Following the passage by the Congress of the United States of the Libyan Claims Resolution Act and its signing by President Bush, it appears that an Assistant Secretary of State is in Tripoli for negotiations about payment by Libya into the compensation fund. The following is from AFP (Agence France Presse) and Middle East Online:
'A top US diplomat arrived in Tripoli on Wednesday for what the local press said were talks aimed at securing compensation for US victims of Libyan attacks.
'The visit by assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs David Welch came after both US houses of Congress passed a bill to set up a fund for Libya to compensate US victims of Libyan-sponsored attacks and granting it immunity from lawsuits once compensation has been paid.
'US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said after the bill was passed on August 1 that she looked forward to further improvements in ties with the north African state.
'Libyan newspaper Oya said last month that Tripoli and Washington had resumed talks in Abu Dhabi on fully compensating the relatives of US victims of Libyan attacks as well as Libyan victims of US air raids.
'Washington wants Tripoli to fully compensate families of the victims of the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am Flight over Lockerbie, Scotland that killed 270 people, and a Berlin disco bombing that killed two Americans.
'US-Libyan relations were restored in early 2004 after more than two decades after Libya's leader, Colonel Moamer Kadhafi, announced that Tripoli was abandoning efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
'In 2006, the United States announced a full normalisation of ties, dropping Libya from a State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism and raising diplomatic relations to the level of ambassadors.
'However, the appointment of a US ambassador to Tripoli as well as approval of funds for a new embassy have been held up in the Senate. Rice has also said she wants to visit Tripoli, but has not yet done so.
'State Department officials declined to link removing the final diplomatic snags to a settlement of the compensation issue.'
Pictured by Agence France Presse in Tripoli today (hands in pockets), U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, David Welch, looks decidedly ill-at-ease.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Mr Welch should chill out by making it clear (in the discussions with his Libyan interlocutors about addditional compensation payments) that the United States has absolutely no intention of delaying the ongoing Lockerbie appeal proceedings that were brought by Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi a year ago.
If - as most commentators confidently expect - Mr Megrahi's appeal against conviction is successful, Libya will be exonerated from responsibility of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing, and should in fact be reclaiming from the United States (and Britain) the $2.16 billion compensation already paid by Libya, rather than handing over any further money to pay for another country's state-sponsored terrorism.
Instead of bearing gifts, Mr Welch might therefore have to return home and report back to President Bush that last week's much-vaunted "Libyan Claims Resolution Act" could cost the United States tax-payer much more than any further payments of compensation to U.S. victims of the 1980s terrorist bombing incidents that were (perhaps wrongly) blamed on Libya can be expected to bring in.
SOUR GRAPES?
ReplyDelete"Having unsuccessfully appealed against his dismissal in 1989 to foreign secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, Haseldine enlisted the support of his former MPs (Robert McCrindle, Eric Pickles and Ivan Henderson) for his reinstatement in the diplomatic service from each of Howe's successors: John Major, Douglas Hurd, Malcolm Rifkind, Robin Cook and Jack Straw. All rejected his reinstatement request but Robin Cook wrote on May 16, 1997:
"At the time of your dismissal, you were informed of your entitlement to a preserved pension and preserved lump sum, both payable on your sixtieth birthday. This remains the position. I have asked my officials in the FCO Superannuation Section to write to you shortly to let you know the current value of your preserved benefits."
A week later, Haseldine was informed that on July 11, 2002, he would qualify for a pension – based on 18 years' service – of 25 per cent of his final year (1989) salary, equivalent to about £5,000 per year.
In May 2006, finding it increasingly difficult to manage on this small sum, Haseldine wrote asking his current MP, Douglas Carswell, to apply on his behalf to the new foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett – citing this Wikipedia article as the background and justification – for a fourfold increase in his civil service pension. Carswell did not respond so, in another letter to his MP on June 15, 2006, Haseldine added:
"In February 2006, former police detective, Shirley McKie, was paid £750,000 by the Scottish Executive in an out-of-court settlement. Ms McKie had been wrongly accused of leaving her print at a crime scene in 1997 ('an honest mistake' said first minister Jack McConnell). She was charged with perjury but acquitted. Had I been charged under the 1911 Official Secrets Act for writing to The Guardian, the likelihood is that I too would have been acquitted (cf. Clive Ponting). I therefore claim an ex gratia compensation payment from the FCO, similar to Ms McKie's."
In reply, Douglas Carswell emailed on June 20, 2006:
"I am sorry to hear about the difficulties that you have been having. As your MP, I shall do everything I can to help you. I wrote a letter of reply to you, together with a copy of the letter I have sent to the FCO. These should be with you shortly."
However, Carswell's letter to the foreign secretary neither referred to this article nor did it set out a case for the FCO to increase the pension or pay compensation. As a result, Mrs Beckett responded on July 7, 2006:
"There is no scope under the Civil Service Pension Scheme for an enhancement, nor is there any case for ex gratia compensation."
A DISH BEST SERVED COLD
ReplyDeleteThe above "Sour Grapes?" chronology by Anonymous came to a halt too soon. The story continues thus:
PETITIONING THE PM
"Freedom of expression"
In December 2006, Haseldine petitioned prime minister Tony Blair claiming his Article 10 right to freedom of expression was breached twice by the FCO in 1988. In the petition, he sought an amount of compensation "on a par with the out-of-court settlement made in February 2006 to former Scottish police detective, Shirley McKie" (£750,000). A minimum of 100 signatures was required for the petition to be eligible for consideration by the PM. In fact, there were 126 by the February 22, 2007 closing date. Notable signatories included:
Human Rights lawyer Sir Geoffrey Bindman
Iain McKie, father of Shirley McKie
Peter Preston, former editor of The Guardian
Scottish Minister for Environment Michael Russell MSP
UK Families Flight 103 spokesman Dr Jim Swire
Environmentalist Oliver Tickell, son of Sir Crispin Tickell
Labour MP David Winnick
LETTER TO TONY BLAIR
Several months later, and still without a response to his petition, he sent the following letter to Tony Blair at Downing Street on June 4, 2007:
"Dear Prime Minister,
"The attached e-petition had 126 signatures when it closed on February 22, 2007. At that date, the petitions guide stated:
"When a serious petition closes, provided there are 100 signatures or more, officials at Downing Street will ensure you get a response to the issues you raise. Depending on the nature of the petition, this may be from the Prime Minister, or he may ask one of his Ministers or officials to respond. We will email the petition organiser and everyone who has signed the petition via this website giving details of the Government's response.
"As the petition organiser, I am very concerned about this revision which has recently been made to the guide: usually provided there are 200 signatures or more. My concern over this apparent moving of the goalposts will doubtless be shared by many other signatories including:
Human Rights lawyer, Sir Geoffrey Bindman;
Scottish Minister for Environment, Michael Russell MSP;
former editor of the Guardian, Peter Preston; and
David Winnick MP.
"To allay this concern, we should be grateful if you could arrange for Downing Street officials to email each of the 126 signatories with details of your Government's response to our petition for an enhanced FCO pension and ex-gratia compensation (see Wikipedia article).
"I am copying this letter to the above-mentioned signatories, and to Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian.
"Yours sincerely, Patrick Haseldine"
SECOND E-PETITION
Meanwhile, a number of signatories suggested to Haseldine that the recent doubling from 100 to 200 signatures could simply be a ploy by Downing Street to avoid having to respond to his petition. Therefore, without waiting for what he anticipated would be an obfuscatory prime ministerial reply, Haseldine decided on June 14, 2007 to create this second e-petition:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to say why the number of e-petition signatures needed to trigger a response by officials at Downing Street was recently changed from 'provided there are 100 signatures or more' to 'usually provided there are 200 signatures or more'." The petition opened on June 20, 2007 and, within a few hours, the following text had appeared in place of a signature:
"Unaccountable and inconsistent. Petitions are removed, ignored, whatever upon the whim of 'the team'."
Haseldine immediately emailed the Number 10 web team requesting the removal of this apparent vandalism. But – as was the case with the first e-petition – no email response from Downing Street has been forthcoming, nor any action taken to remove the offending text from the second e-petition. The vandalised petition closed on September 20, 2007 with 15 signatures.
UNITED NATIONS INQUIRY
In October 2007, Haseldine submitted this e-petition to prime minister Gordon Brown:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to support calls for a United Nations Inquiry into the death of UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
"Dr Hans Koechler, UN observer at the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial, has described Mr al-Megrahi's conviction as a 'spectacular miscarriage of justice'. If, as now seems inevitable, the Libyan's conviction is overturned on appeal, Libya will be exonerated and a new investigation is going to be required.
"Apartheid South Africa is the prime alternative suspect for the Lockerbie bombing - see South Africa luggage swap theory.
"We understand that, when Libya takes its seat at the UN Security Council in January 2008, there will be calls for an immediate United Nations Inquiry into the death of UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. The other 14 UNSC members — including Britain — should support such an Inquiry and nominate Dr Koechler to conduct it."
In the event, this petition did not garner enough signatures to ensure a prime ministerial reply, but a United Nations Inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing could still be on the cards - especially if a successful Lockerbie Appeal by Mr al-Megrahi is shown to have been undermined by the machinations of the American and British governments.
Pot... Kettle...
ReplyDeleteGood for you. Stop whining about others' compensation.
I dont necessarily agree with releasing this terrorist.
ReplyDeleteThat said, i think it is dispicable that the USA try to impose their viewpoint on other nations. He was tried under Scots law in a Scots court and therefore any decisions on his case should be made by the Scots and the Scots alone!
After all, do the USA have the moral high ground over alleged terrorist suspects in prisons? I think not - Guantanomo Bay anyone?!
The USA should realise that they are not the guardians of the world. Why should anyone listen to a country who has egotistical idiots such as George W Bush or Hilary Clinton in such high places of the government?