[This is the headline over a report published today on the Al Arabiya News website. It reads in part:]
Former Libyan Foreign Minister Abdul Rahman Shalgam has said that his successor Moussa Koussa, who resigned last month in protest against the brutalities committed by Muammar Qaddafi’s regime, would not be returning to London, and was likely to seek asylum in Qatar.
Mr Shalgam, who was Libya’s foreign minister from 2000 till 2009, told Al Arabiya that civil society representatives in London had been vehemently objecting to hosting dissident Mr Koussa, who stayed in office from March 2009 till March 2011. He said that they objected to “his involvement in several crimes condemned by the international community.”
“Koussa took part in the Lockerbie bombing, funding the Irish Republican Army, and liquidating several opponents to the Libyan regime,” Mr Shalgam told Al Arabiya.
On March 28, 2011, Koussa left Libya for Tunisia and from there flew to the United Kingdom where he issued a statement. That statement said that he no longer wanted to be a representative of the Libyan government in light of brutal attacks on civilians by Mr Qaddafi’s forces.
Mr Koussa subsequently left London for the Qatari capital Doha to attend a conference on the future of Libya and to meet with members of the National Transitional Council.
“He will most likely stay in Doha and will not go back to London,” Mr Shalgam said of Mr Koussa.
The British government of Prime Minister David Cameron was faced with harsh criticism both for hosting Mr Koussa and for allowing him to leave. While civil society slammed granting asylum to someone accused of crimes against humanity, especially that it took place on British soil, relatives of Lockerbie victims consider allowing Mr Koussa to depart without taking the necessary measures against him a kind of “treason” on the part of the government.
Mr Shalgam described Mr Koussa as the “black box” of the Libyan regime, especially that he spent around 16 years as head of Libyan intelligence.
“The fact that he knows that much about the intricacies of the Libyan regime makes him very valuable for the interim council and necessitates staying in touch with him and making use of the information he possesses.”
When asked if Mr Koussa’s decision to defect from Colonel Qaddafi’s ranks meant he would join the revolutionaries, Mr Shalgam replied that Koussa has not so far asked for this.
“However, his dissidence in itself is a patriotic action,” Mr Shalgam said.
[Of the officials of the Gaddafi regime that I met over the years from 1993 to 2009 in connection with Lockerbie, Moussa Koussa was the scariest and Shalgam was the slipperiest.
James Kirkup of The Telegraph has now picked up this story, without acknowledgment, of course.]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Shalgam. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Shalgam. Sort by date Show all posts
Monday, 18 April 2011
Monday, 18 July 2011
Ex-foreign minister says Libya behind 1989 airline attack
[This is the headline over an Agence France Presse news agency report published today on the Al-Arabiya website. It reads as follows:]
Libya is responsible for a deadly 1989 attack on a French airliner, Libyan former foreign minister Abdel Rahman Shalgam told al-Hayat newspaper in an interview published on Monday.
“The Libyan security services blew up the plane. They believed that opposition leader Mohammed al-Megrief was on board, but after the plane was blown up, it was found that he was not on the plane,” said Mr Shalgam, who defected from Muammar Qaddafi’s embattled regime earlier this year.
On September 19, 1989, a UTA DC-10 travelling from Brazzaville to Paris via N’Djamena crashed in Niger after explosives on board detonated, killing 170 passengers and crew, including 54 French citizens.
A French court in 2009 sentenced six Libyan agents in absentia to life in prison for the attack, but Libya has never admitted it was responsible.
However, Tripoli had in 2004 agreed to pay $170 million in compensation to the families of the victims.
Mr Shalgam also said that the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am flight over the Scottish town of Lockerbie that killed 270 people, for which Libya is widely believed to have been responsible, was more complicated than the UTA attack.
“The Lockerbie operation was more complex ... the role of states and organizations has been discussed, and while the Libyan services were implicated, I do not think it was a purely Libyan operation,” he said.
Last February, a former official from the radical Palestinian group Abu Nidal said that the attacks against the Pan Am and UTA planes were conducted “in conjunction” with Libya, and that the explosives were fabricated in Libya.
Mr Shalgam’s defection came in March when he was serving as Libya’s representative to the United Nations.
[Whether Libya was involved in the destruction of Pan Am 103 or not (eg by supplying materials to the culprits) it does not follow that a particular Libyan, viz Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, was involved. The evidence against him remains just as weak as it was before Mr Shalgam spoke and the conviction of Megrahi on the evidence led at Zeist remains just as outrageous.
I may say that Mr Shalgam, whom I met on several occasions while he was Libya's foreign minister, always denied to me that his country was responsible for Lockerbie. But it may be that he is one of those who tends to tell people what he thinks, rightly or wrongly, that they want to hear.]
Libya is responsible for a deadly 1989 attack on a French airliner, Libyan former foreign minister Abdel Rahman Shalgam told al-Hayat newspaper in an interview published on Monday.
“The Libyan security services blew up the plane. They believed that opposition leader Mohammed al-Megrief was on board, but after the plane was blown up, it was found that he was not on the plane,” said Mr Shalgam, who defected from Muammar Qaddafi’s embattled regime earlier this year.
On September 19, 1989, a UTA DC-10 travelling from Brazzaville to Paris via N’Djamena crashed in Niger after explosives on board detonated, killing 170 passengers and crew, including 54 French citizens.
A French court in 2009 sentenced six Libyan agents in absentia to life in prison for the attack, but Libya has never admitted it was responsible.
However, Tripoli had in 2004 agreed to pay $170 million in compensation to the families of the victims.
Mr Shalgam also said that the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am flight over the Scottish town of Lockerbie that killed 270 people, for which Libya is widely believed to have been responsible, was more complicated than the UTA attack.
“The Lockerbie operation was more complex ... the role of states and organizations has been discussed, and while the Libyan services were implicated, I do not think it was a purely Libyan operation,” he said.
Last February, a former official from the radical Palestinian group Abu Nidal said that the attacks against the Pan Am and UTA planes were conducted “in conjunction” with Libya, and that the explosives were fabricated in Libya.
Mr Shalgam’s defection came in March when he was serving as Libya’s representative to the United Nations.
[Whether Libya was involved in the destruction of Pan Am 103 or not (eg by supplying materials to the culprits) it does not follow that a particular Libyan, viz Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, was involved. The evidence against him remains just as weak as it was before Mr Shalgam spoke and the conviction of Megrahi on the evidence led at Zeist remains just as outrageous.
I may say that Mr Shalgam, whom I met on several occasions while he was Libya's foreign minister, always denied to me that his country was responsible for Lockerbie. But it may be that he is one of those who tends to tell people what he thinks, rightly or wrongly, that they want to hear.]
Friday, 4 January 2008
Shalgam's visit to the US, continued
Further coverage by The Washington Post of Libyan Foreign Minister Shalgam's visit to the United States:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/01/03/ST2008010303302.html
And here is a slightly different perspective from Middle East Online:
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=23761
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/01/03/ST2008010303302.html
And here is a slightly different perspective from Middle East Online:
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=23761
Tuesday, 19 April 2011
Reaction to Moussa Koussa Qatar asylum claims
[A report published today on The Telegraph website, following on from yesterday's report on Al Arabiya where Abdul Rahman Shalgam claimed that Moussa Koussa was likely to seek asylum in Qatar, contains the following:]
The prospect of Mr Koussa failing to return to Britain from Qatar caused anger among relatives of Lockerbie bombing victims, who believe he may have valuable information about the 1988 atrocity. (...)
While he was in Britain, Mr Koussa, a former Libyan intelligence official, was questioned by Scottish police about the Lockerbie attack, which was ordered by Col Gaddafi.
Relatives of Lockerbie victims and some MPs say Mr Koussa should face prosecution for his role in Libyan terrorist attacks.
Abdulrahman Shalgam, another former Gaddafi regime minister, said that fear of such legal action will drive Mr Koussa to remain outside the UK. (...)
British officials believe that Mr Koussa could still choose to return to Britain, where some of his children and grandchildren are based. But they admit that the UK has no way of compelling him to do so. (...)
Relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims reacted with dismay and disbelief yesterday to reports that Mr Koussa was unlikely to return to London.
Rosemary Wolfe, from South Carolina, whose stepdaughter Miriam died on Pan Am Flight 103, said Britain and the US had “lost their moral footing” in the world by failing to prosecute the former Libyan minister.
“This is absolutely outrageous,” she said. “Our respective countries seem to be erasing all trace of what Gaddafi did. There were no efforts to detain Koussa or prosecute him.”
She added that American relatives had a conference call with Barack Obama’s National Security Council recently at which they said Koussa should not be allowed to leave the UK and should face trial for his role in a range of atrocities.
Mrs Wolfe said: “The Americans must have known they were going to let him go and yet we made no effort to stop it. We were looking the other way and so were the Scots. First we release his frozen assets, and then he is free to go. It’s frightening.”
Susan Cohen, from New Jersey, whose only child Theodora, 20, died, said the families must be told what information he had provided to the UK Government and to Scottish police continuing to investigate the Lockerbie bombing.
“I have never doubted Koussa’s involvement in Lockerbie. He should have been kept in Britain,” she said.
The prospect of Mr Koussa failing to return to Britain from Qatar caused anger among relatives of Lockerbie bombing victims, who believe he may have valuable information about the 1988 atrocity. (...)
While he was in Britain, Mr Koussa, a former Libyan intelligence official, was questioned by Scottish police about the Lockerbie attack, which was ordered by Col Gaddafi.
Relatives of Lockerbie victims and some MPs say Mr Koussa should face prosecution for his role in Libyan terrorist attacks.
Abdulrahman Shalgam, another former Gaddafi regime minister, said that fear of such legal action will drive Mr Koussa to remain outside the UK. (...)
British officials believe that Mr Koussa could still choose to return to Britain, where some of his children and grandchildren are based. But they admit that the UK has no way of compelling him to do so. (...)
Relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims reacted with dismay and disbelief yesterday to reports that Mr Koussa was unlikely to return to London.
Rosemary Wolfe, from South Carolina, whose stepdaughter Miriam died on Pan Am Flight 103, said Britain and the US had “lost their moral footing” in the world by failing to prosecute the former Libyan minister.
“This is absolutely outrageous,” she said. “Our respective countries seem to be erasing all trace of what Gaddafi did. There were no efforts to detain Koussa or prosecute him.”
She added that American relatives had a conference call with Barack Obama’s National Security Council recently at which they said Koussa should not be allowed to leave the UK and should face trial for his role in a range of atrocities.
Mrs Wolfe said: “The Americans must have known they were going to let him go and yet we made no effort to stop it. We were looking the other way and so were the Scots. First we release his frozen assets, and then he is free to go. It’s frightening.”
Susan Cohen, from New Jersey, whose only child Theodora, 20, died, said the families must be told what information he had provided to the UK Government and to Scottish police continuing to investigate the Lockerbie bombing.
“I have never doubted Koussa’s involvement in Lockerbie. He should have been kept in Britain,” she said.
Monday, 31 December 2007
Rice to meet Shalgam
The following is from today's issue of The Scotsman:
'Thursday: Condoleezza Rice is due to meet Mohammed Abdel-Rahman Shalqam [sic; normally "Shalgam"] in Washington "to discuss unresolved issues concerning the bombing of Flight 103 on 21 December, 1988, over Lockerbie" among other issues. It will be the first time a Libyan foreign minister has been in Washington for 35 years.'
See
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Tense-forecast-for-Hogmanay-weather.3628798.jp
The "unresolved issues" presumably relate to the last tranche of the relatives' compensation, which did not fall to be paid over since the United States failed to remove Libya from its list of "state sponsors of terrorism" by the date prescribed in the compensation agreement.
'Thursday: Condoleezza Rice is due to meet Mohammed Abdel-Rahman Shalqam [sic; normally "Shalgam"] in Washington "to discuss unresolved issues concerning the bombing of Flight 103 on 21 December, 1988, over Lockerbie" among other issues. It will be the first time a Libyan foreign minister has been in Washington for 35 years.'
See
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Tense-forecast-for-Hogmanay-weather.3628798.jp
The "unresolved issues" presumably relate to the last tranche of the relatives' compensation, which did not fall to be paid over since the United States failed to remove Libya from its list of "state sponsors of terrorism" by the date prescribed in the compensation agreement.
Thursday, 3 January 2008
Shalgam's visit to the United States
Here is a link to The Washington Post's coverage of the visit of Libyan Foreign Minister Abdel Rahman Shalgam to the United States:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/02/AR2008010202832.html
As regards Lockerbie, the article states:
'Not all the old issues have been resolved, however, which limited Shalqam's White House visit to a sightseeing tour -- without any meetings with White House or National Security Council staff members, U.S. officials said. The Libyan delegation was hoping for a meeting with Vice President Cheney.
Libya has yet to pay $2 million per victim for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, for which two of Libyan intelligence agents were convicted. Families have been paid $8 million per victim, but the final installment was contingent on Libya being removed by a certain date from the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism. When the date passed, Libya withdrew the money.
The families have been pressing the Bush administration to pressure Gaddafi's regime to pay up. "The State Department betrayed us by not protesting the Libyan withdrawal of money from escrow in February 2005," said Rosemary Wolfe, a spokeswoman for the victims' families. "Their feet should be held to the fire."
The families had planned to protest outside the State Department today but decided that their actions would be lost in the focus on the Iowa caucuses, said Wolfe, who charged that the visit was deliberately timed to coincide with another major news event.
"There's still a lot to be done with respect to instituting basic freedoms within Libya. There's still some outstanding issues with respect to claims by U.S. citizens. Those need to be resolved," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is unlikely to visit Tripoli until the compensation issue has been resolved, U.S. officials said, despite her public statement that she was looking forward to a trip to Libya this year.'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/02/AR2008010202832.html
As regards Lockerbie, the article states:
'Not all the old issues have been resolved, however, which limited Shalqam's White House visit to a sightseeing tour -- without any meetings with White House or National Security Council staff members, U.S. officials said. The Libyan delegation was hoping for a meeting with Vice President Cheney.
Libya has yet to pay $2 million per victim for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, for which two of Libyan intelligence agents were convicted. Families have been paid $8 million per victim, but the final installment was contingent on Libya being removed by a certain date from the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism. When the date passed, Libya withdrew the money.
The families have been pressing the Bush administration to pressure Gaddafi's regime to pay up. "The State Department betrayed us by not protesting the Libyan withdrawal of money from escrow in February 2005," said Rosemary Wolfe, a spokeswoman for the victims' families. "Their feet should be held to the fire."
The families had planned to protest outside the State Department today but decided that their actions would be lost in the focus on the Iowa caucuses, said Wolfe, who charged that the visit was deliberately timed to coincide with another major news event.
"There's still a lot to be done with respect to instituting basic freedoms within Libya. There's still some outstanding issues with respect to claims by U.S. citizens. Those need to be resolved," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is unlikely to visit Tripoli until the compensation issue has been resolved, U.S. officials said, despite her public statement that she was looking forward to a trip to Libya this year.'
Sunday, 7 August 2016
Libya undertakes to pay Lockerbie compensation
The Libyan government said yesterday that it was ready to pay compensation for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and address UN demands that it accept responsibility for the attack, which killed 270 people.
Libya's Foreign Minister, Mohammed Abderrahman Shalgam, made the announcement after talks between the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, and the Foreign Office minister Mike O'Brien. He also said Libya was ready to normalise relations with the US.
Mr Shalgam said: "Regarding compensation, as a principle, yes, we are going to do something on that topic. Regarding responsibility, we are discussing this issue. We are ready to get rid of this obstacle." The minister's comments mark a sea-change in Libya's official position. While a team of lawyers and business leaders has been involved in discussions about compensation for the past 18 months, the Libya has until now expressed reluctance to make such payments. (...)
British officials said the comments were Libya's clearest declaration so far that it was prepared to comply with conditions for lifting all sanctions imposed over its role in the Lockerbie bombing, for which the Libyan agent Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was convicted last year at the specially established Scottish court in the Netherlands.
Mr O'Brien is the first British minister to visit Libya for 20 years and is believed to be the first yet to meet Colonel Gaddafi.Their meeting was held in a bedouin tent on the beach of Sirte and marked a day of intensive discussions, which also included five hours of talks with senior Libyan ministers. British officials described the meeting as a "thorough work-through of the bilateral issues", including co-operation against terrorism, as well as Lockerbie.
Outstanding issues remain between Britain and Libya.
British officials said Libya needed to comply fully with UN resolutions calling for Libya to accept responsibility and pay compensation to families of the victims of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
Col Gadafy has agreed to pay compensation but still refuses to admit responsibility despite the conviction of Libyan official Abdel Baset al-Megrahi of involvement in the bombing. UN sanctions against Libya, now suspended, will not be fully lifted until he does.
[In a letter dated 15 August 2003, which I helped to draft, Libya accepted “responsibility for the actions of its officials”.]
Wednesday, 8 June 2016
The scope of the prisoner transfer agreement
[What follows is excerpted from a report published in The Guardian on this date in 2007:]
Scotland's justice secretary today labelled as "ludicrous" Westminster's claim that a prisoner exchange agreement with Libya did not cover the Lockerbie bomber.
Kenny MacAskill poured scorn on Downing Street's insistence that a memorandum of understanding signed last week during a trip by Tony Blair to Libya did not apply to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister, has protested to Tony Blair over the agreement, which he suggested could lead to the Lockerbie bomber being transferred from Scotland to his homeland.
The SNP leader made an emergency statement in the Holyrood parliament complaining that "at no stage" had he been made aware of a British-Libyan agreement on extradition and prisoner release before it was signed.
The agreement has sparked the first major row between the government and the minority SNP administration in Holyrood.
Mr MacAskill told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland that Westminster's handling of the affair was "at minimum, discourteous to the first minister and the Scottish parliament".
Mr MacAskill continued: "There's no mention of al-Megrahi [in the memorandum] but we have many people in our prisons ... but we have only one Libyan national in our prisons.
"So when we're talking about the transfer of Libyan prisoners they are not secreted in Barlinnie, Saughton, Perth or anywhere else.
"We have only one Libyan national in custody and when we talk about the transfer of prisoners, frankly it is ludicrous to suggest that we are talking in a context other than this major atrocity that was perpetrated on Scottish soil and which was dealt with by a Scottish court and with a sentence provided by Scottish judges." (...)
No 10 denied Megrahi's case was covered by the document, saying: "There is a legal process currently under way in Scotland reviewing this case which is not expected to conclude until later this summer.
"Given that, it is totally wrong to suggest the we have reached any agreement with the Libyan government in this case.
"The memorandum of understanding agreed with the Libyan government last week does not cover this case."
But Mr MacAskill rejected any suggestion that the agreement would only apply to the transfer of al-Qaida suspects.
He said: "We haven't been given clarification [by Downing Street].
"All we've been told is that a memorandum of understanding has been signed.
"Mr al-Megrahi is not specifically excluded. It refers to the transfer of prisoners so this is London's interpretation of it.
"I doubt it very much if it's the interpretation being placed upon it by the government of Libya."
[RB: Here is something previously written by me on this matter:]
It was on [29 May] 2007 that the “deal in the desert” was concluded between Prime Minister Tony Blair and Colonel Gaddafi at a meeting in Sirte. This was embodied in a “memorandum of understanding” that provided, amongst other things, for a prisoner transfer agreement to be drawn up. In later years UK Government ministers, particularly Justice Secretary Jack Straw, sought to argue either (i) that the prisoner transfer element of the deal was not intended to apply to Abdelbaset Megrahi or (ii) that if it was intended to cover him, all parties appreciated that the decision on transfer would be one for the Scottish Government not the UK Government. Here is what I wrote about that on this blog:
According to Jack Straw "the Libyans understood that the discretion in respect of any PTA application rested with the Scottish Executive." This is not so. In meetings that I had with Libyan officials at the highest level shortly after the "deal in the desert" it was abundantly clear that the Libyans believed that the UK Government could order the transfer of Mr Megrahi and that they were prepared to do so. When I told them that the relevant powers rested with the Scottish -- not the UK -- Government, they simply did not believe me. When they eventually realised that I had been correct, their anger and disgust with the UK Government was palpable. As I have said elsewhere:
"The memorandum of understanding regarding prisoner transfer that Tony Blair entered into in the course of the "deal in the desert" in May 2007, and which paved the way for the formal prisoner transfer agreement, was intended by both sides to lead to the rapid return of Mr Megrahi to his homeland. This was the clear understanding of Libyan officials involved in the negotiations and to whom I have spoken.
"It was only after the memorandum of understanding was concluded that [it belatedly sunk in] that the decision on repatriation of this particular prisoner was a matter not for Westminster and Whitehall but for the devolved Scottish Government in Edinburgh, and that government had just come into the hands of the Scottish National Party and so could no longer be expected supinely to follow the UK Labour Government's wishes. That was when the understanding between the UK Government and the Libyan Government started to unravel, to the considerable annoyance and distress of the Libyans, who had been led to believe that repatriation under the PTA was only months away.
“Among the Libyan officials with whom I discussed this matter at the time were Abdulati al-Obeidi, Moussa Koussa and Abdel Rahman Shalgam.”
Scotland's justice secretary today labelled as "ludicrous" Westminster's claim that a prisoner exchange agreement with Libya did not cover the Lockerbie bomber.
Kenny MacAskill poured scorn on Downing Street's insistence that a memorandum of understanding signed last week during a trip by Tony Blair to Libya did not apply to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister, has protested to Tony Blair over the agreement, which he suggested could lead to the Lockerbie bomber being transferred from Scotland to his homeland.
The SNP leader made an emergency statement in the Holyrood parliament complaining that "at no stage" had he been made aware of a British-Libyan agreement on extradition and prisoner release before it was signed.
The agreement has sparked the first major row between the government and the minority SNP administration in Holyrood.
Mr MacAskill told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland that Westminster's handling of the affair was "at minimum, discourteous to the first minister and the Scottish parliament".
Mr MacAskill continued: "There's no mention of al-Megrahi [in the memorandum] but we have many people in our prisons ... but we have only one Libyan national in our prisons.
"So when we're talking about the transfer of Libyan prisoners they are not secreted in Barlinnie, Saughton, Perth or anywhere else.
"We have only one Libyan national in custody and when we talk about the transfer of prisoners, frankly it is ludicrous to suggest that we are talking in a context other than this major atrocity that was perpetrated on Scottish soil and which was dealt with by a Scottish court and with a sentence provided by Scottish judges." (...)
No 10 denied Megrahi's case was covered by the document, saying: "There is a legal process currently under way in Scotland reviewing this case which is not expected to conclude until later this summer.
"Given that, it is totally wrong to suggest the we have reached any agreement with the Libyan government in this case.
"The memorandum of understanding agreed with the Libyan government last week does not cover this case."
But Mr MacAskill rejected any suggestion that the agreement would only apply to the transfer of al-Qaida suspects.
He said: "We haven't been given clarification [by Downing Street].
"All we've been told is that a memorandum of understanding has been signed.
"Mr al-Megrahi is not specifically excluded. It refers to the transfer of prisoners so this is London's interpretation of it.
"I doubt it very much if it's the interpretation being placed upon it by the government of Libya."
[RB: Here is something previously written by me on this matter:]
It was on [29 May] 2007 that the “deal in the desert” was concluded between Prime Minister Tony Blair and Colonel Gaddafi at a meeting in Sirte. This was embodied in a “memorandum of understanding” that provided, amongst other things, for a prisoner transfer agreement to be drawn up. In later years UK Government ministers, particularly Justice Secretary Jack Straw, sought to argue either (i) that the prisoner transfer element of the deal was not intended to apply to Abdelbaset Megrahi or (ii) that if it was intended to cover him, all parties appreciated that the decision on transfer would be one for the Scottish Government not the UK Government. Here is what I wrote about that on this blog:
According to Jack Straw "the Libyans understood that the discretion in respect of any PTA application rested with the Scottish Executive." This is not so. In meetings that I had with Libyan officials at the highest level shortly after the "deal in the desert" it was abundantly clear that the Libyans believed that the UK Government could order the transfer of Mr Megrahi and that they were prepared to do so. When I told them that the relevant powers rested with the Scottish -- not the UK -- Government, they simply did not believe me. When they eventually realised that I had been correct, their anger and disgust with the UK Government was palpable. As I have said elsewhere:
"The memorandum of understanding regarding prisoner transfer that Tony Blair entered into in the course of the "deal in the desert" in May 2007, and which paved the way for the formal prisoner transfer agreement, was intended by both sides to lead to the rapid return of Mr Megrahi to his homeland. This was the clear understanding of Libyan officials involved in the negotiations and to whom I have spoken.
"It was only after the memorandum of understanding was concluded that [it belatedly sunk in] that the decision on repatriation of this particular prisoner was a matter not for Westminster and Whitehall but for the devolved Scottish Government in Edinburgh, and that government had just come into the hands of the Scottish National Party and so could no longer be expected supinely to follow the UK Labour Government's wishes. That was when the understanding between the UK Government and the Libyan Government started to unravel, to the considerable annoyance and distress of the Libyans, who had been led to believe that repatriation under the PTA was only months away.
“Among the Libyan officials with whom I discussed this matter at the time were Abdulati al-Obeidi, Moussa Koussa and Abdel Rahman Shalgam.”
Wednesday, 7 September 2011
Libya 'granted oil concessions to BP on understanding Lockerbie bomber Megrahi would return home'
[This is the headline over a report published this morning on The Telegraph website. It reads in part:]
Libya's former foreign minister has said that Tripoli granted massive oil
concessions to BP on the understanding the Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the
Lockerbie bomber, would be returned home.
Abdulati al-Obeidi told the BBC that Britain had accepted Libyan indications
that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s release was an unwritten quid pro quo of the
multi-billion pound contract.
“There was a hint that releasing him would help but it was not a condition,”
he said. “The Libyan side, and you know the British, they know how to take
things”
Asked if an exchange of the prisoner was part of the talks, Mr Obeidi said:
“This is what I think”.
BP secured one of the largest contracts to exploit Libyan oil reserves after
Col Gaddafi’s regime came in from the cold. The contract was celebrated as
part of Tony Blair’s infamous Deal in the Desert trip to Libya.
Last year BP admitted it pressed for a deal over the controversial prisoner
transfer agreement amid fears any delays would damage its “commercial
interests”, but denied it had been involved in negotiations concerning
Megrahi’s release.
[Here is what I wrote on this blog on 28 January 2010:]
According to Jack Straw "the Libyans understood that the discretion in respect of any PTA application rested with the Scottish Executive." This is not so. In meetings that I had with Libyan officials at the highest level shortly after the "deal in the desert" it was abundantly clear that the Libyans believed that the UK Government could order the transfer of Mr Megrahi and that they were prepared to do so. When I told them that the relevant powers rested with the Scottish -- not the UK -- Government, they simply did not believe me. When they eventually realised that I had been correct, their anger and disgust with the UK Government was palpable. As I have said elsewhere:
"The memorandum of understanding regarding prisoner transfer that Tony Blair entered into in the course of the "deal in the desert" in May 2007, and which paved the way for the formal prisoner transfer agreement, was intended by both sides to lead to the rapid return of Mr Megrahi to his homeland. This was the clear understanding of Libyan officials involved in the negotiations and to whom I have spoken.
"It was only after the memorandum of understanding was concluded that [it belatedly sunk in] that the decision on repatriation of this particular prisoner was a matter not for Westminster and Whitehall but for the devolved Scottish Government in Edinburgh, and that government had just come into the hands of the Scottish National Party and so could no longer be expected supinely to follow the UK Labour Government's wishes. That was when the understanding between the UK Government and the Libyan Government started to unravel, to the considerable annoyance and distress of the Libyans, who had been led to believe that repatriation under the PTA was only months away."
[Here is what I wrote on this blog on 28 January 2010:]
According to Jack Straw "the Libyans understood that the discretion in respect of any PTA application rested with the Scottish Executive." This is not so. In meetings that I had with Libyan officials at the highest level shortly after the "deal in the desert" it was abundantly clear that the Libyans believed that the UK Government could order the transfer of Mr Megrahi and that they were prepared to do so. When I told them that the relevant powers rested with the Scottish -- not the UK -- Government, they simply did not believe me. When they eventually realised that I had been correct, their anger and disgust with the UK Government was palpable. As I have said elsewhere:
"The memorandum of understanding regarding prisoner transfer that Tony Blair entered into in the course of the "deal in the desert" in May 2007, and which paved the way for the formal prisoner transfer agreement, was intended by both sides to lead to the rapid return of Mr Megrahi to his homeland. This was the clear understanding of Libyan officials involved in the negotiations and to whom I have spoken.
"It was only after the memorandum of understanding was concluded that [it belatedly sunk in] that the decision on repatriation of this particular prisoner was a matter not for Westminster and Whitehall but for the devolved Scottish Government in Edinburgh, and that government had just come into the hands of the Scottish National Party and so could no longer be expected supinely to follow the UK Labour Government's wishes. That was when the understanding between the UK Government and the Libyan Government started to unravel, to the considerable annoyance and distress of the Libyans, who had been led to believe that repatriation under the PTA was only months away."
[Among the Libyan officials with whom I discussed this matter at the time were Abdulati al-Obeidi, Moussa Koussa and Abdel Rahman Shalgam.
Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has published a news item on this issue which can be read here.]
Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has published a news item on this issue which can be read here.]
Thursday, 8 June 2017
The prisoner transfer débâcle
Scotland's justice secretary today labelled as "ludicrous" Westminster's claim that a prisoner exchange agreement with Libya did not cover the Lockerbie bomber.
Kenny MacAskill poured scorn on Downing Street's insistence that a memorandum of understanding signed last week during a trip by Tony Blair to Libya did not apply to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister, has protested to Tony Blair over the agreement, which he suggested could lead to the Lockerbie bomber being transferred from Scotland to his homeland.
The SNP leader made an emergency statement in the Holyrood parliament complaining that "at no stage" had he been made aware of a British-Libyan agreement on extradition and prisoner release before it was signed.
The agreement has sparked the first major row between the government and the minority SNP administration in Holyrood.
Mr MacAskill told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland that Westminster's handling of the affair was "at minimum, discourteous to the first minister and the Scottish parliament".
Mr MacAskill continued: "There's no mention of al-Megrahi [in the memorandum] but we have many people in our prisons ... but we have only one Libyan national in our prisons.
"So when we're talking about the transfer of Libyan prisoners they are not secreted in Barlinnie, Saughton, Perth or anywhere else.
"We have only one Libyan national in custody and when we talk about the transfer of prisoners, frankly it is ludicrous to suggest that we are talking in a context other than this major atrocity that was perpetrated on Scottish soil and which was dealt with by a Scottish court and with a sentence provided by Scottish judges." (...)
No 10 denied Megrahi's case was covered by the document, saying: "There is a legal process currently under way in Scotland reviewing this case which is not expected to conclude until later this summer.
"Given that, it is totally wrong to suggest the we have reached any agreement with the Libyan government in this case.
"The memorandum of understanding agreed with the Libyan government last week does not cover this case."
But Mr MacAskill rejected any suggestion that the agreement would only apply to the transfer of al-Qaida suspects.
He said: "We haven't been given clarification [by Downing Street].
"All we've been told is that a memorandum of understanding has been signed.
"Mr al-Megrahi is not specifically excluded. It refers to the transfer of prisoners so this is London's interpretation of it.
"I doubt it very much if it's the interpretation being placed upon it by the government of Libya."
The row comes in the middle of an examination of Megrahi's case by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
The body will decide later this month whether to refer his conviction back to an appeal court.
Mr MacAskill said: "It [the memorandum] is undermining the fabric of the Scottish judicial system that has been independent long before the Scottish parliament was established.
David Mundell, the Tory MP whose Dumfriesshire constituency covers Lockerbie, said he was "appalled" by Mr Blair's handling of the matter.
"Not only has he ridden roughshod over Scotland's parliament and legal system, but his actions threaten to undermine a legal process which took years to put in place and was agreed with the United Nations and international community," he said.
It was on [29 May] 2007 that the “deal in the desert” was concluded between Prime Minister Tony Blair and Colonel Gaddafi at a meeting in Sirte. This was embodied in a “memorandum of understanding” that provided, amongst other things, for a prisoner transfer agreement to be drawn up. In later years UK Government ministers, particularly Justice Secretary Jack Straw, sought to argue either (i) that the prisoner transfer element of the deal was not intended to apply to Abdelbaset Megrahi or (ii) that if it was intended to cover him, all parties appreciated that the decision on transfer would be one for the Scottish Government not the UK Government. Here is what I wrote about that on this blog:
According to Jack Straw "the Libyans understood that the discretion in respect of any PTA application rested with the Scottish Executive." This is not so. In meetings that I had with Libyan officials at the highest level shortly after the "deal in the desert" it was abundantly clear that the Libyans believed that the UK Government could order the transfer of Mr Megrahi and that they were prepared to do so. When I told them that the relevant powers rested with the Scottish -- not the UK -- Government, they simply did not believe me. When they eventually realised that I had been correct, their anger and disgust with the UK Government was palpable. As I have said elsewhere:
"The memorandum of understanding regarding prisoner transfer that Tony Blair entered into in the course of the "deal in the desert" in May 2007, and which paved the way for the formal prisoner transfer agreement, was intended by both sides to lead to the rapid return of Mr Megrahi to his homeland. This was the clear understanding of Libyan officials involved in the negotiations and to whom I have spoken.
"It was only after the memorandum of understanding was concluded that [it belatedly sunk in] that the decision on repatriation of this particular prisoner was a matter not for Westminster and Whitehall but for the devolved Scottish Government in Edinburgh, and that government had just come into the hands of the Scottish National Party and so could no longer be expected supinely to follow the UK Labour Government's wishes. That was when the understanding between the UK Government and the Libyan Government started to unravel, to the considerable annoyance and distress of the Libyans, who had been led to believe that repatriation under the PTA was only months away.
“Among the Libyan officials with whom I discussed this matter at the time were Abdulati al-Obeidi, Moussa Koussa and Abdel Rahman Shalgam.”
Monday, 1 February 2016
Libya may compensate Lockerbie families
[This is the headline over a report published on the website of The Guardian on this date in 2001, the day after the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi and the acquittal of Lamin Fhimah. It reads as follows:]
The Libyan government is today considering compensation payments to the families of victims of the Lockerbie bombing, as a group representing the British families of those who died in the tragedy gathered in London to press for an independent public inquiry.
The Libyan ambassador to London, Mohammed al-Zwai, said today that his government will consider both compensation payments and agreements reached with the UN security council if Abdel Baset al-Megrahi's appeal against his conviction for the bombing fails. The security council agreements include the requirement that Libya offer compensation and accept responsibility for the bombing.
Megrahi, a Libyan citizen, was sentenced yesterday to life imprisonment for the murder of 270 people in the 1988 bomb attack on Pan Am flight 103. Scottish judges accepted that he was a special agent for the Libyan government, thereby implicating Tripoli in the attack. According to Libyan television reports, Megrahi will lodge an appeal against his conviction within 14 days.
Mr Zwai's comments seem to contradict statements out of Tripoli that the Libyan government bears no responsibility for the bombing. Libyan foreign minister Abdel Rahman Shalgam has insisted that Tripoli will never accept responsibility for the attack.
Colonel Muammar Gadafy's government has not been indicted in the bombing, but the Lockerbie blast was alleged to have been committed to "further the purposes" of Libyan intelligence. The prosecution has charged that the attack was carried out to avenge the US bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986.
Following the verdict, Libya called for an end to the UN sanctions imposed after the Lockerbie bombing.
"The sanctions imposed on Libya must be lifted completely because the Lockerbie case was used as a pretext to delay their lifting," foreign ministry spokesman Hassouna Chiouch told a news conference. "Now that the court has ended the case, the sanctions must be lifted completely."
The Libyan government is today considering compensation payments to the families of victims of the Lockerbie bombing, as a group representing the British families of those who died in the tragedy gathered in London to press for an independent public inquiry.
The Libyan ambassador to London, Mohammed al-Zwai, said today that his government will consider both compensation payments and agreements reached with the UN security council if Abdel Baset al-Megrahi's appeal against his conviction for the bombing fails. The security council agreements include the requirement that Libya offer compensation and accept responsibility for the bombing.
Megrahi, a Libyan citizen, was sentenced yesterday to life imprisonment for the murder of 270 people in the 1988 bomb attack on Pan Am flight 103. Scottish judges accepted that he was a special agent for the Libyan government, thereby implicating Tripoli in the attack. According to Libyan television reports, Megrahi will lodge an appeal against his conviction within 14 days.
Mr Zwai's comments seem to contradict statements out of Tripoli that the Libyan government bears no responsibility for the bombing. Libyan foreign minister Abdel Rahman Shalgam has insisted that Tripoli will never accept responsibility for the attack.
Colonel Muammar Gadafy's government has not been indicted in the bombing, but the Lockerbie blast was alleged to have been committed to "further the purposes" of Libyan intelligence. The prosecution has charged that the attack was carried out to avenge the US bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986.
Following the verdict, Libya called for an end to the UN sanctions imposed after the Lockerbie bombing.
"The sanctions imposed on Libya must be lifted completely because the Lockerbie case was used as a pretext to delay their lifting," foreign ministry spokesman Hassouna Chiouch told a news conference. "Now that the court has ended the case, the sanctions must be lifted completely."
"We extend our hand to the United States to build relations based on mutual respect and benefit for the two parties," Chiouch said. "Now that the Lockerbie case is behind, we look forward with interest to improving our relations with the United States in the interests of both countries and of peace worldwide."
Foreign secretary Robin Cook said Britain and the United States both agreed Libya "must" fulfil the UN security council resolutions before the sanctions will be lifted. Mr Cook stressed that Libya is barred from offering "no fault" compensation.
"Libya has in the past said it would pay compensation if there was a guilty verdict. There has been a guilty verdict, and a guilty verdict against a very senior official of Libyan intelligence," said Mr Cook.
"Libya can't walk away from their responsibility for the act of their official," he added.
In Washington, President George Bush praised the conviction and said the Libyan government must take responsibility for the attack. After less than two weeks in office, the Bush administration faces a major foreign policy decision on how hard to squeeze Libya.
State department spokesman Richard Boucher laid down four demands with which the United States said Libya must comply.
"That means revealing everything they know about the Lockerbie bombing, paying reparations, a clear declaration acknowledging responsibility for the actions of the Libyan officials and clear unambiguous actions which demonstrate the Libyan government understands its responsibilities," Mr Boucher said.
Meanwhile, the British families of those who died in the Lockerbie bombing are gathering in London today to press for further inquiries into the disaster. The group, which includes high profile campaigners Dr Jim Swire and the Rev John Mosey, will call for an independent public inquiry into unanswered questions surrounding the circumstances of the bombing.
The families have always maintained they want a public inquiry into issues not fully explored in the Fatal Accident Inquiry which was completed in 1991 or in the criminal trial which ended yesterday.
Most crucially, they want the failure of the intelligence services and the aviation authorities to stop the bomb getting on board to come under the spotlight.
Several bomb warnings were circulating at the time of the disaster including the so-called 'Toshiba warning' which advised that a bomb hidden inside a radio cassette recorder could be smuggled on to a plane. The bomb which blew up the Pan Am flight was hidden inside a Toshiba radio cassette recorder.
Previous calls for a public inquiry have been rejected on the grounds that such a move would prejudice the long-awaited criminal trial. Now that the trial is finally over, the families will argue that there are no grounds for rejecting a public inquiry.
Scotland's top law officer said today that insufficient evidence exists at this time for more prosecutions over the Lockerbie bombing. Colin Boyd QC, the Lord Advocate, added that it is clear that the man convicted yesterday for the outrage was not acting alone.
Following the announcement of the verdict yesterday, Al-Amin Khalifah Fhimah, Megrahi's co-accused who was acquitted, left the court at Camp Zeist, a former US military base in the Netherlands, a free man.
Taken to a safe house last night, he was expected to leave the Netherlands for home today. The time and place of his departure are closely guarded secrets. Megrahi remained in the specially built prison where he and Fhimah had been held since Tripoli handed them over in April 1999.
An official source said Megrahi's mother had been taken to a Tripoli hospital after collapsing, overwhelmed by news that her son had been jailed for life.
An appeal would be heard at Camp Zeist, except in the highly unlikely event Megrahi chose not to be present - in which case it would be held in the Scottish capital, Edinburgh.
And under the terms of the groundbreaking deal under which the Libyans were brought for trial, Megrahi stays at the camp until the entire legal process is complete.
Any appeal would take months to get under way, legal experts say. There is no automatic right of appeal in Scottish law, and that alone complicates and delays the process significantly.
Sunday, 7 June 2015
Downing Street disinformation
The UK Government has published details of a deal struck with Libya on prisoner exchange, which it insists does not cover the Lockerbie bomber's case.
Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond had voiced concern at Holyrood that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi could be transferred back to a jail in Libya.
A spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair said no deal had been signed over the future of al-Megrahi. (...)
The memorandum of understanding with Libya was signed last week by Mr Blair during a trip to the country. It was created on 29 May.
It states that the two sides will shortly "commence negotiations" on prisoner transfer, extradition and mutual assistance in criminal law, with a final deal signed within 12 months.
It will be based on a "model agreement" that, according to the document, has already been hammered out.
Mr Salmond had demanded clarification from the UK Government about al-Megrahi's case and made an emergency statement at Holyrood on Thursday.
He said that "at no stage" was the Scottish government made aware of the memorandum, despite the deal being struck on 29 May.
Addressing MSPs, he said: "I have today written to the prime minister expressing my concern that it was felt appropriate for the UK government to sign such a memorandum on matters clearly devolved to Scotland, without any opportunity for this government and indeed this parliament to contribute." (...)
He added that while the Scottish Executive supported the UK Government's desire for better relations with Libya, the lack of consultation with Holyrood over the memorandum was "clearly unacceptable".
"This government is determined that decisions on any individual case will continue to be made following the due process of Scots law," the first minister said.
A Downing Street statement said: "There is a legal process currently under way in Scotland reviewing this case which is not expected to conclude until later this summer.
"Given that, it is totally wrong to suggest the we have reached any agreement with the Libyan Government in this case.
"The memorandum of understanding agreed with the Libyan Government last week does not cover this case." (...)
Opposition politicians in Scotland condemned the lack of consultation with the Scottish government.
Labour leader Jack McConnell said: "As former first minister I would have expected and demanded no less than prior consultation on such a memorandum.
"Scottish ministers, as far as I understand the letter of the law, have an absolute veto over prison transfers. I want to know if this memorandum contradicts that in any way."
It was on this date in 2007 that the “deal in the desert” was concluded between Prime Minister Tony Blair and Colonel Gaddafi at a meeting in Sirte. This was embodied in a “memorandum of understanding” that provided, amongst other things, for a prisoner transfer agreement to be drawn up. In later years UK Government ministers, particularly Justice Secretary Jack Straw, sought to argue either (i) that the prisoner transfer element of the deal was not intended to apply to Abdelbaset Megrahi or (ii) that if it was intended to cover him, all parties appreciated that the decision on transfer would be one for the Scottish Government not the UK Government. Here is what I wrote about that on this blog:
According to Jack Straw "the Libyans understood that the discretion in respect of any PTA application rested with the Scottish Executive." This is not so. In meetings that I had with Libyan officials at the highest level shortly after the "deal in the desert" it was abundantly clear that the Libyans believed that the UK Government could order the transfer of Mr Megrahi and that they were prepared to do so. When I told them that the relevant powers rested with the Scottish -- not the UK -- Government, they simply did not believe me. When they eventually realised that I had been correct, their anger and disgust with the UK Government was palpable. As I have said elsewhere:
"The memorandum of understanding regarding prisoner transfer that Tony Blair entered into in the course of the "deal in the desert" in May 2007, and which paved the way for the formal prisoner transfer agreement, was intended by both sides to lead to the rapid return of Mr Megrahi to his homeland. This was the clear understanding of Libyan officials involved in the negotiations and to whom I have spoken.
"It was only after the memorandum of understanding was concluded that [it belatedly sunk in] that the decision on repatriation of this particular prisoner was a matter not for Westminster and Whitehall but for the devolved Scottish Government in Edinburgh, and that government had just come into the hands of the Scottish National Party and so could no longer be expected supinely to follow the UK Labour Government's wishes. That was when the understanding between the UK Government and the Libyan Government started to unravel, to the considerable annoyance and distress of the Libyans, who had been led to believe that repatriation under the PTA was only months away.
“Among the Libyan officials with whom I discussed this matter at the time were Abdulati al-Obeidi, Moussa Koussa and Abdel Rahman Shalgam.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)