The Blair-Gaddafi deal in the desert

[It was on this date in 2007 that the “deal in the desert” was concluded between Prime Minister Tony Blair and Colonel Gaddafi at a meeting in Sirte. This was embodied in a “memorandum of understanding” that provided, amongst other things, for a prisoner transfer agreement to be drawn up. In later years UK Government ministers, particularly Justice Secretary Jack Straw, sought to argue either (i) that the prisoner transfer element of the deal was not intended to apply to Abdelbaset Megrahi or (ii) that if it was intended to cover him, all parties appreciated that the decision on transfer would be one for the Scottish Government not the UK Government. Here is what I wrote about that on this blog:]

According to Jack Straw "the Libyans understood that the discretion in respect of any PTA application rested with the Scottish Executive." This is not so. In meetings that I had with Libyan officials at the highest level shortly after the "deal in the desert" it was abundantly clear that the Libyans believed that the UK Government could order the transfer of Mr Megrahi and that they were prepared to do so. When I told them that the relevant powers rested with the Scottish -- not the UK -- Government, they simply did not believe me. When they eventually realised that I had been correct, their anger and disgust with the UK Government was palpable. As I have said elsewhere:

"The memorandum of understanding regarding prisoner transfer that Tony Blair entered into in the course of the "deal in the desert" in May 2007, and which paved the way for the formal prisoner transfer agreement, was intended by both sides to lead to the rapid return of Mr Megrahi to his homeland. This was the clear understanding of Libyan officials involved in the negotiations and to whom I have spoken.

"It was only after the memorandum of understanding was concluded that [it belatedly sunk in] that the decision on repatriation of this particular prisoner was a matter not for Westminster and Whitehall but for the devolved Scottish Government in Edinburgh, and that government had just come into the hands of the Scottish National Party and so could no longer be expected supinely to follow the UK Labour Government's wishes. That was when the understanding between the UK Government and the Libyan Government started to unravel, to the considerable annoyance and distress of the Libyans, who had been led to believe that repatriation under the PTA was only months away.

“Among the Libyan officials with whom I discussed this matter at the time were Abdulati al-Obeidi, Moussa Koussa and Abdel Rahman Shalgam.”

Libya 'granted oil concessions to BP on understanding Lockerbie bomber Megrahi would return home'

[This is the headline over a report published this morning on The Telegraph website.  It reads in part:]

Libya's former foreign minister has said that Tripoli granted massive oil concessions to BP on the understanding the Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, would be returned home.

Abdulati al-Obeidi told the BBC that Britain had accepted Libyan indications that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s release was an unwritten quid pro quo of the multi-billion pound contract. 

“There was a hint that releasing him would help but it was not a condition,” he said. “The Libyan side, and you know the British, they know how to take things”

Asked if an exchange of the prisoner was part of the talks, Mr Obeidi said: “This is what I think”.

BP secured one of the largest contracts to exploit Libyan oil reserves after Col Gaddafi’s regime came in from the cold. The contract was celebrated as part of Tony Blair’s infamous Deal in the Desert trip to Libya.

Last year BP admitted it pressed for a deal over the controversial prisoner transfer agreement amid fears any delays would damage its “commercial interests”, but denied it had been involved in negotiations concerning Megrahi’s release.

[Here is what I wrote on this blog on 28 January 2010:]

According to Jack Straw "the Libyans understood that the discretion in respect of any PTA application rested with the Scottish Executive." This is not so. In meetings that I had with Libyan officials at the highest level shortly after the "deal in the desert" it was abundantly clear that the Libyans believed that the UK Government could order the transfer of Mr Megrahi and that they were prepared to do so. When I told them that the relevant powers rested with the Scottish -- not the UK -- Government, they simply did not believe me. When they eventually realised that I had been correct, their anger and disgust with the UK Government was palpable. As I have said elsewhere:

"The memorandum of understanding regarding prisoner transfer that Tony Blair entered into in the course of the "deal in the desert" in May 2007, and which paved the way for the formal prisoner transfer agreement, was intended by both sides to lead to the rapid return of Mr Megrahi to his homeland. This was the clear understanding of Libyan officials involved in the negotiations and to whom I have spoken.

"It was only after the memorandum of understanding was concluded that [it belatedly sunk in] that the decision on repatriation of this particular prisoner was a matter not for Westminster and Whitehall but for the devolved Scottish Government in Edinburgh, and that government had just come into the hands of the Scottish National Party and so could no longer be expected supinely to follow the UK Labour Government's wishes. That was when the understanding between the UK Government and the Libyan Government started to unravel, to the considerable annoyance and distress of the Libyans, who had been led to believe that repatriation under the PTA was only months away."

[Among the Libyan officials with whom I discussed this matter at the time were Abdulati al-Obeidi, Moussa Koussa and Abdel Rahman Shalgam.

Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has published a news item on this issue which can be read here.]

Ex-foreign minister says Libya behind 1989 airline attack

[This is the headline over an Agence France Presse news agency report published today on the Al-Arabiya website. It reads as follows:]

Libya is responsible for a deadly 1989 attack on a French airliner, Libyan former foreign minister Abdel Rahman Shalgam told al-Hayat newspaper in an interview published on Monday.

“The Libyan security services blew up the plane. They believed that opposition leader Mohammed al-Megrief was on board, but after the plane was blown up, it was found that he was not on the plane,” said Mr Shalgam, who defected from Muammar Qaddafi’s embattled regime earlier this year.

On September 19, 1989, a UTA DC-10 travelling from Brazzaville to Paris via N’Djamena crashed in Niger after explosives on board detonated, killing 170 passengers and crew, including 54 French citizens.

A French court in 2009 sentenced six Libyan agents in absentia to life in prison for the attack, but Libya has never admitted it was responsible.

However, Tripoli had in 2004 agreed to pay $170 million in compensation to the families of the victims.

Mr Shalgam also said that the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am flight over the Scottish town of Lockerbie that killed 270 people, for which Libya is widely believed to have been responsible, was more complicated than the UTA attack.

“The Lockerbie operation was more complex ... the role of states and organizations has been discussed, and while the Libyan services were implicated, I do not think it was a purely Libyan operation,” he said.

Last February, a former official from the radical Palestinian group Abu Nidal said that the attacks against the Pan Am and UTA planes were conducted “in conjunction” with Libya, and that the explosives were fabricated in Libya.

Mr Shalgam’s defection came in March when he was serving as Libya’s representative to the United Nations.

[Whether Libya was involved in the destruction of Pan Am 103 or not (eg by supplying materials to the culprits) it does not follow that a particular Libyan, viz Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, was involved. The evidence against him remains just as weak as it was before Mr Shalgam spoke and the conviction of Megrahi on the evidence led at Zeist remains just as outrageous.

I may say that Mr Shalgam, whom I met on several occasions while he was Libya's foreign minister, always denied to me that his country was responsible for Lockerbie. But it may be that he is one of those who tends to tell people what he thinks, rightly or wrongly, that they want to hear.]

Reaction to Moussa Koussa Qatar asylum claims

[A report published today on The Telegraph website, following on from yesterday's report on Al Arabiya where Abdul Rahman Shalgam claimed that Moussa Koussa was likely to seek asylum in Qatar, contains the following:]

The prospect of Mr Koussa failing to return to Britain from Qatar caused anger among relatives of Lockerbie bombing victims, who believe he may have valuable information about the 1988 atrocity. (...)

While he was in Britain, Mr Koussa, a former Libyan intelligence official, was questioned by Scottish police about the Lockerbie attack, which was ordered by Col Gaddafi.

Relatives of Lockerbie victims and some MPs say Mr Koussa should face prosecution for his role in Libyan terrorist attacks.

Abdulrahman Shalgam, another former Gaddafi regime minister, said that fear of such legal action will drive Mr Koussa to remain outside the UK. (...)

British officials believe that Mr Koussa could still choose to return to Britain, where some of his children and grandchildren are based. But they admit that the UK has no way of compelling him to do so. (...)

Relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims reacted with dismay and disbelief yesterday to reports that Mr Koussa was unlikely to return to London.

Rosemary Wolfe, from South Carolina, whose stepdaughter Miriam died on Pan Am Flight 103, said Britain and the US had “lost their moral footing” in the world by failing to prosecute the former Libyan minister.

“This is absolutely outrageous,” she said. “Our respective countries seem to be erasing all trace of what Gaddafi did. There were no efforts to detain Koussa or prosecute him.”

She added that American relatives had a conference call with Barack Obama’s National Security Council recently at which they said Koussa should not be allowed to leave the UK and should face trial for his role in a range of atrocities.

Mrs Wolfe said: “The Americans must have known they were going to let him go and yet we made no effort to stop it. We were looking the other way and so were the Scots. First we release his frozen assets, and then he is free to go. It’s frightening.”

Susan Cohen, from New Jersey, whose only child Theodora, 20, died, said the families must be told what information he had provided to the UK Government and to Scottish police continuing to investigate the Lockerbie bombing.

“I have never doubted Koussa’s involvement in Lockerbie. He should have been kept in Britain,” she said.

Where is Libya’s Moussa Koussa?

[This is the headline over a report published today on the Al Arabiya News website. It reads in part:]

Former Libyan Foreign Minister Abdul Rahman Shalgam has said that his successor Moussa Koussa, who resigned last month in protest against the brutalities committed by Muammar Qaddafi’s regime, would not be returning to London, and was likely to seek asylum in Qatar.

Mr Shalgam, who was Libya’s foreign minister from 2000 till 2009, told Al Arabiya that civil society representatives in London had been vehemently objecting to hosting dissident Mr Koussa, who stayed in office from March 2009 till March 2011. He said that they objected to “his involvement in several crimes condemned by the international community.”

“Koussa took part in the Lockerbie bombing, funding the Irish Republican Army, and liquidating several opponents to the Libyan regime,” Mr Shalgam told Al Arabiya.

On March 28, 2011, Koussa left Libya for Tunisia and from there flew to the United Kingdom where he issued a statement. That statement said that he no longer wanted to be a representative of the Libyan government in light of brutal attacks on civilians by Mr Qaddafi’s forces.

Mr Koussa subsequently left London for the Qatari capital Doha to attend a conference on the future of Libya and to meet with members of the National Transitional Council.

“He will most likely stay in Doha and will not go back to London,” Mr Shalgam said of Mr Koussa.

The British government of Prime Minister David Cameron was faced with harsh criticism both for hosting Mr Koussa and for allowing him to leave. While civil society slammed granting asylum to someone accused of crimes against humanity, especially that it took place on British soil, relatives of Lockerbie victims consider allowing Mr Koussa to depart without taking the necessary measures against him a kind of “treason” on the part of the government.

Mr Shalgam described Mr Koussa as the “black box” of the Libyan regime, especially that he spent around 16 years as head of Libyan intelligence.

“The fact that he knows that much about the intricacies of the Libyan regime makes him very valuable for the interim council and necessitates staying in touch with him and making use of the information he possesses.”

When asked if Mr Koussa’s decision to defect from Colonel Qaddafi’s ranks meant he would join the revolutionaries, Mr Shalgam replied that Koussa has not so far asked for this.

“However, his dissidence in itself is a patriotic action,” Mr Shalgam said.

[Of the officials of the Gaddafi regime that I met over the years from 1993 to 2009 in connection with Lockerbie, Moussa Koussa was the scariest and Shalgam was the slipperiest.

James Kirkup of The Telegraph has now picked up this story, without acknowledgment, of course.]

Shalgam's visit to the US, continued

Further coverage by The Washington Post of Libyan Foreign Minister Shalgam's visit to the United States:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/01/03/ST2008010303302.html

And here is a slightly different perspective from Middle East Online:
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=23761

Shalgam's visit to the United States

Here is a link to The Washington Post's coverage of the visit of Libyan Foreign Minister Abdel Rahman Shalgam to the United States:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/02/AR2008010202832.html

As regards Lockerbie, the article states:

'Not all the old issues have been resolved, however, which limited Shalqam's White House visit to a sightseeing tour -- without any meetings with White House or National Security Council staff members, U.S. officials said. The Libyan delegation was hoping for a meeting with Vice President Cheney.

Libya has yet to pay $2 million per victim for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, for which two of Libyan intelligence agents were convicted. Families have been paid $8 million per victim, but the final installment was contingent on Libya being removed by a certain date from the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism. When the date passed, Libya withdrew the money.

The families have been pressing the Bush administration to pressure Gaddafi's regime to pay up. "The State Department betrayed us by not protesting the Libyan withdrawal of money from escrow in February 2005," said Rosemary Wolfe, a spokeswoman for the victims' families. "Their feet should be held to the fire."

The families had planned to protest outside the State Department today but decided that their actions would be lost in the focus on the Iowa caucuses, said Wolfe, who charged that the visit was deliberately timed to coincide with another major news event.

"There's still a lot to be done with respect to instituting basic freedoms within Libya. There's still some outstanding issues with respect to claims by U.S. citizens. Those need to be resolved," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is unlikely to visit Tripoli until the compensation issue has been resolved, U.S. officials said, despite her public statement that she was looking forward to a trip to Libya this year.'

Rice to meet Shalgam

The following is from today's issue of The Scotsman:

'Thursday: Condoleezza Rice is due to meet Mohammed Abdel-Rahman Shalqam [sic; normally "Shalgam"] in Washington "to discuss unresolved issues concerning the bombing of Flight 103 on 21 December, 1988, over Lockerbie" among other issues. It will be the first time a Libyan foreign minister has been in Washington for 35 years.'

See
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Tense-forecast-for-Hogmanay-weather.3628798.jp

The "unresolved issues" presumably relate to the last tranche of the relatives' compensation, which did not fall to be paid over since the United States failed to remove Libya from its list of "state sponsors of terrorism" by the date prescribed in the compensation agreement.