Lockerbie verdict a ‘travesty’ for which we will pay price

[This is the headline over an opinion piece by Dr Jim Swire in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]

When Robin Cook and President Clinton agreed to allow a modified form of Professor Black's neutral-country trial of the alleged Lockerbie bombers, they began a process which we now see has transcended even the freshness and hope of the Obama administration. Hope that the behaviour of our mighty transatlantic ally was henceforth to be driven by a philosophy enshrining integrity, right and truth, particularly including human rights.

In the matter of the man suffering in Greenock prison, that is not so.

The naked intervention of President Clinton's wife in the affair has to be seen as the intervention of ignorance, a voice from the previous regime. I have tried but failed to penetrate the Obama administration to warn it that there was highly credible evidence they were wrong to believe the Lockerbie issue honourably settled. I failed to penetrate it.

I can forgive Obama and retain faith in his principles, for I believe that he simply has not found time to review the basis on which the decision to allow his Secretary of State to intervene was based. (...)

At a summit in Birmingham, England, many years ago, I tried to meet President Clinton. Instead I was fobbed off with a security adviser called Bandler at the president's hotel in Birmingham.

I asked him what plans his president had to overcome what was then the Lockerbie deadlock. There were none, until the resources of the CIA and MI6 were later engaged to prepare the way for the show trial that was to ensue at Zeist in Holland.

Holland was wonderful, Robin Cook was on our side, seeking to support the forces of justice.

We were entranced, expecting to discover the truth.

But by the time Jack Straw arranged a conference call to the UK relatives after the verdict, to bask in what was presented as a victory for the judicial probity of the West, my words to him were: "Mr Straw, I think you should get your people to study the evidence from this trial, not to sit back and enjoy the verdict."

That was, of course, not to be. (...)

What now? Sooner or later the truth will out. Perhaps we shall play a part in reaching that day, perhaps it will only be revealed at the bar of history.

Of one thing I am certain: our culture and our countries' reputations will pay a terrible price in the long run for what became a travesty of justice.

The nascent independence of Scotland will be mortally wounded unless she roots out those who have contributed to this monstrosity of a verdict that is the product of self-interest and international pressure, joined by a failure of any knight in shining armour to emerge from among us with the weapons to uphold truth and justice.

It may look as though just one Arab has paid the price of our perfidy: this is not so. I fear we shall all pay.

My daughter, and those who died with her, deserved a far better memorial to their young lives snuffed out. I tried.

[An article entitled "Megrahi awaits decision with months left to live" by Michael Settle, The Herald's UK Political Editor, can be read here.]

Mandela presses for neutral-nation trial of Lockerbie suspects

[This is the headline over a report published in The New York Times on this date in 1997. It reads in part:]

President Nelson Mandela of South Africa pressed Britain today to let two Libyans accused of blowing up an airliner over Scotland stand trial in a neutral country.

Justice cannot be done if Britain insists on trying the suspects in Britain or the United States, he said at a news conference during a meeting of Commonwealth leaders here.

Mr Mandela set off controversy this week by visiting Libya en route to Scotland to support Libya's plan for the two men to stand trial in a neutral country.

Britain and the United States are demanding the extradition of the pair, suspected of killing 270 people in the bombing of a Pan Am airliner over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988. The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Libya for more than four years to force compliance.

Mr Mandela said he had not raised the matter with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, but he added: ''I have never thought in dealing with this question that it is correct for any particular country to be the complainant, the prosecutor and the judge at the same time. Justice cannot be said to be done in that situation.''

He noted that British relatives of Lockerbie victims backed a trial in a neutral country, as do some American relatives, as well as the Organization of African Unity, the Arab League, the Islamic Conference and the Nonaligned Movement.

British officials were adamant that there was no question of accepting the Mandela proposal, even if a foreign court abided by Scottish law. ''We believe they should be brought to justice here or in the United States,'' one said.

He said the Government took the views of the relatives seriously but saw ''formidable obstacles'' to a trial in a neutral country. The International Court of Justice in The Hague has been mentioned as one possibility.

It would be necessary for the British Parliament to pass primary legislation, and any third country would struggle to find the expertise in Scottish law needed at short notice to permit a meaningful trial, the officials said.

They said Foreign Secretary Robin Cook had underlined Britain's determination to insure a free trial by inviting representatives of African and Arab countries to come to Scotland to study its legal system and observe the trial.

''We wholly reject any suggestion that it would be an unfair trial,'' Mr Cook told ITN news on Friday. ''Scotland was where the murders took place. Scotland is the place where the trial should happen.''

But Mr Cook will come under further pressure when he meets Jim Swire, the father of one of the victims, on Sunday. ''I will be telling Mr Cook that we should have a trial in a third country under Scots law and that he has been badly advised in his opposition to this,'' Mr Swire told The Scotsman newspaper.

[What follows is an excerpt from an account that I wrote several years ago about the UK Government’s objections to my neutral venue proposal:]

On my return to the United Kingdom [from Libya in January 1994] I submitted the relevant documents [about my neutral venue proposal and Libyan agreement to it] 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 Professor Black must have taken leave of what few senses nature had endowed him 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 would simply have to alter its law (and, if necessary, its Constitution) to enable it to fulfil its international duty.

Over the years British government sources put forward six specific objections to my proposal. 

(...)

Objection 2

There would be formidable technical difficulties in implementing the proposal to set up a non-jury court applying Scottish criminal law and procedure but sitting outside Scotland, for example in the Netherlands.

I had always accepted that my proposal would involve the necessity of amending the law. As the law stood, a Scottish High Court judge had no authority to preside over a sitting of the court anywhere outside Scotland.  Nor, assuming the trial resulted in a conviction, were Scottish prison governors entitled to incarcerate in their institutions persons other than those committed by the warrant of a duly-constituted UK court.  However, I contended that it was not beyond the competence, capabilities and expertise of Scottish parliamentary draftsmen, in consultation with the Crown Office (the body responsible for the running of the Scottish criminal prosecution system) and the officials of The Scottish Office Home Department’s Criminal Justice Division (the Government Department then responsible for criminal law and policy in Scotland) speedily to draft primary or secondary legislation constituting such a court and providing that it should apply all the rules of evidence and procedure applicable to High Court trials in Scotland, save only those relating to the presence and functions of the jury.  I also argued that, if such legislation were promoted, it would be unlikely to meet with serious opposition in either House of Parliament; and that both the United Nations and the Netherlands would be willing to cooperate if such a court were established.  That I was right about all these matters can be seen from the ease with which, in 1998, the Scottish Court in the Netherlands was eventually set up.

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.]

US dictation in Lockerbie case

[This is the headline over a group of three letters published in The Herald on this date in 1997, reflecting views that were commonly held at that time. They read as follows:]

[1]  Asked by Tam Dalyell, MP, whether the Americans might be unwilling to give information to the Dumfries and Galloway Police on the Lockerbie air disaster in order to facilitate a “neutral country trial”, Mr Robin Cook replied: “We have had full co-operation...from the United States authorities. It would not be possible, however, to mount a prosecution without the co-operation of the US authorities, who hold part of the evidence. Most of those killed on the Pan-Am jet were Americans, and the majority of their relatives do not want a trial to take place outside Scotland or the United States.”

Throughout the past nine years we have constantly been assured that the criminal investigation was being conducted by the Dumfries and Galloway Police, with Scotland's Lord Advocate having overall responsibility.

At the one inquiry we have so far been allowed - which was mandatory under Scots law anyway - namely the Lockerbie Fatal Accident Inquiry, it was concluded that the plane, although American, had been loaded from empty (and therefore acquired the bomb) at London's Heathrow airport. It was deemed to have been “under the host-state protection of the United Kingdom”.

Soon after crossing the Border my daughter and 258 others aboard the plane (over 30 of them British) were cruelly done to death by the action of that bomb. The debris then fell upon Lockerbie, 31,000 feet below, where 11 Scots citizens not even associated with the aircraft also died.

By what metamorphosis of his position as the Foreign Secretary of our country does Robin Cook propose that America should dictate that a path be followed which, over the past six years, has shown itself incompetent to deliver the accused to trial, thus obstructing the process of truth and justice, which is what we, his citizens, seek?

Dr Jim Swire  Bromsgrove.

[2]  Was ever a dead horse flogged as hard and as long as the Lockerbie air disaster?

One cannot fail to be impressed with the tenacity of Dr Jim Swire and his fellow sufferers, who have been determined to ''keep the faith'' with their loved ones, lost in such terrible circumstances.

Having watched and read every serious report available, allied to information available locally, I conclude that neither this British Government nor any American one (certainly not the latter) will ever permit this case to come to trial.

Much of the evidence against the Libyans centres on occurrences in Malta, and particularly the miraculous memory of a Maltese shopkeeper, who can remember perfectly the appearance of some shopper plus all the common or garden items he bought on just another mundane day, months after the event.

Much hinges on this ordinary case of ordinary clothes, identified with amazing precision by investigators and shopkeeper alike. I would have more confidence in this detection had there been any report that the owner/s of the suitcases of powder found in a field on a local farm had ever been formally identified.

We may of course be told that this is merely a piece of local mythology, but I remember very well the farmer saying to me deadpan, and with only his eyes smiling, that he was worried in case his sheep developed a taste for the stuff!

If the cases had ordinary labels on them, the culprit/s should have been identified at once. If the cases had no labels on them, it confirms everything about the institutionalised breaching of security at Munich and Heathrow airports, as has been suggested by security experts in the past.

I have heard Dr Swire state that he wants to know who was responsible for the death of all the victims, a reasonable enough request from a grieving parent.

Look no further than the commanding officer of the United States warship which, equipped with every state-of-the-art electronic artifice, blew to smithereens an unarmed, fully laden civilian Iranian aircraft.

Are we supposed to forget the obfuscation which followed, with the White House spokesman firstly describing the plane as if it was a divebombing Stuka, and then as time passed conceding bit by bit that the plane was not quite as close as detailed the last time he was briefed? And then his final statement, that it was in fact miles away from the warship?

It was, we were then told, an ''unfortunate accident''. Indeed it was. Just how unfortunate, we learnt one December night in and above Lockerbie, long after that same commanding officer was welcomed home to the ''Land of the Free'', feted as some conquering hero.

Though they got precious little, it has never been my belief that the Iranian families were due any less sympathy and understanding than the families of those who suffered the inevitable repercussions of that heinous original crime.

Small wonder that neither our Government, nor the American Government to whom we seem so beholden, will agree to holding a trial outwith territory which they control, where elimination would be simple.

On the basis that ''if the mountain will not go to Mohammed'' I suggest, not that we seek a neutral country, but that we select an entire judicial team, court staff, and jury, and then request Libya to host the trial, to be run under Scots law by Scottish professionals in Libya, and with no TV cameras allowed anywhere near the court.

We control the trial, and they control the surrounding security. Whoever refuses to accept such a solution to the current impasse just might have a good deal to hide.

And I haven't mentioned the CIA once!

R S Carlaw  Lockerbie.

[3]  It has pained me for years that the anguished relatives of the Lockerbie massacre are still being led by the move to seek a Scottish trial for the Libyan accused.

Every adult in the UK knows that the bastard verdict, Not Proven, would be brought.   

Malcolm Campbell  Girvan.

Libya may compensate Lockerbie families

[This is the headline over a report published on the website of The Guardian on this date in 2001, the day after the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi and the acquittal of Lamin Fhimah. It reads as follows:]

The Libyan government is today considering compensation payments to the families of victims of the Lockerbie bombing, as a group representing the British families of those who died in the tragedy gathered in London to press for an independent public inquiry.

The Libyan ambassador to London, Mohammed al-Zwai, said today that his government will consider both compensation payments and agreements reached with the UN security council if Abdel Baset al-Megrahi's appeal against his conviction for the bombing fails. The security council agreements include the requirement that Libya offer compensation and accept responsibility for the bombing.

Megrahi, a Libyan citizen, was sentenced yesterday to life imprisonment for the murder of 270 people in the 1988 bomb attack on Pan Am flight 103. Scottish judges accepted that he was a special agent for the Libyan government, thereby implicating Tripoli in the attack. According to Libyan television reports, Megrahi will lodge an appeal against his conviction within 14 days.

Mr Zwai's comments seem to contradict statements out of Tripoli that the Libyan government bears no responsibility for the bombing. Libyan foreign minister Abdel Rahman Shalgam has insisted that Tripoli will never accept responsibility for the attack.

Colonel Muammar Gadafy's government has not been indicted in the bombing, but the Lockerbie blast was alleged to have been committed to "further the purposes" of Libyan intelligence. The prosecution has charged that the attack was carried out to avenge the US bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986.

Following the verdict, Libya called for an end to the UN sanctions imposed after the Lockerbie bombing.

"The sanctions imposed on Libya must be lifted completely because the Lockerbie case was used as a pretext to delay their lifting," foreign ministry spokesman Hassouna Chiouch told a news conference. "Now that the court has ended the case, the sanctions must be lifted completely."

"We extend our hand to the United States to build relations based on mutual respect and benefit for the two parties," Chiouch said. "Now that the Lockerbie case is behind, we look forward with interest to improving our relations with the United States in the interests of both countries and of peace worldwide."

Foreign secretary Robin Cook said Britain and the United States both agreed Libya "must" fulfil the UN security council resolutions before the sanctions will be lifted. Mr Cook stressed that Libya is barred from offering "no fault" compensation.

"Libya has in the past said it would pay compensation if there was a guilty verdict. There has been a guilty verdict, and a guilty verdict against a very senior official of Libyan intelligence," said Mr Cook.

"Libya can't walk away from their responsibility for the act of their official," he added.

In Washington, President George Bush praised the conviction and said the Libyan government must take responsibility for the attack. After less than two weeks in office, the Bush administration faces a major foreign policy decision on how hard to squeeze Libya.

State department spokesman Richard Boucher laid down four demands with which the United States said Libya must comply.

"That means revealing everything they know about the Lockerbie bombing, paying reparations, a clear declaration acknowledging responsibility for the actions of the Libyan officials and clear unambiguous actions which demonstrate the Libyan government understands its responsibilities," Mr Boucher said.

Meanwhile, the British families of those who died in the Lockerbie bombing are gathering in London today to press for further inquiries into the disaster. The group, which includes high profile campaigners Dr Jim Swire and the Rev John Mosey, will call for an independent public inquiry into unanswered questions surrounding the circumstances of the bombing.

The families have always maintained they want a public inquiry into issues not fully explored in the Fatal Accident Inquiry which was completed in 1991 or in the criminal trial which ended yesterday.

Most crucially, they want the failure of the intelligence services and the aviation authorities to stop the bomb getting on board to come under the spotlight.

Several bomb warnings were circulating at the time of the disaster including the so-called 'Toshiba warning' which advised that a bomb hidden inside a radio cassette recorder could be smuggled on to a plane. The bomb which blew up the Pan Am flight was hidden inside a Toshiba radio cassette recorder.

Previous calls for a public inquiry have been rejected on the grounds that such a move would prejudice the long-awaited criminal trial. Now that the trial is finally over, the families will argue that there are no grounds for rejecting a public inquiry.

Scotland's top law officer said today that insufficient evidence exists at this time for more prosecutions over the Lockerbie bombing. Colin Boyd QC, the Lord Advocate, added that it is clear that the man convicted yesterday for the outrage was not acting alone.

Following the announcement of the verdict yesterday, Al-Amin Khalifah Fhimah, Megrahi's co-accused who was acquitted, left the court at Camp Zeist, a former US military base in the Netherlands, a free man.

Taken to a safe house last night, he was expected to leave the Netherlands for home today. The time and place of his departure are closely guarded secrets. Megrahi remained in the specially built prison where he and Fhimah had been held since Tripoli handed them over in April 1999.

An official source said Megrahi's mother had been taken to a Tripoli hospital after collapsing, overwhelmed by news that her son had been jailed for life.

An appeal would be heard at Camp Zeist, except in the highly unlikely event Megrahi chose not to be present - in which case it would be held in the Scottish capital, Edinburgh.

And under the terms of the groundbreaking deal under which the Libyans were brought for trial, Megrahi stays at the camp until the entire legal process is complete.

Any appeal would take months to get under way, legal experts say. There is no automatic right of appeal in Scottish law, and that alone complicates and delays the process significantly.

Shameless behaviour over Libya

[What follows is excerpted from an article by Kenny MacAskill in today's edition of The Scotsman:]

Robin Cook became Foreign Secretary in 1997 amid much fanfare about an ethical foreign policy. That lasted a matter of weeks before arms sales to Indonesia intervened and a muting of the sound was required. 

To be fair, Cook was a good man who tried to do the right thing and showed his mettle and his principles by resigning from office over the Iraq War. However, it also showed how difficult it can be to abide by ethical values when the needs of a state intrude. (...)

However, New Labour gave up any pretence of an ethical foreign policy after Tony Blair rode shotgun for George W Bush on the invasion of Iraq. It was without any ethical basis and predicated on a lie. Having supped with the devil, Blair seemed to lose any moral scruples on foreign policy, as shown by the shameless behaviour over Libya. 

When news of a UK and Libya ‘Prisoner Transfer Agreement’ first broke, Jack Straw sallied north to appease the new SNP administration’s concerns about its effect on Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. The UK Justice Secretary seemingly genuinely willing to remove Scotland’s only Libyan prisoner from the document until overruled by the Treasury and Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which made clear the demands of Libya and the needs of the British state. [RB: See Jack Straw and the UK-Libya prisoner transfer agreement.]

Straw was no innocent on Libyan affairs as shown by the parliamentary apology tendered last week over the case of Abdel Belhaj, a Libyan dissident rendered into the Gadhafi regime’s hands by the US with the complicity of the UK. (...)

Belhaj and his pregnant wife weren’t the only prisoners rendered to Gadhafi’s Libya by the CIA and UK’s security services. There were others and they were returned to a despot that the UK was imposing international sanctions on and rightly condemned. To be fair to Cook, his initial involvement with Libya was simply to seek the release of the Lockerbie suspects for the trial that took place at Camp Zeist. His successors though discarded all pretence at justice and policy was dictated by the shameless pursuit of UK economic interests, irrespective of the welfare of innocents. 

When Blair made his deal in the desert and embraced Gadhafi, other connected events quickly followed. First was the signing of a huge oil deal and second the commencement of the prisoner renditions. For the deal was a two-way street with benefits for the Libyan regime as much as the UK. It wasn’t just a lessening of sanctions but also involved the supply of arms and even the training of Gadhafi’s elite troops by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI).

That was exposed in an Amnesty International report shortly after I made the decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds – and not because of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement. Individuals are entitled to their view on that, but the criticism of it by Labour was brazen given the actions they were involved in. America was equally Brazen with Clinton and Obama pursuing commercial deals with Libya, as well as courting him as an ally against Islamism. They embraced the Gadhafi family before Megrahi was even released but were equally craven in their denunciations.

The great irony is that when the West realised that Gadhafi was neither going to change nor be reliable they turned on him once more.

Restoration of diplomatic relations with Libya

[The following are three snippets from this date in 1999 that appear on the Libya: News and Views website:]

The UK has announced it is restoring full diplomatic links with Libya after a break of 15 years. The move follows the Libyan Government's acceptance of "general responsibility" for the killing of policewoman Yvonne Fletcher, who was shot dead outside its London embassy in 1984. It has also agreed to pay substantial compensation to the Fletcher family and to co-operate in the investigation to find the killer. The compensation is understood to reach six figures, although the actual amount is not being revealed. [BBC]

Libya's UN ambassador on Wednesday attributed Libya's thaw in relations with Britain to Tripoli's surrender of two suspects in the Lockerbie bombing case and said it was time UN sanctions were lifted. Ambassador Abuzed Omar Dorda said a resumption of ties with Britain, announced by British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, “is the natural thing.” Dorda was reacting to Cook's announcement on Wednesday that London was resuming diplomatic relations with Libya after Tripoli agreed to cooperate in police investigations into the 1984 shooting of a British policewoman outside Libya's embassy in London. Cook told parliament Libya had also agreed to pay compensation for the killing. [Reuters]

The United States will not follow Britain's example and resume ties with Libya, at least until Tripoli offers compensation for the Americans killed over Lockerbie in 1988, the State Department said on Wednesday. Britain is reopening diplomatic relations after 15 years because Tripoli has agreed to cooperate in police investigations into the fatal shooting in 1984 of a British policewoman outside Libya's embassy in London. In Washington, US State Department spokesman James Foley noted the Libyan concessions and said the United States would seek the same for the families of victims of Pan Am flight 103, which blew up over Lockerbie in Scotland. [Reuters]

The winding path towards Zeist

[Two items from this date in 1997 serve to illustrate some of the difficulties involved in seeking to overcome resistance to a neutral venue Lockerbie trial:]

1. Hansard (HC Deb 03 November 1997 vol 300 c46W)

Mr [Tam] Dalyell To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider amending the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to permit a Scottish court to sit overseas to try those accused in respect of Lockerbie.

Mr [Henry] McLeish [holding answer 30 October 1997]: The Government remain committed to trial of the two Libyan accused in Scotland or the United States and it would therefore be inappropriate and unnecessary to amend the criminal procedure legislation.

2. The Herald Arabs knock back Lockerbie offer

Hopes of a breakthrough in the Lockerbie stalemate were dented last night when the Arab League rejected an offer to visit Scotland to inspect the legal system.

Foreign Secretary Robin Cook invited the Arab League, the Organisation of African Unity, and the UN Secretary-General to send observers to Scotland to study its judicial system at first hand.

However the head of the Arab League, Esmat Abdel-Meguid, said yesterday that he did not intend to take up the invitation, and that Libya would never hand over its citizens to Scotland or the US for trial.

Mr Cook issued the invitation in the hope of breaking the logjam over Lockerbie, with Libya facing UN sanctions for refusing to surrender for trial two men accused of the 1988 PanAm aircraft bombing which killed 270 people.

Libya has offered to hand them over for trial in a ''neutral'' country with some elements of Scottish legal procedures, but refuses to countenance a trial in Britain or the US.

The Foreign Office had no immediate comment on the Arab League refusal.

A spokesman said: ''There is nothing I can add to what the Foreign Secretary said on Tuesday. He has issued the invitation in good faith, and we would be very happy for people to come and see for themselves.''

At a press conference in Abu Dhabi, the head of the Arab League said it was not possible for one country to hand over its citizens to another without a mutual extradition agreement.   

''Britain's insistence that the trial takes place in Scotland is rejected,'' he said.

He said Britain could resolve the legal complications of moving a Scottish court outside its territory by having the UN Security Council issue a special resolution setting up such a court.

Restoration of UK diplomatic relations with Libya

On this date in 1999, three months after the arrival of Megrahi and Fhimah at Zeist, diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Libya were restored, having been broken off in April 1984 following the shooting of PC Yvonne Fletcher. The announcement was made in the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook. Mr Cook’s statement is well worth reading, as are the contributions to the debate that followed, particularly those of Tam Dalyell and Sir Teddy Taylor.

Neutral venue Lockerbie trial accepted by UK and USA

[On this date in 1998 the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States, succumbing to international pressure, announced that they had reversed their stance on the matter of a "neutral venue" trial, such as I had proposed (and the Libyan Government, and the Libyan lawyer for Megrahi and Fhimah, had accepted) in January 1994. What follows is the text of a report published on the website of The Independent on the evening of 24 August:]

Britain and the United States took the unprecedented step yesterday of agreeing to hold a special trial in The Hague, under Scottish law, to bring to justice the alleged terrorists behind the Lockerbie bombing.

In a U-turn by the two governments, the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, said the decision to hold the trial in a neutral country 10 years after the bombing of PanAm 103, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground, should be seen as a signal to other terrorists responsible for the attacks on the US embassies in East Africa that "however long it takes, they will be brought to justice".

The trial could take place by next May, but there was widespread scepticism at the highest levels of Government that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi would surrender the two suspects for trial - Abdul Basset al-Megrahi and al- Amin Khalifa Fhimah - despite repeated Libyan demands for a trial in a neutral country, such as the Netherlands.

"I cannot answer for Colonel Gaddafi. His government has said they would accept a trial by a Scottish court with Scottish judges. If they choose not to take up that offer, it will very severely undermine the credibility that they will have for making that undertaking earlier this year," said Mr Cook. He added that sanctions against Libya could be lifted the moment the two accused were handed over for trial. The terms were not negotiable. The Lord Advocate, Lord Hardie, said the two could not be tried in their absence. There will be extradition proceedings, and, if they submit themselves for trial, a full committal procedure with a trial by three Scottish judges under full Scottish law held within 110 days.

They would be held "in a special facility" in The Hague by Scottish prison officers until the trial, and if found guilty, would serve their sentence in Scotland. Lord Hardie rejected calls for an international court, with a presiding Scottish judge, "because there is no body of international criminal law and procedure under which it could operate".

The move won support from Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, Tory Lord Advocate at the time of the bombing. He said that,10 years on, "the anguish of the relatives of all those who died in the tragedy and the way that conspiracy theories have proliferated" dictated holding a trial.

Families of the victims welcomed the decision. Jim Swire whose 23-year- old daughter, Flora, died on flight 103 on 21 December 1988, was "euphoric". He said: "Anyone in their right mind would welcome this decision." Mr Swire, the spokesman for the UK Families Flight 103 group, said: "This is something that our group have been working for six years for."

Alistair Duff, Scottish lawyer for the two Libyans, said the issue of the judges was not insurmountable. But Mr Duff told BBC Radio the men would need various reassurances, such as the condition of their custody and access to lawyers before agreeing to leave Tripoli.

Until recently the British and American governments maintained that the Libyans must be handed over for trial in Britain or the United States.

The US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, announcing the joint proposal in Washington, called for Libya to end its "10 years of evasion". She said: "We now challenge Libya to turn promises into deeds. The suspects should be surrendered for trial promptly."

The United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, welcomed the joint initiative and offered the UN's services to arrange the transfer of the accused men to the Netherlands, if Libya agreed. Details of the proposed compromise were to be given to Tripoli by Mr Annan.

The US and Britain are expected to submit the draft of a new resolution to the UN Security Council that will envisage an end to international sanctions against Libya if it agrees to surrender the accused men for trial.

[RB: The UK/US government statement is contained in a letter to the UN Secretary-General. It can be read here.]