[What follows is from an editorial headed "Obama starts to emerge" in today's edition of The New York Sun:]
One of the encouraging aspects of the events of the past few days is the emergence of a new and more confident President Obama. This wasn’t always the prospect in the first two years of his presidency, in which he seemed indecisive and reluctant. (...)
Mr Obama is starting to emerge as the kind of war leader we had in mind — cool under fire, able to keep a poker face while golf and entertaining the press between high stakes briefings in the situation room, and sagacious in battle, as he surely was with his decision to send in the SEALs into the lair of Osama Bin Laden. His capacity for secrecy and unilateralism speaks well of him, and it happens that we agree also with his decision to dispose of bin Laden’s corpse at sea. And not to worry about it afterwards. (...)
We still have all our policy differences with Mr. Obama — on the economy, monetary and fiscal matters, on social issues, and in the realm of culture. But our own hope is that the events of these past few days will incent Mr Obama in dealing with communist Korea and Iran and no doubt other places where diplomacy has failed. Even as NATO warplanes are flying Libya, we continue to favor sending a team to Libya to fetch Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, and bring him to an American jail [to] serve his time for his role in the downing of Pan American Flight 103. It is our hope that the triumph we’ve saw in the last few days will as it humbles us all nonetheless embolden Mr Obama as a war leader, with his own growing appreciation for the possibilities of military and covert means in a twilight struggle in which our cause is just. If that happens it could be more important than the death that was brought to bin Laden.
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
"Humanitarian intervention" in Libya
[The following are extracts from a long article by William Blum published yesterday on the Killing Hope website:]
Iraq: Let us not forget what "humanitarian intervention" looks like.
Libya: Let us not be confused as to why Libya alone has been singled out for "humanitarian intervention". (...)
In 2006, the UN special investigator on torture declared that reports from Iraq indicated that torture "is totally out of hand. The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein." Another UN report of the same time disclosed a rise in "honor killings" of women.
"It is a common refrain among war-weary Iraqis that things were better before the US-led invasion in 2003," reported the Washington Post on May 5, 2007. (...)
And this from two months ago [Washington Post, March 4, 2011]:
"Protesters, human rights workers and security officials say the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has responded to Iraq's demonstrations in much the same way as many of its more authoritarian neighbors: with force. Witnesses in Baghdad and as far north as Kirkuk described watching last week as security forces in black uniforms, tracksuits and T-shirts roared up in trucks and Humvees, attacked protesters, rounded up others from cafes and homes and hauled them off, blindfolded, to army detention centers. Entire neighborhoods ... were blockaded to prevent residents from joining the demonstrations. Journalists were beaten."
So ... can we expect the United States and its fellow thugs in NATO to intervene militarily in Iraq as they're doing in Libya? To protect the protesters in Iraq as they tell us they're doing in Libya? To effect regime change in Iraq as they're conspiring, but not admitting, in Libya?
Similarly Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria ... all have been bursting with protest and vicious government crackdown in recent months, even to a degree in Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive societies in the world. Not one of these governments has been assaulted by the United States, the UK, or France as Libya has been assaulted; not one of these countries' opposition is receiving military, financial, legal and moral support from the Western powers as the Libyan rebels are — despite the Libyan rebels' brutal behavior, racist murders, and the clear jihadist ties of some of them. (...)
So why is only Libya the target for US/NATO missiles? Is there some principled or moral reason? Are the Libyans the worst abusers of their people in the region? In actuality, Libya offers its citizens a higher standard of living. (The 2010 UN Human Development Index, a composite measure of health, education and income ranked Libya first in Africa.) None of the other countries has a more secular government than Libya. (In contrast some of the Libyan rebels are in the habit of chanting that phrase we all know only too well: "Allah Akbar".) None of the others has a human-rights record better than that of Libya, however imperfect that may be — in Egypt a government fact-finding mission has announced that during the recent uprising at least 846 protesters were killed as police forces shot them in the head and chest with live ammunition. Six similar horror stories have been reported in Syria, Yemen and other countries of the region during this period. (...)
Of all the accusations made against Gaddafi perhaps the most meaningless is the oft-repeated "He's killing his own people." It's true, but that's what happens in civil wars. Abraham Lincoln also killed his own people.
Muammar Gaddafi has been an Officially Designated Enemy of the US longer than any living world leader except Fidel Castro. The animosity began in 1970, one year after Gaddafi took power in a coup, when he closed down a US air force base. (...)
It was claimed as well that Libya was behind, or at least somehow linked to, an attempt to blow up the US Embassy in Cairo, various plane hijackings, a bomb explosion on an American airliner over Greece, the blowing up of a French airliner over Africa, blowing up a synagogue in Istanbul, and blowing up a disco in Berlin which killed some American soldiers.
In 1990, when the United States needed a country to (falsely) blame for the bombing of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, Libya was the easy choice.
Gaddafi's principal crime in the eyes of US President Ronald Reagan (1981-89) was not that he supported terrorist groups, but that he supported the wrong terrorist groups; i.e., Gaddafi was not supporting the same terrorists that Washington was, such as the Nicaraguan Contras, UNITA in Angola, Cuban exiles in Miami, the governments of El Salvador and Guatemala, and the US military in Grenada. The one band of terrorists the two men supported in common was the Moujahedeen in Afghanistan. (...)
When widespread protests broke out in Tunisia and Egypt, could Washington have resisted instigating the same in the country sandwiched between those two? The CIA has been very busy supplying the rebels with arms, bombing support, money, and personnel.
It may well happen that the Western allies will succeed in forcing Gaddafi out of power. Then the world will look on innocently as the new Libyan government gives Washington what it has long sought: a host-country site for Africom, the US Africa Command, one of six regional commands the Pentagon has divided the world into. Many African countries approached to be the host have declined, at times in relatively strong terms. Africom at present is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. According to a State Department official: "We've got a big image problem down there. ... Public opinion is really against getting into bed with the US. They just don't trust the US." Another thing scarcely any African country would tolerate is an American military base. There's only one such base in Africa, in Djibouti. Watch for one in Libya sometime after the dust has settled. It'll be situated close to the American oil wells. Or perhaps the people of Libya will be given a choice — an American base or a NATO base.
And remember — in the context of recent history concerning Iraq, North Korea, and Iran — if Libya had nuclear weapons the United States would not be attacking it.
Or the United States could realize that Gaddafi is no radical threat simply because of his love for Condoleezza Rice. Here is the Libyan leader in a March 27, 2007 interview on al-Jazeera TV: "Leezza, Leezza, Leezza ... I love her very much. I admire her, and I'm proud of her, because she's a black woman of African origin."
[A version of the same article now also appears on the Consortium News website under the title 'Liberating' Iraq, Now Libya.]
Iraq: Let us not forget what "humanitarian intervention" looks like.
Libya: Let us not be confused as to why Libya alone has been singled out for "humanitarian intervention". (...)
In 2006, the UN special investigator on torture declared that reports from Iraq indicated that torture "is totally out of hand. The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein." Another UN report of the same time disclosed a rise in "honor killings" of women.
"It is a common refrain among war-weary Iraqis that things were better before the US-led invasion in 2003," reported the Washington Post on May 5, 2007. (...)
And this from two months ago [Washington Post, March 4, 2011]:
"Protesters, human rights workers and security officials say the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has responded to Iraq's demonstrations in much the same way as many of its more authoritarian neighbors: with force. Witnesses in Baghdad and as far north as Kirkuk described watching last week as security forces in black uniforms, tracksuits and T-shirts roared up in trucks and Humvees, attacked protesters, rounded up others from cafes and homes and hauled them off, blindfolded, to army detention centers. Entire neighborhoods ... were blockaded to prevent residents from joining the demonstrations. Journalists were beaten."
So ... can we expect the United States and its fellow thugs in NATO to intervene militarily in Iraq as they're doing in Libya? To protect the protesters in Iraq as they tell us they're doing in Libya? To effect regime change in Iraq as they're conspiring, but not admitting, in Libya?
Similarly Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria ... all have been bursting with protest and vicious government crackdown in recent months, even to a degree in Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive societies in the world. Not one of these governments has been assaulted by the United States, the UK, or France as Libya has been assaulted; not one of these countries' opposition is receiving military, financial, legal and moral support from the Western powers as the Libyan rebels are — despite the Libyan rebels' brutal behavior, racist murders, and the clear jihadist ties of some of them. (...)
So why is only Libya the target for US/NATO missiles? Is there some principled or moral reason? Are the Libyans the worst abusers of their people in the region? In actuality, Libya offers its citizens a higher standard of living. (The 2010 UN Human Development Index, a composite measure of health, education and income ranked Libya first in Africa.) None of the other countries has a more secular government than Libya. (In contrast some of the Libyan rebels are in the habit of chanting that phrase we all know only too well: "Allah Akbar".) None of the others has a human-rights record better than that of Libya, however imperfect that may be — in Egypt a government fact-finding mission has announced that during the recent uprising at least 846 protesters were killed as police forces shot them in the head and chest with live ammunition. Six similar horror stories have been reported in Syria, Yemen and other countries of the region during this period. (...)
Of all the accusations made against Gaddafi perhaps the most meaningless is the oft-repeated "He's killing his own people." It's true, but that's what happens in civil wars. Abraham Lincoln also killed his own people.
Muammar Gaddafi has been an Officially Designated Enemy of the US longer than any living world leader except Fidel Castro. The animosity began in 1970, one year after Gaddafi took power in a coup, when he closed down a US air force base. (...)
It was claimed as well that Libya was behind, or at least somehow linked to, an attempt to blow up the US Embassy in Cairo, various plane hijackings, a bomb explosion on an American airliner over Greece, the blowing up of a French airliner over Africa, blowing up a synagogue in Istanbul, and blowing up a disco in Berlin which killed some American soldiers.
In 1990, when the United States needed a country to (falsely) blame for the bombing of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, Libya was the easy choice.
Gaddafi's principal crime in the eyes of US President Ronald Reagan (1981-89) was not that he supported terrorist groups, but that he supported the wrong terrorist groups; i.e., Gaddafi was not supporting the same terrorists that Washington was, such as the Nicaraguan Contras, UNITA in Angola, Cuban exiles in Miami, the governments of El Salvador and Guatemala, and the US military in Grenada. The one band of terrorists the two men supported in common was the Moujahedeen in Afghanistan. (...)
When widespread protests broke out in Tunisia and Egypt, could Washington have resisted instigating the same in the country sandwiched between those two? The CIA has been very busy supplying the rebels with arms, bombing support, money, and personnel.
It may well happen that the Western allies will succeed in forcing Gaddafi out of power. Then the world will look on innocently as the new Libyan government gives Washington what it has long sought: a host-country site for Africom, the US Africa Command, one of six regional commands the Pentagon has divided the world into. Many African countries approached to be the host have declined, at times in relatively strong terms. Africom at present is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. According to a State Department official: "We've got a big image problem down there. ... Public opinion is really against getting into bed with the US. They just don't trust the US." Another thing scarcely any African country would tolerate is an American military base. There's only one such base in Africa, in Djibouti. Watch for one in Libya sometime after the dust has settled. It'll be situated close to the American oil wells. Or perhaps the people of Libya will be given a choice — an American base or a NATO base.
And remember — in the context of recent history concerning Iraq, North Korea, and Iran — if Libya had nuclear weapons the United States would not be attacking it.
Or the United States could realize that Gaddafi is no radical threat simply because of his love for Condoleezza Rice. Here is the Libyan leader in a March 27, 2007 interview on al-Jazeera TV: "Leezza, Leezza, Leezza ... I love her very much. I admire her, and I'm proud of her, because she's a black woman of African origin."
[A version of the same article now also appears on the Consortium News website under the title 'Liberating' Iraq, Now Libya.]
Iain Anderson in conversation with Kenneth Roy and Robert Black QC
I have just discovered that a recording of the discussion session involving Kenneth Roy and myself and chaired by Iain Anderson at the Celtic Connections festival in Glasgow on 25 January 2011 is available online. It can be accessed here.
Incidentally, it was eleven years ago today that the trial of Abdelbaset Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah opened at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.
Incidentally, it was eleven years ago today that the trial of Abdelbaset Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah opened at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.
Monday, 2 May 2011
"The bravest political decision"
[What follows is a snippet from an article in yesterday's edition of The Observer by columnist Kevin McKenna, a former deputy editor of The Herald and executive editor of the Daily Mail in Scotland:]
The decision of Kenny MacAskill to free the only man found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing on compassionate grounds was the bravest political decision of the last session. Westminster correspondence since released by WikiLeaks has rendered most opposition to the decision dishonest and flawed. For that decision alone, which made me proud to be a Scot, I could justify voting for the SNP [in the Scottish Parliament election on 5 May].
[An editorial published yesterday on The Herald website contains the following:]
The Government’s most controversial action was the decision to free convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds. Regardless of whether you agree with that decision or not, the SNP have faced down their critics and emerged from the whirlwind with two strong moral arguments: first that this was a decision for the Scottish Government to take without outside interference; second, that the moral grounds for the release chime with Scottish values and indeed that those valued are enshrined in our laws. In contrast, other parties were left looking hypocritical, feigning public outrage at a decision they had previously signalled in private was in the national interest.
The decision of Kenny MacAskill to free the only man found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing on compassionate grounds was the bravest political decision of the last session. Westminster correspondence since released by WikiLeaks has rendered most opposition to the decision dishonest and flawed. For that decision alone, which made me proud to be a Scot, I could justify voting for the SNP [in the Scottish Parliament election on 5 May].
[An editorial published yesterday on The Herald website contains the following:]
The Government’s most controversial action was the decision to free convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds. Regardless of whether you agree with that decision or not, the SNP have faced down their critics and emerged from the whirlwind with two strong moral arguments: first that this was a decision for the Scottish Government to take without outside interference; second, that the moral grounds for the release chime with Scottish values and indeed that those valued are enshrined in our laws. In contrast, other parties were left looking hypocritical, feigning public outrage at a decision they had previously signalled in private was in the national interest.
Britain expels Libya ambassador
[This is the headline over a report published yesterday on The Guardian website. It reads in part:]
Britain has ordered the expulsion of the Libyan ambassador to London, Omar Jelban, in retaliation for an attack on the British embassy by a pro-Gaddafi crowd in Tripoli.
Jelban has been given 24 hours to leave the country.
"I condemn the attacks on the British embassy premises in Tripoli as well as the diplomatic missions of other countries," said the foreign secretary, William Hague. "The Vienna convention requires the Gaddafi regime to protect diplomatic missions in Tripoli. By failing to do so that regime has once again breached its international responsibilities and obligations. I take the failure to protect such premises very seriously indeed."
The statement went on: "As a result, I have taken the decision to expel the Libyan ambassador. He is persona non grata pursuant to article 9 of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations and has 24 hours to leave the country."
According to Foreign Office sources, the building housing both the British embassy residence and its chancellery was burned down by a mob early on Sunday. (...)
The Gaddafi regime appears to have mounted a symbolic attack on empty diplomatic residences and embassies in Tripoli. There are no British diplomats in the Libyan capital.
[During most of the run-up to the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi in August 2009, Omar Jelban was chargé d'affaires in the Libyan embassy in London. There had been no ambassador since the departure of Mohammed Bel Kassem Zwai (one of the officers who, along with Gaddafi, staged the coup against King Idris in 1969, and the only one who is still prominent in the regime). Jelban was not, in my view, a significant player in the 2008/2009 political manoeuvrings. On the Libyan side the big hitters were Moussa Koussa and Abdul Ati al-Obeidi.]
Britain has ordered the expulsion of the Libyan ambassador to London, Omar Jelban, in retaliation for an attack on the British embassy by a pro-Gaddafi crowd in Tripoli.
Jelban has been given 24 hours to leave the country.
"I condemn the attacks on the British embassy premises in Tripoli as well as the diplomatic missions of other countries," said the foreign secretary, William Hague. "The Vienna convention requires the Gaddafi regime to protect diplomatic missions in Tripoli. By failing to do so that regime has once again breached its international responsibilities and obligations. I take the failure to protect such premises very seriously indeed."
The statement went on: "As a result, I have taken the decision to expel the Libyan ambassador. He is persona non grata pursuant to article 9 of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations and has 24 hours to leave the country."
According to Foreign Office sources, the building housing both the British embassy residence and its chancellery was burned down by a mob early on Sunday. (...)
The Gaddafi regime appears to have mounted a symbolic attack on empty diplomatic residences and embassies in Tripoli. There are no British diplomats in the Libyan capital.
[During most of the run-up to the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi in August 2009, Omar Jelban was chargé d'affaires in the Libyan embassy in London. There had been no ambassador since the departure of Mohammed Bel Kassem Zwai (one of the officers who, along with Gaddafi, staged the coup against King Idris in 1969, and the only one who is still prominent in the regime). Jelban was not, in my view, a significant player in the 2008/2009 political manoeuvrings. On the Libyan side the big hitters were Moussa Koussa and Abdul Ati al-Obeidi.]
MacAskill adamant Megrahi release not an election issue
[This is the headline over a report in The Scotsman of 30 April. It reads in part:]
In Kenny MacAskill's constituency office the front page of a newspaper hangs on the wall.
"Mandela supports MacAskill decision" proclaims a headline that must have offered a good deal of comfort to the justice secretary amidst the opprobrium heaped on him after he released the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
When Abdelbaset al Megrahi left Scotland around 18 months ago, never in his worst nightmares could Mr MacAskill have imagined that he would still be alive going into the 2011 election.
The survival of Megrahi so far beyond his three-month life expectancy has provided plenty of ammunition for those who opposed Mr MacAskill's decision to release the UK's worst mass murderer.
But, according to Mr MacAskill himself, Lockerbie is not proving to be a big issue on the doorsteps as he defends his Edinburgh East seat, a marginal constituency balanced on a knife-edge.
Out canvassing, Mr MacAskill has come across the "odd individual" who opposed his decision. "Equally," Mr MacAskill said, "there is a great deal of support for me as an individual and a recognition that I had to make the decision."
Mr MacAskill argues that he came out of the decision with his "hands clean", unlike "charlatan and shameful" Labour who criticised the decision at Holyrood while at Westminster, government ministers were plotting for Megrahi's release.
"Is it an election issue?" Mr MacAskill asks. "Not that we've picked up," he adds, answering his own question.
In any case, Mr MacAskill's only serious rival for the seat is reluctant to make Lockerbie a defining election issue. For the Labour candidate Ewan Aitken, his reasons for playing down the Lockerbie controversy probably has more to do with his own beliefs than any embarrassment over his party's behaviour on the issue.
As a Church of Scotland minister, the Labour councillor is a strong proponent of "compassionate release", although he does have some reservations about how the decision to release Megrahi was arrived at.
Mr Aitken said: "Compassion is an all or nothing thing. There are clearly questions to be asked about the process in this case, but the principle of releasing somebody - no matter how heinous the crime - on compassion is one that I support. But I do ask questions about what happened in this case." He added: "This election here isn't about the life and death of an individual in Libya, it is about jobs."
[The readers' comments that follow the report are also worth reading.]
In Kenny MacAskill's constituency office the front page of a newspaper hangs on the wall.
"Mandela supports MacAskill decision" proclaims a headline that must have offered a good deal of comfort to the justice secretary amidst the opprobrium heaped on him after he released the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
When Abdelbaset al Megrahi left Scotland around 18 months ago, never in his worst nightmares could Mr MacAskill have imagined that he would still be alive going into the 2011 election.
The survival of Megrahi so far beyond his three-month life expectancy has provided plenty of ammunition for those who opposed Mr MacAskill's decision to release the UK's worst mass murderer.
But, according to Mr MacAskill himself, Lockerbie is not proving to be a big issue on the doorsteps as he defends his Edinburgh East seat, a marginal constituency balanced on a knife-edge.
Out canvassing, Mr MacAskill has come across the "odd individual" who opposed his decision. "Equally," Mr MacAskill said, "there is a great deal of support for me as an individual and a recognition that I had to make the decision."
Mr MacAskill argues that he came out of the decision with his "hands clean", unlike "charlatan and shameful" Labour who criticised the decision at Holyrood while at Westminster, government ministers were plotting for Megrahi's release.
"Is it an election issue?" Mr MacAskill asks. "Not that we've picked up," he adds, answering his own question.
In any case, Mr MacAskill's only serious rival for the seat is reluctant to make Lockerbie a defining election issue. For the Labour candidate Ewan Aitken, his reasons for playing down the Lockerbie controversy probably has more to do with his own beliefs than any embarrassment over his party's behaviour on the issue.
As a Church of Scotland minister, the Labour councillor is a strong proponent of "compassionate release", although he does have some reservations about how the decision to release Megrahi was arrived at.
Mr Aitken said: "Compassion is an all or nothing thing. There are clearly questions to be asked about the process in this case, but the principle of releasing somebody - no matter how heinous the crime - on compassion is one that I support. But I do ask questions about what happened in this case." He added: "This election here isn't about the life and death of an individual in Libya, it is about jobs."
[The readers' comments that follow the report are also worth reading.]
Friday, 29 April 2011
Should the Syrian ambassador ever have been invited to the Abbey?
[The following is the text of a letter by Dr Jim Swire submitted yesterday to The Scotsman but not (yet) published:]
I wish the young couple marrying today every imaginable happiness following their fairytale romance stemming from St Andrews. If they are blessed with children, may they all thrive and blossom too.
I am very relieved to hear that the invitation to the Syrian ambassador to attend the Abbey service has been withdrawn, presumably on the advice of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. But there are more profound reasons, much closer to home for Scotland than the present violence in Syria, as to why I believe it was imperative to exclude him.
Those who still believe that the origins of the Lockerbie bombing lay with the Libyan (Megrahi's) use of a conventional time bomb ingested at Luqa airport, Malta, have to live with two particularly amazing 'coincidences', as well as the damning indictment of the verdict from the UN's special observer Hans Koechler, and the findings of our own SCCRC that the verdict may have been a miscarriage of justice.
First the Lockerbie plane 'happened' to fly for just 38 minutes before exploding.
Second there had been a break-in to Heathrow the actual night before Lockerbie adjacent to where the bomb was loaded there the following evening. This was concealed from the court until after the verdict had been reached, though the investigating Scottish police must surely have known of it. The break-in offered the perfect position and timing for the introduction of a Syrian type bomb.
The court did hear unequivocal evidence that a member of Ahmed Jibril's PFLP-GC terror group in Damascus was the unique origin of bombs which were stable on the ground, but always exploded between 35 and 45 minutes from the take-off of an aircraft. Perfect for introduction the night before use.
The court chose to ignore the flight time, even though it did know that it matched the obligatory flight-time of these Damascus bombs.
The Damascus based PFLP-GC's bomb-maker was a Jordanian man called Marwan Khreesat, the evidence is that he was also an American intelligence asset and a triple agent. He was working, long term, for Ahmed Jibril, a one time member of the Syrian armed forces and head of the PFLP-GC in Damascus at the time of Lockerbie. According to MOSSAD, Khreesat had been implicated in the 1970 bombing of a Swissair plane in which 47 people died. There is also strong evidence that a Khreesat bomb had destroyed an El Al plane in 1972. That bomb consisted of 250 grams of explosive hidden in a radio and triggered by a barometric switch.
Sounds familiar?
His involvement in Lockerbie might, to say the least, have been an embarrassment for the USA, had it become known that one of their assets had made the lethal bomb, killing so many of their own citizens.
The Lockerbie court had also asked Damascus for evidential material requested by the defence, and was rejected out of hand. Nevertheless the court did hear that the timers for Khreesat's bombs were actually manufactured in a PFLP-GC facility in the suburbs of Damascus itself. Still the penny did not drop.
Unlike his father, the present President Assad of Syria may be impotent before the terror apparatus installed by his father, but I would still have found the presence of the current Syrian ambassador at the Royal wedding an insult to the memory of my daughter Flora, murdered, with 269 others, probably by a Syrian bomb, over Lockerbie.
All this remains speculation of course, until Scotland finds a way responsibly to review the Zeist verdict. We have waited for that to happen for 10 years so far: maybe whatever transpires on the 5th of May will help us and Scotland.
Meanwhile may today's festivities usher in a truly long and happy relationship, for Catherine and William, started within the ancient walls of St Andrews.
[Because of another busy long weekend in prospect at Gannaga Lodge, it is unlikely that there will be further posts to this blog before Monday.]
I wish the young couple marrying today every imaginable happiness following their fairytale romance stemming from St Andrews. If they are blessed with children, may they all thrive and blossom too.
I am very relieved to hear that the invitation to the Syrian ambassador to attend the Abbey service has been withdrawn, presumably on the advice of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. But there are more profound reasons, much closer to home for Scotland than the present violence in Syria, as to why I believe it was imperative to exclude him.
Those who still believe that the origins of the Lockerbie bombing lay with the Libyan (Megrahi's) use of a conventional time bomb ingested at Luqa airport, Malta, have to live with two particularly amazing 'coincidences', as well as the damning indictment of the verdict from the UN's special observer Hans Koechler, and the findings of our own SCCRC that the verdict may have been a miscarriage of justice.
First the Lockerbie plane 'happened' to fly for just 38 minutes before exploding.
Second there had been a break-in to Heathrow the actual night before Lockerbie adjacent to where the bomb was loaded there the following evening. This was concealed from the court until after the verdict had been reached, though the investigating Scottish police must surely have known of it. The break-in offered the perfect position and timing for the introduction of a Syrian type bomb.
The court did hear unequivocal evidence that a member of Ahmed Jibril's PFLP-GC terror group in Damascus was the unique origin of bombs which were stable on the ground, but always exploded between 35 and 45 minutes from the take-off of an aircraft. Perfect for introduction the night before use.
The court chose to ignore the flight time, even though it did know that it matched the obligatory flight-time of these Damascus bombs.
The Damascus based PFLP-GC's bomb-maker was a Jordanian man called Marwan Khreesat, the evidence is that he was also an American intelligence asset and a triple agent. He was working, long term, for Ahmed Jibril, a one time member of the Syrian armed forces and head of the PFLP-GC in Damascus at the time of Lockerbie. According to MOSSAD, Khreesat had been implicated in the 1970 bombing of a Swissair plane in which 47 people died. There is also strong evidence that a Khreesat bomb had destroyed an El Al plane in 1972. That bomb consisted of 250 grams of explosive hidden in a radio and triggered by a barometric switch.
Sounds familiar?
His involvement in Lockerbie might, to say the least, have been an embarrassment for the USA, had it become known that one of their assets had made the lethal bomb, killing so many of their own citizens.
The Lockerbie court had also asked Damascus for evidential material requested by the defence, and was rejected out of hand. Nevertheless the court did hear that the timers for Khreesat's bombs were actually manufactured in a PFLP-GC facility in the suburbs of Damascus itself. Still the penny did not drop.
Unlike his father, the present President Assad of Syria may be impotent before the terror apparatus installed by his father, but I would still have found the presence of the current Syrian ambassador at the Royal wedding an insult to the memory of my daughter Flora, murdered, with 269 others, probably by a Syrian bomb, over Lockerbie.
All this remains speculation of course, until Scotland finds a way responsibly to review the Zeist verdict. We have waited for that to happen for 10 years so far: maybe whatever transpires on the 5th of May will help us and Scotland.
Meanwhile may today's festivities usher in a truly long and happy relationship, for Catherine and William, started within the ancient walls of St Andrews.
[Because of another busy long weekend in prospect at Gannaga Lodge, it is unlikely that there will be further posts to this blog before Monday.]
Thursday, 28 April 2011
Significance of Lockerbie for Scotland's future leaders
[What follows is the text of a letter submitted by Dr Jim Swire on Tuesday to The Herald. It has not (yet) been published.]
Today we have confirmation, from Susan Stipp of the University of Copenhagen, that to have flown civil aircraft during the ash cloud from the Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland might have endangered innocent lives. At the time Willie Walsh of British Airways actively sought to have the flight bans lifted. This from the CEO of the airline which in 1982 had come within a whisker of losing a 747 to the ash cloud from Mount Galunggung in Indonesia. There were 247 passengers plus the crew aboard that aircraft. A close match for the 259 aboard the Lockerbie flight.
In 1988, on the night before Lockerbie, we now know, though the Zeist trial court did not, that Heathrow airport was broken into, close to where the bags for the Lockerbie flight were assembled the following evening.
Although reported immediately in its night security log, the airport took no steps to find out the identity or motive of the intruder, nor to prevent any consequences. That would have entailed a costly suspension of outgoing flights on 21st December 1988. 16 hours later 270 people died at Lockerbie, thanks to a bomb loaded at that same airport, with bags assembled for the flight adjacent to the break-in point. Only then were outgoing flights suspended, pending investigation. It was not till after the verdict against Mr Megrahi that the break-in came into public view, despite 12 years of Scottish police investigation.
On 22 December 1988, in the House of Commons, Nicholas Soames MP asked Paul Channon, (Transport Secretary): 'May I ask my Right Honourable Friend to confirm that security at Heathrow and Gatwick is at a very high and sustainable level and will remain so?'
Paul Channon replied: 'I certainly confirm that the security arrangements at Heathrow and Gatwick are among the best in world. We intend to maintain them at that level, and if more needs to be done it will be done.' *
Yet during the night of 20/21 December the Heathrow night security logs had shown that a break in had occurred, about which no action was taken until after 7.03 the following evening of 21 December. Had Channon been informed? All we know is that Heathrow did know immediately but had failed to act, and that the Metropolitan police were actively investigating the break-in by January 1989. Therefore it is hard to believe that the Scottish police did not know throughout their more than a decade long marathon investigation.
The priorities of Mr Walsh and, far more culpably, of the Heathrow authorities, are expressions of the ethos of modern British capitalism.
In Scotland we investigated and tried two Libyans for causing the Lockerbie atrocity, then we set one free using the compassion built into our justice system. Of that last act, I believe, we should be proud.
However the manner of conducting the Lockerbie investigation and the trial of the accused are increasingly seen to have been deeply flawed, and thus far Scotland has proved incapable of re-examining what she has done: does this matter after all these years?
Of course it does to us relatives of the dead who still seek the truth. It should also matter to all who use Heathrow airport, and to all Scots.
However I was astonished when David Cameron, despite the lessons of recent history, took a lead in seeking to enforce regime change upon Libya (for that is what it has become). I have heard from credible insiders that the reason he did this was in part because he was incensed by the pictures he saw of the reception of Mr Megrahi, as a hero, at Tripoli airport, on transfer home from Scotland.
The Prime Minister again and again refers to Mr Megrahi as 'the Lockerbie bomber' yet there is available now sufficient evidence to show, at the very least, that Mr Megrahi should never have been convicted in the first place. Of course that neither exonerates nor implicates the regime for which he worked
It seems that to dislodge the perception of Mr Megrahi's guilt will require that the natural desire of Scottish authorities to protect their own reputations over this disastrous failure of investigation and justice, now so deeply ingrained, will require a strong and astute leadership in Scotland. That this be achieved ought to be of prime concern to all Scottish citizens: who knows when he may need accurate investigation or impartial justice?
Shortly we will be voting, I hope that the result will be strong and astute leadership, willing to concede the vital importance of re-assessing the Lockerbie case for Scotland's reputation and the well being of her citizens.
There is so much we could improve, and even as polling day approaches, the activities of 'the Old Firm's' hatreds also trumpet the need for a strong hand at Scotland's tiller. Democracy dictates that we all have a hand in the choice as to whose that hand should be.
Unless we take that difficult (and costly!) step we will be mimicking, and by association supporting, the complacent and dangerous nonsense heard in the Westminster Parliament on 22 December 1988.
* These quotations are taken from the booklet Lockerbie, a "Bum Rap" published by the late David Rollo of the SNP, dedicated to the support of Marina Larracoechea**, Tam Dalyell, John Mosey, Jim Swire, and Teddy Taylor, in their search for truth and justice.
** RB: A letter from the indefatigable Marina de Larracoechea appears today on the Spanish Deia website, responding to an article on 22 April about her views on the Lockerbie case and her reaction to current events in Libya. Well worth reading if you have some Spanish. Google Translate gives a flavour, but no more than 75 per cent accuracy.
[This post has now been picked up by Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. The relevant articles can be read here and here.]
Today we have confirmation, from Susan Stipp of the University of Copenhagen, that to have flown civil aircraft during the ash cloud from the Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland might have endangered innocent lives. At the time Willie Walsh of British Airways actively sought to have the flight bans lifted. This from the CEO of the airline which in 1982 had come within a whisker of losing a 747 to the ash cloud from Mount Galunggung in Indonesia. There were 247 passengers plus the crew aboard that aircraft. A close match for the 259 aboard the Lockerbie flight.
In 1988, on the night before Lockerbie, we now know, though the Zeist trial court did not, that Heathrow airport was broken into, close to where the bags for the Lockerbie flight were assembled the following evening.
Although reported immediately in its night security log, the airport took no steps to find out the identity or motive of the intruder, nor to prevent any consequences. That would have entailed a costly suspension of outgoing flights on 21st December 1988. 16 hours later 270 people died at Lockerbie, thanks to a bomb loaded at that same airport, with bags assembled for the flight adjacent to the break-in point. Only then were outgoing flights suspended, pending investigation. It was not till after the verdict against Mr Megrahi that the break-in came into public view, despite 12 years of Scottish police investigation.
On 22 December 1988, in the House of Commons, Nicholas Soames MP asked Paul Channon, (Transport Secretary): 'May I ask my Right Honourable Friend to confirm that security at Heathrow and Gatwick is at a very high and sustainable level and will remain so?'
Paul Channon replied: 'I certainly confirm that the security arrangements at Heathrow and Gatwick are among the best in world. We intend to maintain them at that level, and if more needs to be done it will be done.' *
Yet during the night of 20/21 December the Heathrow night security logs had shown that a break in had occurred, about which no action was taken until after 7.03 the following evening of 21 December. Had Channon been informed? All we know is that Heathrow did know immediately but had failed to act, and that the Metropolitan police were actively investigating the break-in by January 1989. Therefore it is hard to believe that the Scottish police did not know throughout their more than a decade long marathon investigation.
The priorities of Mr Walsh and, far more culpably, of the Heathrow authorities, are expressions of the ethos of modern British capitalism.
In Scotland we investigated and tried two Libyans for causing the Lockerbie atrocity, then we set one free using the compassion built into our justice system. Of that last act, I believe, we should be proud.
However the manner of conducting the Lockerbie investigation and the trial of the accused are increasingly seen to have been deeply flawed, and thus far Scotland has proved incapable of re-examining what she has done: does this matter after all these years?
Of course it does to us relatives of the dead who still seek the truth. It should also matter to all who use Heathrow airport, and to all Scots.
However I was astonished when David Cameron, despite the lessons of recent history, took a lead in seeking to enforce regime change upon Libya (for that is what it has become). I have heard from credible insiders that the reason he did this was in part because he was incensed by the pictures he saw of the reception of Mr Megrahi, as a hero, at Tripoli airport, on transfer home from Scotland.
The Prime Minister again and again refers to Mr Megrahi as 'the Lockerbie bomber' yet there is available now sufficient evidence to show, at the very least, that Mr Megrahi should never have been convicted in the first place. Of course that neither exonerates nor implicates the regime for which he worked
It seems that to dislodge the perception of Mr Megrahi's guilt will require that the natural desire of Scottish authorities to protect their own reputations over this disastrous failure of investigation and justice, now so deeply ingrained, will require a strong and astute leadership in Scotland. That this be achieved ought to be of prime concern to all Scottish citizens: who knows when he may need accurate investigation or impartial justice?
Shortly we will be voting, I hope that the result will be strong and astute leadership, willing to concede the vital importance of re-assessing the Lockerbie case for Scotland's reputation and the well being of her citizens.
There is so much we could improve, and even as polling day approaches, the activities of 'the Old Firm's' hatreds also trumpet the need for a strong hand at Scotland's tiller. Democracy dictates that we all have a hand in the choice as to whose that hand should be.
Unless we take that difficult (and costly!) step we will be mimicking, and by association supporting, the complacent and dangerous nonsense heard in the Westminster Parliament on 22 December 1988.
* These quotations are taken from the booklet Lockerbie, a "Bum Rap" published by the late David Rollo of the SNP, dedicated to the support of Marina Larracoechea**, Tam Dalyell, John Mosey, Jim Swire, and Teddy Taylor, in their search for truth and justice.
** RB: A letter from the indefatigable Marina de Larracoechea appears today on the Spanish Deia website, responding to an article on 22 April about her views on the Lockerbie case and her reaction to current events in Libya. Well worth reading if you have some Spanish. Google Translate gives a flavour, but no more than 75 per cent accuracy.
[This post has now been picked up by Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. The relevant articles can be read here and here.]
Wednesday, 27 April 2011
The Lockerbie rationale for participation in the Libya war
[An article by Robert Parry published today on the investigative journalism Consortium News website contains the following:]
What’s also clear from the US news coverage is that the [New York] Times editors and other opinion-shapers are engaged in (...) building the “political will” for this new war and future occupation [of Libya] by excluding any serious questions about the wisdom of the desired course. (...)
Meanwhile, there has been zero reexamination of a key rationale for US participation in the war, Gaddafi’s alleged guilt in the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.
“The blood of Americans is on [Gaddafi’s] hands because he was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103,” declared Sen John McCain, R-Arizona, after a recent trip to rebel-held Benghazi during which McCain joined the call for a larger US military role.
The Times and other leading US news outlets also treat Libya’s guilt as a flat fact, but the case actually remains murky.
In 2001, a Scottish court did convict Libyan agent Ali al-Megrahi for the bombing which killed 270 people. But the judgment appears to have been more a political compromise than an act of justice. One of the judges told Dartmouth government professor Dirk Vandewalle about “enormous pressure put on the court to get a conviction.” [RB: This was officially denied by the Public Information Officer for the Scottish Judiciary.]
Megrahi’s conviction assuaged the understandable human desire to see someone punished for such a heinous crime, albeit a possibly innocent man.
In 2007, after the testimony of a key government witness was discredited, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission agreed to [refer the case back to the High Court since the conviction possibly constituted] a grave miscarriage of justice. However, that review was proceeding slowly in 2009 when Scottish authorities released Megrahi on humanitarian grounds, after he was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer.
Megrahi dropped his appeal in order to gain the early release, but that doesn’t mean he was guilty. He has continued to assert his innocence and an objective press corps would reflect the doubts regarding his conviction.
The Scottish court’s purported reason for finding Megrahi guilty – while acquitting his co-defendant Lamin Khalifa Fhimah – was the testimony of Toni Gauci, owner of a clothing store in Malta who allegedly sold Megrahi a shirt, the remnants of which were found with the shards of the suitcase that contained the bomb.
The rest of the case rested on a theory that Megrahi put the luggage on a flight from Malta to Frankfurt, where it was transferred to a connecting flight to London, where it was transferred onto Pan Am 103 bound for New York, a decidedly unlikely way to undertake an act of terrorism given all the random variables involved.
Megrahi would have had to assume that three separate airport security systems – at Malta, Frankfurt and London – would fail to give any serious scrutiny to an unaccompanied suitcase or to detect the bomb despite security officials being on the lookout for just such a threat.
As historian William Blum recounted in a Consortium News article after Megrahi’s 2001 conviction, “The case for the suitcase's hypothetical travels must also deal with the fact that, according to Air Malta, all the documented luggage on KM180 was collected by passengers in Frankfurt and did not continue in transit to London, and that two Pan Am on-duty officials in Frankfurt testified that no unaccompanied luggage was introduced onto Pan Am 103A, the feeder flight to London.”
There also were problems with Gauci’s belated identification of Megrahi as the shirt-buyer a decade after the fact. Gauci had made contradictory IDs and had earlier given a physical description that didn’t match Megrahi. Gauci reportedly received a $2 million reward for his testimony and then moved to Australia, where he went into retirement.
In 2007, the Scottish review panel decided to reconsider Megrahi’s conviction after concluding that Gauci’s testimony was unbelievable. And without Gauci’s testimony, the case against Megrahi was virtually the same as the case against his co-defendant who was acquitted.
However, after Megrahi’s conviction in 2001, more international pressure was put on Libya, which was then regarded as the archetypal “rogue” state. Indeed, it was to get onerous economic sanctions lifted that Libya took “responsibility” for the Pan Am attack and paid reparations to the victims' families even as Libyan officials continued to deny guilt.
Yet, despite these doubts about the Pan Am 103 case, the US news media continues to treat Libya’s guilt as a flat fact.
Earlier this month, there was some excitement over the possibility that Gaddafi would be fingered as the Pan Am 103 mastermind by a high-level defector, former Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa, who was believed to be in charge of Libyan intelligence in 1988.
Moussa Koussa was questioned by Scottish authorities but apparently shed little new light on the case and was allowed to go free after the interview. Very quickly the press interest over Moussa Koussa faded away.
Yet, as the clamor now builds in Official Washington for an escalation of US participation in the war – and as the Pan Am 103 case is cited over and over as justification – there has been no serious reexamination of the mystery, only the repetition of Libya’s assumed guilt.
Looking across the landscape of the US news media, it is hard to find any major voice suggesting peace negotiations with Gaddafi’s government or even advocating that the sincerity of its acceptance of the African Union’s plan for a cease-fire and democratic reforms should be put to the test.
Instead, virtually all the talking heads are armchair warriors, with the neoconservative editors of the Washington Post and the New York Times again leading the way by condemning Obama’s decision to minimize US military participation.
[A similar line is taken in an article by Ramzy Baroud headlined US rethinks strategy: war as opportunity in Libya on the Middle East Online website.]
What’s also clear from the US news coverage is that the [New York] Times editors and other opinion-shapers are engaged in (...) building the “political will” for this new war and future occupation [of Libya] by excluding any serious questions about the wisdom of the desired course. (...)
Meanwhile, there has been zero reexamination of a key rationale for US participation in the war, Gaddafi’s alleged guilt in the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.
“The blood of Americans is on [Gaddafi’s] hands because he was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103,” declared Sen John McCain, R-Arizona, after a recent trip to rebel-held Benghazi during which McCain joined the call for a larger US military role.
The Times and other leading US news outlets also treat Libya’s guilt as a flat fact, but the case actually remains murky.
In 2001, a Scottish court did convict Libyan agent Ali al-Megrahi for the bombing which killed 270 people. But the judgment appears to have been more a political compromise than an act of justice. One of the judges told Dartmouth government professor Dirk Vandewalle about “enormous pressure put on the court to get a conviction.” [RB: This was officially denied by the Public Information Officer for the Scottish Judiciary.]
Megrahi’s conviction assuaged the understandable human desire to see someone punished for such a heinous crime, albeit a possibly innocent man.
In 2007, after the testimony of a key government witness was discredited, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission agreed to [refer the case back to the High Court since the conviction possibly constituted] a grave miscarriage of justice. However, that review was proceeding slowly in 2009 when Scottish authorities released Megrahi on humanitarian grounds, after he was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer.
Megrahi dropped his appeal in order to gain the early release, but that doesn’t mean he was guilty. He has continued to assert his innocence and an objective press corps would reflect the doubts regarding his conviction.
The Scottish court’s purported reason for finding Megrahi guilty – while acquitting his co-defendant Lamin Khalifa Fhimah – was the testimony of Toni Gauci, owner of a clothing store in Malta who allegedly sold Megrahi a shirt, the remnants of which were found with the shards of the suitcase that contained the bomb.
The rest of the case rested on a theory that Megrahi put the luggage on a flight from Malta to Frankfurt, where it was transferred to a connecting flight to London, where it was transferred onto Pan Am 103 bound for New York, a decidedly unlikely way to undertake an act of terrorism given all the random variables involved.
Megrahi would have had to assume that three separate airport security systems – at Malta, Frankfurt and London – would fail to give any serious scrutiny to an unaccompanied suitcase or to detect the bomb despite security officials being on the lookout for just such a threat.
As historian William Blum recounted in a Consortium News article after Megrahi’s 2001 conviction, “The case for the suitcase's hypothetical travels must also deal with the fact that, according to Air Malta, all the documented luggage on KM180 was collected by passengers in Frankfurt and did not continue in transit to London, and that two Pan Am on-duty officials in Frankfurt testified that no unaccompanied luggage was introduced onto Pan Am 103A, the feeder flight to London.”
There also were problems with Gauci’s belated identification of Megrahi as the shirt-buyer a decade after the fact. Gauci had made contradictory IDs and had earlier given a physical description that didn’t match Megrahi. Gauci reportedly received a $2 million reward for his testimony and then moved to Australia, where he went into retirement.
In 2007, the Scottish review panel decided to reconsider Megrahi’s conviction after concluding that Gauci’s testimony was unbelievable. And without Gauci’s testimony, the case against Megrahi was virtually the same as the case against his co-defendant who was acquitted.
However, after Megrahi’s conviction in 2001, more international pressure was put on Libya, which was then regarded as the archetypal “rogue” state. Indeed, it was to get onerous economic sanctions lifted that Libya took “responsibility” for the Pan Am attack and paid reparations to the victims' families even as Libyan officials continued to deny guilt.
Yet, despite these doubts about the Pan Am 103 case, the US news media continues to treat Libya’s guilt as a flat fact.
Earlier this month, there was some excitement over the possibility that Gaddafi would be fingered as the Pan Am 103 mastermind by a high-level defector, former Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa, who was believed to be in charge of Libyan intelligence in 1988.
Moussa Koussa was questioned by Scottish authorities but apparently shed little new light on the case and was allowed to go free after the interview. Very quickly the press interest over Moussa Koussa faded away.
Yet, as the clamor now builds in Official Washington for an escalation of US participation in the war – and as the Pan Am 103 case is cited over and over as justification – there has been no serious reexamination of the mystery, only the repetition of Libya’s assumed guilt.
Looking across the landscape of the US news media, it is hard to find any major voice suggesting peace negotiations with Gaddafi’s government or even advocating that the sincerity of its acceptance of the African Union’s plan for a cease-fire and democratic reforms should be put to the test.
Instead, virtually all the talking heads are armchair warriors, with the neoconservative editors of the Washington Post and the New York Times again leading the way by condemning Obama’s decision to minimize US military participation.
[A similar line is taken in an article by Ramzy Baroud headlined US rethinks strategy: war as opportunity in Libya on the Middle East Online website.]
Opinion poll findings on Megrahi release
[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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)