The British government's deep fears that Libya would take "harsh and immediate" action against UK interests if the convicted Lockerbie bomber died in a Scottish prison are revealed in secret US embassy cables which show London's full support for the early release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, made explicit and "thuggish" threats to halt all trade deals with Britain and harass embassy staff if Megrahi remained in jail, the cables show. At the same time "a parade of treats" was offered by Libya to the Scottish devolved administration if it agreed to let him go, though the cable says they were turned down.
Britain at the time was "in an awkward position" and "between a rock and a hard place". The London charge d'affaires, Richard LeBaron, wrote in a cable to Washington in October 2008. "The Libyans have told HMG [Her Majesty's Government] flat out that there will be 'enormous repercussions' for the UK-Libya bilateral relationship if Megrahi's early release is not handled properly."
This intelligence, the cable said, was confided to the US embassy by two British officials: Ben Lyons, in charge of north Africa for Downing Street, and Rob Dixon, his counterpart at the Foreign Office.
Details of the Megrahi manoeuvrings come in the latest batch of leaked US dispatches which also detail:
• Deep distrust of Gaddafi among other African leaders; Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni, for example, feared a Libyan attack on his aircraft.
• Gaddafi's many eccentricities, including phobias about flying over water and staying above ground floor level.
• Saudi calls for an Arab-led force, backed by US air and sea power, to fight Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The Megrahi cables may do much to explain why he was released in August 2009, supposedly because he was on the brink of death from prostate cancer. The decision incurred American wrath. More than a year on Megrahi is still alive, having been feted when he was escorted back to Tripoli by Gaddafi's son.
Public congressional hearings in September were told by a US prostate specialist that the official reason for the compassionate release – that Megrahi was within three months of death – was "ridiculous".
Anger with the British persists in some American circles, and UK ministers, Labour and Tory, have attempted to distance London from the release insisting it was purely a Scottish decision.
In January 2009, six months before Megrahi's release, the US ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, confirmed that "dire" reprisals had been threatened against the UK, and the British were braced to take "dramatic" steps for self-protection.
The Libyans "convinced UK embassy officers that the consequences if Megrahi were to die in prison … would be harsh, immediate and not easily remedied … specific threats have included the immediate cessation of all UK commercial activity in Libya, a diminishment or severing of political ties, and demonstrations against official UK facilities.
"[Libyan] officials also implied, but did not directly state, that the welfare of UK diplomats and citizens in Libya would be at risk."
The British ambassador in Tripoli, Vincent Fean, "expressed relief" when Megrahi was released, the US reported.
"He noted that a refusal of Megrahi's request could have had disastrous implications for British interests in Libya. 'They could have cut us off at the knees,' Fean bluntly said."
Cretz cabled that "the regime remains essentially thuggish in its approach". He warned the US itself should keep quiet: "If the [US government] publicly opposes al-Megrahi's release or is perceived to be complicit in a decision to keep al-Megrahi in prison, [America's Libyan diplomatic] post judges that US interests could face similar consequences."
In the light of the repeated, politically unacceptable demands for Megrahi's release from Gaddafi, the illness at first seemed providential for Britain.
The cables reveal how the Scottish Nationalist first minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, was edged into taking the political heat for releasing Megrahi, who had been diagnosed with cancer in September 2008. The message US diplomats received from Jack Straw, then justice minister, was that although Megrahi might survive up to five years, Labour's rivals in Scotland – Salmond and his SNP – were nonetheless inclined to release him.
A cable said: "Megrahi could have as long as five years to live but the average life expectancy of someone of his age with his condition is 18 months to two years. Doctors are not sure where he is on the time scale."The Libyans have not yet made a formal application for compassionate release … but HMG believes that the Scottish may be inclined to grant the request, when it comes, based on conversations between … Alex Salmond and UK justice secretary Jack Straw. Although the general practice is to grant compassionate release within three months of end of life, this is not codified in the law, so the release, if granted, could occur sooner."
The American diplomats were worried "Salmond and the SNP will look for opportunities to exploit the Megrahi case for their own advantage". But when the Scottish justice minister finally announced a "compassionate release" to a storm of protest the following August, the US ambassador said the Scots had got out of their depth.
"The Scottish government severely underestimated both US government and UK public reaction to its decision … Alex Salmond has privately indicated that he was 'shocked'."
Salmond had told the US consul in Edinburgh on 21 August that "he and his government had played straight with both the US and the UK government, but implied the UK had not … he said the Libyan government had offered the Scottish government a parade of treats, 'all of which were turned down'."
Three days later Robin Naysmith, who served as the SNP's representative in Washington, said Salmond was shocked by the US outcry. "Naysmith underscored that Scotland received 'nothing' for releasing Megrahi, while the UK government has gotten everything – a chance to stick it to Salmond's SNP and good relations with Libya."
SNP "comments were designed to blame the UK government for putting the Scots in a position to have to make a decision", according to civil servant Rob Dixon, talking to the Americans.
Washington's ambassador to London, Louis Susman, observed unsympathetically: "It is clear that the Scottish government underestimated the blowback it would receive in response to Megrahi's release and is now trying to paint itself as the victim."
US officials were suspicious, going so far as privately to accuse the wealthy Gulf state of Qatar of bribing the Scots by dangling the possibility of Middle East loans.
In October 2009 the US ambassador in Doha confronted Khalid al-Attiyah, a Qatari minister who had lobbied SNP politicians at the time.
The US had "strong objections" to what had happened, he said. "The ambassador raised strong US government concerns about Qatar's role in the release … Al-Attiyah explained the Arab League had asked Qatar, in its capacity as the current chair … to seek Megrahi's release on humanitarian grounds; second, Megrahi had sent a personal letter to [the Qatar ruler] pleading for humanitarian intervention.
"On the basis of these two factors … he was dispatched to Scotland to meet the minister of justice there.
"Ambassador pressed the issue of whether Qatar had offered any financial or trade incentives to induce al-Megrahi's release. Al-Attiyah strongly dismissed such speculation, saying: 'That is ridiculous. It was not necessary to offer money. It was all done within Scottish law. We offered no money, investment, or payment of any kind.'"
The other object of US suspicion was Tony Blair's 2007 visit to Libya as British prime minister. The trip was linked to oil and gas. The US embassy in Tripoli noted on 23 August 2009: "Rumours that Blair made linkages between Megrahi's release and trade deals have been longstanding among embassy contacts … the UK ambassador in Tripoli categorically denied the claims."In February this year UK diplomats told the US they were fretting about the prospect of an eventual hero's funeral for Megrahi. The new Foreign Office north Africa director, Philippa Saunders, "explained that fear over how Tripoli will handle Megrahi's eventual funeral remains a major concern".
She added: "The UK embassy is currently engaged in an effort to identify all possible UK 'levers of influence' with Tripoli. Unfortunately 'there aren't too many', although she mentioned Tony Blair and a private doctor who had a personal relationship with the Gaddafi family.
"There will be maybe a 48-hour window if we're lucky between Megrahi's eventual death and a funeral."
Salmond's spokesman said last night that the leaks were "diplomatic tittle tattle", but "vindicated" the Scottish government's position.
He said: "We were clearly the only ones playing with a straight bat and interested in applying the precepts of Scottish justice, which we continue to do and continue to uphold.
"The cables confirm what we always said – that our only interest was taking a justice decision based on Scots law without fear or favour, which was exactly what was done, and that our public position was identical to our private one.
"They also show that the former UK government were playing false on the issue, with a different public position from their private one - which must be deeply embarrassing for the Labour Party in Scotland - and that the US government was fully aware of the pressure being applied to the UK government."
Brian Whitaker's best blogs and analysis from the Middle East
From Feed for Arabist.net
From Qifa Nabki | A Lebanese Political Blog
From Syria News Wire
Comments in chronological order (Total 353 comments)
7 December 2010 9:32PM
And it just keeps coming...
7 December 2010 9:34PM
We're REALLY learning all sorts of things now. The previous Government sold justice and spun the blame onto someone else? Wow.
Good thing then that Megrahi is innocent. Shame they cannot continue with the appeal to nail the Iranians.
7 December 2010 9:34PM
oh FFS!
7 December 2010 9:35PM
These leaks have powershift potential - specially when you see the lengths they're going to to stop wikileakds releasing even more!...
Sea-change or a CCTV change?
7 December 2010 9:35PM
I applaud Gaddafi. Our Prime Ministers would never do that for one of us.
7 December 2010 9:36PM
But he didn't do it, did he?
7 December 2010 9:37PM
How appropriate that you missed out 'Great' when referring to Britain.
7 December 2010 9:37PM
Whose soft on terrorism now? And then the West goes around slamming third world countries for slacking in the War on Terror due to local concerns and individual national interests!
7 December 2010 9:39PM
Wow...just wow.
Now I suppose we'll hear the government start claiming that he was innocent so it didn't matter anyways. They don't have anything else left.
7 December 2010 9:40PM
I specifically remember when this whole thing was going down that the UK government said it was not in a position to interfere with the scottish judical system. Whst a load of bull. Indeed, those cables just keep on giving, this is the best news (if not the ONLY true news) for years... Julian and Manning, thank you, THANK YOU!!! You're my heroes of the decade!!
7 December 2010 9:40PM
Did Gadaffi's threats include restricting UK MP's conjugal access to his coterie of hot nurses and bodyguards?
7 December 2010 9:40PM
My stomach is churning with each new release.
The arrest of Mr. Assange makes me ashamed to be British - the timing of his arrest is nausea inducing.
We are watching.
.
7 December 2010 9:40PM
So Gaddafi and his paranoid botoxed face can hold everyone to ransome, he's been loving that for years.
7 December 2010 9:41PM
So the UK government just caved in to threats from a foreign government that had killed Yvonne Fletcher amount many other wrongs, I just weep for the UK.
7 December 2010 9:42PM
Reported on boingboing...
"The United States is pleased to announce that it will host UNESCO's World Press Freedom Day event in 2011 ... The United States places technology and innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals' right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information."
7 December 2010 9:43PM
This is better stuff. Pity the Americans still won't admit Megrahi was a patsy though.
7 December 2010 9:45PM
For those claiming Al-Megrahi's innocence. No he may not have been guilty of what he was convicted of but he did wilfully withhold evidence in a terrorist investigation. Almost as bad as the offence itself.
But I digress, it is now no wonder that the UK police were so keen to get Julian Assange locked up this week. They clearly knew this shitstorm was coming but they were too late.
7 December 2010 9:45PM
UK's Libyan interests - really? Has the once former GB empire actually come to a position where they worry about Libyan interests? Wait, we're talking about petroleum interests right? I think spineless is too cute a description. Get some nuts.
7 December 2010 9:46PM
Gussy
7 December 2010 9:36PM
The evidence and a court of law says he did.
7 December 2010 9:46PM
So I'm guessing the 'British interests in Libya' are those of the following companies.
Biwater, AMEC, British Airways, Mott MacDonald, Halcrow, Bhs, Marks & Spencer, Monsoon Accessorize, G4S, HSBC, Corus International, KPMG, GSK, AstraZeneca, JCB, Rentokil, Ernst & Young, PWC and Land Rover.
And Libya has the largest proven oil reserves (43.7 billion barrels) in Africa.
As always our government seems to spend its time protecting British corporate interests, rather than representing the views or feelings of the British electorate.
7 December 2010 9:46PM
Shame this article does not mention that Megrahi is/was almost certainly completely innocent, had nothing to to with the bombing, and that quite a few of the families of the victims are also convinced of that.
The authorities were faced with an embarrassing appeal --which would reveal their original stitch up -- or a release on "compassionate" grounds. They chose to be compassionate to themselves, because the alternative would have been rather nasty.
7 December 2010 9:47PM
Compassion my ass. I remember at the time the utter self righteousness many guardian readers treated the news; "of course the americans are mad; they simply can't comprehend things like kindness and mercy, whereas we enlightened europeans know better".
7 December 2010 9:47PM
Thecomingcommunity
So vety true... Just look at McKinnon... Poor sod just hacked around a little and all they can do is ask if he can servr his sentence at home... And not get it. Here is a supposed terrrrst who killed hundreds of innocent americans and he gets to fly home to a hrtoes welcome... Just coz Ghadaffi stands firm. Just shows what a total pussies the UK 'government' are when it comes to the yanks...
7 December 2010 9:49PM
Gadaffi would "Harass embassy staff"
I bet there must of been some very nervous voluptous blondes in the embassy when they heard that
7 December 2010 9:51PM
It's not only Julian Assange who resides in Wandsworth prison tonight - our civil liberties, our freedom of speech and our dignity as a people are in there with him.
The guy has shown incredible courage to bring the truth to the world - let us do the same for him and ensure he is not extradited. And support WikiLeaks in whatever way we can.
Let's not forget that apart from being an absolute hero, he's a human as well, and I'm really concerned for his safety on a very human level.
Lets take pride in ourselves as a nation of people who stand up for those who stand up for justice.
7 December 2010 9:51PM
MrEurope you are dead on.
These cables also reveal is that Cameron is far to up the US's proverbial bottom to make similar demands on behalf of Gary McKinnon.
7 December 2010 9:52PM
So all the people who initially said that the cables should not have been released (not in the public interest, no exceptional wrongdoing etc.); at what point can we conclude that what's released is in the public interest? As the higher impact stuff comes out in dribs and drabs, imagine what we will know by the time 250,000 have come out.
I am wholeheartedly behind Wikileaks for one sole reason; the current time just may well be the single point in history since democracy began (and even before) at which the ordinary citizens of the world have the best knowledge of who their government is, and what their government does in their name.
7 December 2010 9:54PM
I thought Blair had a hotline to Gaddafi?
Could he not have taken a couple of days of his lecture circus - sorry circuit - to sort it out?
7 December 2010 9:55PM
It looks to me like us Scots played with the full
deck of cards unlike our UK and US compatriots....
7 December 2010 9:55PM
The UK needs to adopt a more Russian approach to troublesome overseas people.
7 December 2010 9:55PM
@webcorex2
The decision of the Scots government on compassionate grounds is not being challenged.
7 December 2010 9:56PM
So, will the penny now drop with the fossil fuel lovers? Can we please kick our renewable energy plan into action, build ourselves a sustainable industry for the future and reset our foreign policy on a moral rather than economic basis?
7 December 2010 9:56PM
Scots Law, thank God, permits compassionate release. Releasing Megrahi was the right decision. Long live Kenny MacAskill and the human ability to forgive, and to hell with Old Testament vengeance.
7 December 2010 9:57PM
Wow. Only in the Guardian are mass murders applauded.
Wake up people. Lybia is a rogue state. Always has been. Refusing to hand over Megrahi would have had dire consequences. Gaddafi happily murdered diplomats and innocent bystanders - the Belle nightclub in Berlin for instance.
7 December 2010 9:57PM
@bignowitski
A jury said he did it - the evidence didn't back it up.
The "evidence" and a court of law said that the Birmingham Six "did it" too.
7 December 2010 9:58PM
As long as Al-Megrahi's can masturbate without fantasising about Galyna Kolotnytska - Qadhafi's ”voluptuous blonde” , he should be OK - it should take his mind off from the bombing which he was clearly not resposible.
It was the Iranians who planted the bomb as a revenge for the US misile which hot an Iranian plane. All fair in love & war
7 December 2010 9:58PM
Personally I think oil is far more important to the average Brit than any sense of loss of integrity, whatever they might say. People either don't have a clue or don't like to admit how much we rely on crackpots, thieves and murderers for our beloved quality of life.
The government is no more hypocritical than anyone else in society if we're being honest.
7 December 2010 9:59PM
Anyone else get the felling that there is some really big (Wiki-leak) style shit about to hit the fan? I dunno 9/11, or Israel, or was the credit crunch pre-planned...?
7 December 2010 9:59PM
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152465.htm
this is just too much!!!!!
7 December 2010 9:59PM
So who said that acting like a bully on the international stage doesn’t pay off?
7 December 2010 10:00PM
There is far more to the explosion on Pan Am 103 than we have been told.
The Maltese double cross..............
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7160854996287567609#
Most telling is the fact that some VIPs cancelled their bookings before it took off because they were warned.
7 December 2010 10:00PM
This one is dynamite. It flatly contradicts the story coming out of Westminster at the time that a) it was Holyrood's decision and b) there was no pressure, e.g. economic, trade, put on the UK government.
7 December 2010 10:02PM
Refusing to hand over Megrahi would have had dire consequences.
Dire consequences such as a retrial and the evidence suggesting the circuit board fragment found was planted by the CIA investigated ?
7 December 2010 10:03PM
Wake up you lot (not all of you)!
Al Megrahi was fitted up.
The various tiers of government are prone to lies at all levels.
Get some non-mainstream news, do some research, be a life-long learner. The Grauniad cannot and will not do it for you.
7 December 2010 10:04PM
Freedom of speech? When you can be arrested for burning a book in your nation, it is obvious you don't understand the meaning of freedom of speech. Assange is free to say what he wants and leak what he wants and the message is not being curtailed nor have there been any 1st Amendment issues implicated. American companies are free to realize that they don't want to be seen as supporting someone or an organization's activities the majority of the American public don't support.
------
On a side note, I was right about the U.K. trading Meghari for business interests when people were clamoring on here about compassion and other sordid nonsense. The one good thing about Wikileaks is that it is validating most of my interpretations on geopolitics.
7 December 2010 10:04PM
What utter cowerdice from our elected government. It would NOT be the will of the people to surrender under such circumstances - so why do you do it?
Is it any wonder the world is in such a mess when such situations are tolerated?
7 December 2010 10:05PM
I wonder how many years it will be before we can see documents showing how the American government's pressure on PayPal, Amazon, Visa et al, dictated their actions against Assange.
When it comes down to it, government scum and corporations will do anything for money and will use the anxiety of the public to further their economic ends.
Crocodile tears in public, counting their cash in private.
7 December 2010 10:06PM
Al-Megrahi is the patsy. The whipping boy for the Americans. But when it comes to oil deals he will be forgotten. i think the Americans know it that the Iranians or their proxies who were responsible for PANAM 103. But they cannot do anything about it.
It called wringing ones hands
7 December 2010 10:08PM
Once again big business and special interest groups wins...
I guess the government thought that this type of behaviour was ok as long as no one actually found out about it.
Democracy-Hypocrisy, or should I say [DEMON]cracy
7 December 2010 10:08PM
Lets be honest here, the true reason the yanks made such a god-awful fuss was they are pissed off Great Britain has made massive in-roads into setting up trade agreements with Libya for a whole raft of stuff, with oil/gas being the biggest.
That the only reason senior yank government types are kicking up such a fuss, they pretty much said so during the BP hearings in Congress, when they started to question BP's activities in Libya.
This is all a load of utter bollocks, nobody in power reality gives a shit about the rights and wrongs, its all about who gets to make the most dosh amount of Libyan contracts.