[An article in today's edition of The Scotsman contains the following:]
Scottish voters have offered their backing for a controversial Labour election policy to jail all those convicted of carrying a knife, a Scotsman poll has revealed.
The poll, showing over 50 per cent approval for mandatory sentences for knife possession, came on the first day of Labour's fightback, which saw shadow chancellor Ed Balls drafted in to Scotland to help revive Iain Gray's faltering campaign.
Mr Balls also criticised the SNP government's release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi as "wrong" on the same day as the Scotsman/YouGov poll showed more than half of all Scots wanted him to remain in jail. (...)
Meanwhile, the same Scotsman/YouGov poll showed that 54 per cent said that the justice secretary had made the "wrong decision" to return the bomber to Libya, while 35 per cent backed the SNP minister's decision.
There were 12 per cent of voters undecided over the decision, which led to a recall of the Scottish Parliament during recess and sparked a diplomatic row with the US.
The latest poll revealed a hardening of opposition to the release of Megrahi's since the decision in August 2009, when 43 per cent of those polled approved of Mr MacAskill's decision, with 51 per cent against and 6 per cent undecided.
Mr Balls said he opposed Megrahi's release. He added: "Everyone has their own view. Personally I thought it was wrong to release Megrahi."
A spokesman for the justice secretary said that Mr MacAskill had made the decision to release Megrahi on the "precepts of Scots Law".
[The following is a paragraph from a column in today's edition of The Herald by Ruth Wishart:]
Some argue the Megrahi affair has damaged Kenny McAskill and made him vulnerable at justice, but many Scots applauded that release, and, in the context of a four-year term, he’s won over a lot of sceptics – not least backstage within the civil service. In fact, although some relationships have been rockier than others, the Scottish civil service has not been unhappy with the calibre of the outgoing ministerial team.
Wednesday, 27 April 2011
Tuesday, 26 April 2011
Clearer guidelines needed on medical advice on prisoners
[An article published yesterday evening on the website of the Financial Times reads in part:]
One of the doctors whose expert opinion helped trigger the compassionate release of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi has backed calls for clearer guidelines over medical advice on prisoners.
Karol Sikora, one of six doctors examining Mr Megrahi who argued that he had only three months to live, said he had been hired by Libyan officials to give a view on the prisoner’s life expectancy, but did not realise it would be used to help support early release. [RB: May I take leave to express the strongest possible scepticism?] (...)
The final recommendation came from the prison doctor, not external experts, said Dr Sikora, a former professor of cancer medicine at Imperial College London. He said he had seen Mr Megrahi only once, but had talked to his physician. “No expert has the natural history of the disease,” he said. “It’s like a still of a ballet dancer: it doesn’t give the whole picture.”
He thought Mr Megrahi might well have died within three months had he remained in his Scottish jail, where he was not being given cancer medication. In Libya, he would have benefited from psychological support and was likely to have had access to the latest drugs.
Dr Sikora added his weight to calls to extend the time for compassionate release to one year before estimated death, arguing that the high costs of treatment placed a burden on the prison service and that handling security for inmates who needed to be transferred to hospital was highly complex.
Anyone wanting certainty in a diagnosis of how long a prisoner had to live would have to reduce the period to closer to a month, he said.
One of the doctors whose expert opinion helped trigger the compassionate release of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi has backed calls for clearer guidelines over medical advice on prisoners.
Karol Sikora, one of six doctors examining Mr Megrahi who argued that he had only three months to live, said he had been hired by Libyan officials to give a view on the prisoner’s life expectancy, but did not realise it would be used to help support early release. [RB: May I take leave to express the strongest possible scepticism?] (...)
The final recommendation came from the prison doctor, not external experts, said Dr Sikora, a former professor of cancer medicine at Imperial College London. He said he had seen Mr Megrahi only once, but had talked to his physician. “No expert has the natural history of the disease,” he said. “It’s like a still of a ballet dancer: it doesn’t give the whole picture.”
He thought Mr Megrahi might well have died within three months had he remained in his Scottish jail, where he was not being given cancer medication. In Libya, he would have benefited from psychological support and was likely to have had access to the latest drugs.
Dr Sikora added his weight to calls to extend the time for compassionate release to one year before estimated death, arguing that the high costs of treatment placed a burden on the prison service and that handling security for inmates who needed to be transferred to hospital was highly complex.
Anyone wanting certainty in a diagnosis of how long a prisoner had to live would have to reduce the period to closer to a month, he said.
Monday, 25 April 2011
British squeeze "rebel council" leaders in secret deals for more cash
[This is the headline over an article published yesterday on the Libyan government-supporting Mathaba news agency website. It reads in part:]
The rebel administration based out of Benghazi has said that it signed an apology for "the Gaddafi regime's role in IRA attacks and the Lockerbie bombing under pressure from the British government", and that the document is the result of "misunderstanding".
Asked to explain how it can be a "misunderstanding" to sign such a "monstrous document" sources said that it was not meant to become public and that the rebels were anxious to do anything they were told by the British, in order to have their support.
After initially denying that the document even existed, the rebels' governing "revolutionary council" acknowledged that its chairman, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, had indeed signed an apology on behalf of the entire Libyan people (!) for "Gaddafi's provision of semtex used in IRA bombings and for the blowing up of the Pan Am flight in 1988." It also promised compensation to the tune of $10 million for every IRA victim.
This is the same sum of money as paid in a previous Lockerbie arrangement in exchange for relations with the USA, for each of the American families who lost a family member on Pan Am Flight 103 (...)
In an attempt to explain away the document after it had become public, the Libyan rebels agreed with the British to claim its signing was the result of "division and confusion over the declaration", and even to blame it on "a translation mix-up", with council officials adding that "the issue of the Libyan government's responsibility for attacks in the UK came up only because it was pressed on the revolutionary administration by the British."
Libyan Rebel Council officials privately said that the British Foreign Office pressed Jalil to invite a British lawyer, Jason McCue, head of the Libya Victims Initiative, to Benghazi. McCue arrived saying that he was seeking an "unequivocal apology" in the name of the Libyan people and $10m compensation for each death in IRA attacks. All of his demands were met by Jalil.
Weeks earlier Jalil had also been quick to tell the European media, in the first days of the uprising when he resigned as Justice Minister of Libya and joined the rebel coalition, that he "knew Qaddafi was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing", something which initially caused derision among observers of the Lockerbie Trial who have established beyond any doubt the innocence of Libya.
The British were under immense pressure to compensate the wrongly convicted Libyan of the bombing, and this was one of the reasons which pushed their hand to finally attempt to overthrow the Libyan leadership, along with the absence of a central bank in Libya, the gigantic projects to develop Africa's infrastructure, health, communications and educational establishments, water, and oil.
Council "officials" said that they regarded McCue as working with a team of British diplomats in Benghazi, led by the Britain's ambassador to Rome, Christopher Prentice. Prentice has declined to talk to the press. A council "spokesman", Essam Gheriani, said that Jalil had had "little choice but to sign as part of the rebel administration's attempts to win diplomatic recognition and gain access to desperately needed funds frozen overseas."
Britain is holding additionally holding about £100,000,000 in Libyan currency seized from a ship that they have held as "candy" to be released to the rebel administration, which is desperate for funds to meet next month's civil service pay roll as well as for imports of food.
[The same website has also re-published John Pilger's September 2009 article The trial of the "Lockerbie bomber" was worse than a travesty of justice: evidence that never came to court proves his innocence.
A lengthy Associated Press news agency profile of the town of Lockerbie and its reaction to current events in Libya headlined "Lockerbie shuns limelight as Libya unravels" can be read here.]
The rebel administration based out of Benghazi has said that it signed an apology for "the Gaddafi regime's role in IRA attacks and the Lockerbie bombing under pressure from the British government", and that the document is the result of "misunderstanding".
Asked to explain how it can be a "misunderstanding" to sign such a "monstrous document" sources said that it was not meant to become public and that the rebels were anxious to do anything they were told by the British, in order to have their support.
After initially denying that the document even existed, the rebels' governing "revolutionary council" acknowledged that its chairman, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, had indeed signed an apology on behalf of the entire Libyan people (!) for "Gaddafi's provision of semtex used in IRA bombings and for the blowing up of the Pan Am flight in 1988." It also promised compensation to the tune of $10 million for every IRA victim.
This is the same sum of money as paid in a previous Lockerbie arrangement in exchange for relations with the USA, for each of the American families who lost a family member on Pan Am Flight 103 (...)
In an attempt to explain away the document after it had become public, the Libyan rebels agreed with the British to claim its signing was the result of "division and confusion over the declaration", and even to blame it on "a translation mix-up", with council officials adding that "the issue of the Libyan government's responsibility for attacks in the UK came up only because it was pressed on the revolutionary administration by the British."
Libyan Rebel Council officials privately said that the British Foreign Office pressed Jalil to invite a British lawyer, Jason McCue, head of the Libya Victims Initiative, to Benghazi. McCue arrived saying that he was seeking an "unequivocal apology" in the name of the Libyan people and $10m compensation for each death in IRA attacks. All of his demands were met by Jalil.
Weeks earlier Jalil had also been quick to tell the European media, in the first days of the uprising when he resigned as Justice Minister of Libya and joined the rebel coalition, that he "knew Qaddafi was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing", something which initially caused derision among observers of the Lockerbie Trial who have established beyond any doubt the innocence of Libya.
The British were under immense pressure to compensate the wrongly convicted Libyan of the bombing, and this was one of the reasons which pushed their hand to finally attempt to overthrow the Libyan leadership, along with the absence of a central bank in Libya, the gigantic projects to develop Africa's infrastructure, health, communications and educational establishments, water, and oil.
Council "officials" said that they regarded McCue as working with a team of British diplomats in Benghazi, led by the Britain's ambassador to Rome, Christopher Prentice. Prentice has declined to talk to the press. A council "spokesman", Essam Gheriani, said that Jalil had had "little choice but to sign as part of the rebel administration's attempts to win diplomatic recognition and gain access to desperately needed funds frozen overseas."
Britain is holding additionally holding about £100,000,000 in Libyan currency seized from a ship that they have held as "candy" to be released to the rebel administration, which is desperate for funds to meet next month's civil service pay roll as well as for imports of food.
[The same website has also re-published John Pilger's September 2009 article The trial of the "Lockerbie bomber" was worse than a travesty of justice: evidence that never came to court proves his innocence.
A lengthy Associated Press news agency profile of the town of Lockerbie and its reaction to current events in Libya headlined "Lockerbie shuns limelight as Libya unravels" can be read here.]
Friday, 22 April 2011
It’s looking black for Gray as Salmond leaps ahead
[This is the headline over a column in today's edition of The Herald by political commentator (and Rector of my alma mater, the University of Edinburgh) Iain Macwhirter. It reads in part:]
That old cliché about a week being a long time in politics has never been truer than in this Scottish election campaign.
This time last week, the poll of polls still indicated that Iain Gray [Scottish Labour Party leader] was on course for Bute House. Commentators were picking holes in the SNP’s election manifesto, with its fantasy forecasts for green energy.
Now, suddenly, Super Soaraway Salmond is a slam dunk for First Minister. The Sun is already saying it’s them wot won it. Changed days for the tabloid that, on polling day in May 2007, ran a hangman’s noose on its front page as a warning to Scots about the consequences of voting SNP. (...)
If there is a criticism of the SNP’s election campaign, which has gone like clockwork so far, it’s that the manifesto has landed them with a lot of unnecessary hostages to fortune.
But there’s no doubt the SNP have used this extended election campaign to maximum advantage. The latest Ipsos/Mori poll yesterday, showed the Nationalists with a 10 point lead over Labour in both the constituency and list votes.
That may be only one poll, but it follows the YouGov survey at the weekend which showed the SNP pulling ahead on the crucial constituency vote.
More importantly, it chimes with an unmistakable mood in the constituencies. (...)
For most of the last 18 months, Labour had a stable five to 10 point lead over the Nationalists. Polls tend to narrow during an election, but it is rare for such an established electoral trend to be reversed during a campaign, let alone in seven days. (...)
The SNP’s lead policy, independence, is unpopular in Scotland, but no one seems to take it seriously any more. The Megrahi affair was a non starter for Labour, and the SNP brushed off claims that its energy policy was a lot of pious greenwash. (...)
Of course there are still two weeks to go, and anything could happen. Iain Gray might locate his mojo. Perhaps the royal wedding will provoke an outbreak of sentimental unionism, or Mr Salmond will condemn the UN bombing in Libya. But the lights are fading in the Labour camp. They tried to fight a 1980s campaign in 2011, and they are nearly out of time.
[Because of a busy Easter long weekend at Gannaga Lodge, it is unlikely that I shall be in a position to make further posts on this blog before Wednesday 27 April.]
That old cliché about a week being a long time in politics has never been truer than in this Scottish election campaign.
This time last week, the poll of polls still indicated that Iain Gray [Scottish Labour Party leader] was on course for Bute House. Commentators were picking holes in the SNP’s election manifesto, with its fantasy forecasts for green energy.
Now, suddenly, Super Soaraway Salmond is a slam dunk for First Minister. The Sun is already saying it’s them wot won it. Changed days for the tabloid that, on polling day in May 2007, ran a hangman’s noose on its front page as a warning to Scots about the consequences of voting SNP. (...)
If there is a criticism of the SNP’s election campaign, which has gone like clockwork so far, it’s that the manifesto has landed them with a lot of unnecessary hostages to fortune.
But there’s no doubt the SNP have used this extended election campaign to maximum advantage. The latest Ipsos/Mori poll yesterday, showed the Nationalists with a 10 point lead over Labour in both the constituency and list votes.
That may be only one poll, but it follows the YouGov survey at the weekend which showed the SNP pulling ahead on the crucial constituency vote.
More importantly, it chimes with an unmistakable mood in the constituencies. (...)
For most of the last 18 months, Labour had a stable five to 10 point lead over the Nationalists. Polls tend to narrow during an election, but it is rare for such an established electoral trend to be reversed during a campaign, let alone in seven days. (...)
The SNP’s lead policy, independence, is unpopular in Scotland, but no one seems to take it seriously any more. The Megrahi affair was a non starter for Labour, and the SNP brushed off claims that its energy policy was a lot of pious greenwash. (...)
Of course there are still two weeks to go, and anything could happen. Iain Gray might locate his mojo. Perhaps the royal wedding will provoke an outbreak of sentimental unionism, or Mr Salmond will condemn the UN bombing in Libya. But the lights are fading in the Labour camp. They tried to fight a 1980s campaign in 2011, and they are nearly out of time.
[Because of a busy Easter long weekend at Gannaga Lodge, it is unlikely that I shall be in a position to make further posts on this blog before Wednesday 27 April.]
Thursday, 21 April 2011
Kenny MacAskill's re-election prospects
[An Evening News report published today on The Scotsman website profiles the Scottish Parliament election contest in Edinburgh East, won in 2007 by SNP Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill. It reads in part:]
Two high-profile politicians are battling it out for votes in Edinburgh's most closely-fought seat. The SNP's Kenny MacAskill and Labour's Ewan Aitken are both seen as hard workers with a track record and they probably agree on more than either cares to admit.
Mr MacAskill won the seat from Labour last time with a majority of more than 1000. Projections based on boundary changes now suggest Labour should win by more than 500. But the signs are this will be a close finish.
A Labour insider says there is now only a small pool of undecided voters, with most already clear about who they will back, and the Conservative and Liberal Democrats will get a tiny number of votes. He says: "It's as clear a two-horse race as you could possibly imagine." (...)
Mr MacAskill's most controversial decision as Justice Secretary for the past four years was the release on compassionate grounds of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi. It's an issue Labour has made great play of ever since, so one might have expected it to feature in the party's campaign to win back Mr MacAskill's constituency.
But no.
In fact, Cllr Aitken basically agrees with the decision Mr MacAskill made and confines any criticism to the way it was handled. Asked whether it's an issue, he says: "It's not a big deal. We rarely get it on the doorsteps. It would be wrong to say it's not an issue in Scottish political life, but in the battle for Edinburgh Eastern it's not high on the agenda."
Cllr Aitken says he believes the principle of compassion cannot be limited "even for someone who has committed such a heinous crime". But he adds: "There are hard questions to be asked about whether the process was followed through properly."
[The same newspaper has a report headlined SNP races to big poll lead on the latest Ipsos Mori opinion poll showing the SNP well in the lead nation-wide in both the constituency and regional vote.]
Two high-profile politicians are battling it out for votes in Edinburgh's most closely-fought seat. The SNP's Kenny MacAskill and Labour's Ewan Aitken are both seen as hard workers with a track record and they probably agree on more than either cares to admit.
Mr MacAskill won the seat from Labour last time with a majority of more than 1000. Projections based on boundary changes now suggest Labour should win by more than 500. But the signs are this will be a close finish.
A Labour insider says there is now only a small pool of undecided voters, with most already clear about who they will back, and the Conservative and Liberal Democrats will get a tiny number of votes. He says: "It's as clear a two-horse race as you could possibly imagine." (...)
Mr MacAskill's most controversial decision as Justice Secretary for the past four years was the release on compassionate grounds of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi. It's an issue Labour has made great play of ever since, so one might have expected it to feature in the party's campaign to win back Mr MacAskill's constituency.
But no.
In fact, Cllr Aitken basically agrees with the decision Mr MacAskill made and confines any criticism to the way it was handled. Asked whether it's an issue, he says: "It's not a big deal. We rarely get it on the doorsteps. It would be wrong to say it's not an issue in Scottish political life, but in the battle for Edinburgh Eastern it's not high on the agenda."
Cllr Aitken says he believes the principle of compassion cannot be limited "even for someone who has committed such a heinous crime". But he adds: "There are hard questions to be asked about whether the process was followed through properly."
[The same newspaper has a report headlined SNP races to big poll lead on the latest Ipsos Mori opinion poll showing the SNP well in the lead nation-wide in both the constituency and regional vote.]
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Libya foreign minister says free elections could be held
[This is the headline over a report published today on The Guardian website. Abdul Ati al-Obeidi was instrumental over the years in seeking a solution to the Lockerbie impasse and, latterly, in seeking repatriation of Abdelbaset Megrahi. From 1993 onwards (when I first became involved) he was chairman of the Libyan Government's Lockerbie committee. For a flavour of his involvement since 2007, type "Obeidi" into this blog's search facility. The article reads in part:]
Libya could hold free elections, supervised by the United Nations, within six months of the end of the conflict engulfing the country, its foreign minister has told The Guardian.
Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, who took over from Moussa Koussa after his defection from Libya last month, said the regime was prepared to consider an interim national government before elections could be held. A six-month period had been discussed, he said.
Obeidi said discussions about reform included "whether the Leader [Muammar Gaddafi] should stay and in what role, and whether he should retire". Gaddafi's future has become a pivotal issue between the regime and the opposition, which has demanded his departure.
Obeidi said: "Everything will be on the table."
The minister struck a notably conciliatory tone when speaking in his Tripoli office to The Guardian, the BBC, ITN and the Washington Post. Asked about how diplomatic efforts could bridge the gulf between the Libyan government and the opposition, he said: "It is not a case of it going our way or their way, it's a case of how we can sit together with our brothers."
The international community must accept that Libya's future should be for Libyans alone to decide. "The US, Britain and France – sometimes those countries contradict themselves. They talk about democracy but when it comes to Libya, they say he [Gaddafi] should leave. It should be up to the Libyan people. This should not be dictated from any other head of state. It is against the principle of democracy." (...)
Obeidi accused western countries of standing in the way of a peace deal along the lines of the AU's proposal. "What's stopping it? Britain, France and to a certain extent the US are stopping it by continuing bombardment, arming the other side and making them more defiant."
The AU plan includes an immediate ceasefire, the delivery of humanitarian aid, the protection of foreign nationals in Libya, and dialogue between Libyan parties on the establishment of a transition period towards political reform.
Obeidi insisted that the Libyan government was ready to negotiate a ceasefire, involving all parties including Nato and monitored by international observers. "If there is a real ceasefire and these bombs stop, we could have a real dialogue among Libyans. It cannot be done with what is going on now."
The Libya government had been accused of not being serious about a ceasefire, he said. "This is not true." But, he added, a ceasefire needed a "mutual understanding and a mediator".
If Nato stopped its air strikes, Libyans would be able to resolve their differences. "We are all Libyans, their [the rebels'] blood is Libyan." His conciliatory tone towards the opposition was in marked contrast to the belligerence shown by other government officials who routinely speak of the rebels as "armed gangs" and "terrorists".
But, he said, the UK and France were impeding progress towards a ceasefire by offering military assistance to the rebels. The Anglo-French agreement to send a team of military advisers to Benghazi would "prolong the confrontation, there is no doubt about that".
"The more the west gives arms, the more they will plant hatred. We do not want to be another Iraq or Somalia. The west could advise the other side to listen to common sense and study the peace initiatives."
A ceasefire, Obeidi said, was "the only way to give peace a chance. The situation for sure is not so bright now. But I think we can have a light at the end of the tunnel."
[In an article in The Telegraph headlined In Libya and London, we’re getting into a frightful mess, Con Coughlin says:]
It is certainly hard to divine any coherent thinking in its latest decision to send a team of British military advisers to assist the Libyan rebels. After all, Mr Cameron and all the other ministers, officials and officers who sit on the NSC [National Security Council] understand as well as anyone that one of the primary objectives of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorised the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya, was to persuade all the combatants to observe a ceasefire.
By sending British officers to Benghazi, the NSC risks undermining the very UN resolution that the Government, only a few weeks ago, fought so hard to secure. For these officers are not flying to Libya with the intention of arranging a ceasefire. They are going to turn the rebels into an effective fighting force that is capable of removing Gaddafi from power – which, of course, is what the Government really wants.
That is certainly how their arrival is being viewed by Gaddafi loyalists. Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, the Libyan foreign minister, yesterday said, with some justification, that Britain’s tangible display of support for the rebels would harm the prospects for peace in Libya. But, then, the NSC’s decision to undertake a marked escalation in Britain’s involvement in the Libyan conflict reflects the central paradox that lies at the heart of the Government’s approach. The UN resolution authorises military action to be undertaken to protect innocent civilians, with a view to establishing a lasting ceasefire. But from the outset, Mr Cameron, together with Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama, has insisted that the ultimate objective is to bring about the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime. Consequently, the NSC is constantly having to weigh up the conflicting requirements of supporting the UN’s humanitarian mission with Downing Street’s more ambitious agenda.
Libya could hold free elections, supervised by the United Nations, within six months of the end of the conflict engulfing the country, its foreign minister has told The Guardian.
Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, who took over from Moussa Koussa after his defection from Libya last month, said the regime was prepared to consider an interim national government before elections could be held. A six-month period had been discussed, he said.
Obeidi said discussions about reform included "whether the Leader [Muammar Gaddafi] should stay and in what role, and whether he should retire". Gaddafi's future has become a pivotal issue between the regime and the opposition, which has demanded his departure.
Obeidi said: "Everything will be on the table."
The minister struck a notably conciliatory tone when speaking in his Tripoli office to The Guardian, the BBC, ITN and the Washington Post. Asked about how diplomatic efforts could bridge the gulf between the Libyan government and the opposition, he said: "It is not a case of it going our way or their way, it's a case of how we can sit together with our brothers."
The international community must accept that Libya's future should be for Libyans alone to decide. "The US, Britain and France – sometimes those countries contradict themselves. They talk about democracy but when it comes to Libya, they say he [Gaddafi] should leave. It should be up to the Libyan people. This should not be dictated from any other head of state. It is against the principle of democracy." (...)
Obeidi accused western countries of standing in the way of a peace deal along the lines of the AU's proposal. "What's stopping it? Britain, France and to a certain extent the US are stopping it by continuing bombardment, arming the other side and making them more defiant."
The AU plan includes an immediate ceasefire, the delivery of humanitarian aid, the protection of foreign nationals in Libya, and dialogue between Libyan parties on the establishment of a transition period towards political reform.
Obeidi insisted that the Libyan government was ready to negotiate a ceasefire, involving all parties including Nato and monitored by international observers. "If there is a real ceasefire and these bombs stop, we could have a real dialogue among Libyans. It cannot be done with what is going on now."
The Libya government had been accused of not being serious about a ceasefire, he said. "This is not true." But, he added, a ceasefire needed a "mutual understanding and a mediator".
If Nato stopped its air strikes, Libyans would be able to resolve their differences. "We are all Libyans, their [the rebels'] blood is Libyan." His conciliatory tone towards the opposition was in marked contrast to the belligerence shown by other government officials who routinely speak of the rebels as "armed gangs" and "terrorists".
But, he said, the UK and France were impeding progress towards a ceasefire by offering military assistance to the rebels. The Anglo-French agreement to send a team of military advisers to Benghazi would "prolong the confrontation, there is no doubt about that".
"The more the west gives arms, the more they will plant hatred. We do not want to be another Iraq or Somalia. The west could advise the other side to listen to common sense and study the peace initiatives."
A ceasefire, Obeidi said, was "the only way to give peace a chance. The situation for sure is not so bright now. But I think we can have a light at the end of the tunnel."
[In an article in The Telegraph headlined In Libya and London, we’re getting into a frightful mess, Con Coughlin says:]
It is certainly hard to divine any coherent thinking in its latest decision to send a team of British military advisers to assist the Libyan rebels. After all, Mr Cameron and all the other ministers, officials and officers who sit on the NSC [National Security Council] understand as well as anyone that one of the primary objectives of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorised the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya, was to persuade all the combatants to observe a ceasefire.
By sending British officers to Benghazi, the NSC risks undermining the very UN resolution that the Government, only a few weeks ago, fought so hard to secure. For these officers are not flying to Libya with the intention of arranging a ceasefire. They are going to turn the rebels into an effective fighting force that is capable of removing Gaddafi from power – which, of course, is what the Government really wants.
That is certainly how their arrival is being viewed by Gaddafi loyalists. Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, the Libyan foreign minister, yesterday said, with some justification, that Britain’s tangible display of support for the rebels would harm the prospects for peace in Libya. But, then, the NSC’s decision to undertake a marked escalation in Britain’s involvement in the Libyan conflict reflects the central paradox that lies at the heart of the Government’s approach. The UN resolution authorises military action to be undertaken to protect innocent civilians, with a view to establishing a lasting ceasefire. But from the outset, Mr Cameron, together with Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama, has insisted that the ultimate objective is to bring about the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime. Consequently, the NSC is constantly having to weigh up the conflicting requirements of supporting the UN’s humanitarian mission with Downing Street’s more ambitious agenda.
“Bye!”
[This is the sub-heading over a post published yesterday evening on bensix's Back Towards the Locus blog. It reads as follows:]
The Telegraph is shocked – shocked – that Kramer lookalike, Gaddafi stooge and would-be defector Moussa Koussa, having been allowed to leave the country, isn’t willing to return. Why in God’s name would he? Guilty conscience, maybe? Or did he swear upon his Mother’s grave?
They also seem to think it was some kind of tragic error that he wasn’t kept in Britain. If the government (a) thought that he was complicit in Lockerbie or (b) cared one way or the other do you think they’d let him go? I’m not sure Rudolf Hess was allowed to wander off on holiday to the Seychelles.
Elsewhere, Abdel Jalil, the one-time Justice Minister of the beleaguered Colonel and the man who’s now described as leader of the opposition, has been touring Europe. Now, he made his name by claiming he had proof of Gaddafi’s involvement in the Pan Am bombing. Thus far he’s not disclosed it (or, indeed, what form it takes). You’d think the British authorities would want to speak to him, yet I’ve seen indication that they’ve plans to meet. Y’all forgotten Lockerbie? You know, the atrocity that killed hundreds of people, many of them our citizens? (You know, something that you actually based this conflict on?)
If Libyans were behind the bombing – not impossible – this blithe indifference is revolting. It suggests that the authorities are willing to exploit the act but not to seek the truth of it or hunt down those responsible. If they weren’t then this is also true – with the added bonus that we’re being lied to on a rather grander scale. And, though I hate to say it – well, hate to say it yet again – we’ve seen no decent evidence that they were.
[For the first time since 28 February, this blog has today been accessed from within Libya.]
The Telegraph is shocked – shocked – that Kramer lookalike, Gaddafi stooge and would-be defector Moussa Koussa, having been allowed to leave the country, isn’t willing to return. Why in God’s name would he? Guilty conscience, maybe? Or did he swear upon his Mother’s grave?
They also seem to think it was some kind of tragic error that he wasn’t kept in Britain. If the government (a) thought that he was complicit in Lockerbie or (b) cared one way or the other do you think they’d let him go? I’m not sure Rudolf Hess was allowed to wander off on holiday to the Seychelles.
Elsewhere, Abdel Jalil, the one-time Justice Minister of the beleaguered Colonel and the man who’s now described as leader of the opposition, has been touring Europe. Now, he made his name by claiming he had proof of Gaddafi’s involvement in the Pan Am bombing. Thus far he’s not disclosed it (or, indeed, what form it takes). You’d think the British authorities would want to speak to him, yet I’ve seen indication that they’ve plans to meet. Y’all forgotten Lockerbie? You know, the atrocity that killed hundreds of people, many of them our citizens? (You know, something that you actually based this conflict on?)
If Libyans were behind the bombing – not impossible – this blithe indifference is revolting. It suggests that the authorities are willing to exploit the act but not to seek the truth of it or hunt down those responsible. If they weren’t then this is also true – with the added bonus that we’re being lied to on a rather grander scale. And, though I hate to say it – well, hate to say it yet again – we’ve seen no decent evidence that they were.
[For the first time since 28 February, this blog has today been accessed from within Libya.]
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.
Muammar Gaddafi, a man who can fight NATO single-handed
[This is the headline over an article just published on The Voice of Russia website. It reads in part:]
After a month of NATO’s bombing of Libya, the situation has come to a complete deadlock.
Several things are becoming more and more obvious.
First, despite the demolition of about one third of Muammar Gaddafi’s military might and the complete immobilization of his air force, the rebels not only have not gained any substantial ground, but are trying desperately to keep some of the major cities under their control, like Misurata and Ajdabiya.
Second, despite the supply of arms and ammunition to the rebel forces by some Arab countries, the rebels themselves seem to be reluctant to really fight. Posing for TV cameras and shouting out loud that “Tomorrow we will be in Tripoli” is one thing, steady and consistent warfare is completely another.
Third, it has become clear that neither the rebels nor any possible defectors from Gaddafi’s own inner circle can produce a figure capable of becoming the acknowledged national leader. The rebels seem to be happy that Benghazi is relatively safe for the time being, and may well agree to a separation of the country into two. As for defectors, at the very beginning of the NATO operation there was a wave of high-profile defections, but since the former intelligence chief and foreign minister Moussa Koussa defected in March, no other high ranking official has broken ranks with Muammar Gaddafi. More so, Moussa Koussa does not look like an acceptable figure in the eyes of the West due to his involvement as the former intelligence chief in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
Fourth, the UN Resolution 1973 clearly forbids any ground operation by foreign troops in Libya. And until now, both Barack Obama and (less so) the West European leaders of NATO countries have shown their agreement to these terms of the resolution. (...)
Fifth, and probably most important, is the fact that the majority of Libyans still support their leader. Yes, Gaddafi is a dictator who committed lots of crimes and atrocities against his own population, and was clearly involved in the Lockerbie bombing. But that does not eliminate the fact that he still attracts mass rallies with people ready to die for him and to protect him with their own bodies from NATO bombs.
All this makes it virtually impossible to attain the main goal of the NATO operation – that is toppling Gaddafi, if events continue evolving the way they are evolving now.
Therefore, the West is desperately looking for a way out. As The New York Times reported recently, the US and its allies are looking for a country (preferably, in Africa) that could accommodate Muammar Gaddafi in case of his voluntary resignation. The task is not a simple one. After (or, rather, if) Gaddafi steps down, he will be inevitably charged for his involvement in Lockerbie as well as for atrocities against the Libyan population. [RB: As regards Lockerbie, is this really so? Click here.] Therefore, the country which could give him refuge should not be a signatory to international treaties obliging it to extradite people charged with crimes against humanity by international judicial bodies. (...)
So, the deadlock is likely to remain. Gaddafi is not going to step down, and NATO seems unable to achieve its aims without such a step.
It is interesting to see how one man can almost single-handedly oppose the mightiest military and political machine in today’s world – that is NATO.
[A report just published on the BBC News website contains the following:]
British military officers will be sent to Libya to advise rebels fighting Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's forces, the UK government has said.
Foreign Secretary William Hague said the group would be deployed to the opposition stronghold of Benghazi.
The BBC understands that 10 UK officers will provide logistics and intelligence training, part of a joint British and French operation.
Mr Hague stressed that the officers would not be involved in any fighting.
When the UN Security Council passed its resolution on Libya in March, foreign military action on the ground was specifically ruled out.
[A Press Association news agency report contains the following:]
Europe is ready to send an armed force to Libya to ensure delivery of humanitarian aid.
The proposal by the European Union to deploy the armed force to escort humanitarian aid drew an immediate warning from Muammar Gaddafi's regime that this would be tantamount to a military operation. France's foreign minister also said he was hostile to such a deployment.
The new tactics seem to have been spurred by the continued deadlock after two months of fighting between Gaddafi's army and rebel forces. There has also been growing international concern over the fate of the besieged rebel city of Misrata, where Nato has been unable to halt heavy shelling by Gaddafi's forces with airstrikes alone. (...)
The EU could deploy an armed force to Libya within days to ensure the delivery of humanitarian supplies, said a spokesman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.
The EU has no standing army, and the personnel and equipment would have be donated by member countries.
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said he was "totally hostile to the deployment of troops on the ground."
[The involvement of the USA in the Vietnam war started with "military advisers". Harold Wilson was astute enough to keep the UK out of that debacle. Would that David Cameron had half his nous!
Sir Menzies Campbell QC MP is quoted in a report in The Telegraph making the same point, without acknowledgment, of course:]
The British announcement drew warnings from MPs that Britain’s mission in Libya has now changed significantly from the campaign of humanitarian airstrikes approved by the House of Commons last month.
Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Liberal Democrat leader, warned that Britain risks becoming embroiled in a military quagmire in Libya.
He said: “It must not be seen as a first instalment of further military deployment. Vietnam began with an American president sending military advisers. We must proceed with caution.”
[An editorial in Wednesday's edition of The Scotsman contains the following:]
Sir Menzies Campbell, in expressing his misgivings over the latest development, has cited the example of US involvement in Vietnam. That analogy may be rather more disturbing on examination than he intended. At least the Americans had some idea of the regime they were seeking to defend. In the Libyan conflict we do not know as much as we should about the nature of the opposition to Col Gaddafi, the forces that comprise it, what its political programme might be and what assurance it has given, if any, to the establishment of an open democratic state were it to gain power.
Given the continuing threat to civilians in Libya, there should be no doubt over Britain's commitment to provide the maximum humanitarian assistance, medical aid and to supply, as the French are doing, offshore logistical support. However, UN resolution 1973 authorised countries to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form. The deployment of military advisers, albeit with assurances that their role will be strictly humanitarian, stretches this to the limit. It should not pave the way to an involvement over and above that allowable under the UN resolution and the sanction that parliament has given.
After a month of NATO’s bombing of Libya, the situation has come to a complete deadlock.
Several things are becoming more and more obvious.
First, despite the demolition of about one third of Muammar Gaddafi’s military might and the complete immobilization of his air force, the rebels not only have not gained any substantial ground, but are trying desperately to keep some of the major cities under their control, like Misurata and Ajdabiya.
Second, despite the supply of arms and ammunition to the rebel forces by some Arab countries, the rebels themselves seem to be reluctant to really fight. Posing for TV cameras and shouting out loud that “Tomorrow we will be in Tripoli” is one thing, steady and consistent warfare is completely another.
Third, it has become clear that neither the rebels nor any possible defectors from Gaddafi’s own inner circle can produce a figure capable of becoming the acknowledged national leader. The rebels seem to be happy that Benghazi is relatively safe for the time being, and may well agree to a separation of the country into two. As for defectors, at the very beginning of the NATO operation there was a wave of high-profile defections, but since the former intelligence chief and foreign minister Moussa Koussa defected in March, no other high ranking official has broken ranks with Muammar Gaddafi. More so, Moussa Koussa does not look like an acceptable figure in the eyes of the West due to his involvement as the former intelligence chief in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
Fourth, the UN Resolution 1973 clearly forbids any ground operation by foreign troops in Libya. And until now, both Barack Obama and (less so) the West European leaders of NATO countries have shown their agreement to these terms of the resolution. (...)
Fifth, and probably most important, is the fact that the majority of Libyans still support their leader. Yes, Gaddafi is a dictator who committed lots of crimes and atrocities against his own population, and was clearly involved in the Lockerbie bombing. But that does not eliminate the fact that he still attracts mass rallies with people ready to die for him and to protect him with their own bodies from NATO bombs.
All this makes it virtually impossible to attain the main goal of the NATO operation – that is toppling Gaddafi, if events continue evolving the way they are evolving now.
Therefore, the West is desperately looking for a way out. As The New York Times reported recently, the US and its allies are looking for a country (preferably, in Africa) that could accommodate Muammar Gaddafi in case of his voluntary resignation. The task is not a simple one. After (or, rather, if) Gaddafi steps down, he will be inevitably charged for his involvement in Lockerbie as well as for atrocities against the Libyan population. [RB: As regards Lockerbie, is this really so? Click here.] Therefore, the country which could give him refuge should not be a signatory to international treaties obliging it to extradite people charged with crimes against humanity by international judicial bodies. (...)
So, the deadlock is likely to remain. Gaddafi is not going to step down, and NATO seems unable to achieve its aims without such a step.
It is interesting to see how one man can almost single-handedly oppose the mightiest military and political machine in today’s world – that is NATO.
[A report just published on the BBC News website contains the following:]
British military officers will be sent to Libya to advise rebels fighting Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's forces, the UK government has said.
Foreign Secretary William Hague said the group would be deployed to the opposition stronghold of Benghazi.
The BBC understands that 10 UK officers will provide logistics and intelligence training, part of a joint British and French operation.
Mr Hague stressed that the officers would not be involved in any fighting.
When the UN Security Council passed its resolution on Libya in March, foreign military action on the ground was specifically ruled out.
[A Press Association news agency report contains the following:]
Europe is ready to send an armed force to Libya to ensure delivery of humanitarian aid.
The proposal by the European Union to deploy the armed force to escort humanitarian aid drew an immediate warning from Muammar Gaddafi's regime that this would be tantamount to a military operation. France's foreign minister also said he was hostile to such a deployment.
The new tactics seem to have been spurred by the continued deadlock after two months of fighting between Gaddafi's army and rebel forces. There has also been growing international concern over the fate of the besieged rebel city of Misrata, where Nato has been unable to halt heavy shelling by Gaddafi's forces with airstrikes alone. (...)
The EU could deploy an armed force to Libya within days to ensure the delivery of humanitarian supplies, said a spokesman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.
The EU has no standing army, and the personnel and equipment would have be donated by member countries.
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said he was "totally hostile to the deployment of troops on the ground."
[The involvement of the USA in the Vietnam war started with "military advisers". Harold Wilson was astute enough to keep the UK out of that debacle. Would that David Cameron had half his nous!
Sir Menzies Campbell QC MP is quoted in a report in The Telegraph making the same point, without acknowledgment, of course:]
The British announcement drew warnings from MPs that Britain’s mission in Libya has now changed significantly from the campaign of humanitarian airstrikes approved by the House of Commons last month.
Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Liberal Democrat leader, warned that Britain risks becoming embroiled in a military quagmire in Libya.
He said: “It must not be seen as a first instalment of further military deployment. Vietnam began with an American president sending military advisers. We must proceed with caution.”
[An editorial in Wednesday's edition of The Scotsman contains the following:]
Sir Menzies Campbell, in expressing his misgivings over the latest development, has cited the example of US involvement in Vietnam. That analogy may be rather more disturbing on examination than he intended. At least the Americans had some idea of the regime they were seeking to defend. In the Libyan conflict we do not know as much as we should about the nature of the opposition to Col Gaddafi, the forces that comprise it, what its political programme might be and what assurance it has given, if any, to the establishment of an open democratic state were it to gain power.
Given the continuing threat to civilians in Libya, there should be no doubt over Britain's commitment to provide the maximum humanitarian assistance, medical aid and to supply, as the French are doing, offshore logistical support. However, UN resolution 1973 authorised countries to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form. The deployment of military advisers, albeit with assurances that their role will be strictly humanitarian, stretches this to the limit. It should not pave the way to an involvement over and above that allowable under the UN resolution and the sanction that parliament has given.
Gaddafi will be allowed to go quietly if it stops the bloodshed
[This is the headline over an article by Alasdair Palmer (based on an article published on 16 April in The Telegraph) published today in the Irish Independent newspaper. It reads as follows:]
'If he had become a professor or a social planner, he would have done very well." Christopher Vanderpool was speaking of Moussa Koussa, whom he taught when the Libyan was a sociology student at Michigan State University in the 1970s.
Instead of becoming a professor, he decided to work for Muammar Gaddafi. He ran Libya's intelligence service for 15 years. He wasn't in charge in 1988, when its agents planted the bomb that killed 271 people at Lockerbie, but he may well have had a hand in organising that dreadful outrage.
It is obviously impossible to head Gaddafi's utterly ruthless intelligence service without having some dreadful crimes on your hands.
Koussa fled to Britain a couple of weeks ago, having decided that Gaddafi had no future. His defection placed the British government in a dilemma. As a faithful servant of Gaddafi, he ought to be held accountable. On the other hand, he played a key role in getting Gaddafi to scrap his nuclear weapons programme -- and now, crucially, he might help to dislodge his former master.
The government, therefore, decided to see what it could get out of him, and to leave him to come and go as he pleased. He has gone, flying off to Qatar -- and he may not return. Many of those who lost relatives in the Lockerbie explosion are, understandably, extremely angry. They say they have been betrayed.
But there is a justification, although not one that will have any force for the relatives. It is that Koussa's ability to help dislodge Gaddafi means the need to ensure he is punished has to give way to the greater good of toppling Libya's tyrant.
The same logic explains why the countries currently bombing Libya are trying to find a way to let Gaddafi leave the country quietly. Gaddafi has committed a lot more crimes than Koussa, and if anyone deserves condign punishment, it is he.
But if trial followed by imprisonment is his only alternative, Gaddafi will carry out his threat to "fight to the last drop of blood" -- and that can only mean catastrophe for Libya. Which is why we will let him get away with everything if only he abandons Libya now. Because the alternative isn't justice -- it's just more bloodshed.
'If he had become a professor or a social planner, he would have done very well." Christopher Vanderpool was speaking of Moussa Koussa, whom he taught when the Libyan was a sociology student at Michigan State University in the 1970s.
Instead of becoming a professor, he decided to work for Muammar Gaddafi. He ran Libya's intelligence service for 15 years. He wasn't in charge in 1988, when its agents planted the bomb that killed 271 people at Lockerbie, but he may well have had a hand in organising that dreadful outrage.
It is obviously impossible to head Gaddafi's utterly ruthless intelligence service without having some dreadful crimes on your hands.
Koussa fled to Britain a couple of weeks ago, having decided that Gaddafi had no future. His defection placed the British government in a dilemma. As a faithful servant of Gaddafi, he ought to be held accountable. On the other hand, he played a key role in getting Gaddafi to scrap his nuclear weapons programme -- and now, crucially, he might help to dislodge his former master.
The government, therefore, decided to see what it could get out of him, and to leave him to come and go as he pleased. He has gone, flying off to Qatar -- and he may not return. Many of those who lost relatives in the Lockerbie explosion are, understandably, extremely angry. They say they have been betrayed.
But there is a justification, although not one that will have any force for the relatives. It is that Koussa's ability to help dislodge Gaddafi means the need to ensure he is punished has to give way to the greater good of toppling Libya's tyrant.
The same logic explains why the countries currently bombing Libya are trying to find a way to let Gaddafi leave the country quietly. Gaddafi has committed a lot more crimes than Koussa, and if anyone deserves condign punishment, it is he.
But if trial followed by imprisonment is his only alternative, Gaddafi will carry out his threat to "fight to the last drop of blood" -- and that can only mean catastrophe for Libya. Which is why we will let him get away with everything if only he abandons Libya now. Because the alternative isn't justice -- it's just more bloodshed.
Monday, 18 April 2011
Zuma gave Gaddafi a call
[This is the headline over a report published today on the South African News 24 website. It reads in part:]
President Jacob Zuma phoned Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi at the weekend, his spokesperson said on Monday, after the collapse of a truce he had brokered with a team of African leaders.
Zuma's spokesperson Zizi Kodwa told AFP that the two leaders spoke after Zuma returned from a Brics emerging markets summit in China, which also includes Russia, India and Brazil.
"The conversation was between the two leaders," Kodwa said. "I can't disclose the conversation between the two leaders."
After the summit on Thursday, the five nations spoke out against using force in Libya and across the Arab world, with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev saying force was not authorised by the United Nations.
Zuma visited Tripoli on April 10 as part of a high-ranking African Union delegation to broker a truce between Gaddafi and rebels, but a peace plan fell through when the rebels insisted the strongman step down.
South Africa voted for the UN resolution authorising the no-fly zone over Libya, while the other four Brics countries abstained.
Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane said South Africa's vote had not emerged as a sore point during the summit in China.
President Jacob Zuma phoned Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi at the weekend, his spokesperson said on Monday, after the collapse of a truce he had brokered with a team of African leaders.
Zuma's spokesperson Zizi Kodwa told AFP that the two leaders spoke after Zuma returned from a Brics emerging markets summit in China, which also includes Russia, India and Brazil.
"The conversation was between the two leaders," Kodwa said. "I can't disclose the conversation between the two leaders."
After the summit on Thursday, the five nations spoke out against using force in Libya and across the Arab world, with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev saying force was not authorised by the United Nations.
Zuma visited Tripoli on April 10 as part of a high-ranking African Union delegation to broker a truce between Gaddafi and rebels, but a peace plan fell through when the rebels insisted the strongman step down.
South Africa voted for the UN resolution authorising the no-fly zone over Libya, while the other four Brics countries abstained.
Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane said South Africa's vote had not emerged as a sore point during the summit in China.
Where is Libya’s Moussa Koussa?
[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.]
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.]
Sunday, 17 April 2011
US and allies seek a refuge for Qaddafi
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of The New York Times. It reads in part:]
The Obama administration has begun seeking a country, most likely in Africa, that might be willing to provide shelter to Col Muammar el-Qaddafi if he were forced out of Libya, even as a new wave of intelligence reports suggest that no rebel leader has emerged as a credible successor to the Libyan dictator.
The intense search for a country to accept Colonel Qaddafi has been conducted quietly by the United States and its allies, even though the Libyan leader has shown defiance in recent days, declaring that he has no intention of yielding to demands that he leave his country, and intensifying his bombardment of the rebel city of Misurata.
The effort is complicated by the likelihood that he would be indicted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988, and atrocities inside Libya.
One possibility, according to three administration officials, is to find a country that is not a signatory to the treaty that requires countries to turn over anyone under indictment for trial by the court, perhaps giving Colonel Qaddafi an incentive to abandon his stronghold in Tripoli.
The move by the United States to find a haven for Colonel Qaddafi may help explain how the White House is trying to enforce President Obama’s declaration that the Libyan leader must leave the country but without violating Mr Obama’s refusal to put troops on the ground.
The United Nations Security Council has authorized military strikes to protect the Libyan population, but not to oust the leadership. But Mr Obama and the leaders of Britain and France, among others, have declared that to be their goals, apart from the military campaign. (...)
About half of the countries in Africa have not signed or ratified the Rome Statute, which requires nations to abide by commands from the international court. (The United States has also not ratified the statute, because of concerns about the potential indictment of its soldiers or intelligence agents.) Italy’s foreign minister, Franco Frattini, suggested late last month that several African countries could offer Colonel Qaddafi a haven, but he did not identify them.
Even though Colonel Qaddafi has had close business dealings with the leaders of countries like Chad, Mali and Zimbabwe, and there have been pro-Qaddafi rallies elsewhere recently across the continent, it was unclear which, if any, nations were emerging as likely candidates to take in Colonel Qaddafi. The African Union has been quietly sounding out potential hosts, but those negotiations have been closely guarded.
[The following is an excerpt from a post on the Wronging Rights blog:]
An article in today's New York Times suggests that efforts to find an exit for Colonel Gaddafi are "complicated by the likelihood that he would be indicted by the International Criminal Court in the Hague for the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988, and atrocities inside Libya."
This is pretty epically incorrect.
Gaddafi may well face charges at the ICC for his regime's violent response to the protests that sparked the current civil war, but he will most certainly not be charged for the bombing of Pan Am 103. The ICC has jurisdiction only over events that occurred after the entry into force of the treaty establishing the court (the Rome Statute), which took place on July 1, 2002. The 1988 Lockerbie bombing is decidedly not subject to the court's jurisdiction.
Any atrocities committed by Gaddafi in Libya between July 1, 2002 and the current crisis are also unlikely to be the subject of an ICC warrant. Libya is not a signatory of the Rome Statute and has therefore not accepted the ICC's jurisdiction over crimes committed on its territory. Consequently, the only way for regime crimes to be tried at the ICC is if the Security Council refers them to the court. Security Council resolution 1970 did just that, but it explicitly limited the scope of the referral to "the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since 15 February 2011."
The Obama administration has begun seeking a country, most likely in Africa, that might be willing to provide shelter to Col Muammar el-Qaddafi if he were forced out of Libya, even as a new wave of intelligence reports suggest that no rebel leader has emerged as a credible successor to the Libyan dictator.
The intense search for a country to accept Colonel Qaddafi has been conducted quietly by the United States and its allies, even though the Libyan leader has shown defiance in recent days, declaring that he has no intention of yielding to demands that he leave his country, and intensifying his bombardment of the rebel city of Misurata.
The effort is complicated by the likelihood that he would be indicted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988, and atrocities inside Libya.
One possibility, according to three administration officials, is to find a country that is not a signatory to the treaty that requires countries to turn over anyone under indictment for trial by the court, perhaps giving Colonel Qaddafi an incentive to abandon his stronghold in Tripoli.
The move by the United States to find a haven for Colonel Qaddafi may help explain how the White House is trying to enforce President Obama’s declaration that the Libyan leader must leave the country but without violating Mr Obama’s refusal to put troops on the ground.
The United Nations Security Council has authorized military strikes to protect the Libyan population, but not to oust the leadership. But Mr Obama and the leaders of Britain and France, among others, have declared that to be their goals, apart from the military campaign. (...)
About half of the countries in Africa have not signed or ratified the Rome Statute, which requires nations to abide by commands from the international court. (The United States has also not ratified the statute, because of concerns about the potential indictment of its soldiers or intelligence agents.) Italy’s foreign minister, Franco Frattini, suggested late last month that several African countries could offer Colonel Qaddafi a haven, but he did not identify them.
Even though Colonel Qaddafi has had close business dealings with the leaders of countries like Chad, Mali and Zimbabwe, and there have been pro-Qaddafi rallies elsewhere recently across the continent, it was unclear which, if any, nations were emerging as likely candidates to take in Colonel Qaddafi. The African Union has been quietly sounding out potential hosts, but those negotiations have been closely guarded.
[The following is an excerpt from a post on the Wronging Rights blog:]
An article in today's New York Times suggests that efforts to find an exit for Colonel Gaddafi are "complicated by the likelihood that he would be indicted by the International Criminal Court in the Hague for the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988, and atrocities inside Libya."
This is pretty epically incorrect.
Gaddafi may well face charges at the ICC for his regime's violent response to the protests that sparked the current civil war, but he will most certainly not be charged for the bombing of Pan Am 103. The ICC has jurisdiction only over events that occurred after the entry into force of the treaty establishing the court (the Rome Statute), which took place on July 1, 2002. The 1988 Lockerbie bombing is decidedly not subject to the court's jurisdiction.
Any atrocities committed by Gaddafi in Libya between July 1, 2002 and the current crisis are also unlikely to be the subject of an ICC warrant. Libya is not a signatory of the Rome Statute and has therefore not accepted the ICC's jurisdiction over crimes committed on its territory. Consequently, the only way for regime crimes to be tried at the ICC is if the Security Council refers them to the court. Security Council resolution 1970 did just that, but it explicitly limited the scope of the referral to "the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since 15 February 2011."
Christine Grahame the candidate
[In the course of a profile of marginal constituencies in the forthcoming Scottish Parliament election, an article in today's edition of the Sunday Herald contains the following:]
But even if [incumbent Liberal Democrat MSP Jeremy Purvis] did not have to contend with these factors, he would still have a bare-knuckle fight on his hands. For the past two elections he has been stalked by Christine Grahame, who through the list system has represented the SNP at Holyrood but who would dearly like to make the constituency her own. Eight years ago Purvis held her at bay with a majority of 538 which in 2007 he increased to 598.
Who knows how things will pan out. Few doubt that the SNP are favourites. Talking to Purvis, he is happy to defend his record while philosophical about the hand fate has dealt him. Little love is lost between him and Grahame. “This is the third time that she’s tried to beat me,” he says. “I’m just worried that if I beat her a third time I’ll have to keep her.” (...)
In this eight-year war of attrition, Grahame, over a cup of Earl Grey in the nearby Eastgate theatre, says she is convinced she now has the upper hand. Lest this be interpreted as arrogance or complacency, she stresses that between now and polling day anything can happen and probably will. Did not Neil Kinnock topple over into the sea? Wasn’t Gordon Brown fatally scuppered because he didn’t have the wit to unclip a microphone?
Grahame recalls that in 2007 some 1400 votes were spoiled. Had they counted she might well have won. Or not, as the case may be. A former teacher and lawyer, who owns two cats and is an “aficionado” of gardening, she rejoices in being dubbed by Alex Salmond “the most non-PC member of the team”. With no desire to be a front-bencher she intends to maintain her maverick, republican persona, as vocal on the subject of wind farms – a sore and divisive issue hereabouts – as she is on al-Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber, whose innocence she advocates.
“I don’t think he’s the guilty man,” she says. “There was insufficient evidence. As my mother used to say he’s not a clean potato. But you wouldn’t frame a clean potato.”
Mention of Megrahi is a reminder of the complexity of elections. Who knows what makes floating voters bob one way or another. It may be a local issue or it may be that they are swayed by the national mood.
But even if [incumbent Liberal Democrat MSP Jeremy Purvis] did not have to contend with these factors, he would still have a bare-knuckle fight on his hands. For the past two elections he has been stalked by Christine Grahame, who through the list system has represented the SNP at Holyrood but who would dearly like to make the constituency her own. Eight years ago Purvis held her at bay with a majority of 538 which in 2007 he increased to 598.
Who knows how things will pan out. Few doubt that the SNP are favourites. Talking to Purvis, he is happy to defend his record while philosophical about the hand fate has dealt him. Little love is lost between him and Grahame. “This is the third time that she’s tried to beat me,” he says. “I’m just worried that if I beat her a third time I’ll have to keep her.” (...)
In this eight-year war of attrition, Grahame, over a cup of Earl Grey in the nearby Eastgate theatre, says she is convinced she now has the upper hand. Lest this be interpreted as arrogance or complacency, she stresses that between now and polling day anything can happen and probably will. Did not Neil Kinnock topple over into the sea? Wasn’t Gordon Brown fatally scuppered because he didn’t have the wit to unclip a microphone?
Grahame recalls that in 2007 some 1400 votes were spoiled. Had they counted she might well have won. Or not, as the case may be. A former teacher and lawyer, who owns two cats and is an “aficionado” of gardening, she rejoices in being dubbed by Alex Salmond “the most non-PC member of the team”. With no desire to be a front-bencher she intends to maintain her maverick, republican persona, as vocal on the subject of wind farms – a sore and divisive issue hereabouts – as she is on al-Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber, whose innocence she advocates.
“I don’t think he’s the guilty man,” she says. “There was insufficient evidence. As my mother used to say he’s not a clean potato. But you wouldn’t frame a clean potato.”
Mention of Megrahi is a reminder of the complexity of elections. Who knows what makes floating voters bob one way or another. It may be a local issue or it may be that they are swayed by the national mood.
Saturday, 16 April 2011
US official meets with Gadhafi's rogue Foreign Minister
[This is the headline over a post on a blog on the US ABC News website. It reads as follows:]
Wednesday in Doha, Qatar, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Bill Burns met with former Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa, the highest-level defector from the Gadhafi regime.
Theirs was the first meeting between a US official and Koussa since his defection, though he had been in regular contact with US officials before fleeing to London late last month.
A senior US official told reporters traveling with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Berlin that the meeting took place on Wednesday on the sidelines of a meeting of the Libya Contact Group.
The Libyan opposition reportedly did not meet with Koussa in Doha, though another senior official told reporters that Koussa met with representatives from several other countries but made no public remarks at the conference.
[Funny how this has not been mentioned by those in the United States who have been so vocal about the UK Government's handling of the Moussa Koussa "defection".]
Wednesday in Doha, Qatar, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Bill Burns met with former Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa, the highest-level defector from the Gadhafi regime.
Theirs was the first meeting between a US official and Koussa since his defection, though he had been in regular contact with US officials before fleeing to London late last month.
A senior US official told reporters traveling with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Berlin that the meeting took place on Wednesday on the sidelines of a meeting of the Libya Contact Group.
The Libyan opposition reportedly did not meet with Koussa in Doha, though another senior official told reporters that Koussa met with representatives from several other countries but made no public remarks at the conference.
[Funny how this has not been mentioned by those in the United States who have been so vocal about the UK Government's handling of the Moussa Koussa "defection".]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)