Sunday, 18 July 2010

Did BP play a part in the release of the Lockerbie bomber?

[This is the headline over an article by Eddie Barnes in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads in part:]

Bob Monetti laughs sarcastically. "This is the story that never goes away, huh?" Just before Christmas in 1988, Monetti was preparing to welcome his son Richard back home. (...) But Richard never made it home.

Thirty-eight minutes after taking off from Heathrow Airport, he was murdered when Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up in the skies above Lockerbie.

Bob Monetti and the rest of the family drew some solace after his death from the links they formed here. "The only people who were heroes in this were the Scottish people. The people of Lockerbie were wonderful," he says. Then, just under year ago, Abdelbaset Al Megrahi - the man he is convinced killed his son - was released by Scottish ministers. His voice takes on a different tone. He sounds resigned to cynicism. "The Scots caved into the English so that these BP oil contracts could go ahead," he says. "BP does what BP does. They will make money any way they can. The thing that really has hurt is the Scottish reputation. They (the Scottish Government] have been fighting for independence and the first thing they do is cave in." (...)

The outrage felt in America last August when Al Megrahi was freed by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, on compassionate grounds has re-emerged with a vengeance. Scottish and UK ministers are once again facing accusations of having let him go for all the wrong reasons. This week, David Cameron heads to Washington for his first talks in the White House with Barack Obama, with Lockerbie one of the issues being raised. The outcry over the case suggests that the relationship between the UK and the US is no longer quite so special. (...)

The latest burst of senatorial anger over Lockerbie does not have its roots in Scotland but in the oil-filled waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Last week, BP finally plugged the leak in its broken well off the coast of Louisiana, a full 87 days after it first exploded. (...)

Halfway around the world, it emerged that Libya had given approval for BP to start a well in the Gulf of Sirt off the African coast. With awful timing, the oil firm's 2007 deal with Libya to begin exploiting the rich reserves held by the country, was finally being realised.

This was the deal, the Americans remembered, that had been linked to an agreement between the UK and Libyan government to allow prisoners including Al Megrahi to be transferred from one country to the other. BP's oil well at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico was not the only thing about to blow. Their sense of injustice already high as a result of the BP oil spill, senators Robert Menendez, Kirsten Gillibrand and Frank Lautenberg decided to open a new front. "The question we now have to answer is, was this corporation willing to trade justice in the murder of 270 innocent people for oil profit?" (...)

Of more interest to the senators are the stories which have emerged in the UK following Al Megrahi's release about the oil firm's alleged involvement. The company reached its agreement with Libya in late 2007, in the wake of Tony Blair's historic meeting with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi - the so-called "deal in the desert". It was here that the pair first discussed, among other things, a prisoner transfer agreement. Quite what the pair actually agreed upon is still a matter of conjecture. For the Libyans, however, the terms of the deal were clear - Al Megrahi was involved. Speaking on Libyan TV last year, Gadaffi's son, Saif al-Islam Gadaffi told Al Megrahi: "In all the trade, oil and gas deals which I have supervised, you were there on the table. When British interests came to Libya, I used to put you on the table."

BP now makes no bones that it raised the question of the prisoner transfer agreement which Libya wanted signed before the oil exploration deal was agreed. Sir Mark Allan, a former MI5 spy and a consultant for BP, lobbied former Justice Secretary Jack Straw to get the matter dealt with. A spokesman for BP said last week the firm was "concerned about the slow progress that was being made" to resolve the deal. Sir Mark contacted Straw to try to push things along. As it emerged last year, Straw was persuaded; agreeing to include Al Megrahi as part of the PTA deal. Hence the conspiracy has grown legs.

But this view of the saga has several weak points. First, as Straw himself pointed out, he never had the power to actually release Al Megrahi in the first place. So, while intelligence sources insist that Al Megrahi almost certainly came up in the Libya-UK talks, talk of a deal to release him remains fanciful, relying as it does on the improbable scenario of the UK Labour government strong-arming the SNP-led Scottish Government into doing what it wanted.

The UK ambassador to the USA, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, took the unusual step of writing to Kerry on the Senate Committee last week, urging him to effectively tone it down. "The British Government worked with British business to promote legitimate commercial interests with Libya," he wrote. "But there was no link between those legitimate commercial activities and the Scottish Executive's decision to release Megrahi."

As for that decision, no-one yet has come up with any explanation beyond the obvious one stated at the time. Despite a huge amount of correspondence being published since, there is no evidence that Kenny MacAskill was influenced by any commercial interests. He actually refused to release Al Megrahi under the terms of the prisoner transfer agreement negotiated by the British, with Alex Salmond having already made plain his opposition to it. Instead, with Al Megrahi's plea for clemency ringing in his ears, the Justice Secretary decided to show him compassion. Within St Andrew's House MacAskill's aides understand that American relatives disagree with the decision to release Al Megrahi for compassionate reasons - particularly as he remains alive. But there is frustration they are being dragged into a conspiracy in which they played no part. One senior source says: "Where were these senators in 2007 when Blair did his deal in the desert and what did they think the PTA was all about? Instead, they gave him standing ovations in the Capitol." (...)

Many come from Frank Duggan, another relative, who represents the Victims of Flight 103 group. "So the Brits are now saying it was a mistake to release Megrahi, but we didn't do it the Scots did, and that BP did lobby us but didn't mention Megrahi by name," he wrote on Friday. "Meanwhile, Gaddafi's son says we always spoke of Megrahi during the negotiations with BP. The Scots, on the other hand, say we never talked to BP, it was the Brits. And we let him go because he was clearly terminally ill. And this had nothing to do with the prisoner transfer agreement. Don't you think there are some questions to answer?"

The questions now look set to be put, with both MacAskill and Straw among those who may be called for testimony in Washington next week. But whether families such as the Monettis (...) will get the answers they have long awaited, is another matter entirely.

[The same newspaper's editorial on the subject can be read here and an article in The Independent on Sunday here.]


  1. I would rather hope that the British response to the American Senate's 'invitation' to come and be badgered by self promoting Senators in an election year would be the same as the American Pentagon's attitude to summonses by English Coroners for US servicemen to explain how they managed to kill British soldiers by friendly fire.

  2. Frank Duggan, "another relative". Oh no he ain't. The US government's placeman inside the Lockerbie families, paid from the millions each of these families received from Gadaffi.



    Stay with the facts: The relevant provisions of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) between the United Kingdom and Libya was ratified on 29 April 2009.
    After this date the TREATY over the Transfer of Prisoners was also valid for Abdelbaset al- Megrahi; but at this time Al-Megrahi could not use the transfer to Libya without he abandoned his success promising current appeal ?!

    Please examine paragraph 'C' of the Treaty:
    (c) the prisoner has consented to being transferred in accordance with those arrangements
    the relevant Minister shall issue a warrant providing for the transfer of the prisoner into or out of the United Kingdom.

    This provision requiring the prisoner's consent was removed in 2006, but it is abundantly clear that, irrespective of the wishes of the UK, Scottish and Libyan authorities, Megrahi cannot in fact be transferred back to Libya without his consent since he cannot be transferred without his current appeal being abandoned and no-one but Megrahi can instruct the abandonment of that appeal.

    Thus the key for Mr. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's freedom was

    1)> not its illness and not an Oil Deal with BP, but the retreat its
    success promising Appeal...

    2)> After the abandonment of that appeal, Al-Megrahi could use
    legally the contractual conditions of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement from 29 April 2009 between United Kingdom and Libya.

    3)> The retreat of the Appeals had highest priority for the prestige
    of the Scottish Justiciary, therefore a miscarriage of Justice in the case of the Lockerbie-Tragedy had to be absolutely

    Therefore Mr. Al Megrahi should re-activate the Appeal or require that all documents of the SCCRC to UN are handed over to the insight; including the document under 'National Security' (PII).

    After 22 years the truth must come to the day!

    Dear Mr. Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi! Please assert yourself by revoking your resignation of your right of reappeal. This in the interest of truthfinding as well as in the interest of reconstitution of your personal honour and integrity.

    MEBO Ltd can assure you and whole Libyan nation, that the central evidence, a fragment of a Timer, Model MST-13 and other so called evidence have deliberately been manipulated. The result of these manipulations was, that you personaly and the whole of Libyan people have been involved into the tragedy of flight PA 103.

    With this step, you do indeed help yourself, the families of the victims, the libyan nation and also you help me, Edwin Bollier and my company, MEBO Ltd.

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Switzerland

  4. This issue demonstrates, as well as any other, why the UK needs to distance itself from the US as far as is reasonably possible, finding a far more rewarding partnership with fellow Europeans.
    The inherent premise is that the perceptions held by a few American families and exploited by the US political class should act as a veto over the interests of two other nations, Libya and the UK. Libya seeks to re-enter the normal discourse between nations and the UK seeks to facilitate that. One barrier to this is the case of Al-Megrahi.
    For many, including the families of Britons killed in the Lockerbie bombing (a group whose thoughts appear irrelevant for some reason - probably because they are not Americans) Al-Megrahi was simply a fall-guy to make the American electorate feel something had been done to avenge the deaths of fellow Americans. I suspect a similar thought process went on following 9/11 concerning Iraq - let's find a patsy and stuff them.
    By normalising relations with Libya it (Libya) is able to enjoy its oil wealth.
    As a commercial company, BP wishes to be able to grow its business. I'm sure Dick Cheney and Halliburton would recognise that logic and BP is not seeking to invade anyone, merely engage in normal business practices.
    As the new Rome, US politicians are keen to be seen to promote the interests of US citizens - even if it doesn't - and use whatever strong-arm tactics are at their disposal to pursue this end and therefore their (politicians') own interests. For small countries like the UK it is only feasible to oppose this in the way humans always have - strength in unity. Individually weak European countries make a much bigger impact as one than as 27 individuals.
    Whilst visiting the US the British Prime Minister referred to the UK as the junior partner in its 'special relationship' with the US and listed the benefits to the Us of this. He did not list any benefits to the UK in this - sharing a disgusting hot dog with the Mayor of New York doesn't count - simply because the ones that exist only do so in the fantasy minds of certain Britons.
    Eddie Reader