Mandela, Gaddafi and Blair

[What follows is excerpted from a long article headlined Gaddafi, Britain and US: A secret, special and very cosy relationship that was published in The Independent on this date in 2011:]

Britain's extraordinary rekindling of relations with Libya did not start as Mr Blair sipped tea in a Bedouin tent with Gaddafi, nor within the walls of the Travellers Club in Pall Mall – although this "summit of spies" in 2003 played a major role. It can be traced back to a 1999 meeting Mr Blair held with the man hailed as one of the greatest to have ever lived: Nelson Mandela, in South Africa.

Mr Mandela had long played a key role in negotiations between Gaddafi, whom he had hailed as a key opponent of apartheid, and the British government. Mr Mandela first lobbied Mr Blair over Libya in October 1997, at a Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Edinburgh. Mr Mandela was pressing for those accused of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing to be tried outside Scotland. In January 1999, Mr Mandela, during a visit by Mr Blair to South Africa, actively lobbied the PM on behalf of Gaddafi, over sanctions imposed on Libya and the Lockerbie suspects.

UN sanctions were suspended in April 1999 when Gaddafi handed over the two Lockerbie suspects, including Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who was eventually convicted of the bombing. Libya also accepted "general responsibility" for the death of Yvonne Fletcher. Both moves allowed the Blair government to begin the long process of renewing ties with Libya.

Within a couple of years, the issue of persuading the Gaddafi regime to turn itself from pariah into international player surged to the forefront of the British government's agenda. It was during this time, according to the documents found in Mr Koussa's office, that MI6 and the CIA began actively engaging with Libyan intelligence chiefs. But it was a key meeting on 16 December 2003, at the Travellers Club, that would put the official UK – and US – stamp on Gaddafi's credibility. Present were Mr Koussa, then head of external intelligence for Libya, and two Libyan intelligence figures; Mr Blair's foreign affairs envoy, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, and three MI6 chiefs; and two CIA directors. Mr Koussa's attendance at the meeting in central London was extraordinary – at the time he had been banned from entering Britain after allegedly plotting to assassinate Libyan dissidents, and so was given safe passage by MI6.

Mr Koussa's pivotal role at the Travellers Club casts light on how, following his defection from Gaddafi's regime during the initial Nato bombing campaign earlier this year, he was able to slip quietly out of the country. Two days after the 2003 meeting, Mr Blair and Gaddafi held talks by telephone; and the next day, 19 December, the announcement about Libya surrendering its WMD was made by Mr Blair and President Bush.

In March 2004, Mr Blair first shook hands with Gaddafi in his Bedouin tent. The pair then met again in May 2007, shortly before Mr Blair left office.

Mandela calls for fresh Megrahi appeal

[What follows is the rext of a report published on the website of The Guardian on this date in 2002:]

Former South African president Nelson Mandela today called for a fresh appeal in the case of the Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, and asked that the prisoner be transferred to serve out his sentence nearer his native Libya.

Mr Mandela met with al-Megrahi for more than an hour at Glasgow's Barlinnie prison, where he is serving a life sentence for murder. Megrahi was convicted last year of smuggling a bomb aboard Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie on December 21 1988. The bombing killed 270 people.

Mr Mandela today called for Scottish authorities to consider Megrahi serving his term in a Muslim country closer to his family.

"Megrahi is all alone," Mr Mandela told a packed press conference in the prison's visitors' room. "He has nobody he can talk to. It is a psychological persecution that a man must stay for the length of his long sentence all alone."

Mr Mandela added: "It would be fair if he were transferred to a Muslim country - and there are Muslim countries which are trusted by the west. It will make it easier for his family to visit him if he is in a place like the kingdom of Morocco, Tunisia or Egypt."

Mr Mandela also hopes to meet the prime minister, Tony Blair, and the US president, George Bush, to discuss the case.

Mr Mandela, who spent more than 20 years as a prisoner of South Africa's apartheid regime, said Megrahi was being "harassed" by other inmates at Barlinnie.

"He says he is being treated well by the officials but when he takes exercise he has been harassed by a number of prisoners. He cannot identify them because they shout at him from their cells through the windows and sometimes it is difficult even for the officials to know from which quarter the shouting occurs," he said.

During the 30-minute press conference, Mr Mandela described in detail how a four-judge commission from the Organisation for African Unity had criticised the basis by which Megrahi came to be convicted.

"They have criticised it fiercely, and it will be a pity if no court reviews the case itself," said Mr Mandela. "From the point of view of fundamental principles of natural law, it would be fair if he is given a chance to appeal either to the privy council or the European court of human rights."

Mr Mandela played a crucial role in persuading Libya to hand over the two men suspected of the bombing to be tried in a Scottish court in the Netherlands. He has been in touch with the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi, about Megrahi's case.

Today the Labour MP Tam Dalyell, the father of the House of Commons, welcomed confirmation of Mr Mandela's visit and reiterated his belief that Megrahi was a political prisoner who had been guilty only of sanctions busting.

He told BBC Radio Scotland: "I asked him [Megrahi] what he was doing in Malta. He told me in detail how he had been a sanctions buster - getting components for Libyan Arab Airlines because of the sanctions, going to Nigeria, Brazil, above all to Ethiopia, having contacts with Boeing, in order to get much needed parts for aircraft."

Mr Dalyell said he had evidence, never presented at the trial, that may prove Megrahi's innocence. He claimed Iran had made a payment of $11m (£7.5m) to a militant Palestinian group two days after the bombing. 

Fundamental principles were ignored

[What follows is the text of a report published on the website of The Guardian on this date in 2002 (and in the print edition of the newspaper the following day):]

The prison visitor arrived at Barlinnie mid-morning in a flurry of cars and police outriders. He bypassed the bleak waiting room with its metal benches and chipped linoleum and was led, without being searched, straight to a suite of cells deep within the grim Victorian fortress on Glasgow's eastern edge.

The inmate he had come to see greeted him with a handshake. They sat and talked for more than an hour. The statesman and the convicted mass killer: Nelson Mandela and the Lockerbie bomber.

For Mr Mandela, it was a defining experience. Emerging to talk to the press, the former South African president called immediately for a fresh appeal and for Abdel Baset al-Megrahi to be transferred from Britain to a Muslim prison. The Libyan's solitary confinement in Scotland's toughest jail was nothing short of "psychological persecution", he said. And too many questions had been raised about his conviction to let the matter rest. An urgent meeting would be sought with both Tony Blair and the US president, George Bush, to plead Megrahi's case.

Mr Mandela, 83, has long been troubled by Lockerbie. He played a crucial role in persuading the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gadafy, to hand over the two men suspected of involvement in the 1988 atrocity which left 270 people dead, and has followed events closely. Last week he announced he intended to travel to Glasgow to check on Megrahi's welfare.

Megrahi faces 20 years in isolation in Barlinnie after his conviction at the Scottish court in the Netherlands. His co-defendant, Al-Amin Khalifah Fhimah, was acquitted. The Libyan, who does not have to slop out like other prisoners and has access to kitchen facilities and an interpreter, told Mr Mandela that staff treated him well but he had been taunted by other inmates when he exercised.

"Megrahi is all alone," Mr Mandela said afterwards. "He has nobody he can talk to. It is a psychological persecution that a man must stay for the length of his long sentence all alone. It would be fair if he transferred to a Muslim country - and there are Muslim countries which are trusted by the west. It will make it easier for his family to visit him if he is in a place like the kingdom of Morocco, Tunisia or Egypt.

"He says he is being treated well by the officials but when he takes exercise he has been harassed by a number of prisoners. He cannot identify them because they shout at him from their cells through the windows."

Composed and often jovial, Mr Mandela refused to say whether he believed Megrahi to be innocent or to criticise the Scottish judicial system directly. "My belief is irrelevant," he said.

But he listed criticisms of the judgment which led to Megrahi's jailing, including the views of a four-judge commission from the Organisation of African Unity: "This is what other legal men, other judges are saying of this judgment. They have criticised it ferociously and it will be a pity if no court reviews the case itself. From the point of view of fundamental principles of natural law, it would be fair if he is given a chance to appeal either to the privy council or the European court of human rights."

Earlier, Megrahi's lawyer, Eddie MacKechnie, said new information had come to light about an alleged payment of $11m by the government of Iran to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command two days after the bombing. "We have interviewed twice a former CIA officer who has given us details of the payment; times, dates, and bank accounts," he said. "My concern is not simply that there is evidence of such payment, but whether that information was available to any British authorities."

Megrahi's defence team is pursuing a hearing at the European court of human rights which will be launched in Strasbourg in September.

Back inside Barlinnie, Mr Mandela said he did not regret his efforts to bring Megrahi to trial. "No. Why should I regret?" he said. "I got involved in the Lockerbie trial because there was a deadlock. And I intervened because I was thinking first of the relatives of the victims, that they must see justice done - but justice done according to the fundamental principles of law. It does appear from what the judges have said that these fundamental principles were ignored."

But his continued involvement in the case has upset some of the relatives. Susan Cohen of New Jersey, who lost her daughter Theodora, said Mr Mandela's visit to Barlinnie was "an attempt to make Megrahi appear to be the victim".

Mr Mandela said he had hoped to meet the relatives during his visit but time had been too short: "I am coming back here in July and it is my intention to visit Scotland and speak to all the victims of Lockerbie."

It was not strange for him to visit a prison, he said. His own 27 years of incarceration had been leavened by access to other inmates and a full library.

"Our minds were occupied every day with something positive, something productive," he said. "It is difficult for me to believe that I was in jail for 27 years because it seems to have gone very fast."

Mandela's visit to Megrahi

[What follows is the text of a report published in The Independent on this date in 2002:]

Nelson Mandela is expected to fly to Britain this week for a compassionate meeting with the Libyan agent serving a 20-year sentence in a Scottish prison for his part in the Lockerbie bombing.

The former South African President is known to have sympathy for Abdelbaset Ali Mohammed al-Megrahi, who was jailed for his part in the terrorist outrage which killed 270 people. Mr Mandela is keen to reciprocate the support he received from Libya during the 27 years he was a political prisoner of South Africa's apartheid regime.

Megrahi has always protested that he did not help to destroy Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988. Despite losing an appeal against his conviction in March this year, his lawyers are planning an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights on 15 September and hope a show of support from Mr Mandela will help their case that their client was tried unfairly. Mr Mandela played a pivotal role in helping to break the diplomatic deadlock between Libya, the US and Britain that allowed the trial of Megrahi in Holland under Scottish jurisdiction.

Yesterday a spokesman for the Scottish Prison Service said no formal application had been made for a visit from Mr Mandela. But a spokesman for Megrahi's legal team said they hoped the visit would be this week.

Mr Mandela is visiting the Netherlands and aides have said that if he is well enough to travel and his schedule allows it, then he would visit Megrahi. The visit is being supported by Tam Dalyell, the veteran Labour MP and Father of the House, who has voiced his own belief that Megrahi is innocent. "I hope Mr Mandela will visit and come to the same conclusion I did, which is that Mr Megrahi had nothing to do with the Lockerbie bomb."

Yesterday, a spokesman for Megrahi's legal team said no concrete plans had been made for a visit but confirmed that Mr Mandela was sympathetic to their case. He added: "I cannot say for certain whether he will be coming to Scotland but I do know that it is his desire to come to Scotland to visit my client and, perhaps not surprisingly, Mr Megrahi is keen that President Mandela finds the time to come to so see him.

"President Mandela, when in prison himself, received substantial support from Libya. President Mandela has a fondness for Libya and support for it."

[RB: The visit took place one week later on 10 June 2002.]

Upbeat assessment of Lockerbie trial prospects

[What follows is the text of a report published in The Guardian on this date in 1999:]

Two Libyans wanted for the Lockerbie bombing will be handed over for trial within weeks, a South African envoy predicted last night after Britain piled on the pressure.

'We have a feeling we are pretty close to a solution,' Jakes Gerwel, President Nelson Mandela's emissary, said after talks with Colonel Muammar Gadafy. 'We would hope that it is not a matter of months but weeks.'

Mr Gerwel, joined by Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, said problems still remained, especially over the question of where the suspects would be imprisoned if convicted. But his upbeat assessment gave new hope that a trial would go ahead.

Earlier Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary, used a visit to the site of a proposed trial in the Netherlands to urge Col Gadafy to surrender Abdel-Basset al-Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah, who are accused of bringing down Pan Am Flight 103, killing 270 people, in December 1988.

As Tripoli reported 'headway' in talks with the emissaries from Pretoria and Riyadh, Mr Cook, seeking to assuage Libyan fears of an Anglo-American trick, said United Nations sanctions against Libya would be suspended the moment the two alleged intelligence agents landed in the Netherlands as 'a first step towards permanently lifting sanctions'.

And, as part of an effort to convince Col Gadafy that the damage to his regime can be limited and that senior security chiefs will not be implicated, he said explicitly that under Scottish law the men would have the right to refuse to be interviewed by police or intelligence agencies.

'We have no reason and no intention of interviewing the suspects on any other issue,' Mr Cook insisted. 'We have no hidden agenda.' Speaking after touring Camp Zeist, a former Dutch and Nato air force base being converted for the trial, Mr Cook elaborated on his message in an interview with MBC, an Arabic-language television channel seen all over the Middle East. 'It is a criminal court and it is not possible for it to start investigating regimes,' he said. 'These are the only individuals we are accusing.'

Expectations of a handover have risen and fallen since last August when London and Washington dropped their demand for a trial in Scotland or the United States.

Last month the UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, reported progress but no breakthrough. Hopes rose when the Libyan General People's Congress approved a trial, but fell when Col Gadafy again demanded an international tribunal.

Reports from Tripoli yesterday said that Prince Bandar and Mr Gerwel had agreed what were described as 'important practical step... toward solving this case'.

Libya's Jana news agency, citing a Libyan foreign ministry official, reported 'major headway' in the efforts to resolve the impasse.

Libya has insisted that the men, if convicted, must serve their prison sentences in a third country, but Britain says only Scotland is acceptable. Prince Bandar, quoted in the London-based Saudi newspaper Asharq al-Awsat, denied suggestions that he was carrying proposals to jail them in Saudi prisons if convicted.

'We are close to a solution on lifting an embargo on our Libyan brothers,' Prince Bandar said. 'We can say we are in the final stages.'

'We feel we are close to a solution. We hope that it is a matter of weeks.'

[RB: Megrahi and Fhimah arrived at Zeist for trial less than three months later, on 5 April 1999.]

‘I did not receive a fair trial’

[What follows is an item originally posted on this blog on this date in 2008, recording an interview conducted with Abdelbaset Megrahi a few days earlier by Al-Quds al-Arabi:]

An interview with Megrahi

“On February 27, a Scottish court is expected to re-examine the Lockerbie case and hear the appeal submitted by Abd-al-Basit al-Miqrahi, the Libyan national convicted of involvement in the bombing of a Pan Am airliner over this Scottish district. Al-Miqrahi has been serving a life sentence in a prison in Glasgow - the largest city in Scotland - since being convicted of the bombing by an international court that was set up in the Netherlands. “Many observers believe that Al-Miqrahi could soon leave prison and return to Libya now that Britain and Libya have signed an extradition treaty by which he would serve the rest of his sentence in his country. This is a known practice between countries, with the most prominent example being Chad's consent to allow the French nationals convicted of abducting some 100 children from Chad and Darfur to return to Paris and serve the rest of their sentences in a French prison. “Al-Quds al-Arabi visited Al-Miqrahi in his Scottish prison, located 40 kilometres from Glasgow. Entry procedures to the prison were normal and the guards were extremely gentle - we were not even physically searched. We were accompanied by Abd-al-Rahman al-Suwaysi, Libyan general consul in Scotland, and Algerian attorney Sa'd Jabbar. Al-Miqrahi entered the visitation room wearing a thick wool hat, jeans trousers, and a wool jersey, and he had clearly gained weight due to lack of activity. “The words Al-Miqrahi kept repeating all the time were: ‘I did not receive a fair trial’ and that ‘several documents were withheld from the court.’ He laid out on the counter a file filled with paragraphs that had been suppressed, rather, entire pages had been blackened out to conceal information from the judge under the pretext of security considerations. “Anyone visiting Al-Miqrahi will note his extremely high spirits, his unusual sturdiness, and his strong belief in his innocence of all the charges he was convicted of. He would smile every now an then, especially when talking about the letters he had received from Scots who wished him happy holidays, believed in his innocence, and expressed solidarity with him. Al-Miqrahi said: ‘A victim's family wrote to me, saying that on behalf of the citizens of Scotland, we wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year.’ “I asked Al-Miqrahi: ‘What about the Arabs?’ He replied sadly: ‘I have not received a single letter from an Arab, but I have received 27 letters from Scots …’ “He went on to say that Dr Swire, dean of the families of the victims, visited him in prison, as did Reverend John Reef [sic; probably means Rev John Mosey, father of one of the victims] and a number of other people, not to mention the Libyan consul, who visits him on a regular basis. Al-Miqrahi follows events in the Arab world through the Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya channels, which he has been allowed to watch in his small cell, measuring no more than 2 by 1.5 meters. One day, a Scottish inmate visited him as he watched Opposite Direction in which the argument was in full swing; the inmate asked if he could understand what was being said, to which Al-Miqrahi said: ‘I can if you can.’ “Al-Miqrahi said that what touched him the most was the martyrdom of child Muhammad al-Durah and his father's desperate attempts to protect him, and added that the image of Muhammad and his father never leave him. Asked about his own children, he said that what pains him the most is that the Scottish Government refused to let them reside near his prison. He went on to say that he longs for them, and that he is especially saddened when his young son asks: ‘When are you coming back dad? You promised us many times that you would return soon.’ “He spoke affectionately and admiringly of South African leader Nelson Mandela, who had visited him in prison, saying that Mandela refused to be accompanied by any British official when he visited him in his prison in Scotland. He added that Mandela also called him when he was visiting the Netherlands because his Dutch hosts had told him that he cannot visit him in prison as it would be a breach of protocol. Al-Miqrahi said that he wrote to many Arab leaders telling them that he wants a free trial, but that none of them replied, not even to humour him. “We asked Consul Abd-al-Rahman if he would remain in his post if Al-Miqrahi is transferred to Libya as expected, to which he said that he would not stay a single day because the consulate was originally opened in order to care for Al-Miqrahi and provide him with all means of comfort. For his part, attorney Sa'd Jabbar, who sat in on the visit, said that the Libyan Government exerted immense pressures on the British Government to retry or deport Al-Miqrahi - pressures that included a suspension of trade agreements. He expected Al-Miqrahi to return very soon. “Al-Miqrahi said that he would return to Libya because he misses his homeland and family, but that he wants to return an innocent man, not a convicted one, adding that he is confident that any free trial would exonerate him of the charges brought against him. His eyes filled with tears of anguish. Asked about food and whether he misses Bazin, Mabkakah, Isban, and Kuskusi, and he said: ‘I miss a lot of these foods even though the consulate supplied me with daily meals throughout the month of Ramadan, but food is not important, freedom and innocence, however, are.’

UK-Libya rapprochement following the Lockerbie trial

[What follows is excerpted from an article headlined Gaddafi, Britain, UK and US: A secret, special and very cosy relationship that was published in The Independent on Sunday on 4 September 2011. An important event in the post-Lockerbie rapprochement occurred on 16 December 2003:]

Most of the papers were found at the private offices of Moussa Koussa, the foreign minister, regime security chief and one of Gaddafi's chief lieutenants, on Friday afternoon. (...)

Mr Koussa, who defected after the February revolution and spent time in the UK, left to take up residence in the Gulf after demands that he face police questioning over the murder of Libyan opposition figures in exile, the Lockerbie bombing and the killing of the policewoman Yvonne Fletcher. In a sign of the importance of the British connection, MI6 merited two files in Mr Koussa's office, while the CIA had only one. UK intelligence agencies had played a leading role in bringing Gaddafi's regime in from the cold.

The documents reveal that British security agencies provided details about exiled opposition figures to the Libyans, including phone numbers. Among those targeted were Ismail Kamoka, freed by British judges in 2004 because he was not regarded as a threat to the UK's national security. MI6 even drafted a speech for Gaddafi when he was seeking rapprochement with the outside world with a covering note stressing that UK and Libyan officials must use "the same script". (...)

Britain's extraordinary rekindling of relations with Libya did not start as Mr Blair sipped tea in a Bedouin tent with Gaddafi, nor within the walls of the Travellers Club in Pall Mall – although this "summit of spies" in 2003 played a major role. It can be traced back to a 1999 meeting Mr Blair held with the man hailed as one of the greatest to have ever lived: Nelson Mandela, in South Africa.

Mr Mandela had long played a key role in negotiations between Gaddafi, whom he had hailed as a key opponent of apartheid, and the British government. Mr Mandela first lobbied Mr Blair over Libya in October 1997, at a Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Edinburgh. Mr Mandela was pressing for those accused of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing to be tried outside Scotland. In January 1999, Mr Mandela, during a visit by Mr Blair to South Africa, actively lobbied the PM on behalf of Gaddafi, over sanctions imposed on Libya and the Lockerbie suspects.

UN sanctions were suspended in April 1999 when Gaddafi handed over the two Lockerbie suspects, including Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who was eventually convicted of the bombing. Libya also accepted "general responsibility" for the death of Yvonne Fletcher. Both moves allowed the Blair government to begin the long process of renewing ties with Libya.

Within a couple of years, the issue of persuading the Gaddafi regime to turn itself from pariah into international player surged to the forefront of the British government's agenda. It was during this time, according to the documents found in Mr Koussa's office, that MI6 and the CIA began actively engaging with Libyan intelligence chiefs. But it was a key meeting on 16 December 2003, at the Travellers Club, that would put the official UK – and US – stamp on Gaddafi's credibility. Present were Mr Koussa, then head of external intelligence for Libya, and two Libyan intelligence figures; Mr Blair's foreign affairs envoy, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, and three MI6 chiefs; and two CIA directors. Mr Koussa's attendance at the meeting in central London was extraordinary – at the time he had been banned from entering Britain after allegedly plotting to assassinate Libyan dissidents, and so was given safe passage by MI6.

Mr Koussa's pivotal role at the Travellers Club casts light on how, following his defection from Gaddafi's regime during the initial Nato bombing campaign earlier this year, he was able to slip quietly out of the country. Two days after the 2003 meeting, Mr Blair and Gaddafi held talks by telephone; and the next day, 19 December, the announcement about Libya surrendering its WMD was made by Mr Blair and President Bush.

In March 2004, Mr Blair first shook hands with Gaddafi in his Bedouin tent. The pair then met again in May 2007, shortly before Mr Blair left office.

An' then the world came tae oor doorstep

[What follows is taken from an item published on this blog on this date in 2008:]

An' then the world came tae oor doorstep: Lockerbie Lives and Stories

by Jill S Haldane, with a foreword by Robert Black.

Product Description

The Lockerbie Stories tell of the absolute incomprehension of something as alien as hunks of aeroplane and associated detritus falling through the roof of the home from aerospace above, penetrating the security of the family and exposing the self to chaos and despair, inverting life's experience from relatively familiar to discrete. The grief and trauma that followed, dealing with veil of death and destruction as victims and their belongings rained on homes, gardens and streets, together with the shock and upset involved in evacuation from your home and disruption of your routine. The frustrating inability to communicate with family and friends out with the community; the violation of all pre-conceived representations of Christmas and the descending swarm of strangers. To see your wee space on the planet, on the screen and beamed to innumerable other homes across the world. The silence then the noise: the sound of people and busyness was deafening to the quietude of the town and the echo reverberated for a few years. This is not a comparative study of how the Lockerbie bombing compares to any other disaster, natural or premeditated. By nature, disasters are variously horrific for the people directly and indirectly involved.

The book consists of accounts by Lockerbie indwellers of their experiences on 21 December 1988 and the years that followed.

Product Details

Paperback: 332 pages

Publisher: The Grimsay Press (December 19, 2008)

Language: English

ISBN-10: 1845300637

ISBN-13: 978-1845300630

List price: £16.95/US$32.50

[RB: My foreword reads as follows:]

The only previous book of which I am aware which is devoted to recording something of the social life of the town of Lockerbie is Lockerbie: A narrative of village life in bygone days (Lockerbie: Herald Press, 1937) by Thomas Henderson, Solicitor, of the law firm Henderson & Mackay (which exists to this day). The author’s intention was to record with historical accuracy (albeit in a loose, fictionalised narrative form) what was known about life in the town at the time of the Napoleonic wars, while there were still people around who had heard first-hand accounts from parents and others who were alive at the time. My copy contains a clipping of a lengthy and laudatory review (probably from the local newspaper, The Annandale Herald) by the then minister of Dryfesdale Parish Kirk, Rev John Charlton Steen MA (who, incidentally, some ten years later, baptised me).

At least part of Jill Haldane’s aim in the present book is not entirely dissimilar: to record accounts by inhabitants of Lockerbie of the recent event with which the name of the town has become indissolubly linked and to reflect on how that seminal event may have changed, for good or ill, the life of the town and its indwellers.

Here, in brief, is my, and my family’s, story.

In 1988, both of my parents were still alive and living in the town’s Hillview Street. I was due to join them there on 23 December to spend Christmas and the New Year.

The first news of the Lockerbie disaster came to me through BBC radio. I was at my home in Edinburgh preparing my evening meal with, as usual, my wireless tuned to Radio Four. The first reports were, inevitably, sketchy and, I remember, suggested that Langholm too had been affected. But as soon as it was indicated that a plane had crashed on the town, my immediate thought was that it must have been one of the RAF jets that used the locality for low-flying exercises, to the great concern of the local inhabitants who often predicted that there would one day be a tragedy.

I immediately tried to telephone my mother, but all the lines were down and I could not get through. Shortly after 8pm a university colleague phoned me. Her first words were: “Bob, are you sitting down?” When I said that I wasn’t, she said “I think you should.” She then said that television programmes had been interrupted to announce that a plane had crashed on Lockerbie. Knowing that I did not have a television set (and twenty years later I still don’t) she assumed that I would not have received the news.

As the gravity of the incident became clearer, so my concern for the safety of my mother and father increased. However, at around 8.15, I received a phone call from my niece, at that time a nurse in a hospital in Glasgow. It transpired that she had actually been on the phone to my mother when the plane came down and, because the line was not cut until a few minutes thereafter, was able to confirm that her grandmother and grandfather had not been killed or injured. At the actual moment of impact, my father had been outside the house, posting a letter in the pillar box just across the road. He rushed to the alleyway between the houses and sheltered there while small items of debris rained down on the street.

When I drove in to Lockerbie on 23rd December, I was asked by the police what my business there was and, having convinced them that it was legitimate, was instructed to take a circuitous route to Hillview Street because the direct route was closed. That route would have led through Park Place which, of course, was one of the locations (other than Sherwood Crescent) most affected by debris from the plane.

Hillview Street itself had not been damaged. But a short distance away, just beyond Lambhill Terrace, the local golf course was one of the main sites from which bodies were recovered. Indeed, the main immediate impact that the disaster had on my family’s daily life was that it prevented my father from taking his daily walks over the golf course with his elderly next-door neighbour’s equally elderly dog.

The most obvious signs to me over the next few days that all was not normal were: the presence of multitudes of strangers in the town; the prevalence of baseball caps (not at that time a common item of headgear in Scotland) among the (presumably American) incomers; and the constant noise of helicopters.

My parents – typically, I think – did not then, or in the years that followed, talk a great deal about the event. Nor did their friends and neighbours. These were not people who wore their emotions on their sleeves. Scorn and distaste were, of course, expressed for the disaster groupies who felt compelled to visit the principal sites of destruction and gawk. But apart from that, reticence was the keynote of local reaction. And while there may well have been some citizens of the town who made use of the counselling services provided, on the whole the denizens of Lockerbie did not provide fertile ground for trauma counsellors.

My personal involvement in the aftermath of the destruction of Pan Am 103 began in early 1993. I was approached by representatives of a group of British businessmen whose desire to participate in major engineering works in Libya was being impeded by the UN sanctions that had been imposed on Libya in attempt to compel the surrender for trial in Scotland or the United States of America of their two accused citizens. They asked if I would be prepared to provide (on an unpaid basis) independent advice to the government of Libya on matters of Scottish criminal law, procedure and evidence with a view (it was hoped) to persuading them that their citizens would obtain a fair trial if they were to surrender themselves to the Scottish authorities. This I agreed to do, and submitted material setting out the essentials of Scottish solemn criminal procedure and the various protections embodied in it for accused persons.

In the light of this material, it was indicated to me that the Libyan government was satisfied regarding the fairness of a criminal trial in Scotland but that since Libyan law prevented the extradition of nationals for trial overseas, the ultimate decision on surrender for trial would have to be one taken voluntarily by the accused persons themselves, in consultation with their independent legal advisers. For this purpose a meeting was convened in Tripoli in October 1993 of the international team of lawyers which had already been appointed to represent the accused. This team consisted of lawyers from Scotland, England, Malta, Switzerland and the United States and was chaired by the principal Libyan lawyer for the accused, Dr Ibrahim Legwell. The Libyan government asked me to be present in Tripoli while the team was meeting so that the government itself would have access to independent Scottish legal advice should the need arise. However, the Libyan government expectation was clearly that the outcome of the meeting of the defence team would be a decision by the two accused voluntarily to agree to stand trial in Scotland.

I am able personally to testify to how much of a surprise and embarrassment it was to the Libyan government when the outcome of the meeting of the defence team was an announcement that the accused were not prepared to surrender themselves for trial in Scotland. In the course of a private meeting that I had a day later with Dr Legwell, he explained to me that the primary reason for the unwillingness of the accused to stand trial in Scotland was their belief that, because of unprecedented pre-trial publicity over the years, a Scottish jury could not possibly bring to their consideration of the evidence in this case the degree of impartiality and open-mindedness that accused persons are entitled to expect and that a fair trial demands. A secondary consideration was the issue of the physical security of the accused if the trial were to be held in Scotland. Not that it was being contended that ravening mobs of enraged Scottish citizens would storm Barlinnie prison, seize the accused and string them up from the nearest lamp posts. Rather, the fear was that they might be snatched by special forces of the United States, removed to America and put on trial there (or, like Lee Harvey Oswald, suffer an unfortunate accident before being put on trial).

The Libyan government attitude remained, as it always had been, that they had no constitutional authority to hand their citizens over to the Scottish authorities for trial. The question of voluntary surrender for trial was one for the accused and their legal advisers, and while the Libyan government would place no obstacles in the path of, and indeed would welcome, such a course of action, there was nothing that it could lawfully do to achieve it.

Having mulled over the concerns expressed to me by Dr Legwell in October 1993, I returned to Tripoli and on 10 January 1994 presented a letter to him suggesting a means of resolving the impasse created by the insistence of the governments of the United Kingdom and United States that the accused be surrendered for trial in Scotland or America and the adamant refusal of the accused to submit themselves for trial by jury in either of these countries. This was a detailed proposal, but in essence its principal elements were: that a trial be held outside Scotland, ideally in the Netherlands, in which the governing law and procedure would be that followed in Scottish criminal trials on indictment but with this major alteration, namely that the jury of 15 persons which is a feature of that procedure be replaced by a panel of judges who would have the responsibility of deciding not only questions of law but also the ultimate question of whether the guilt of the accused had been established on the evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

In a letter to me dated 12 January 1994, Dr Legwell stated that he had consulted his clients, that this scheme was wholly acceptable to them and that if it were implemented by the government of the United Kingdom the suspects would voluntarily surrender themselves for trial before a tribunal so constituted. By a letter of the same date the Deputy Foreign Minister of Libya stated that his government approved of the proposal and would place no obstacles in the path of its two citizens should they elect to submit to trial under this scheme.

On my return to the United Kingdom I submitted the relevant documents to the Foreign Office in London and the Crown Office (the headquarters of the Scottish prosecution service) in Edinburgh. Their immediate response was that this scheme was impossible, impracticable and inherently undesirable, with the clear implication that I had taken leave of what few senses nature had endowed me with. That remained the attitude of successive Lord Advocates and Foreign Secretaries for four years and seven months. During this period the British government's stance remained consistent: United Nations Security Council Resolutions placed upon the government of Libya a binding international legal obligation to hand over the accused for trial to the UK or the US authorities. Nothing else would do. If Libyan law did not currently permit the extradition of its own nationals to stand trial overseas, then Libya should simply alter its law (and, if necessary, its Constitution) to enable it to fulfil its international duty.

However, from about late July 1998, following interventions supporting my “neutral venue” scheme from, amongst others, President Nelson Mandela, there began to be leaks from UK government sources to the effect that a policy change over Lockerbie was imminent; and on 24 August 1998 the governments of the United Kingdom and United States announced that they had reversed their stance on the matter of a "neutral venue" trial.

Although many within the governments of Britain and the United States and within the media were sceptical, the suspects did eventually, on 5 April 1999, surrender themselves for trial before the Scottish court at Camp Zeist. That trial, after lengthy delays necessitated by the defence's need for adequate time to prepare, started on 3 May 2000 and a verdict of guilty was returned against one of the accused, and of not guilty against the other, on 31 January 2001.

I feel a measure of pride in the part that I, a Lockerbie boy born and bred, played in resolving an international impasse and in bringing the trial about. I have reason to suspect, however, that the United Kingdom government feels no sense of gratitude towards me. And I feel no pride whatsoever in the outcome of the proceedings. The conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on the evidence led at the trial constitutes, in my view, a flagrant miscarriage of justice, and one that I hope to live to see rectified as a result of the reference of the case back for a further appeal by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in June 2007.

Many in Lockerbie hoped, I think, that the twentieth anniversary of the tragedy would signal an end to the town’s exposure to the eyes of the world. Regrettably, because of the Crown’s delaying tactics, it looks as if the new appeal will not be concluded before 21 December 2008. But the town’s wish will surely be fulfilled before the twenty-first anniversary and Lockerbie will be permitted to sink back into decent obscurity. But future generations will be grateful that, before that happened, Jill Haldane had the vision and the persistence to find a way of ensuring that the voices of the people of Lockerbie were heard and preserved.

News breaks of UK & US volte face on Lockerbie trial

[It was on this date in 1998 that The Guardian broke the story that the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States were about to drop their opposition to a trial of the two Libyan suspects under Scots law in the Netherlands. Two articles by the newspaper’s Diplomatic Editor, Ian Black (which are not wholly accurate and no longer seem to appear on The Guardian website) read as follows:]

New move to force trial of Lockerbie bomb suspects

Tuesday July 21, 1998

Britain and the US have decided that two Libyans accused of the Lockerbie bombing can be tried in The Hague under Scottish law, reversing their position that justice can only be done under their jurisdiction - and shifting the onus on to Colonel Gadafy to hand them over.

Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary and Madeleine Albright, the US secretary of state, are to make the announcement simultaneously in London and Washington in the next few days, The Guardian has learned.

The U-turn follows growing evidence that the campaign to isolate Libya through sanctions was beginning to crumble in the face of an obdurate Libyan leader.

The two allies reached agreement earlier this month but the announcement has been held up pending a new government in Holland, whose approval is required for the trial to go ahead.

Abdel Basset al-Megrahi and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah, described as Libyan intelligence agents, were accused in November 1991 of planting the suitcase bomb that killed 270 people on Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on December 21, 1988.

It was the worst act of terrorism in British history, and there have been several conflicting theories and much speculation about who was responsible.

Libya has consistently refused to hand over the men, despite the imposition of United Nations sanctions which Britain and the US are finding increasingly hard to maintain in the face of their refusal to accept a third country trial.

For nearly seven years both have insisted that the trial can be held only in Scotland or the US. They rejected as disingenuous Libyan claims that the two could not get justice under such jursidiction.

The move will be welcomed by families of the British victims, long frustrated at the impasse. They have urged London and Washington should show flexibility.

Libya has not yet been informed of the new position, which is likely to follow closely a proposal made by the Arab League and the Organisation of African Unity, which have said Colonel Gadafy will accept a court operating under the Scottish legal procedure.

Under this proposal, it would have an international panel of judges instead of a jury, presided over by a senior Scottish judge appointed by Tony Blair.

The Hague is home to the International Court of Justice and the Bosnia War Crimes Tribunal. If the two men are handed over, and convicted, special arrangements will have to be made for their imprisonment.

Diplomats believe it is unlikely that Colonel Gadafy will agree to surrender the men but argue that if he does not, it should be easier to reinforce the sanctions.

In recent months both governments have watched with mounting alarm as they have become isolated over the sanctions in the Arab world, Africa, and beyond. They have concluded that they need to regain the initiative.

Both countries also want to focus their energies on maintaining the far more important UN sanctions against Iraq, still seen as a significant international threat in the way that Libya no longer is.

Only last week Italy said it wanted to normalise relations with its former colony, while Mrs Albright was furious when the Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, sought and obtained UN permission on humanitarian grounds to fly to Libya to see Colonel Gadafy, suffering from a broken hip.

Lockerbie: the West takes a gamble

Most of the world has lost its taste for punishing Libya. Ian Black reveals how the US and Britain are hoping to regain the whip hand

Tuesday July 21, 1998

Nearly 10 years after the worst act of  terrorism in contemporary British history, the decision to agree to the Lockerbie bombing suspects being tried in a neutral venue -  expected to be announced later this week - offers the first chance for justice to be done.

It represents a dramatic turning point in the long and exhausting battle of wills between the United States and Britain on the one hand and Colonel Muammar Gadafy on the other - a battle that began when Libya's leader was blamed for the deadly suitcase bomb placed on a Boeing jet, probably in Malta, just before Christmas 1988, and which brought mayhem and carnage to the Scottish town over which the plane broke up.

For Libyans and many Arabs, Lockerbie has become a byword for American-inspired arrogance, another example of superpower readiness to use the blunt instrument of sanctions, like those imposed on Libya, to bully smaller countries.

For relatives of the 270 victims of Pan-Am flight 103 - American, British and others - it was a personal tragedy. Many had all but given up hope of seeing the two Libyans under suspicion brought to trial.

Britain and the US always insisted that the two, members of the Libyan intelligence services, must face trial either in Scotland or  the US, and argued that Libyan claims that the men could not expect justice in these venues were simply disingenuous.

Pressure from the relatives has certainly had some effect in changing the stance of London and Washington. But the key lies in the sense both capitals now have that without some movement on the Western side, Col Gadafy would never budge.

Lockerbie has been high on the Labour Government's agenda since it took office in May last year, when it ordered a review of the evidence, though so far there has been no public hint from the Foreign Office or elsewhere of the extraordinary turnaround in the case.

Indeed, Libya itself has yet to be to informed of the change of heart by Britain and the US, but there have been preliminary contacts in recent days through the United Nations secretary-general, Kofi Annan.

There must be grave doubts, however, that Col Gadafy will allow two secret agents to appear in any court. Most Libya-watchers agree that to do so would be to expose his own regime to a charge of state terrorism.

So while there is clearly no guarantee that the suspects will come to court, the British-American agreement to a neutral venue puts the onus squarely on Libya to comply. This - given that international support for the Anglo-American position has been withering away - should make it easier to maintain Libya's isolation if it does not comply.

Few details are known of the precise offer to be made to Tripoli, but it is likely to follow closely one made by two key supporters of  Libya - the Arab League and the Organisation of African Unity - which have said Col Gadafy will accept a court operating under the criminal law and procedure of Scotland.

In place of a jury, the envisaged court would have an international panel of judges, presided over by a senior Scottish judge appointed by Tony Blair.

It is understood that the court would sit in The Hague, already home to the International Court of Justice and the Bosnia War Crimes Tribunal. If the two were handed over, and convicted, there would be the question of where they would be imprisoned.

The Britain-US decision will be applauded by many of the Lockerbie relatives, led at the British end by Jim Swire, who lost his daughter, Flora, in the atrocity on December 21, 1988.

Dr Swire asked recently: "What do Britain and America have to lose by agreeing to a neutral-country trial, except perhaps a smidgeon of national pride? Are not justice and truth more important than that?"

Years of pain and frustration have led many of the bereaved to believe in complex conspiracy theories about the bombing, variously blaming Iran, Palestinian radicals or Syria, even though the evidence gathered in this country by Dumfries and Galloway Police is said to provide a strong case against the two Libyans.

Indictments against the two agents were issued in November 1991 but Libya has always refused to hand the men over. In 1992 the United Nations imposed an air and arms embargo intended to isolate the North African country until it complied.

The curbs were tightened in 1993 to include a freeze on some Libyan assets abroad and a ban on some types of equipment used in oil terminals and refineries.

But because of the scale of European dependence on Libyan oil the sanctions were not allowed to affect the country's oil exports or oil drilling equipment.

Recently international enthusiasm has waned sharply and the US and Britain have found themselves almost alone as Col Gadafy has bought friends and influence in Africa with cheap oil deals and outright bribes.

The Organisation of African Unity is threatening to cease complying with the sanctions from September this year, unless the UN Security Council agrees to a third-country trial. Last October, South Africa's influential president, Nelson Mandela, visited Libya on his way to and from the Commonwealth summit in Edinburgh.

Last week, Egypt's moderate president, Hosni Mubarak - the largest recipient of US aid after Israel - flew to Libya to visit Col Gadafy after the Libyan leader broke his hip.  The UN gave permission on humanitarian grounds, but the message was clear: patience with Libya's punishment was running out.

[RB: The official announcement came just over a month later, on 24 August 1998.]