Not only did the Libyan government agree to pay a total of about $2.7 billion to the victims’ families, but it also sent a letter to the United Nations Security Council stating that it “accepts responsibility for the actions of its officials” in the bombing. Muammar Kaddafi’s government had surrendered two Libyan men charged with the airline attack in 1999; one of whom, a military intelligence official, is now serving a life sentence in Scotland for the murders. (The other, a Libyan airline official, was acquitted.) Though the letter delivered to the U.N. lacked any real signs of remorse for the deadly terrorist act, it was the first official acknowledgment that Kaddafi’s government was involved in the bombing–something that the victims’ families say is as important as the monetary payments, if not more. NEWSWEEK’s Jennifer Barrett spoke about the deal with Robert Monetti, whose son was killed in the bombing and whose daughter now serves as president of the Victims of Pan Am 103 support group, the post he held until June. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Are you satisfied with the agreement?

Robert Monetti: It’s kind of a mixed reaction to the acceptance of responsibility. A lot of the families expressed disappointment. It is emotionally unsatisfying because they [the Libyans] did just what they had to do–nothing more. But if you remember back 11 years ago, when the U.S. sanctions were first put in place and we wanted them to accept responsibility and to compensate the families … that seemed so outlandish. The fact that they have come this far since is really awesome when you look back.

Were there times when you thought you’d never see a compensation deal?

A lot of times. For years and years. Every government official in the first Bush and Clinton administrations assured us that they [Libyans] would never agree to do these things.

So what happened?

The sanctions hurt, and I think they embarrassed Kaddafi. And maybe some rational people in Libya might be starting to have some influence.

Kaddafi seems to have made an effort in recent years to improve relations with the United States.

I can’t get too happy with Kaddafi in any form, but he wouldn’t be the first terrorist who became a statesmen. Look at the Middle East.

Why do you think it took the Libyan government 15 years to accept some responsibility in the attack?

There are two parts. One is accepting responsibility, which is anathema to Kaddafi because he was denying it for 13 to 15 years. And the other part is spending money, which he doesn’t like to do. Especially in light of what France settled for years ago [$33 million for the 170 people killed in a 1989 bombing of a French jet]. It makes them look like idiots. Now the French are trying to stop this deal [by threatening to block a resolution lifting U.N. sanctions].

How did the lawyers decide on the figure of $10 million in compensation per victim?

Actually, $10 million is the theoretical maximum–the real value is probably more like $5 million [the minimum under the deal]. When U.N. sanctions are lifted and Libya puts the funds in an escrow account, then each family gets $4 million. Then, if ever, the United States lifts sanctions on Libya–and they have been very consistent about saying they have no plans to do so and, frankly, we don’t want them to (though the lawyers might)–then we would get another $4 million. And, finally, if the United States removes Libya from the list of states sponsoring terrorism–which, again, they assure us is not going to happen–the final $2 million would be awarded. The first $4 million is likely, and the last $6 million is remote at best. [Though families have been told they will eventually get an additional $1 million if the U.S. does not lift sanctions or remove Libya from the terrorism list]. None of us have received a penny, and probably won’t until September or October. And when we do, it won’t be resembling anything like $10 million.

Were any of the families involved in the agreement negotiations?

None of the families were involved. It was about six to nine lawyers who were involved. And when they came back to us with this settlement, the families were universally disappointed because the agreement has been touted as $10 million when we all know it probably won’t be and it is conditional. It sounds like a business deal and it makes it sound as if we were agents of Libya–that’s the last thing we want to do. Some families have said they don’t want to take the compensation because it is blood money–the money you take for not killing Kaddafi. But our lawyers and the Libyans have really made it a business deal instead of blood money. Still, it was the only thing we were offered and after 15 years of what we have been going through, it was enough already.

Was the U.S. government involved?

The government to its credit has agreed not to get involved in the compensation. It was negotiated between our lawyers and the Libyan lawyers. There was no government intervention.

Do the families feel like they have had their say in this agreement?

The families have forced things to happen constantly for the last 15 years and yet, at times, the lawyers or the State Department or even the prosecutors have taken on this I-know-better-than-you-do-and-I-will-do-it-for-you attitude, which is absolutely maddening.

The deal with Libya has been held up as an example of what can be accomplished in the fight against terrorism through bloodless means like imposing or lifting sanctions and extending trade incentives for cooperation. What do you think?

Eventually the world is going to have to come up with solutions like this one or we’ll keep having these stupid wars, invading countries when we’re not happy with them or bombing them. That is not a solution. Kaddafi bombed the disco in Germany and then we bombed Libya and then they blew up Pan Am Flight 103. If the next step had been us bombing Libya, it would have continued the eye-for-an-eye crap and we really need to get out of that and work toward something that encourages leaders to behave the right way.

Do you think Kaddafi is behaving the right way now?

What is really going on there, neither you or I know.

Do you support the lifting of sanctions against Libya?

The U.N. sanctions I have no problem at all with because they have really been suspended since 1999, when Libya surrendered the two [suspects in the bombing] for trial. Now it is a symbolic thing–it won’t change anything. I am in favor of the U.S. lifting the sanctions, too, if the State Department decides that it makes sense and that Libya has changed somehow. If they want to do it while Kaddafi is still in office, that is their prerogative.

What about removing Libya from the U.S. list of states sponsoring terrorism?

Each year the list comes out and they [U.S. officials] keep saying that Libya is getting better, but it’s still on there. Now, they say it is not so much terrorism in Libya but weapons of mass destruction, which is the new mantra of the second Bush administration. If they are not, in fact, sponsors of terror then we should take them off. The list should mean what it says.

Has justice now been served for those responsible for the bombing?

No. Because the two guys tried–one who is now in prison [the other was acquitted]–were just the triggermen. They didn’t create or order this thing. They were cogs in the wheel. And those that did are still in power and enjoying themselves in Libya. But it may be all the justice we get.