IRA Victims Criticise Brown on Libya

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

Government Faces New Pressure Over IRA Victims and British Plane Downed in 1971
THE GUARDIAN: Ministers accused of not holding Tripoli to account / Calls for payouts over Ulster terrorism rejected

Britain faced fresh pressure over Libya yesterday when the government was accused of failing to challenge Tripoli over the forcing down of a British aircraft in 1971 and the son of the Libyan leader rejected paying compensation to victims of IRA terrorism.

As No 10 struggled to present a united front on Libya – with the schools secretary, Ed Balls, declaring that "none of us wanted" to see the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing – ministers were criticised for failing to act on pleas to investigate an earlier plane incident.

Ministers have faced calls since 2004, the year the then prime minister, Tony Blair, met the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, outside Tripoli, to challenge Libya over the forcing down of a BOAC VC10 over Benghazi in July 1971.

The plane was flying from the Sudanese capital of Khartoum to London carrying 105 people, including Colonel Babakr al-Nur, the leader of a failed coup, and his assistant, Major Farouk Hamadalla. Both men were sent back to Sudan, where they were executed.

Hamadalla's daughter, Amani, has tried to raise the matter with the Foreign Office (FCO), but she has been met with "obfuscation after obfuscation", according to her MP, the Liberal Democrat Sarah Teather.

In an echo of the government's initial refusal to put pressure on Tripoli to pay compensation to victims of IRA terrorism, the Foreign Office brushed off Hamadalla in 2004.

Lady Symons, an FCO minister, told her to contact the Libyans herself. "It is impossible for us to raise every case, but, if a suitable opportunity presents itself, we are sometimes able to discuss individuals," Symons wrote. When Teather protested, the FCO raised the case with the Libyans and issued Tripoli with a formal "note verbale" in 2005 recording this. >>> Nicholas Watt and Henry McDonald | Monday, September 07, 2009

Saif Gaddafi Embarrasses Gordon Brown Over Libyan IRA Compensation
THE TELEGRAPH: Gordon Brown is facing increasing pressure over compensation for IRA victims after an about-turn to offer support for the claims against Libya was undermined by Saif Gaddafi, its leader's son.

Mr Brown's changes of political position have left him in an embarrassing position with little room to manoeuvre.

Initially, he isolated himself by angering the families of victims of the IRA, whose loved ones were killed with Semtex supplied by the African nation, by failing to personally intervene on their behalf for payouts from Col Muammar Gaddafi's regime.

In a letter to a lawyer representing IRA victims, he argued that it was “inappropriate” for him to lobby Col Gaddafi, partly because trade and Libya’s co-operation in the battle against extremism might be affected.

The reaction was so strong that, by Sunday night, the Prime Minister was forced into an about-turn in which he tried to defuse the row by offering "dedicated Foreign Office support” to the victims' families.

However, the Libyan authorities swiftly poured cold water on the chances the compensation bid.

Speaking in a television interview on Monday morning, Saif Gaddafi said the first response to any claim for a payout would be: "No."

He added that any attempt would be forced through a legal process.
"Anyone can knock on our door. You go to the court. They have their lawyers. We have our lawyers," he said.

Mr Brown's mishandling of the issue now risks jeopardising the relations with Libya, the very thing which the Government has tried so hard to improve. >>> Simon Johnson and Andrew Porter | Monday, September 07, 2009