigation (unless you're willing to believe that Libya paid $31-33 million in exchange for the French court's decision that Khadafi could not be tried for the crime, which--I'll admit--is a possibility). The other six suspects were tried and convicted. End of story. Khadafi cannot be brought to trial. End of story. THAT'S why litigation ended in France.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

29. Well, Regardless

The French government took the money, and apparently without reservation.

If the French victims, who I sympathize with greatly, want to sue separately in civil court, I think that would be their right, unless they agreed not to do so in return for accepting the paltry payouts.

But to reiterate, for the French government to veto this measure after already accepting Libyan money seems hypocritical and dishonorable.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, since we appear to be going in circles.

DTH

[Paschall]

30. Apparently without reservation

I assume that is your assumption. It is entirely possible--since I can't get my hands on any facts about the payment--that the French government accepted the payment with reservation. It's also possible that since UTA is closely linked with Air France and the French government probably owns stock in the company, the payment was for the lost aircraft. Neither of us know. Which is why I think it's a bit premature to be pulling out the "hypocrisy" criticism.

You could also argue that it's not very "progressive" of the US to try to lift the Libyan sanctions at a time when the families of the UTA victims are negotiating with Tripoli (via the Khadafi Charitable Trust, or whatever it's called in English, which is run by Khadafi's son) to reach a similar settlement. Particularly since, as I've indicated, the French investigative report was a major element in the US families' case against Libya.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

33. OK, That's Fair

I assume that is your assumption. It is entirely possible--since I can't get my hands on any facts about the payment--that the French government accepted the payment with reservation. It's also possible that since UTA is closely linked with Air France and the French government probably owns stock in the company, the payment was for the lost aircraft. Neither of us know. Which is why I think it's a bit premature to be pulling out the "hypocrisy" criticism.

I can buy that. I remain skeptical, however, given the French government's clear warming toward Libya after the payment. I guess we'll see.

You could also argue that it's not very "progressive" of the US to try to lift the Libyan sanctions at a time when the families of the UTA victims are negotiating with Tripoli (via the Khadafi Charitable Trust, or whatever it's called in English, which is run by Khadafi's son) to reach a similar settlement. Particularly since, as I've indicated, the French investigative report was a major element in the US families' case against Libya.

You certainly won't get any argument from me about the reactionary Bush admin somehow being progressive!

DTH

[teryang]

14. How much did the US pay?

For shooting down TWA 800 by mistake.

[TAH6988]

16. The same as the French

did.

[The Stranger]

19. France bashing?

Did I accidentally pull up FreeRepublic.com?

[Paschall]

20. Par for the course, L'Etranger

And naturally nobody's bothered to notice that the UTA DC10 bombing was the worst single act of terrorism ever committed against a French target.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

21. Please. Is France Perfect Now?

I supported France and Germany's position on Iraq, and I think the "freedom fries" and related nonsense is exactly that: nonsense.

But that doesn't make them perfect, nor does it make them right here. Their government made a deal. Now their government is looking to renege, and in the process torpedo a carefully-wrought settlement that would bring Libya back into the fold, a goal which I would think most progressives would support.

And that just makes France wrong.

DTH

[The Stranger]

26. Libya back into the fold for a couple of billion dollars?

Only the poor Libyans would think that. The families and politicians have already said that they will vocally oppose bringing Libya back into the fold or removed from any list of "Terrorist" countries. Splash a couple of headlines and we'll all be hating brown people again.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

28. Sorry, I Honestly Don't Follow You Here

Could you clarify? Thanks.

DTH

[Paschall]

32. See my post #12

Libya has set conditions on the payments. Families of the victims and influential members of Congress have already said they oppose these conditions. I think that's what TheStranger is trying to explain. Conditions won't be met, no payments will be made. Seems like a dupe's game to me.