The more that is said, the murkier the affair becomes. The sheaf of documents released by the Scottish government to try to show that it acted in good faith in releasing Abdul Baset Ali alMegrahi may have helped Alex Salmond, the First Minister, to avoid a motion of noconfidence in the Scottish Parliament. It has had the opposite effect in London. It has raised serious questions about the good faith of the British Prime Minister, deepened the controversy over the release of the Lockerbie bomber and fuelled the resentment in the United States.
Once the correspondence between London and Edinburgh has been deciphered, it is clear that the Government supports al-Megrahi’s return to Libya. Not only has Bill Rammell, the Foreign Office minister, said as much; the letters back and forth lay out a simple sequence of events. When the two accused Libyans went for trial, Robin Cook, then the Foreign Secretary, agreed with Madeleine Albright, the US Secretary of State, that they would be tried in the Netherlands and serve any sentence in Scotland.
After the Blair Government brokered Libya’s renunciation of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction in 2003, Tripoli started to campaign for al-Megrahi’s return as part of the price of its rehabilitation. Until the summer of 2007, Britain held out in principle against the idea of his being repatriated. Then Libya made clear that if Britain and British businesses wanted to advance their interests in Libya, the UK Government would have to put al-Megrahi’s repatriation back on the table. It did so. Having excluded him from the prisoner transfer agreement (PTA), it changed its position to make clear that even he, the only man convicted of the bombing, could go home.
In the end, Scotland did not use the PTA but released him on compassionate grounds. There is the whiff of another piece of expediency here: al-Megrahi abandoned his appeal just before he was returned home. Dropping the appeal would have made sense if he was being returned under the PTA. It was unnecessary if he was to be released on compassionate grounds. Was this done just to save the Scottish judiciary the embarrassment of a wrongful conviction?
Gordon Brown’s contention that there was “no conspiracy, no cover-up, no double dealing, no deal on oil, no attempt to instruct Scottish ministers, no private assurances by me to Colonel Gaddafi” is Jesuitical. No deal was written down. But there was a clear understanding between the ministers responsible, Mr Brown, David Miliband and Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, of what needed to be done. They could have insisted that al-Megrahi was not to be freed. They did not. Indeed, they assumed that somehow a way had to be found to release him. There may not have been a deal, but there was an understanding.
Advertisement
This compromise is not necessarily dishonest, though it is distasteful. Deals that excluded moral consideration have been made before, notably in halting the inquiry into BAe’s dealings with Saudi Arabia. Indeed, most of the Lockerbie families were party to a diplomatic deal when they accepted compensation. But Mr Brown has failed to take responsibility for his Government’s position. Initially he was silent. Then Downing Street distanced itself from the release, insisting it was Edinburgh’s doing and Edinburgh’s alone. Then he missed the point by criticising the festivities in Tripoli rather than stating his position on the release. Yesterday he finally offered a curt endorsement of the decision. Some may think that a pragmatic approach to Libya necessitated al-Megrahi’s release. Others, including this newspaper, say that Britain should not have traded its principles by letting him go. Mr Brown’s position has been that it is nothing to do with him. That is not the position of a prime minister.