Brian O'Shea
Question:7 Mr. O'Shea asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the role, if any, he envisages Ireland playing in a resolution of the Lockerbie dispute; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22374/97]
Other Questions. - Lockerbie Dispute.
The perpetrators of the horrendous crime against Pan American flight 103, committed in December 1988, nine years ago, have not yet been brought to justice. The investigation team identified two Libyan suspects, one of whom is a senior security official. Libya refused to surrender these two suspects for trial. The Security Council subsequently imposed sanctions in the form of an embargo on flights to Libya, which is binding on all UN members, including Ireland.
As a compromise, Libya has offered to make the suspects available for trial under the Scottish legal system in a "neutral" country, that is other than in Scotland or the USA, or at the International Court of Justice, which is based in The Hague. This compromise proposal raises a number of very complicated issues in the context of international law. The option of trial at the International Court of Justice could, for example, involve significant changes to Scottish and Dutch law.
Ireland continues to monitor the evolution of this case and, with our EU partners, is prepared to facilitate a resolution should the opportunity arise.
Has the Minister a view on whether the suggested compromise should be accepted? Has he any plans to discuss the matter with the Libyan authorities?
I would have thought that the route to go would be via fellow members of the United Nations.
I recall some of the Minister's colleagues going to Libya on previous occasions.
I have been in Libya, in Iraq and other interesting places in my time. I would like to think I will be in even more interesting places in the future. The compromise proposal raises a number of complicated issues in the context of international law. I could not give a specific answer on that point, having regard to the complexities of the law involved.
Our distinguished Foreign Minister is a senior counsel of long standing. Surely he could express a view on the validity or otherwise of the compromise offered. Having looked over the years at the file the Minister is reading now, I believe there is some prospect of bringing the matter to a resolution on the basis of a compromise, notwithstanding the complexities of international law and the changes required in the international court and Scottish jurisprudence. Surely the Minister must be able to express a view on whether it is something we can support or has no validity and is not worth supporting.
I would not say that. I want to place on record the absolute outrage felt by all the people of this country at the callous and indiscriminate bombing of Pan American flight 103. The US and Britain are determined, as we all are, that the perpetrators of this terrible crime will be brought to justice. The trying of the Libyan suspects in a neutral country under the Scottish legal system involves very complicated issues of international law and the application of domestic law in an outside jurisdiction. We are not in a position to know the ramifications that would flow from such a compromise which, in any case, has failed to win acceptance from the parties concerned.
Is the Minister not in favour of it?
If the compromise could be seen to be acceptable, I would be in favour of it.