Lockerbie bomber steps out into a furore
By
Contributing editor
Emily Hohler Aug 28, 2009
Print this article
Gordon Brown's 'deafening silence' following the release of the Lockerbie bomber last week was condemned by the Conservatives. The prime minister did, they noted, find time to opine on Michael Jackson's death and England's cricket victory. Abel Baset Ali al-Megrahi, who is dying from prostate cancer, had served eight years of a life sentence for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in which 270 people died. Five days after his release, Brown finally made a statement insisting the UK government had done no deal with Libya. He was also "angry and repulsed" at scenes of jubilation in Tripoli.
The whole "sickening episode" has brought shame on Britain and exposed the "moral cowardice and cynicism at the heart of our political elite", said Leo McKinstry in the Daily Express. In the wake of global outrage, the government has tried to "pin all the blame" on Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice minister who signed the release order, claiming his decision had nothing to do with London.
This "will not wash". "Under the Scottish devolutionary settlement, the UK government still retains control over foreign policy, defence and diplomacy." Leaked documents show that Ivan Lewis, one of Labour's Foreign Office Ministers, was "intimately involved" with the release. Further, both Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson have had "extensive negotiations" with Gadaffi's government since 2004, and Peter Mandelson is said to have discussed Megrahi with Gadaffi's son, Saif, at the Rothschild villa in Corfu.
Saif wasn't mincing his words on Libyan TV when he said "in all commercial contracts for oil and gas with Britain, Megrahi was always on the negotiating table", said John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN in The Daily Telegraph. Gadaffi said the release will be "positively reflected for sure in all areas of cooperation between the two countries". "Is there any doubt of his meaning? The whole exercise reeks of realpolitik," said Matthew Campbell in The Sunday Times. "Apart from the Lockerbie families, everyone seems to have got what they wanted."
Gadaffi has his man. MacAskill has "burnished his humanitarian credentials". Gordon Brown has preserved his "valuable new relationship with Libya" while avoiding any blame for the release. And the US – which stands to gain as much as Britain from bringing Libya out of isolation – has been able to "bluster in protest" while choosing not to prevent the release.
Sincere in their outrage as the Americans may be, let's not forget "successive US administrations have applauded the release of Irishmen found guilty of terrorism, in the wider interests" of peace, said Jackie Ashley in The Guardian. What gives them the moral authority to "harangue the Scots"? However distasteful Megrahi's release may seem, "there is at least a case for releasing a dying man early, both on compassionate grounds and in order to create jobs and improve diplomatic relations".
The outrage of the Obama administration has been "difficult to stomach", agreed Kevin McKenna in The Observer. Why, just earlier this month Obama's "new best friend", Bill Clinton, was "bending the knee" to North Korea, "top of the league in the axis of terror", to secure the release of two US nationals. The truth is it would have been far easier to let Megrahi die in prison. That he won't do so is a tribute to our decency.
Published in
News & charts
| More
articles
by
Emily Hohler
FREE - MoneyWeek's daily investment email
Our free daily email, Money Morning, is an informative and enjoyable analysis of what's going on in the markets. Written by our Editor, John Stepek, and guest contributors.
Sign up FREE to Money Morning here.
