BP-Lockerbie Connection Raises Tension Between U.S. and U.K.
Delia Lloyd
Correspondent
Posted:
07/26/10
LONDON --The 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 270 people (including 190 Americans) over Lockerbie, Scotland, continues to be an open wound for many in the United States. The case is now proving to be a diplomatic wound between the United States and the United Kingdom as well.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee planned to hold hearings Thursday on the circumstances surrounding the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, convicted by the Scottish government in 2001 and sentenced to life in prison.
But late Tuesday, the hearings were canceled when key Scottish and British officials declined U.S. requests to appear before the panel, according to MSNBC. An angry Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) accused the officials of "stonewalling" the panel.
Last August, the Scottish government released al-Megrahi to his home country -- Libya -- on humanitarian grounds after doctors said he had terminal prostate cancer and had three months to live. The release was criticized, and nearly a year later, al-Megrahi is still alive.
In the aftermath of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, questions have been raised about whether the British government was unduly influenced by BP to release al-Megrahi as part of a prisoner exchange. The claim is that the British government cowed to BP pressure so the oil giant could win lucrative business contracts in Libya.
The Lockerbie/BP connection was a big topic of discussion when Prime Minister David Cameron visited President Barack Obama last week. During his visit to Washington (which included a meeting with the four U.S. senators who requested a hearing on this matter), Cameron stated that, in his view, the Scottish government's decision to release al-Megrahi last summer was "profoundly misguided." He also promised that the British government would release any documentation that might prove relevant to the inquiry, although he stopped short of advocating a separate British inquiry into the matter (a Scottish inquiry has already taken place.)
But since the prime minister's return home, things have become a good deal more complicated. Last Thursday night, Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and former British Justice Secretary Jack Straw both declined invitations to appear before the foreign relations committee this week. MacAskill -- who directly oversaw the al-Megrahi case last year -- maintains that all relevant documents from the Scottish government involving this matter are already in the public domain.
Straw, for his part, was summoned because he was involved in drawing up a prisoner-transfer agreement between Britain and Libya that pre-dated al-Megrahi's release. But in a letter to Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Straw said the prisoner- transfer agreement was irrelevant because al-Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds under Scottish law. (Under the Scotland Act 1998, Scotland has its own government that is responsible for most of the day-to-day issues there, including the justice system.)
On Saturday, Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey once again "pleaded" (his word) with the Scottish government to reconsider its decision not to send officials to the hearings. His request was again rebuffed. (BP's lameduck chief executive, Tony Hayward, is also being pressured to attend the hearings to answer directly for BP.)
Then on Sunday, a story surfaced within the British press which seemed to muddy the waters between the countries still further. A 2009 memo leaked to The Independent on Sunday appeared to reveal grudging support from the Obama administration to free al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds. According to the Times story, the memo reveals that although the U.S. government said that it would strongly prefer that al-Megrahi not be released at all, it was far better that he be released on humanitarian grounds than as part of a prisoner exchange. The Scottish government took this to be a tacit green light to go ahead with the humanitarian release, the story said.
The U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom, Louis Susman, has said that he will not comment on any purported correspondence between governments for security reasons, although he did say that the United States was examining whether its correspondence over this issue could be released in the future. But if this memo turns out to be official, it will support MacAskill's suggestion that rather than pursuing Scottish and British politicians to yield more documentation over Lockerbie, the U.S. Senate ought to be asking its own government to do so. If authentic, the memo will also undermine President Obama's claims last week that he was "surprised, disappointed and angry'' by the al-Megrahi release last year.
It is not yet clear how all of this will shake out and whether it will damage the special U.S-U.K. relationship that Cameron and Obama were so intent on reaffirming last week in Washington. Things were already strained between the two countries over the president's seemingly calculated insistence on referring to BP as "British Petroleum" in the aftermath of the oil spill. It seemed to some as if he were trying to hold the British government accountable for the London-based multinational corporation's behavior.
In contrast, this latest diplomatic row is more about sovereignty. As MacAskill himself put it: "I am elected by the Scottish people, I am accountable to the Scottish Parliament, I have appeared before a Scottish Parliament committee and indeed before a Westminster committee. That is where I am required to be held to account and indeed I am happy to do so."
But it's also about national pride. This is a country that is still actively licking its wounds over its government's perceived "poodle" status vis-a-vis the United States under Tony Blair. So anything that smacks of "groveling to the Americans" does not go over well. A member of Parliament (MP) from the Labour Party was particularly blunt about the nature of the cross-Atlantic affront: "We, in our Pparliament, have never tried to summon Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice. I think it is political grandstanding by some U.S. senators." One conservative politician even went so far as to upbraid the prime minister for "giving in to the insolent demands of senators to question him about the release of the Lockerbie bomber."
In this elaborate game of trans-Atlantic chess, all eyes would now appear to be on Washington to see who makes the next move.
Follow Delia on Twitter.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee planned to hold hearings Thursday on the circumstances surrounding the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, convicted by the Scottish government in 2001 and sentenced to life in prison.
But late Tuesday, the hearings were canceled when key Scottish and British officials declined U.S. requests to appear before the panel, according to MSNBC. An angry Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) accused the officials of "stonewalling" the panel.
Last August, the Scottish government released al-Megrahi to his home country -- Libya -- on humanitarian grounds after doctors said he had terminal prostate cancer and had three months to live. The release was criticized, and nearly a year later, al-Megrahi is still alive.
In the aftermath of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, questions have been raised about whether the British government was unduly influenced by BP to release al-Megrahi as part of a prisoner exchange. The claim is that the British government cowed to BP pressure so the oil giant could win lucrative business contracts in Libya.
The Lockerbie/BP connection was a big topic of discussion when Prime Minister David Cameron visited President Barack Obama last week. During his visit to Washington (which included a meeting with the four U.S. senators who requested a hearing on this matter), Cameron stated that, in his view, the Scottish government's decision to release al-Megrahi last summer was "profoundly misguided." He also promised that the British government would release any documentation that might prove relevant to the inquiry, although he stopped short of advocating a separate British inquiry into the matter (a Scottish inquiry has already taken place.)
But since the prime minister's return home, things have become a good deal more complicated. Last Thursday night, Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and former British Justice Secretary Jack Straw both declined invitations to appear before the foreign relations committee this week. MacAskill -- who directly oversaw the al-Megrahi case last year -- maintains that all relevant documents from the Scottish government involving this matter are already in the public domain.
Straw, for his part, was summoned because he was involved in drawing up a prisoner-transfer agreement between Britain and Libya that pre-dated al-Megrahi's release. But in a letter to Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Straw said the prisoner- transfer agreement was irrelevant because al-Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds under Scottish law. (Under the Scotland Act 1998, Scotland has its own government that is responsible for most of the day-to-day issues there, including the justice system.)
On Saturday, Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey once again "pleaded" (his word) with the Scottish government to reconsider its decision not to send officials to the hearings. His request was again rebuffed. (BP's lameduck chief executive, Tony Hayward, is also being pressured to attend the hearings to answer directly for BP.)Then on Sunday, a story surfaced within the British press which seemed to muddy the waters between the countries still further. A 2009 memo leaked to The Independent on Sunday appeared to reveal grudging support from the Obama administration to free al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds. According to the Times story, the memo reveals that although the U.S. government said that it would strongly prefer that al-Megrahi not be released at all, it was far better that he be released on humanitarian grounds than as part of a prisoner exchange. The Scottish government took this to be a tacit green light to go ahead with the humanitarian release, the story said.
The U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom, Louis Susman, has said that he will not comment on any purported correspondence between governments for security reasons, although he did say that the United States was examining whether its correspondence over this issue could be released in the future. But if this memo turns out to be official, it will support MacAskill's suggestion that rather than pursuing Scottish and British politicians to yield more documentation over Lockerbie, the U.S. Senate ought to be asking its own government to do so. If authentic, the memo will also undermine President Obama's claims last week that he was "surprised, disappointed and angry'' by the al-Megrahi release last year.
It is not yet clear how all of this will shake out and whether it will damage the special U.S-U.K. relationship that Cameron and Obama were so intent on reaffirming last week in Washington. Things were already strained between the two countries over the president's seemingly calculated insistence on referring to BP as "British Petroleum" in the aftermath of the oil spill. It seemed to some as if he were trying to hold the British government accountable for the London-based multinational corporation's behavior.
In contrast, this latest diplomatic row is more about sovereignty. As MacAskill himself put it: "I am elected by the Scottish people, I am accountable to the Scottish Parliament, I have appeared before a Scottish Parliament committee and indeed before a Westminster committee. That is where I am required to be held to account and indeed I am happy to do so."
But it's also about national pride. This is a country that is still actively licking its wounds over its government's perceived "poodle" status vis-a-vis the United States under Tony Blair. So anything that smacks of "groveling to the Americans" does not go over well. A member of Parliament (MP) from the Labour Party was particularly blunt about the nature of the cross-Atlantic affront: "We, in our Pparliament, have never tried to summon Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice. I think it is political grandstanding by some U.S. senators." One conservative politician even went so far as to upbraid the prime minister for "giving in to the insolent demands of senators to question him about the release of the Lockerbie bomber."
In this elaborate game of trans-Atlantic chess, all eyes would now appear to be on Washington to see who makes the next move.
Follow Delia on Twitter.