Washington is harrumphing with shock and outrage this week over reports that BP, the pariah oil giant, prevailed upon the British government to release Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in exchange for a $900 million oil deal with Libya.
Recall that Megrahi was the only person convicted in 2001 for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988; that 270 people, two-thirds of them Americans, died; and that Megrahi was sentenced to life in prison. Recall further that the British government released him almost a year ago on compassionate grounds, claiming that Megrahi was suffering late-stage prostate cancer and had only three months to live.
Well, I was harrumphing with shock and outrage back then, not only because I did not think Megrahi deserved any compassion but also because I suspected that the claim of compassion was just a pretext for a more sinister quid pro quo involving oil with the Libyan government:
Notwithstanding his alleged illness, Megrahi’s release is such an affront to common sense that the British could only have released him for the same reason the Americans invaded Iraq: oil…
I am sensible enough to appreciate that incurring the moral wrath of the Americans for releasing him was a small price to pay for sweetheart oil deals with Libya…
I just wish British authorities did not insult our intelligence by citing compassion as their justification for releasing this mass murderer; especially since they have refused to show similar compassion for many other convicts who are (or were) relatively more worthy…
Also, don’t be surprised if Megrahi lives well beyond the three months he purportedly has to live … all praise be to Allah!
(Release of Lockerbie bomber: compassion v. justice, The iPINIONS Journal, August 24, 2009)
Reports this week reveal that, even though signed in May 2007, ratification of the deal BP and the Libyan was, in fact, conditioned on Megrahi’s release. Here’s the cleverly worded statement BP issued effectively admitting as much:
BP told the UK Government that we were concerned about the slow progress that was being made in concluding a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya. We were aware that this could have a negative impact on UK commercial interests, including the ratification by the Libyan government of BP’s exploration agreement.
(Reuters, July 15, 2010)
As for the obvious charade it took to secure his release, here’s what I wrote when the all too predictable reports began coming out of Libya about Megrahi’s miraculous recovery:
[A]s I predicted, Megrahi is evidently coping exceedingly well with his “terminal illness.” So much so in fact that an indignant U.S. Senator Charles Schumer is now demanding that he be extradited back to his prison cell in Scotland, immediately…
No matter Schumer’s moral demands (or President Obama’s political entreaties), however, the British simply cannot afford to renege on their Faustian exchange with Libya. Therefore, this is a done deal!
(Lockerbie bomber still alive, The iPINIONS Journal, November 23, 2009)
Not surprisingly, Senator Schumer is now leading the calls for a full-scale investigation into what role BP played in orchestrating Megrahi’s release, insinuating that any profits BP generates from any Libyan oil well will be “blood money“. But trust me when I assert that any congressional investigation into this matter will amount to nothing more than political grandstanding. Not to mention the practical impact of cutting off nose to spite face.
For, in the first instance, just as the U.S. had no authority to prevent the UK government from releasing Megrahi, it has no authority to sanction either the UK or BP for concocting this terrorist-for-oil deal. Then there’s the self-defeating spectacle this matter poses. Because on the one hand, the Obama administration has extracted a $20 billion pledge from BP to compensate those affected by its oil spill in the Gulf; while on the other hand, this administration is raising all kinds of moral and political objections to BP’s efforts to earn those billions at every turn.
You’d think all U.S. politicians would have been chastened in this respect after their uninformed and vengeful comments caused BP to lose nearly 50 percent of its value (or $70 billion) in the immediate aftermath of the oil spill.
At any rate, it is as futile as it is misguided to meddle in BP’s business affairs in this way. Alas, given the state of affairs in Washington these days, pursuing futile and misguided measures seems to be Congress’ mission statement.
Meanwhile, apropos of cutting nose to spite face, BP finally capped that leaking well in the Gulf yesterday – 87 days after it exploded on April 20. (Pictures juxtaposing the once-gushing and now-capped well speak volumes.) The company is now able to capture all of the seemingly inexhaustible supply of oil that is spewing from this well for sale on the open market.
Common sense clearly dictates that the Obama administration should allow BP to do so on the condition that all profits from this well are placed in a perpetual trust, not only to ensure payment of BP’s $20 billion pledge but also to fund repair of the ecological damage it caused. Instead it is demanding that BP “kill” the well – by plugging it with mud and cement – in a reactionary, myopic, and ultimately self-defeating attempt to punish BP.
Finally, the UK government has taken pains to explain that the decision to release Megrahi was made by Scottish authorities. But whatever the nature of devolution between England and Scotland, when it comes to international matters like this, it was and is always the case that foreign governments deal with England, not Scotland or Wales – no matter how much these two former kingdoms are implicated.
More to the point, my Scottish friend, a very accomplished barrister, has lamented the way Scotland duly complies with the UK government expropriating profits from oil drilling off its coast to stash in the London treasury. Therefore, it beggars belief to think that the UK government did not effectively instruct Scotland to release Megrahi for the benefit of the UK’s largest taxpayer, BP, and that Scotland duly complied.
This is why, when word got out that the Scots were thinking of releasing him on compassionate grounds, the U.S. appealed not to the Scots in Scotland but to that Scot in England who represents the UK government, Prime Minister Gordon Brown. And it is why Americans are so incredulous at the UK government’s attempt now to play the devolution card. Plausible deniability is one thing, but this just smacks of a rather puerile attempt to deflect blame.
Related commentaries:
Release of Lockerbie bomber
Lockerbie bomber still alive
Legacy Note: With over 5,600 posts spanning 20 years, I am easily the most prolific blogger on the most eclectic array of topics on the web. That makes The iPINIONS Journal an unparalleled archive of informed political and cultural commentary. Visit the ARCHIVES section in the sidebar or search by topic. You won’t find a more consistent, independent voice on world affairs.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.