David Maddox: A lesson in Libyan compassion
Last night I attended an excellent concert at the Usher Hall organised by the Swiss Consulate in Edinburgh. Among the guests was Scotland's SNP Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the National Conversation Mike Russell. It reminded me that while this summer will be forever remembered for Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill sending the Lockerbie bomber Al-Megrahi home on the grounds of compassion (heroic scenes pictured), Switzerland has also had its difficulties regarding Libyan prisoner transfers.
On 15 July 2008 Colonel Gaddafi's son Hannibal and his wife were arrested by the Swiss authorities in a luxury hotel in Switzerland for allegedly beating up two servants.
The response by Libya was to first cut ties with the Alpine nation and then arrest two Swiss citizens in Libya four days later, essentially turning them into hostages.
The two employees of engineering company ABB Ltd - Max Goeldi and Rachid Hamdani - were locked up for alleged breaches of immigration rules.
Since Gaddafi jnr's arrest he and his wife have been released on bail and the servants have withdrawn their complaint after receiving compensation.
But the dispute between the two countries has dragged on for over a year, and on Thursday (20 August) just as Mr MacAskill was providing succour to Libya by releasing Megrahi, the Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz formally apologised to Libya and agreed to have the original arrest looked at by an independent arbitrator in London. This, he understandably said, was to get the two Swiss citizens home, although it has been suggested that he was under huge pressure from businesses.
So all in all Col Gaddafi had a very good day on Thursday and his own brand of international diplomacy and lack of compassion got him everything he wanted to mark the 40th anniversary of his dubious dictatorship. The one thing though that can be said is that the Swiss, it seems, had much less choice in the matter than Mr MacAskill.
Labels: Al Megrahi, Colonel Gaddafi, David Maddox, Hans-Rudolf Merz, Kenny MacAskill, Libya, Switzerland
posted by Administrator at
13:51
9 Comments:
Nice picture of friends and relatives celebrating the return of an individual they regard as an innocent "patsy" in the dirty game of politics.
Not according to the Scottish justice system John. As things stand he is a convicted mass murderer.
A response which rather conveniently ducks the central point John was making, Administator. The reporting of the welcome Megrahi received - both in the Scotsman and elsewhere - seemed to take it as read they were treating him as a hero because they thought he HAD bombed Pan Am 103. Whereas as an intelligent person you must know the complete opposite is true.
I also have to say it's moral cowardice of the worst order to hide behind the mantra "the law says he guilty" when the evidence is as flimsy as it is. That's the mindset that led to people up and down the UK for fifteen years coming out with moronic lines like "those filthy murderers the Birmingham Six have shown no remorse for their crimes".
No, James, I understood the central point made by John and there have been plenty who made the same argument over the last few days.
I'm afraid that I see it as an apologist position for a pretty distateful regime. I wonder what you would think if two Scots had been imprisoned as a "hostages" for Megrahi for example.
The fact remains that Megrahi was not released because of doubts over his guilt but because of his illness. He is a convicted mass murderer who has been through a fair and transparent trial at a location of his choice and then failed in his appeal.
Personally, I do not believe that the Scottish judiciary is corrupt or incompetent (the unsaid conclusion of the conspiracy theorists), although most people accept that Megrahi was at worst only a part of a much larger plot which may have included other countries.
Yes, mistakes have been made in the past, but stating that it is "moral cowardice" to stand up for the integrity of the Scot's legal system is an example of the sort of lazy and gratuitous insults which is all too easy for people to bandy around about the institutions which underpin our society and democracy.
In regards to what happened at the Tripoli airport (which was a small one well outside the city, not used generally by the ordinary public) it is hard to escape the conclusion that it was a welcome reception organised and orchestrated by the Gaddafi regime which will know perfectly well whether Megrahi was a murderer or not, considering that's who he worked for.
So, James, you and John may see purer motives in what happened in Tripoli, I don't and I certainly take no comfort in seeing Saltires flying there. - David M
What's your argument? Because the Lubyan regime is un-merciful we should be un-merciful too?
Kenny MacAskill addressed that head-on.
"The fact that no compassion was shown by Megrahi (or by the Libyan regime) is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days."
It is correct that the Libyan regime will know whether Megrahi is a murderer or not. It is possible that they know he is not. But that doesn't matter because he wasn't released on the basis that he was innocent but on the basis that he is dying.
You do raise valid points of course about the nature of the Libyan regime and to what extent it is appropriate to provide succour to them.
I suggest however that sending them back a man who is dying of untreatable cancer is hardly providing succour no matter how many saltires are flown.
I am sure you are aware that no Scottish ministers have met with the Gadaffi regime and the application made by the Libyan Government to return Megrahi under the prisoner transfer agreement signed by Blair was rejected.
On the other hand we know that a series of London Labour ministers have met with their Libyan counterparts to discuss a range of matters including trade.
Incidentally it is not true to say that the unsaid conclusion of those who doubt Megrahi's guilt is that the Scottish judiciary is corrupt or incompetent.
There is no doubt in my mind that they came to the right verdict on the basis of the evidence available to them.
If however evidence was concealed, as is being suggested, that casts a different light on matters. If that is true the responsibility lies with those who concealed the evidence, not those who prosecuted the case or arrived at the verdict.
And I have not heard it suggested anywhere that Scottish officials were involved in suppressing evidence, paying witnesses etc.
"stating that it is 'moral cowardice' to stand up for the integrity of the Scot's legal system is an example of the sort of lazy and gratuitous insults which is all too easy for people to bandy around"
What, 'lazy and gratuitous insults' like calling John an apologist for the Libyan regime? Your self-awareness, as ever, does you credit, David.
Your question about what I'd think if two Scots had been held hostage was utterly bizarre given that I had not - and would not - make any effort to defend what Gadaffi did to the Swiss. It is perfectly possible to accept that there is no reasonable basis for believing in Megrahi's guilt while still regarding the Libyan regime as repugnant - for you to pretend otherwise is, dare I say, a rather lazy argument.
David,
Look at my comment again. If you knew the organisation I work for you would never accuse me of making any apology for Gadaffi and his murderous regime.
I know courageous individuals who report from Tripoli and what I am pointing out is that the "ordinary" people in Tripoli regard Megrahi as a victim, both of his own government and that of western powers.
It is their opinion that he was handed over by Libya as a token gesture to, primarily, the US.
I'm surprised that a journalist of your eminence is not trying to find out the whole truth about the Lockerbie affair instead of reporting, almost word for word, the tittle-tattle spouted by those with a political axe to grind.
You could possibly start by trying to find out what "international relationships" might be damaged by the evidence which Milliband wants kept secret under the PII Certificate banner.
At the risk of bursting into song I would suggest that there are more questions than answers in this situation and it is surely a journalist's role to ask, and keep asking these questions until you get an answer.
John,
I agree "apologist" was a little heavy and unnecessary.
As for your other points, hope this helps:
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk/Come-clean-on-seven-UKLibya.5596749.jp
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Lockerbie-Miliband-refuses-to-say.5576186.jp
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/topstories/Ordinary-prison-GP--not.5592149.jp
There were quite a few others, including a piece by Tam Dalyell I commissioned on Milliband's PIIC. - David M
PS Don't really think that discussing the Libyan use of hostages in a parallel prisoner transfer story is what I would describe as "tittle tattle" or "political axe grinding."
- David M
Post a Comment
<< Home