Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Oliver Miles. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Oliver Miles. Sort by date Show all posts

Monday 16 December 2019

Megrahi's trial "deeply flawed"

[In today's edition of The Times there appears an obituary of Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Libya. After his retirement from the Foreign Office, Oliver Miles was a frequent commentator in the media on matters relating to Libya including, inevitably, the Lockerbie case. References to him on this blog can be found here. What follows comes from a report in The Times on 14 August 2009:]

Relatives of Lockerbie victims were denied their final chance of discovering the truth yesterday when the only man convicted of the atrocity abruptly dropped his appeal.

The decision of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, who is expected to be freed from prison in Scotland next week allowing his return to Libya, sparked charges of a top-level cover-up.

Politicians, relatives and experts accused the Scottish government of striking a deal with the convicted terrorist: that in return for his repatriation he would abandon an appeal that might have exposed a grave miscarriage of justice. “It’s pretty likely there was a deal,” said Oliver Miles, a former British Ambassador to Libya, who told The Times that the British and Scottish governments had been very anxious to avoid the appeal. (...)

Al-Megrahi’s lawyers said he had dropped his appeal because his health had deteriorated sharply, though Scottish law would permit the appeal to continue even after his death.

Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, strenuously denied that any pressure had been put on him. “We have no interest in pressurising people to drop appeals. Why on earth should we? That’s not our position — never has been,” he said.

But the Scottish government faced a wave of scepticism. Mr Miles called al-Megrahi’s original trial “deeply flawed” and said that both Scottish and British governments wanted no appeal because it would be very embarrassing.

Friday 13 November 2015

Lockerbie bombing: will we ever know the truth?

[This is the headline over a report published today on the ITV News website. It reads as follows:]

A former British ambassador to Libya says he's not convinced questions will ever fully be answered about the Lockerbie bombing.

It's a month since Scottish prosecutors announced they want to speak to two Libyan suspects in connection with the downing of Pam Am flight 103 in 1988 which killed 270 people:

I think we will probably never know the truth, I would say one major reservation, or exception is that, I could imagine there might be a deathbed confession.

Someone who was involved might on his deathbed tell the story, so to speak."

OLIVER MILES, FORMER BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO LIBYA

[A further report on ITV News reads as follows:]

Lockerbie bombing: 'if it was Libya, it was Gaddafi'

Throughout the Lockerbie bombing investigation, questions have been raised about the involvement of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, who was convicted of the crime.

Oliver Miles spent a short time as British Ambassador to Libya in 1984, and he isn't certain Libya was involved at all.

But he says if the country was involved, it was certainly organised at the highest level:

Don't forget that Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, who was convicted of the crime, was convicted of conspiracy. No-one imagines that he acted alone.

There must have been a team, if he was part of it, it was a Libyan team, and if it was a Libyan team, it was Gaddafi."

– OLIVER MILES, FORMER BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO LIBYA

Friday 22 July 2016

Deal done to get Megrahi to drop appeal

[What follows is the text of an article that appeared on the Channel 4 News website on this date in 2010:]

How does an ex-spy link BP, Libya and Lockerbie bomber? Who Knows Who investigates the key players at the heart of a growing transatlantic rift - from deals in the desert to the boardroom, via MI6.
The only man convicted in connection with the 1988 Lockerbie plane bombing over Scotland, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, was released in 2009 on compassionate grounds. He is terminally ill with prostate cancer.
He returned home, personally escorted by Saif Gaddafi, son of Libya's leader Colonel Gaddafi, to a hero's welcome in August 2009.
The celebrations sparked fury around the world and were condemned by President Obama and then prime minister Gordon Brown. Nearly a year on, al-Megrahi is still alive in Libya and his name is back in global headlines.
Thousands of miles away in the US, a group of senators has called for an inquiry into an admission by British energy giant BP that it lobbied UK ministers to get them to speed up the signing of a prisoner transfer agreement, in order to rescue an oil deal with Libya. BP insists it never lobbied about Mr al-Megrahi personally.
The witnesses the US politicians call could include Scotland's Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, former justice secretary Jack Straw, Lord Browne, the former BP chief executive, and Tony Blair.
So who sped up the process which may have led to al-Megrahi's release? What did Tony Blair agree at the "deal in the desert"? And what is the BP connection?
Shortly after al-Megrahi's return home, Britain's former "man in Tripoli" Sir Oliver Miles told Channel 4 News he believed a deal had been done between the UK and Libya, to get al-Megrahi to drop an appeal against his conviction.
The former UK ambassador to Libya said: "I think Tony Blair originally thought that he could deal with it quite simply by [sending] al-Megrahi back to Libya under the prisoner transfer agreement. It turned out it wasn't as simple as that."
One man who knows more than most about what took place is Sir Nigel Sheinwald - Britain's ambassador to the US since 2007. Once Blair's right-hand man, he has been at David Cameron's side throughout the new prime minister's first official US trip.
Sir Nigel previously served as an adviser on foreign policy to Blair. Libyan ministers and diplomats are said to refer to the "Nigel and Tony" double act.
In 2003, with US approval, he chaired the secret meetings in London with the Libyans that led to an easing of international relations with Colonel Gaddafi.
Intriguingly, Mr Cameron's coalition partner also has a connection to Gaddafi. Before entering parliament, Deputy PM Nick Clegg worked for a lobby firm called GJW. One of its clients was Libya and a key project is said to have been "improving the reputation" of its controversial leader.
Sir Nigel Sheinwald was at the heart of this rehabilitation of Libya in the eyes of the West. He was sitting next to Tony Blair at the now infamous meeting in Gaddafi's tent in 2004.
Sir Nigel was again at Blair's side in 2007 when a prisoner transfer agreement was struck. On the same day Blair looked on as BP boss Tony Hayward signed a provisional agreement over $900m gas and oil exploration rights in Libya. Both deals later stalled and al-Megrahi's ill-health was the official reason for his release.
Another key player, and a name which should interest the US senators, is Sir Mark Allen. He was in charge of the Middle East and Africa department at MI6 until he left in 2004 to become an adviser to BP.
It is known Sir Mark lobbied then justice secretary Jack Straw to speed up an agreement over prisoner transfers to avoid jeopardising a major trade deal with Libya.
He made two phone calls to Mr Straw - who later let slip Sir Mark's involvement to a select committee. He said: "I knew Sir Mark from my time at the Foreign Office - he has an extensive knowledge of Libya and the Middle East and I thought he was worth listening to."
Sir Mark, an Oxford graduate and a fan of falconry, has been credited with helping to persuade the Libyans to abandon development of weapons of mass destruction in 2003. He is said to have "charmed" Gaddafi out of his international isolation.
But has BP's influence been overplayed? Sir Oliver Miles, the former British ambassador, believes so. He says that the US senators, angry at the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster, are trying to "kick BP while it's down".
He said that Libya had signed deals not just with BP, but also with Shell and ExxonMobil - the three biggest energy firms in the world.
Speaking to Channel 4 News he added: "Libya knows the only way it can achieve a boost in oil production is by bringing in the world's biggest oil companies.
"You don't have to look for any dirty business to explain why they're doing business with BP."

Tuesday 1 September 2009

UK and Scottish governments ‘did deal’ over Lockerbie bomber release

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Times by Angus Macleod, the paper's Scottish Political Editor. The following are excerpts.]

Britain’s former ambassador to Tripoli said yesterday he believes that the Scottish and British governments did “some kind of deal” with Libya to release the Lockerbie bomber.

Oliver Miles told The Times that there was “something fishy” in the coincidence that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi’s lawyers applied to drop his appeal against conviction on the same day that news of his imminent release was leaked to the media.

“I cannot know what exactly happened but I believe that the UK and Scottish governments wanted the appeal to be dropped and somehow it was dropped”, said Mr Miles. (...)

Asked why the Scottish government would be keen to see the appeal dropped, Mr Miles said he had been told by Scottish sources that there was growing anxiety in the Scottish justice department that a successful appeal would severely damage the reputation of the Scottish justice system.

“I think there may have been some kind of deal,” Mr Miles said. “One part of the deal was to have the appeal dropped and the other part was the release on compassionate grounds. Somebody told the BBC.

“It may even have been the Libyans who leaked it because they wanted the Scots to deliver on their promise and this was a way of tying them in. I don’t think there was a deal involving business. I think on that ministers are telling the truth.”

Mohammed Siala, Libya’s Secretary for International Co-operation, told The Times he believed that al-Megrahi’s appeal would have proved his innocence. The Scottish government denied Mr Miles’s claim. Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister, said: “The decision to drop the appeal was taken by al-Megrahi and his legal advisers. The Scottish government had no influence in that decision.”

Thursday 31 March 2011

Moussa Koussa could know truth about Lockerbie bombing, say campaigners

[This is the headline over a report just published on the website of The Guardian by Severin Carrell, the paper's Scotland correspondent. It reads in part:]

Crucial questions about Libya's role in the Lockerbie bombing could finally be answered after the defection of the country's foreign minister, say campaigners.

Professor Robert Black and Jim Swire, whose daughter, Flora, was killed in the attack, said Moussa Koussa had been a pivotal figure in the Gaddafi regime and his defection was a "fantastic day" for the victims' families.

Scottish prosecution authorities plan to interview Koussa about the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270 people on 21 December 1988. The Crown Office has been "liaising closely with other justice authorities", while Dumfries and Galloway police, which has kept open its files on the bombing, said it was waiting for direction from the Crown Office before asking permission to interview Koussa.

Swire and Black say they have spoken to Koussa, formerly Muammar Gaddafi's head of intelligence, on numerous occasions and describe him as "the scariest man" they have met. He even terrified other Libyan government officials, they said. They said Koussa had stuck rigidly to the official position that Libya was not responsible for the bombing.

Both men believe Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, jailed in 2001 for the bombing, is innocent, but questions remain on whether Libya was actually involved in the attack.

Swire claims the evidence points to Syria, not Libya. "Within the Libyan regime, [Koussa] is in the best position of anyone other than Gaddafi himself to tell us what the regime knows or did," he said. "He would be a peerless source of information."

Black, emeritus professor of Scots law at the University of Edinburgh, was the architect of the unique trial of Megrahi and his co-accused, Al-Amin Khalifah Fhimah, at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2001.

Koussa signed the papers agreeing to the trial on behalf of the regime in July 1994, Black said, and was also involved in negotiating a multibillion-pound Lockerbie compensation deal with UK and US authorities.

The former spy chief played a key role in Libya's efforts to get Megrahi released from Greenock prison, meeting Scottish government and Foreign Office officials and visiting the bomber in jail.

"On a personal level, I always found [Koussa] extremely scary," Black said. "I never felt fear in the presence of any other Libyan official over the years, including Gaddafi, but Koussa was a frightening guy. It was the way everyone in Libya that I met was terrified of him."

Black said he had never formed a firm view on whether Libya was involved in the bombing, but had long suspected Megrahi had been wrongly convicted. "As far as the Libyans supplying components or logistical support for the bombing, I don't know," he added.

Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Tripoli, said he knew Koussa well when he was head of the Libyan "people's bureau" or UK embassy before he was expelled in 1980 for openly supporting Irish republicans and terrorism.

Miles – a former president of the Society for Libyan Studies – found him a "straightforward and reliable" diplomat to deal with, despite his fierce loyalty to Muammar Gaddafi and his reputation amongst his Libyan friends of being "a terror".

Miles, who was then head of the Foreign Office's north Africa department before becoming Libyan ambassador until diplomatic relations broke off in 1984, said: "I found him a perfectly reasonable person to deal with; he struck me first of all as being a committed revolutionary. His record shows he is or was a devout admirer of Gaddafi." (...)

Miles said it was difficult to assess how useful Koussa could be on the Lockerbie affair. "There are two parts to this question: the first question is that given the situation he's in, is his personality and professional training conducive to him spilling the beans? And I think yes, with some reservations. But the real question is: does he have those beans to spill?"

He added that immediately detaining and threatening to prosecute Koussa would be very damaging to the UK's main interest: destabilising and toppling Gaddafi. "I very much hope that the government puts the questions of possible court action and criminal proceedings as a second priority, behind using this incident to unsettle Gaddafi. If Moussa Koussa is in jail, that's hardly going to encourage more defectors."

Saturday 16 August 2008

Oliver Miles on the compensation agreement

The website of The Guardian has an article on the implications of the US-Libyan compensation agreement by Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Tripoli and a former president of the Society for Libyan Studies. The article, unlike many, recognises that the conviction of the one Libyan found guilty of involvement in the Lockerbie atrocity has been referred back to the Criminal Appeal Court by the SCCRC on the basis that it may have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The article can be read here.

And here, from the Tripoli Post, is a Libyan perspective.

Friday 14 August 2009

Claims of Lockerbie cover-up as only man convicted of bombing drops appeal

Relatives of Lockerbie victims were denied their final chance of discovering the truth yesterday when the only man convicted of the atrocity abruptly dropped his appeal.

The decision of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, who is expected to be freed from prison in Scotland next week allowing his return to Libya, sparked charges of a top-level cover-up.

Politicians, relatives and experts accused the Scottish government of striking a deal with the convicted terrorist: that in return for his repatriation he would abandon an appeal that might have exposed a grave miscarriage of justice. “It’s pretty likely there was a deal,” said Oliver Miles, a former British Ambassador to Libya, who told The Times that the British and Scottish governments had been very anxious to avoid the appeal.

Christine Grahame, a member of the Scottish Parliament, said: “There are a number of vested interests who have been deeply opposed to this appeal because they know it would go a considerable way towards exposing the truth behind Lockerbie.”

Robert Black, the Edinburgh law professor who was one of the architects of al-Megrahi’s trial before a special Scottish court in the Netherlands, said: “There would have been strong pressure from civil servants in the justice department and the Crown Office to bring this appeal to an end . . . I’m convinced they have never wanted it to go the full distance. Legitimate concerns about the events leading up to his conviction will not be heard.” (...)

The Libyan’s decision to drop his appeal gives Mr MacAskill the slightly less controversial option of transferring him to a Libyan jail under a prisoner transfer agreement that Britain and Libya finalised in April. Such transfers cannot take place until all legal proceedings have ended.

Either way the Obama Administration will be angered, and the victims’ relatives will be deprived of an appeal that they saw as their last chance, short of the independent public inquiry that they have long demanded, of finding out who really killed their sons, daughter, spouses and parents when Pan Am Flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie in December 1988.

They and other experts have long doubted the evidence used to convict al-Megrahi and asked how a single man could have carried out such a deadly attack. They have questioned whether Syria or Iran was really responsible. (...)

Pamela Dix, of Woking, Surrey, whose brother died in the bombing, said she felt “great disappointment . . . At the moment there is no other process or procedure ongoing to tell us how the bombing was carried out, why it was done, the motivation for it and who ordered it.”

Martin Cadman, of Burnham Market in Norfolk, who lost his son, said: “If this means that this is the end of the story then I’m very disappointed. It’s been nearly 21 years since the event and where are we? Nowhere.”

Al-Megrahi’s lawyers said he had dropped his appeal because his health had deteriorated sharply, though Scottish law would permit the appeal to continue even after his death.

Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, strenuously denied that any pressure had been put on him. “We have no interest in pressurising people to drop appeals. Why on earth should we? That’s not our position — never has been,” he said.

But the Scottish government faced a wave of scepticism. Mr Miles called al-Megrahi’s original trial “deeply flawed” and said that both Scottish and British governments wanted no appeal because it would be very embarrassing.

Ms Grahame, a backbench member of Mr Salmond’s Scottish Nationalist Party, had visited al-Megrahi in prison and said he was desperate to clear his name. She claimed to have seen a leaked e-mail from the Scottish justice department showing that senior officials were pressing him to drop his appeal.

Tam Dalyell, the former Labour MP who has long proclaimed al-Megrahi’s innocence, said: “If he abandons his appeal, it means that Lockerbie will be one of those mysteries like the assassination of President Kennedy that will remain unsolved for a long time — possibly forever.”

He added: “It would come as a mighty relief to officials at the Crown Office in Edinburgh, to certain officials in the stratosphere of Whitehall, and above all to officials in Washington.”

[The above are excerpts from a report in The Times. The full text can be read here.]

Friday 16 October 2015

Tripoli confirms new Lockerbie suspects include Gaddafi spy chief

[This is the headline over a report published today by Reuters news agency.  It reads in part:]

Tripoli's government on Friday named the two new Libyan suspects in the Lockerbie bombing investigation as Abdullah al-Senussi, the former spy chief of ousted leader Muammar Gaddafi, and a second man, Mohammed Abu Ejaila.

Senussi is currently being held in a jail in Tripoli after he was sentenced for his role in the deaths of protesters during the 2011 uprising against Gaddafi.

No details were immediately available on the second suspect in the 1988 airline bombing that killed 270 people. But one person familiar with the case said Ejaila may also be known as Mohammed Abouajela Masud, a known bomb maker.

Jamal Zubia, director of the media office of the Tripoli government, sent a message to journalists confirming the names but saying the Libyan attorney general's office had not been officially informed about the two suspects.

Scottish and US investigators said on Thursday they had identified two new Libyan suspects in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 which was blown up over the Scottish town of Lockerbie on Dec 21, 1988, en route from London to New York.

Scottish and US authorities said they had informed Libya they wanted to send investigators to the North African country where rival governments and their armed backers are battling for control, four years after the revolt that ousted Gaddafi. (...)

A Scottish Crown Office spokesman did not name the two new suspects, but said they are now suspected of being involved with Megrahi in carrying out the attack.

Masud, the bomb maker, was named in the original charge sheet against Megrahi, according to a person familiar with the case.

"The Lord Advocate (Scotland's chief prosecutor) and the U.S. Attorney General are seeking the assistance of the Libyan judicial authorities for Scottish police officers and the FBI to interview the two named suspects in Tripoli," the spokesman said. (...)

Megrahi, who protested his innocence, died in Libya in 2012. He was released three years earlier by Scotland's government on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with terminal cancer. His family and some relatives of the Scottish victims believe he was wrongly convicted.

[A report from Fox News contains the following:]

A former British ambassador to Libya, Oliver Miles, said Friday that Libyan authorities would not hand over al-Senoussi, who is imprisoned there for crimes unrelated to Lockerbie. Miles said: "He is too hot in Libya. He's the biggest fish in the pond."

Saturday 24 July 2010

The Libya investment firm and the release of the Lockerbie bomber

[This is the headline over a report on the Telegraph website. The following are excerpts.]

The terraced house just around the corner from the American embassy in London looks like most in the affluent street. Tall and elegant, only the shiny brass plaque gives a clue to what lies beyond the black front door.

The name reads Dalia Advisory Limited, a company established by Libyan businessmen just a week after the country's officials were told the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was being considered for release on compassionate grounds.

Dalia Advisory is in fact a "front" for the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA), a sovereign wealth fund with £80 billion, to invest in Britain and beyond. The Georgian town house, bought for £6 million, is, ironically, only a few yards from the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square.

Senior business sources have told The Sunday Telegraph that had Megrahi died in a British jail, the LIA would have taken its vast sums elsewhere. "If Megrahi had perished in Scotland, we would have become a pariah state as far as the Libyans were concerned," said one source.

Oliver Miles, a former ambassador to Libya and now deputy chairman of the Libyan British Business Council, said: "At the time of his release everyone knew that if he died in a Scottish jail, it would be bad for our relations." (...)

However long Megrahi now survives, the fact is business between Britain and Libya is currently booming. British exports to Libya are now double what they were a year ago while imports from Libya have risen three fold. In the first two months of this year alone, the UK exported £110 million of goods and services.

In Washington this week, the timing of the establishment of Dalia, run by an associate of Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's favourite son Saif, will come under the scrutiny of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee at a wide-ranging hearing into the release.

Angry US politicians and victims' families are convinced that Megrahi – convicted of the murder of 270 people, 189 of them Americans, when Pan Am flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie in Dec 1988 – was allowed home to ease oil and business deals between Libya and Britain.

There is particular focus on the role of BP, already on America's most hated list because of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. In the US, the company is prime suspect in masterminding the release – although the British and Scottish governments and BP have all denied this.

And US-British relations are heading for a fresh crisis over the Megrahi affair as it appears that none of the five invited British witnesses will attend Thursday's hearing. (...)

BP is to expected to send a senior executive but not the two men requested by senators – Tony Hayward, the beleaguered chief executive who may be about to leave the company, and Sir Mark Allen, the former MI6 agent who acted as a go-between for British and Libyan authorities. (...)

Speaking in a personal capacity, Mr Miles believes the American senators are conducting a "kangaroo court". He said: "They have already decided BP are guilty but they haven't got any evidence to say that." (...)

American anger is only compounded by the tone from Tripoli. Megrahi's wife Aisha, a schoolteacher, said: "Abdelbaset was a political prisoner who paid with ten years of his life to support his country. Libyans are perfectly right to celebrate his return to his family." And his eldest brother Mohammed added: "The public response is not a political one, but a show of support for someone who is much loved." (...)

Dalia was incorporated, according to Companies House records, on July 14 last year. A week earlier, at a meeting between Scottish and Libyan officials, Mr MacAskill first discussed the possibility of Megrahi being released on compassionate grounds rather than under PTA. [Note by RB: This wording gives the impression that, out of the blue, Kenny MacAskill raised the possibility of compassionate release with Libyan officials. This is arrant nonsense. The compassionate release option had been discussed in the media and was familiar to Libyan officials long before their meeting with Mr MacAskill.] BP's lobbying for the PTA – which was holding up ratification of a Libyan oil exploration deal – is at the centre of the US senate hearing next week.

Saturday 2 September 2017

Need for Megrahi to drop his appeal “rammed home” to Libya

[What follows is excerpted from an article published on the WSWS.org website on this date in 2009:]
While there is considerable scepticism about Megrahi’s original conviction, the British government and the Scottish administration insist that he is guilty, making his release, just eight years into his sentence for the worst ever terrorist atrocity in Britain, even more suspect.
The Times cited the comments of Saad Djebbar, an international lawyer who advises the Libyan government and who visited Megrahi in jail in Scotland: “No one was in any doubt that if al-Megrahi died in a Scottish prison it would have serious repercussions for many years which would be to the disadvantage of British industry.”
MacAskill and the Scottish National Party claim that the Scottish and British governments are two distinct entities, motivated by differing interests and ethics—so that base considerations over trade could not have entered into their deliberations over Megrahi.
But Oliver Miles, Britain’s former ambassador to Libya, has said he believes that “some kind of deal” was struck between the British and Scottish governments and Tripoli for the Libyan’s release.
There was “something fishy” in Megrahi’s decision to drop his appeal against conviction on the same day that news of his imminent release leaked out, Miles told the Times. “I cannot know what exactly happened but I believe that the UK and Scottish governments wanted the appeal to be dropped and somehow it was dropped,” he said.
Separately, the Daily Mail cited a “leaked email” from a “whistleblower in the Scottish justice department,” alleging that the need for Megrahi to drop his legal action was “rammed home” to Libya.
“A successful appeal would have been a humiliation for the US, UK and Scottish governments—meaning no one had been found responsible for the worst terrorist outrage in British history,” the newspaper alleged.
Whatever the specific calculations, there appears to have been a confluence of interests in support of Megrahi’s returning home.
Moreover, the decision cannot be considered in isolation from the preceding 20 years of Great Power duplicity surrounding the Lockerbie bombing, and relations with Libya in particular.
Almost from the moment Pan Am Flight 103 exploded above Scotland en route to New York City, the search for truth and for justice for those whose lives were destroyed has always been entirely subordinate to the political and commercial interests of the major powers.
Responsibility for the bombing was initially assigned to Iran, as a revenge attack by the latter for the shooting down of one of its civilian aircraft by the US military six months before, killing all 290 people on board. But Washington at this time was seeking to ensure Iranian acquiescence in its planned attack on Iraq in the first Gulf war.
Libya, which opposed the assault, was singled out, and in 1992 the US imposed economic sanctions, on the condition that the Libyans accept responsibility and hand over the two men alleged to be responsible, Megrahi and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah.
Over the next period, several events combined to make this seemingly impossible demand realisable. The collapse of the Soviet Union encouraged Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to drop his anti-imperialist rhetoric and search for an accommodation with the Western powers. European oil companies—specifically French and Italian interests—were keen to develop their own explorations in Libya, home to the sixth largest oil reserves in the world.
The coming to power of the Labour government in 1997 broke the log-jam. Anxious that British oil companies should not lose out to their European competitors, the Blair government brokered negotiations on the handover of the two accused Libyans, and in 1999 the US, Britain and Libya agreed terms for their trial in the Netherlands.
The judicial hearing was the backdrop for London and Washington’s efforts to secure access to Libyan resources. Despite numerous outstanding questions, many doubts about the responsibility of either Libyan, and Fhimah’s acquittal, Megrahi was convicted in 2000 by the non-jury court. Libya “accepted responsibility” for the actions of its agents and agreed to pay compensation in return for the lifting of sanctions.
Subsequently, Libya provided the US and the UK with intelligence information necessary to their warmongering in the Middle East in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks. Following the 2003 US-led pre-emptive war on Iraq in the face of massive international popular opposition, Libya announced that it would abandon its primitive nuclear weapons programme—bolstering Washington and London’s claims that their “war on terror” strategy was working.
International sanctions were lifted, and in March 2004, barely one year after the invasion of Iraq, Blair was greeted warmly by Gaddafi on a high profile visit to Tripoli which saw the Anglo-Dutch Shell oil company sign a potential £550 million deal for gas exploration rights, amongst other trade deals.
Notwithstanding the denunciations of Megrahi’s release by US politicians over the last weeks, the Bush administration was deeply involved in these manoeuvres.

Thursday 31 March 2011

Lockerbie bombing prosecutors target Libyan defector Moussa Koussa

[This is the headline over a report just published on the website of The Guardian. It reads in part:]

Scottish prosecutors have asked to interview Moussa Koussa about the Lockerbie bombing after the Libyan foreign minister and spy chief defected to Britain.

The request from the Crown Office in Scotland follows demands from Libya's rebel leadership for Koussa to be returned to Libya for trial for murder and crimes against humanity after Muammar Gaddafi is toppled from power.

William Hague, the British foreign secretary, has said the UK is not offering Koussa immunity from prosecution.

The Crown Office in Edinburgh has said it is formally asking for its prosecutors and detectives from Dumfries and Galloway police to question Koussa about the 1988 bombing. "We have notified the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that the Scottish prosecuting and investigating authorities wish to interview Mr Koussa in connection with the Lockerbie bombing," it said.

"The investigation into the Lockerbie bombing remains open and we will pursue all relevant lines of inquiry."

Dumfries and Galloway police, which investigated the Lockerbie case, has confirmed its detectives are keen to interview Koussa.

It remains unclear what role Koussa played when Pan Am flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie in December 1988, killing 270 passengers, crew and townspeople. He later emerged as head of Libyan intelligence services. (...)

Senior figures in the Lockerbie case – including Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the attack, and Professor Robert Black, a lawyer and architect of the trial of two Libyans accused of the atrocity – have said they believe Koussa might have significant information about Libya's role.

Koussa was pivotal in the negotiations to hand over the two suspects – Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifah Fhimah – for trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2001. He oversaw Libya's negotiations to pay billion of pounds in reparations for the attack.

The Libyans' consistent denial of responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing has been repeatedly rejected by the UK and US governments, and Scottish prosecutors.

Swire, from UK Families of Pan Am Flight 103, and Black, emeritus professor of Scots law at Edinburgh University, have said they believe Megrahi is innocent. He remains the only man convicted of the bombing.

As Libyan foreign minister, Koussa met Foreign Office and Scottish government officials at least twice in 2008 and 2009 to negotiate Megrahi's release from Greenock prison. Koussa visited Megrahi in jail. Megrahi's lawyer, Tony Scott [RB: now corrected to Tony Kelly], has declined to comment on the latest developments.

Swire said the weight of evidence pointed to Syria as the main culprit but "within the Libyan regime [Koussa] is in the best position of anyone other than Gaddafi himself to tell us what the regime knows or did. He would be a peerless source of information".

Detective Superintendent Mickey Dalgliesh, who is in charge of the Lockerbie case at Dumfries and Galloway police, said the Crown Office request to interview Koussa was "in line with our position that the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing remains open and we are determined to pursue all relevant lines of inquiry".

[A column by former UK ambassador to Libya Oliver Miles has just been published on the Comment is free website of The Guardian. It is headed "Moussa Koussa's defection should be exploited: Denying Moussa Koussa immunity from prosecution in Britain does nothing to encourage others to desert Gaddafi".

A further Guardian report headlined "Moussa Koussa's defection surprises Libya – and maybe Britain too" can be read here.

The report on this issue on the BBC News website quotes extensively from this blog.]

Tuesday 26 July 2016

Doomed from the outset

[On this date in 2010 a letter from Sir Brian Barder was published in The Guardian under the heading Vital point missed in Megrahi controversy. It reads as follows:]

In all the renewed controversy over the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing ... a vital point seems to have been missed. Under the terms of the US-UK "initiative" under which Megrahi was convicted, he was required to serve his sentence in the UK. The initiative was accepted by Libya and approved by UN security council resolution 1192. For that reason Megrahi could never have been transferred to serve the rest of his sentence in Libya under the prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) negotiated by the Blair government with Libya, regardless of whether Megrahi was included in or excluded from its scope.

It's difficult to understand how the PTA came to be signed when it could never have been used to transfer Megrahi, the only Libyan then in UK custody. If BP was pressing for Megrahi to be transferred under the PTA, why was it not told that this was ruled out by the terms of the original agreement? Why didn't Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill point this out to Tony Blair and Jack Straw when they were arguing about the pros and cons of the PTA? Above all, when Blair and Straw made their "concession" to the Libyans under which Megrahi was not after all to be excluded from the PTA, did they remind the Libyans that Megrahi couldn't be transferred to Libya? If not, why not?

In an article published on Comment is Free on 1 September 2009, Oliver Miles pointed out that Megrahi's transfer to Libya under the PTA would have been contrary to the original agreement. It's strange that even then no one seems to have seen the implications of this.


The reason why the "promise" was not taken seriously by the UK Foreign Office was that the only country that might have an interest in complaining if it was broken was the United States of America. And both the United Kingdom government and the Libyan government knew (because -- as Libyan officials informed me -- they had checked) that Washington was relaxed about Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation, though it would have to huff and puff for US public consumption when it happened.

When Kenny MacAskill rejected the application for prisoner transfer his principal reason for doing so was the undertaking contained in the “initiative” that led to the Zeist trial that, if convicted, the suspects would serve their sentence in the UK. Of course, if it had been accepted by the Libyan Government that transfer of Megrahi to a prison in Libya was simply not possible under the terms of the “initiative” (and I did my very best to convince them) no prisoner transfer application would have been made and, in consequence, abandonment of Megrahi’s appeal would not have been necessary when, later, his application for compassionate release was lodged. The prisoner transfer application may have been -- indeed, was -- doomed from the outset, but it served the interests of the United Kingdom and the United States very well by ensuring the abandonment of Megrahi’s appeal.]

Monday 7 September 2015

"I defy anyone to conclude that his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt"

[What follows is excerpted from an article by Oliver Miles (former UK ambassador to Libya) published on the Mail Online website on this date in 2009:]

From Libya there is always something new. So said Aristotle more than 2,000 years ago. And for the past two weeks, my telephone has not stopped ringing with friends, acquaintances and the media seeking my views on the ‘Megrahi affair’ – a continuing storm that few people even pretend to understand.

Many people have been bemused by Westminster and Tripoli’s tentative pas-de-deux, asking why Britain should negotiate over the fate of a convicted Lockerbie bomber. Was there some kind of deal? Was it oil, was it trade?

Others find it difficult to understand why so much effort has been expended in building links with Gaddafi – or why Libya should court Britain.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw’s acknowledgement that the prospect of trade and oil deals with Libya played a part in the Government’s handling of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al Megrahi has heightened the intrigue.

One British motivation is clear: Libya, dirt poor in everything except oil and gas, has been an important energy producer for half a century. It sells £40billion of oil per year – mainly to Europe – and buys from every trading country in the world. Britain has become a major supplier.
Furthermore, Libya is that rare thing, a ‘rogue state’ which sponsored terrorism before being brought back into the international fold by diplomacy.

Tripoli favours links with Britain for several reasons. Many Libyans speak English, visit the UK for healthcare and education and are comfortable with London as an international crossroads. And Britain is the home of multinational companies, such as BP and Shell, with which the Libyans would like to do business.

For 15 years Libya has been slowly emerging from its status as international pariah, and dealing with London is regarded there as a staging post to its ultimate goal – the normalisation of relations with the United States.

There is also the matter of Megrahi, an important man from an influential tribe – the same as Abdullah Sanusi, the head of Libya’s internal intelligence service (equivalent to MI5 and MI6). Sanusi is related to Gaddafi by marriage and tribal solidarity is a strong link. Megrahi’s close family and tribal elders would have been putting pressure on the Libyan leader to do something about bringing their man home.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Libya has actively sought to deal with the international community, often using Britain as a diplomatic bridgehead to the US, which was in the past much more aggressive. It ended support for terrorism, paid compensation to victims on a vast scale and abandoned illegal programmes of weapons of mass destruction.
All this has made Libya increasingly attractive to the West. (...)

Gaddafi views Al Qaeda as the biggest internal threat to his secular regime and it has made at least one attempt to assassinate him. Anxious to protect his own position, he was prepared to share intelligence on Al Qaeda – and even to make some limited progress on human rights. As a result, the United Nations lifted sanctions in 2004, paving the way for American and international oil companies to return.

Lockerbie has been central to Libya’s international rehabilitation. Under arrangements worked out in 1999 by Robin Cook and the Foreign Office, involving a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands, Megrahi was convicted of responsibility for the destruction of the Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie in 1988 which killed 270 people.

There have always been doubts about the evidence against him. Some believe, as I do, that the Libyans delivered him for trial only because they felt he was unlikely to be convicted.

Having read the legal judgment of his trial, I defy anyone to conclude from it that his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet his first appeal, in 2002, was dismissed. He always insisted on his innocence and only abandoned his second appeal in the hope of a return to Libya.

Most of Libya’s changes had already been achieved by the time Tony Blair made his first visit to Tripoli, in 2004. But Blair is a man with a keen eye on a photo opportunity and was even then thinking of his ‘legacy’.

On his second visit, in 2007, he launched a number of initiatives, including assisting the return of BP to Libya.

He also unwittingly laid the foundations for the current furore by proposing a Prisoner Transfer Agreement to allow British prisoners convicted in Libya to serve their sentences in Britain and vice versa – an arrangement which exists between many countries.

The Libyans saw it as an instrument to get Megrahi home.

But Blair seems conveniently to have overlooked the fact that Megrahi’s fate rested with the devolved government in Scotland. Given the bad relations between the Labour Party and the Scottish Nationalists, this was more than a formal problem.

Blair also overlooked an even bigger obstacle. Under the Lockerbie trial agreements, any sentence arising from it had to be served in Scotland (the Libyans insisted on this since they feared Megrahi might be handed to the Americans and executed).

The Lockerbie agreements are not properly documented, but the commitments were well known to the Foreign Office, the Americans and the Libyans. Tony Blair may not have bothered about them as he didn’t like inconvenient advice from officials.

As these difficulties emerged, the Libyans began to feel that they had been led up the garden path. And when it became known last year that Megrahi was terminally ill with prostate cancer, Tripoli began to issue not-very-veiled threats that if he died in jail relations between Britain and Libya would suffer.

When his condition deteriorated, two things happened: he inexplicably abandoned his appeal, and a story was leaked to the BBC that Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill was to grant compassionate release.

The reaction in the US was fevered amid rumours of a deal involving business and oil. The Americans have taken a line which they would call robust and I would call vindictive.

Some reactions have been foolish (Obama’s suggestion that Megrahi should have been put under house arrest in Tripoli), and others outrageous.

The demand by Obama and Brown that Megrahi should not receive a ‘hero’s welcome’ was a classic example of demanding that water should run uphill.

I believe Megrahi’s release was influenced more by the Scottish government’s desire to assert its independence rather than by any deal. Others may disagree, but time will tell.