Wednesday 9 September 2009

UK and Libya

[The following are excerpts from a recent post on the Craig Murray blog. Craig Murray is a former British ambassador and is currently the Rector of the University of Dundee.]

It was absolutely right to release al-Megrahi. Every dying person deserves what comfort, pain alleviation and disease amelioration can be provided by the presence of family and by medical treatment. There should be no place in a justice system for the cruel vindictiveness of making a now harmless person die in jail. Scotland and the SNP have shown a civilised example; those who attack them have shown ugliness. (...)

The Tories have shown their blood-baying, American bum-sucking true colours. New Labour have been caught in their usual horrible hypocrisy, attempting to capitalise on anti-SNP right wing media reaction, while having been deliberately paving the way for the release for years. (...)

Jack Straw has admitted that trade was the deciding factor in his agreeing that al-Megrahi should not be excluded from the prisoner exchange agreement. Bill Rammell has admitted that as an FCO Minister he told the Libyans that Gordon Brown did not want to see al-Megrahi die in jail. There is no room to doubt that the UK's assiduous courting of LIbya saw all kinds of positive signals given quietly on al-Megrahi, whose release was an obvious Libyan demand in the normalisation of relations.

The infuriating thing is that New Labour actually did the right thing in their dealings with the Libyans. Jack Straw's positions and Gordon Brown's message were the right ones. But a combination of fear of the United States, a right wing populist media instinct and a desire to attack the SNP has led New Labour to tyy to hide the truth - and try so badly as to bring down more media scorn than if they had just come out and supported the release in the first place.

Al-Megrahi was not the Lockerbie bomber. The scandal is not that trade deals and the realpolitik of relationship normalisation led to his release. The scandal is that trade deals and the realpolitik of relationship normalisation were what led the Libyans to hand him over in the first place - very much in the way their ancestors had given hostages to Imperial Rome. His family were richly rewarded, made wealthy for generations by his acceptance of the role of sacrificial lamb, and there was the hope that he would be acquitted. That he was convicted on very dubious evidence shocked many, especially Dr Jim Swire, representative of the victims' families, who followed the evidence painstakingly and has never accepted al-Megrahi's guilt.

Syria was responsible for the Lockerbie bomb. But in the first Iraq war, we needed Syria's support, while Libya remained a supporter of Iraq. Lockerbie was a bar to our new alliance with Damascus, so extremely conveniently, and with perfect timing, it was discovered that actually it was the Libyans!! Anyone who believes that fake intelligence started with Iraqi WMD is an idiot.

It haunts me that I had a chance to read the intelligence reports which, I was told by a shocked FCO colleague in Aviation and Maritime Department where I then worked, showed that the new anti-Libyan narrative was false. I say in self-defence that at the time I was literally working day and night, sleeping on a camp bed. I was organising the Embargo Surveillance Centre and I was convinced that a watertight full physical embargo could remove the need to invade Iraq. I was impatient of the interruption. I listened to my colleague only distractedly and did not want to go through the rigmarole of signing for and transporting the reports I hadn't got time to look at then. Events overtook me, and I never did see them.

Which is not to say the Libyan regime was not a sponsor of terrorism. It was. It just didn't do Lockerbie. (...)

Ultimately, negotiating with "terrorists" and "rogue states" has to be done. The strange thing is that New Labour's Libyan policy has been one of its genuine successes - and makes a nonsense of its argument that we could deal with Saddam no other way. There should be more human rights emphasis in the relationship, but the apporach has been basically the right one, just as it was right to settle with the IRA, and just as it is long overdue to settle with the Taliban.

On a rare occasion when this government has shown wisdom, it appears ashamed of it.

[A further post dated 25 September on the Craig Murray blog contains the following:

"As I have previously stated, I can affirm that the FCO and MI6 knew that al-Megrahi was not the Lockerbie bomber.

"I strongly recommend that you read this devastating article by the great lawyer Gareth Peirce, in the London Review of Books. Virtually every paragraph provides information which in itself demolishes the conviction. The totality of the information Peirce gives is a quite stunning picture of not accidental but deliberate miscarriage of justice."]

3 comments:

  1. I think the UK/US governments want us to think it was a business deal but a business deal would benefit both sides. When Blair went out to Libya in 2007 to set up the prisoner exchange agreement there was, I believe, only one Libyan in a UK prison. So it is quite obvious that he wanted to get rid of Megrahi but only on the condition that Megrahi gave up his appeal. If the appeal had gone ahead the world would have seen that the US/UK framed an innocent man and the three trial judges may very well have conspired to convict an innocent man. This is what the UK government feared most.
    The Libyans would have known that the British had their backs to the wall, so what benefit did the Libyans get? It must have been huge. To say it was economic is ridiculous, the UK is more desperate for the gas and business than Libya.
    So what benefit did the Libyan government get, which the UK government is desperately concealing?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Syria was responsible for the Lockerbie bomb" - Does Mr Murray have any evidence to support that claim?

    While the Beirut Hostage Crisis may have had something to do with the exoneration of Iran and Syria the gulf War was over eight months before the indictment was announced.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr Murray wrote "this is not to say that Libya was not a sponsor of terrorism. It was. It just didn't do Lockerbie."

    Commenting on the US failure to retaliate for the 1983 Marine Barracks bombing Lawrence Eagleburger said "you have to clobber somebody. It doesn't matter who you clobber as long as you clobber somebody who has got it coming".

    ReplyDelete