Who to believe? Blair's mates or Gaddafi's son?

August 22, 2009

2–3 minutes

Real news from inside Libya is pretty hard to come by. Jana, the official news agency has a fairly narrow understanding of what news is, or what anyone might find remotely interesting. One recent top story was headlined “Masses of the Vocational Congresses in the Oil Sector Send Congratulation to the Leader of the Revolution on the 40th Anniversary of the Revolution”. Another was “Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh phones Leader of the Revolution”. He “congratulated the leader on the holy month of Ramadan. During the telephone conversation, the leader and President Saleh discussed several issues of common concern.” In this regard it is not too different from news reporting in other parts of the Arab world which relies heavily of footage of the great and the good meeting the great and the good.

Breaking with this tradition of blandness Gaddafi’s son, Seif al-Islam, talking on Libya’s Al Mutawassit channel, has been inept enough to reveal something of the way that politics are conducted in the real world, even by high minded moralists like Tony Blair. Referring to the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi he said on “In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, (Megrahi) was always on the negotiating table.” Shortly after the British and Libyans signed the prisoner transfer agreement which permitted Megrahi’s eventual release BP signed a deal for $900m giving them the right to explore and exploit Libyan oil reserves.

Blair hasn’t said anything yet but skulking in the background of all this deal making has been Peter Mandelson. As if to remove any doubt about where his class loyalties lie he spent part of his summer with the Rothschild family, as you do. He also discussed al-Megrahi’s case with Seif al-Islam but not at any length and had nothing to do with the release. Honest guv.

The British Foreign Office claims that they have had no say in the decision to release al-Megrahi. Foreign Secretary David Miliband protests that suggestions the British government was involved are “a slur on both myself and the government”. Slur conveys a rather different meaning from untrue and is one of those terrific evasion words.

Seif al-Islam is certainly as corrupt and grasping as the rest of his daddy’s parasitical bureaucracy but he hasn’t acquired the reputation for slimy duplicity that New Labour has. On this I give him the benefit of the doubt.

5 responses to “Who to believe? Blair's mates or Gaddafi's son?”

John Palmer

August 22, 2009 at 9:14 am

It seems to me that the al-Magrahi case is massive in its implications.
1/ Iran Air Flight 655, also known as IR655, was a civilian airliner shot down by the United States Navy on Sunday 3 July 1988, over the Strait of Hormuz. …

2/ Pan Am Flight 103 was Pan American World Airways’ third daily scheduled transatlantic flight from London’s Heathrow Airport to New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport. On Wednesday 21 December 1988, the aircraft flying this route—a Boeing 747-121 namedClipper Maid of the Seas—was destroyed by a bomb, killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew members as well as 11 Lockerbie residents.

3/ The Iranian regime had openly threatened revenge for the loss of innocent civilians at the hands of the US military.

4/ The subsequently Scottish judicial process – the original case in The Hague and the subsequent appeal in Edinburgh – was not allowed access to important information about a major security breach at Heathrow Airport on the very night that PanAM 103 transited through Heathrow. Remember that the strict security controls on staff and access to the baggage handling areas in Heathrow were not then in force.

5/ The main witness about al-Magrahi in Malta subsequently said that he might have been mistaken.

6/ Press speculation is now focussing mainly on the pending massive oil development contracts to be given out in Libya. This clearly makes the London government an interested party in their being NO re-opening of the appeal process NOW of all times.

7/ So why MacAskill’s bizarre stand and willingness to “take the rap” for London’s desire to consolidate Ghaddafi’s status as a pro-western ally? It seems to me the reason is obvious. The appeal would show up the SCOTTISH judiciary as at best hopelessly incompetent and at worst complicit in what one Lockerbie victim’s parent has said was “the charade of a case” against al-Magrahi.

8/ There is another issue. Tripoli is also not keen on a full scale appeal because THAT would expose the regime’s venality ion needlessly sacrificing al-Magrahi.

9/ Of course one plausible sequence of events was a/ Tehran’s decision to exact revenge by –
A/ A request to a second (but highly sympathetic) party – Damascus – to actually initiate the operation
B/ The most likely agents chosen by the Syrian regime would have been a local pro-Damascus Palestinian group or – FAR MORE LIKELY – the Abu Nidal group which was not pro-Syria politically but was completely dependent on the protection of the Syrian state. Moreover members of that faction in Frankfurt were found shortly after Lockerbie with a ghetto blaster bomb similar to the one aboard the plane.

10/ The key question now is HEATHROW. The demand must be for all the facts about the now admitted security breach in July 1988 to be made public – whatever the embarrassment to London or Edinburgh. Ironically London does not want to finger point at Damascus at present for wider diplomatic Israel/Palestine considerations and also does not want to further de-stabilise relations with the current regime installed in Tehran. And there is ALWAYS the oil (Kyoto!!!?)

LikeLike

Reply
Will Brown

August 22, 2009 at 4:35 pm

Isn’t it possible that flight 103 was simply the brought down by mechanical failure. At the time I remember being very sceptical that it was terrorism. The Libyans had no motive. And if it was Palestinians or Iran, why didn’t they claim responsibility? I think 103 was an old plane and seem to remember a lot of 747’s being grounded afterwards.

LikeLike

Reply
John Palmer

August 23, 2009 at 9:22 am

Further to my post above, please note the following report in today’s Mail on Sunday – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208432/A-2m-witness-payment-bogus-forensic-evidence-Pentagon-memo-blaming-Iran-How-Lockerbie-bomber-threatened-Scottish-justice.html

LikeLike

Reply
NollaigO

August 23, 2009 at 10:47 am

This morning the Andrew Marr Show was pulled at short notice and the BBC News Channel was substituted. Shortly after, the BBC website giving Sunday’s TV programs was altered with reference to the 9.00 Andrew Marr Show being deleted. I have being looking on the net for an explanation for the last couple of hours withpout success.
Could it be related to the Lockerbie issue?
I think we should be told.

LikeLike

Reply
Will Brown

August 23, 2009 at 9:56 pm

Further to nollaigo, a couple of weeks ago bristol indymedia was given over one night to pastes ups from the blog of the ex UK ambassador to Uzbekistan (i think) who resigned in protest at British collusion with torture and became a vehement critic of Blair and New Labour. The night before his blog had been taken down because of pressure from UK authorities – said bristol indymedia. They carried the content for the one night and then that disappeared with no explanation. I’ve e-mailed them for an explanation but haven’t heard from them yet : does anyone know about this?

LikeLike

Reply

Liam redux