YouSaid · the spoken record

Abuzed Omar Dorda

lines on the record: 135
first: 1997-09-24
most recent: 1999-09-24
sittings or episodes: 3
sources: un-general-debate

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“The case should be left entirely to the Scottish court in the Netherlands, without any interference from any political entity, including the Security Council. If the Security Council continues to be prevented from adopting such a decision, my country will take all necessary steps to guarantee fairness, including raising a constitutional dilemma between the highest and most important judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice, and the Security Council. We will raise it before the General Assembly in order to have a decision taken.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“Preventing the Security Council from adopting an overdue resolution lifting sanctions that should not have been imposed in the first place will threaten the Council's credibility and ability to honour its obligations. It will also reinforce the Security Council's failure to act in compliance with the will of the majority of the United Nations Member States and in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter, as stated in Article 24. The will of one State cannot represent the will of the entire international community. My country requests one thing: that the Security Council speedily adopt a decision lifting all the sanctions imposed on Libya. We demand that the case not be allowed to be politicized after the matter has taken its legal course.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“Let us be logical and work within the law on the basic principles of justice. Since we have agreed to the establishment of the court, let us allow the court to carry out its responsibilities. Libya's fulfilment of its obligations has also been underlined in the Secretary-General's report, in the decisions of the thirty-fifth African Summit held in Algeria last July, in the decisions of the Arab League this September and in the decisions of the Ministerial Council of the Non-Aligned Movement a week ago. All these decisions call for the immediate and complete lifting of the sanctions. In this, they join the overwhelming majority of the international community.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“He asked them how it could be done. They said that the court would hand down a sentence. He pointed out that it had not yet done so and that, if it did, Libya would be committed to respecting it. How could they possibly make such a request when the suspects have not been found guilty? We are trying to prove their innocence and our country's. How can we be asked to pay compensation when a ruling has not yet been issued? This is yet another way of interfering in the internal affairs of the Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. Who will compensate Libya for the damages it has sustained in excess of $70 billion after seven years of unjustified sanctions and embargoes? Who will compensate us? The United Nations? Will the Member States compensate Libya for something they have not done?”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“It is the demand that Libya compensate the families of the victims. How can this be done when the court has yet to sit? It will not hold its first session until 4 February 2000 and the laws state that the suspect is innocent until proven guilty. When we raised this issue, it was suggested that we settle out of court. Why out of court? Why then is the court in the Netherlands? We were told that these are American laws. American laws apply to United States citizens, not to Libyan citizens. The Security Council and the General Assembly reiterated last year and the year before that national laws cannot be applied beyond national borders. This logic of power should be used only to uphold the law. At the joint meeting, the Secretary-General himself was surprised to hear this proposal before the court was in session. They reiterated it.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“The Security Council, in paragraph 4 of its resolution 1192 (1998), decided that all States, not Libya alone, shall cooperate with the court. The text is available; we can look it up if there is any doubt. Since all parties are called upon to cooperate, how can this argument be used to prevent the Security Council from acting in accordance with its obligations by lifting the embargo on Libya? This matter falls under the competence of the International Court of Justice and the Scottish court, with which our judiciary authorities are cooperating. It is blatant interference when a member of the Security Council tries to influence the work of these courts, which are independent institutions that deserve the respect not only of Libya, but of all others as well. The third justification is even harder to swallow.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“It is the United States that sheltered, financed, trained and armed terrorists and transported them to Libya to commit acts of terrorism in 1984 and afterwards. Those who continue to shelter terrorists wanted by other countries are not in a position to refer to others by descriptions that apply only to themselves. Libya has stood by liberation movements, particularly in Africa. This is a legitimate cause, not support for terrorism. 20 The second justification is that Libya has to cooperate with the Scottish court in the Netherlands. This is meaningless, since Libya has undertaken to cooperate with the court, as the Secretary-General's report has shown. Furthermore, this matter has been discussed by the judiciary authorities of the three countries in the presence of Mr. Corell.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“The United States has been repeating that allegation ever since we evicted it from Libya's military bases and harbours, ended its monopoly on our oil, and liberated our country from colonialism. That is why the United States still accuses us of terrorism. The Secretary-General's report categorically refutes this claim. Members may refer to paragraphs 29 to 34 of the report and to other pages in order to ascertain the baseless nature of this accusation. Moreover, one can also cite reports issued by the American State Department and statements made by present and former officials of American Administrations that all point to the fact that such claims can no longer be made. Libya is a victim of American terrorism, not vice versa. It is the United States of America that committed all the acts of aggression that we have previously referred to.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“This, in fact, can only be seen as reneging on previous commitments made by the Security Council in paragraph 16 of its resolution 883 (1993) and paragraph 8 of its resolution 1192 (1998). Moreover, it ignores the Secretary-General's report, whose contents lead to only one conclusion: that Libya has fulfilled all its obligations under Security Council resolutions. What justification, if any, does the United States have for using the veto to prevent the Security Council from adopting a resolution to lift the unjust sanctions on Libya? First, the United States has reiterated the accusation it has made before and since the fabrication of the Lockerbie case: that Libya supports terrorism.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“Three months after the sanctions were suspended, on 30 June 1999, the Secretary-General submitted a report to the Security Council in document S/1999/726 pursuant to paragraph 16 of resolution 883 (1993) and paragraph 8 of resolution 1192 (1998), which requested him to report to the Security Council within 90 days on compliance by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with the remaining provisions of resolutions 731 (1992) and 748 (1992). On 9 July 1999, the Security Council considered the Secretary-General's report, but was unable to adopt a resolution that would have lifted the sanctions imposed on Libya, because of the intransigence of one State, the United States, which is a party to the dispute. That State even threatened to use the veto.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“In fact, the other party prevented the adoption of a resolution by the Security Council to suspend the sanctions and agreed only to a press release. Once again, under pressure from the Non-Aligned Movement members of the Security Council and from the other Council members, and after several letters were submitted by the States members of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of African Unity, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League to the Security Council and to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the other party accepted, unwillingly, the text of a presidential statement for the suspension of the embargo.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“But in all fairness, and to state the truth, from which we have never deviated, I will say that the Government of the United Kingdom has reacted seriously to the Libyan proposal, expressing its willingness to refer the whole question to none other than a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. We state the truth in our own interest and in the interest of others. The rest is well known to all delegations. On 5 April 1999, the two suspects arrived of their own free will in the Netherlands, accompanied by Mr. Hans Corell, the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs. But has the other party fulfilled its obligations? Has it shown respect for the resolutions of the Security Council? The answer is no.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“We could present the case to the General Assembly at any time. The other party therefore had no option, and reluctantly, accepted, hoping to gain time. But then it returned to its main objective vis-à-vis Libya. It declared its acceptance of a trial in a third country and presented, as always, a badly written draft resolution to the Security Council, along with other draft resolutions imposed on the Council by means that are well known to all, especially to the Council’s members. Once again, most Security Council members supported Libya, and once again the international community reiterated its strong support for Libya in letters that reflected the will of the overwhelming majority of the international community. These letters are all official documents of the Security Council.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“Faced with all these developments, the other party had only two options left: either to accept a trial in a third country, or for the international community to immediately lift the sanctions without having recourse to the Security Council. Such a situation would have threatened the authority of the Security Council — or, more accurately, it would have threatened the authority of those who influence the Security Council — this latter being in the Council’s view — a much more serious matter. 19 A further legal complication was the possibility that the General Assembly would be presented with a constitutional dilemma, especially after the issuance of the two rulings of the International Court of Justice — the highest judicial institution of the United Nations. It was the Security Council versus the International Court of Justice.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“The Non-Aligned Movement — at a meeting of its Foreign Ministers in Cartagena, Colombia, from 18 to 20 May 1998 — made a recommendation to the upcoming Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Durban, South Africa, that the sanctions imposed on Libya be lifted if the other party to the dispute did not agree to suspend the sanctions at the next review of the Security Council, which had been set for July 1998. At the Organization of African Unity summit in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, held on 10 June 1998, that organization declared that its members would no longer comply with the Security Council sanctions if the other party continued to reject any of the options proposed by international organizations to resolve the conflict.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“We also proposed that an investigation be conducted by a neutral party or parties, or by the United Nations. All these requests were refused. Secondly, we requested the application of article 14 of the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation or the assignment of this matter to the International Court of Justice. All these requests and proposals were also refused. Then, on 27 February 1998, the International Court of Justice issued two rulings in favour of Libya, confirming its jurisdiction over the case under the Montreal Convention.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“For their part, the Frankfurt authorities investigated the matter and reached the conclusion that not one unaccompanied suitcase had arrived at their airport from Malta, nor had left it for London. What then, is the origin or basis of this suspicion? I would like to briefly remind the Assembly that from the first moment that the accusation was broadcast by the media, and before the matter was even presented to the Security Council, Libya had done the following. First, we had requested the other party to provide the judiciary authorities in Libya with its findings so that these authorities could commence their investigations accordingly. Alternatively, we proposed that that party send investigators to Libya to participate in the investigation. We proposed sending Libyan judges to review the case file.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“The relevant resolutions were adopted on the basis of suspicions regarding just two Libyan citizens — yet the sanctions targeted the entire population of Libya. This was a form of collective punishment against an entire people on the basis of a mere suspicion that had not been fully investigated. This punishment was imposed without a trial and obviously without any conviction in a court of law. So much indeed for legitimacy. In fact, how legitimate could this be during the years of frenzy? The conclusions — or cinematic fantasies — regarding the suspicions were refuted at the time. Malta conducted an official investigation, the findings of which demonstrated that not one unaccompanied suitcase was loaded onto the flight from Malta to Frankfurt.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“I call it a boycott and not sanctions because a sanction is a form of punishment for a definitively proven action, a punishment decreed after a final sentence has been pronounced by a competent court that has the jurisdiction to condemn the action in question. But no proof or evidence was presented to the Security Council that Libya, or even the two Libyan suspects, had actually committed any action that led to the crash of Pan Am flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie. Nevertheless, the sanctions resolutions were issued in the name of so-called international legitimacy, a legitimacy that is both wrong and wronged. This is wrong because resolutions are adopted in the name of the Security Council; the Security Council is wronged because it is forced to issue resolutions under political and economic pressures and threats.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“As a result, dozens of martyrs were killed and many times as many were wounded — in addition to extensive loss of and damage to property. The main objective of these raids was once again to murder our brother Muammar Al-Qadhafi, whose home, office and tent were destroyed during these raids. Economic pressure has been used against Libya. Unilateral boycotts and embargoes were followed by bilateral and collective embargoes, then by the internationalization of these embargoes after the Security Council had become hostage to the will of the powerful since the collapse of the international balance of power. This was particularly the case during the first years of the “era of frenzy”, as Mr. Kofi Annan called it in a report to the General Assembly. Why and how was the international “boycott” — as opposed to international “sanctions” — imposed?”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“For these reasons, Libya has since then been the target of ongoing hostile media campaigns aimed at distorting our policies and tarnishing our international image. Our support for and solidarity with liberation movements have been portrayed as support for terrorism. Our standing by the side of the oppressed and the downtrodden and our assistance to help them liberate their countries and their resources and defend their own interests have been considered interference in the internal affairs of others. There have also been clandestine campaigns that have sought to assassinate political leaders, in particular the leader of our revolution, Colonel Muammar Al-Qadhafi, who has been targeted several times. Both air force and naval campaigns have targeted Libya’s 18 territorial waters and the main cities of Tripoli and Benghazi.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“These landmines have caused damage, losses and tragedies of untold magnitude, both human and material. Vast areas of Libya are covered by millions of land mines deployed by the Allies and the Axis Powers during the Second World War. We hold those Powers responsible for what they have inflicted upon our people as a result of these landmines, and we reiterate our demand that the States responsible implement the resolutions of the General Assembly adopted in this regard, through the payment of compensation to the affected countries and peoples and the removal of these landmines. The revolution of 1969 allowed Libya to achieve its true and complete independence. By driving the foreign military forces and bases from its soil, my country liberated its policies and decision-making capabilities.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“These weapons constitute a permanent threat to the people of the region and to neighbouring areas, and unless these weapons are eliminated, all efforts to prevent their proliferation in the region will be unsuccessful. Libya is the southern Mediterranean country with the longest coast. Therefore, we have a vital interest in making the Mediterranean a Sea of peace and cooperation for the benefit of all peoples of this basin. This goal can be achieved only if foreign military bases and fleets are removed from the area, as they are a source of constant danger to all Mediterranean peoples. Several countries, including my own, are still trying to overcome the thorny problem of landmines that were planted in by the belligerent Powers during the World Wars.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“In order for the world to live in peace and security, it must be freed from the nuclear horror that threatens all peoples. Elimination of nuclear arsenals and all other weapons of mass destruction must have priority, and all efforts to achieve disarmament, at both regional and international levels, must be concentrated on realizing this goal. Unless those who currently possess such weapons get rid of them, there will always be those who strive to possess them. Efforts aimed at the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons will be futile unless the nuclear Powers take practical steps that would demonstrate their serious commitment to the undertakings they have made. These two tracks must move together or stop together. We have no other choice. The Arab region is subject to the threat of nuclear weapons possessed by Tel Aviv.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“Its people are still scattered all over the globe as refugees, replaced by immigrants from all over the world. Unless an end is put to all this, and unless the Palestinian people are given their right to return to their homeland, neither peace nor security will be achieved in the Arab East region. The occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights must also be totally ended, as well as the occupation of southern Lebanon, in implementation of Security Council resolution 425 (1978). We demand the immediate lifting of sanctions imposed on Iraq, and we emphasize the importance of preserving its unity and territorial integrity, respect for its sovereignty, non-intervention in its internal affairs and ending the ongoing military aggression against it.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“Thirty-nine heads of State and four Prime Ministers were at the forefront of the participants. Some of the founding fathers of the Organization of African Unity were also at the summit, as well as former OAU Secretaries-General. The summit, which is a historic event in its own right, concluded with the adoption of the Sirte Declaration establishing an African Union and its political, economic and legislative institutions. Africa is now determined, more than ever before, to surmount all the negative aspects of its present realities and to move forward towards its future, full of hopes and aspirations, counting basically on its own resources, capabilities and the endeavours of its sons. The Palestinian issue has not been settled yet, simply because the essence of the problem is being ignored: Palestine is still occupied.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“Attempts by African states to confront and solve these problems are hampered by the heavy debts of the continent, which reached $350 billion in 1998, equalling 300 per cent of the value of African exports and services. The time has come to cancel African debts and to deal with this question on the basis of new and equitable principles. 17 In order to confront these challenges and to usher a strong and united Africa into the new century, our brother Colonel Muammar Al-Qadhafi extended an invitation to his brothers, the leaders of Africa, to convene an extraordinary summit in Sirte, Libya, from 8 to 9 September 1999. Their positive response had been unprecedented since the establishment of the OAU. They all participated in the summit, with the exception of Somalia, which has no central government.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“Libya has also contributed to bringing peace to Sierra Leone and stability to Guinea-Bissau, as well as contributing to the efforts undertaken by the OAU to put an end to the dispute between brothers in Ethiopia and Eritrea, in the Horn of Africa. A Libyan envoy was sent there to help end the war and bring peace to those two brotherly countries. Africa's plights are not confined to wars and conflicts, but also include several economic and social problems: 44 per cent of Africans live in abject poverty; AIDS threatens the entire African population; malaria and other epidemic diseases still threaten the lives of millions in Africa. In respect of the latter, my country calls for the speedy adoption and implementation of an international plan to eradicate these diseases in Africa before it becomes impossible to contain and eliminate them.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“As a contribution to the efforts made to tackle the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Great Lakes region, Libya has succeeded in convening a number of meetings, for heads of State of the region, in Sirte, Libya, where they reached the Sirte Agreement, later completed and signed in Lusaka, which is aimed at putting an end to the conflict in the area. In Somalia, Libya continues its efforts, in coordination with all concerned countries and groups in conflict, for national reconciliation in that forgotten country. We hope that these efforts will result in the reunification and stability of Somalia.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“The solutions reached for many African conflicts were a result of the enormous efforts of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), subregional organizations, several African States and some African leaders who truly care about Africa's security, stability and development. Libya has effectively supported and participated in these initiatives, and will continue to do so, in close cooperation with the OAU, all other concerned countries and the Secretary-General of the United Nations.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“Fifthly, all privileges resulting from the victories and defeats of World War II must be abolished, particularly the privilege of veto, and any other privileges that prevent this most important international Organization from becoming truly democratic. Despite the crises, conflicts and wars that ravage the African continent, this year has witnessed solutions for some of them, prospects for several others and initiatives for the solution of the remaining conflicts. As we express our satisfaction with this trend, we wish to recall, as we have always done, that African wars and conflicts are the product of the division of Africa by the colonial Powers, which must assume full responsibility for all the damages inflicted upon the continent, including an apology and full compensation to its peoples.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“Thirdly, there must be a radical revision of Security Council membership that will be equitable to all under- represented regions, particularly in the southern hemisphere: Africa, Asia and South America. Fourthly, the Security Council's rules of procedures must be issued by the General Assembly, which represents the international community. Otherwise, it will be meaningless to say that the Security Council works on behalf of the international community. Quite simply put, the majority of the members of the international community did not participate in the formulation of the Charter. A very small number of the United Nations Members formulated it over half a century ago.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“In the face of these fundamental changes, it has become necessary, indeed urgently imperative, that the United Nations should undergo a transformation that would enable it to respond to its new tasks as an umbrella, a haven and a reference-point for all. This change will not happen by itself, nor will the powerful initiate it. The weaker nations can only resort to uniting their limitless efforts, strengths and potentials to bring about and impose such change. My country believes that this desired change must achieve the following: First, the authority for decision-making in the United Nations must rest with the General Assembly, where Member States enjoy equal sovereignty. Secondly, the Security Council must become an executive instrument or authority for the General Assembly.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“The slogan that is now much in vogue, “humanitarian intervention”, will help erode the little that remains of State sovereignty. That pretext has been completely exposed. If the new Colonialists understood the real meaning of humanity, they would not be producing and stockpiling all kinds of weapons of mass destruction or committing aggression against others. Nor would they be imposing sanctions on countries, as they continue to do, with the aim of 16 humiliating, starving and killing their peoples. We declare our absolute rejection of intervention under any slogan. This is the world following the collapse of international equilibrium: the strong and the rich are becoming stronger and richer, and the weak and the poor are becoming weaker, poorer and more deprived.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“It is coming back in the guise of international conventions imposed through so- called international legitimacy, which is really nothing more than an expression of higher policies dictated through temptation or coercion. Colonialism is coming back in the guise of globalization, which is but a means of ensuring and consolidating dependence in terms of the economy, politics, culture and even social values. Colonialism is also returning through direct armed invasion, when necessary, as we have recently witnessed. It is also returning through bilateral sanctions policies enforced through so-called international legitimacy and through selective disarmament or rearmament. Colonialism is returning through the elimination — not the mere violation — of State sovereignty.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“The world has witnessed fundamental changes, which imperatively call for serious reform of the United Nations and its basic structures, so that the Organization can truly perform its role as an umbrella, a haven and a reference-point for all. Colonialist soldiers have left the harbours and the airports, but with the collapse of international equilibrium, colonialists are reappearing in new guises, with new means and with both new and old approaches. Colonialism is coming back in the guise of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, other financial institutions, economic cartels, and, when necessary, military alliances.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“Didier Opertti, for his successful guidance of the previous session. I wish also to welcome the Republic of Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru and the Kingdom of Tonga as new Members of the United Nations. The Secretary-General, His Excellency Mr. Kofi Annan, deserves our deepest appreciation for his continued efforts to make this Organization freer and less submissive to the domination and control of the super- Powers of this critical historical era. Over the past several decades, the United Nations has made considerable achievements, the most notable of which has perhaps been its role in the elimination of direct colonialism and in the attainment of independence by many countries which today occupy their proper place as States Members of this Organization.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“I would like at the outset, Sir, to express the warm congratulations of my delegation and of my country on your election to the presidency of the General Assembly. You are one of sisterly Namibia's freedom fighters, and one of Africa's faithful sons. Your unanimous election to your important post and your country's simultaneous membership of the Security Council are strong evidence of the respect and appreciation that Namibia enjoys in the eyes of the entire international community. In the Security Council, Namibia's notable positions on important international issues also irrefutably demonstrate Namibia's unremitting struggle for freedom, right, sovereignty and justice — a struggle now waged by means different from those that Namibia used during its independence struggle. I also commend your predecessor, His Excellency Mr.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“The United Kingdom and the Netherlands can conclude an agreement; this has to do with the Netherlands court and because the Netherlands is the seat of the court, but as far as the Libyan citizens are concerned, we never authorized anyone to conclude any agreements on our behalf. We are responsible for our citizens, the suspects included. They have a team of lawyers to defend them. We do not interfere in other States? affairs, nor do we want anyone to interfere with our affairs either. We would like to confirm our seriousness, our desire and our willingness to close the file of this case and other files as well, and open a new chapter in our relations with the countries concerned based on mutual respect and non- interference in internal affairs.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)
“In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has accepted a trial of the two suspects before a Scottish court in accordance with Scottish law, presided over by Scottish judges, that would sit in the Netherlands, but we will not accept the setting of any conditions in relation to the implementation of that proposal. Libya is ready to take this exceptional road in order to reach a solution to the dispute that would satisfy the interests of all parties and in order to settle the outstanding legal issues through direct negotiations or through the Secretary-General. Libya has not interfered in the agreements concluded by the other parties for the purposes of the trial. Also, it has not authorized anyone to decide on her behalf matters relating to her citizens, because this is its constitutional right and duty.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)
“Thirdly, we need guarantees that the two suspects will not be extradited or transferred to either the United States or the United Kingdom for any reason whatsoever at any phase of the trial. Fourthly, there needs to be an agreement on the security, legal, personal, social, health and religious rights of the two suspects during the various phases of the trial. We need to conclude an agreement between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya specifying how the two suspects will be transferred to the Netherlands and guaranteeing their security and safety, during their transfer, stay and their return at the end of the trial. Such an agreement should be endorsed by the Security Council and implemented under the supervision of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)
“Is the base that the Americans use as members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization the only place in the Netherlands where the trial can take place? What is this? Following are some of the questions that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya deems it necessary to resolve and reach an agreement on. First, there is a need to agree on listing, clarifying and determining, in advance, the witnesses needed — not only from Libya, but from all parties. The defence team should have the right to receive and peruse all evidence and cross-examine all witnesses. Secondly, there needs to be agreement on the place where the suspects would spend the time of their sentence in case of conviction, either in the Netherlands or in Libya.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)
“This should lead to the lifting of the sanctions imposed on Libya and put an end to any attempts to change positions or otherwise circumvent the situation under the pretext that Libya has not fully complied with Security Council resolutions — because Libya has fully done what it has been required to do. Even the exchange of goods is governed by agreements and contracts that regulate and explain the responsibilities of various parties, suppliers and exporters. Goods are insured and reinsured against all risks. These are people, human beings we are talking about here. They are not going to the Netherlands for tourism; we?re not going to bid them farewell, have a nice trip. Having said 23 that, we wonder what is meant by electing to hold the trial in a military base used by the Americans in the Netherlands?”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)
“Should direct negotiations prove impossible due to the opposition of the United States and the United Kingdom, these negotiations can be conducted through the Secretary-General. The proposed agreement should determine all practical measures, the commitments of each party and the rights and guarantees to be accorded the two suspects and their defence team. It should also precisely state what all the parties are required to do so that the trial of the two suspects will be the final phase of the implementation of Security Council resolutions, not the first phase.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)
“Moreover, it is well established in the Security Council that Libya has done all that has been required of it by the French judge in this respect and that the French authorities have expressed their total satisfaction, and this was endorsed by the Security Council. Libya believes that the optimal, pragmatic and prompt solution lies in conducting negotiations among all parties with a view to reaching an agreement on the practical procedures for the application of the option of trying the two suspects before a Scottish court in a neutral country — the Netherlands — as called for by the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement held in South Africa at the beginning of September 1998.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)
“To suggest that this is the “appropriate court” referred to in paragraph 16 of resolution 883 (1993) is to attempt to deceive the international community, and is yet another example of the poison in the honey. The Council was misled into accepting this because of the existence of a feeling that there was a change in the position of the two countries. Another meaningless reference came in paragraph 8 on the relations between the Libyan Government and the French judicial authorities, relevant to the explosion of Union de Transports Aériens flight 772. This question has nothing to do with the subject of the initiative upon which resolution 1192 (1998) is based.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)
“If that is the case, it can be qualified only as institutional piracy condoned by Security Council resolution. The world is unaware of this situation. I know that members are busy with their own concerns, but I remind them that I am citing the text of the new Security Council resolution. Along with the rest of the international community, we have agreed to a trial before a Scottish court sitting in a third country, which could be the Netherlands. We have agreed to a Scottish court, to Scottish law and to Scottish judges, in the Netherlands. Those are the terms described in the decisions of the regional organizations. But what does that paragraph mean? But Libya never subscribed to these new terms, and the regional organizations never agreed that a trial should take place in the United States or in the United Kingdom.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)
“I have addressed a letter to the Secretary-General indicating that the proposal of the League of Arab States and the Organization of African Unity regarding a trial under Scottish law, before a Scottish court, at the International Court of Justice in The Hague defines an “appropriate court”. But the resolution says (spoke in English) “an appropriate court in the United Kingdom or the United States”, not an appropriate British or United States court. (spoke in Arabic) For the first time, the resolution refers to such a venue. There is no need for the addition of a reference to an “appropriate court in the United Kingdom or the United States” — unless the purpose is to transfer the two suspects to the Netherlands as a transit station before transferring them to one of the two countries mentioned in that paragraph.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)
“Paragraph 8 of Security Council resolution 1192 (1998) reads in part that the Council 22 “decides that the aforementioned measures shall be suspended immediately if the Secretary-General reports to the Council that the two accused have arrived in the Netherlands for the purpose of trial before the court described in paragraph 2 or” — and here pay attention to this new poison in the honey — “have appeared for trial before an appropriate court in the United Kingdom or the United States”. In a dispute that has lasted for more than seven years, this is the first time that the Security Council has adopted a resolution asserting that the trial can take place before a court in the United Kingdom or the United States.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)
“They claim that Scottish law stipulates that sentences should be served in Scotland, because Scottish courts sit in Scotland. But this court will sit outside Scotland, so any sentence should also be carried out outside Scotland. The court is, exceptionally, sitting in another country, so the sentence must be served in the country where the trial takes place, not in Scotland.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)