Pat Condell: A Society of Cowards

We're getting what we deserve.

Saudi Arabian Intervention in Bahrain Driven by Visceral Sunni Fear of Shias
THE OBSERVER: Despite an official stance that the Saudis were there to restore order, the real aim was to crush the rebels

Saudi Arabia and the UAE between them sit on tens of billions of dollars worth of state-of-the-art military equipment. They have both backed calls for UN-sponsored "no-fly zones" over Libya.

Even if they are now willing to risk their expensive toys against the relatively meagre threat from Colonel Gaddafi's air defences, they will play a junior role to western forces.

It will be the second military intervention by the Gulf states in a few days, but the first was on a far more primitive level: teargas grenades fired at point-blank range into the faces of unarmed demonstrators; punishment beatings for injured protesters in their hospital beds; violence and intimidation against the wives and children of opposition activists in their village homes.

Hypocrisy is one word for the motives behind the deployment of the "Peninsula Shield" forces in Bahrain last week. Cowardice is another.

When I watched Saudi soldiers rolling over the causeway linking the two kingdoms on Monday, they were giving victory signs to local TV cameras. Bahrain TV showed archive footage of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and King Hamad of Bahrain performing a traditional Bedouin war dance together.

Despite the official stance that the Saudis and UAE troops had arrived to guard essential infrastructure and restore order on the streets, there was little doubt as to the real purpose: to put down, by whatever means necessary, a growing rebellion by the kingdom's majority, but deprived, Shia citizens.

The day before, unarmed demonstrators had effectively beaten the security forces in Manama. A move to clear a protesters' camp on the fringes of the main gathering at Pearl roundabout had led to an influx of protesters to the city, determined to defend their turf. The police withdrew when they ran out of teargas canisters.

The sight of the police – many of whom are hired guns from Pakistan, Syria and other parts of the Sunni world – running from Shia demonstrators reawoke the fears of Gulf governments that the "party of Ali" was on the rise again. » | William Butler | Sunday, March 20, 2011

Dominic Lawson: Seventy Years On, We Are Still Appeasing Dictators
THE INDEPENDENT: In dealing with Libya the Foreign Office has been guilty of institutional cringe

In this, the week of the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of the Second World War, British newspapers have published entire supplements, setting out once again how the policy of appeasing dictators showed a complete failure to understand the gangster psychology of totalitarian regimes.

Yet the unravelling tale of our current government's negotiations with the regime of Col Gaddafi is a more enthrallingly contemporary illustration of the unchanging institutional cringe known as the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office. We have learned – chiefly through the medium of government memos leaked to the Sunday Times – how the Foreign Office saw the release from Scottish custody of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, as a way of earning us good favour in the court of Megrahi's patron and distant relative, Muammar Gaddafi.

In some of these memos you can hear the sound of Foreign Office ministers past and present patting themselves on the back for the results of their negotiations. There is much discussion of the alleged trade benefits, notably a deal between BP and Libya. But two days ago the Libyan Europe Minister, Abdulati al-Obeidi, admitted to that outstanding foreign correspondent Hala Jaber that even if the British Government had set its face against the release of Megrahi, it was "highly unlikely" that the deal with BP would have been cancelled: "Libya also looks out for its interests and to cease the BP deal is not in our interests." Indeed so: last week we learned of BP's astonishing discovery of a 3 billion-barrel oilfield 35,000ft below the Gulf of Mexico seabed, far and away the deepest well ever drilled. If you were the Libyan regime you would very much want the company with such technological leadership helping you to find oil on your territory.

There is a more particular sense in which the Foreign Office has played the hand of the appeaser in its negotiations. The Libyans had made dark noises about the likely reaction of their own population should Megrahi die in Scottish custody – something along the lines of "in such an eventuality we cannot guarantee the safety of British citizens in Libya". This unsubtle threat should have been greeted with the observation that it was the responsibility of the Libyan Government to ensure the safety of innocent British citizens on its territory. Instead we seem to have behaved like the weak tradesman confronted by an unscrupulous protection racketeer.

It is, of course, very embarrassing when craven behaviour comes to light via a leaked memo to the Sunday Times. Hence Gordon Brown's overnight conversion to the idea of asking the Foreign Office to assist with the claims for compensation of the victims of IRA bombs constructed from Semtex provided by Libya – having earlier told the victims' lawyers that the Government could have nothing to do with their campaign.

Yet this attempt to regain the high moral ground is even more contemptible than the decision to leave those victims of Libyan Semtex out of the original deal. When Britain and America did their separate deals over the reopening of normal relations with Gaddafi's regime, the Americans insisted that their own victims of Libyan-backed IRA atrocities be financially compensated; the British made no such demands, essentially declaring that bygones are bygones. >>> Dominic Lawson | Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Times Poll: 61% Think al-Megrahi Release Was about Oil, Not Compassion
Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi leaving Scotland for Libya. He is suffering from advanced prostate cancer. Photo: Times Online
TIMES ONLINE: Gordon Brown’s Government faces widespread public suspicion that the release of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, had more to do with oil than his terminal cancer.

A special Populus poll for The Times, conducted on Wednesday, reveals widespread public criticism of the release and scepticism about the reasons, with much of the blame falling on the Prime Minister.

The poll followed the public defence of the release by Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Minister, on Monday and Mr Brown’s comments the following day.

Questions were solely about this issue and did not include voting intentions.

Three fifths of those questioned (61 per cent) disagreed with the decision to return al-Megrahi to Libya on the ground of compassion, with 27 per cent agreeing.

The continuing controversy over the background to the decision, with reports of meetings between British ministers and members of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s family and the Libyan Government, have made people suspicious. Nearly half (45 per cent) thought it had more to do with oil than al-Megrahi’s terminal illness — 24 per cent disagreed.

Mr Brown’s attempt to distance himself from the move, saying that it was a decision for the Scottish government, has not gone down well, with 56 per cent saying that has handled the matter badly, and 23 per cent thinking that he had done well.

In the ranking of disapproval, Mr Brown was second only to Colonel Gaddafi. Some 63 per cent thought that the Libyans had handled the affair badly, while 15 per cent approved of their actions. >>> Peter Riddell | Friday, August 28, 2009