Scottish ministers are right to refuse to take part in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Yesterday, one senator asked Edinburgh to reconsider. Senator Frank Lautenberg said in a letter to Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minister: "I am pleading for direct representation from the Scottish government at our hearing next week to help us seek answers. Your co-operation in sending a knowledgeable person will help establish a credible record of what transpired." Salmond is too clever to fall for this claptrap. He offered to make all the documents available for public perusal and the US Government stopped that. Now why would they do such a thing?
Read on.
The story in a nutshell seems to be this:
The UK Government wanted BP to get drilling licences in Libya.Gaddafi would only agree if, among other things, Megrahi was released. Very few agencies now really believe Megrahi was guilty anyway. The Lockerbie attack was retaliation for the downing by USS Vincennes of Iran Airflight 655 . An incident conspicuous by the lack of any inquiry by the US Senate. The Vincennes captain actually received a medal incredibly.
Tony Blair, international schmoozer of the rich and powerful, negotiated the deal with Gaddafi on behalf of the New £abour government. Salmond and Kenny MaCaskill may or may not have known this(probably not) but there were possible benefits for Scotland in keeping Gadaffi sweet. Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds, quite justifiably I believe, but has refused to die in a co-operative fashion. Obama is showboating to his defecting electorate in the US by decrying the fact that Megrahi has not died yet and his UK lapdogs, Brown then Cameron, have jumped on the bandwagon, trying to deflect the spotlight onto the SNP Government in Scotland.
It now seems that Salmond and Macaskill could come out of this smelling of roses while Obama, who received campaign contributions from BP, and the Westminster estabishment could be exposed as venal and rancid hypocrites.
BP is also under pressure to attend the Senate hearing on Thursday. It is expected to send one of its highest-ranking executives, possibly Tony Hayward, its chief executive, or Sir Mark Allen, its special adviser; both have been invited. "We have not responded yet but I would expect that someone would attend," a BP spokesman said yesterday.
William Hague yesterday became the latest politician to dash hopes that the UK would contribute significantly to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's inquiry into Megrahi's release. The Foreign Secretary released a letter to the committee chairman, John Kerry, stating that, although the bomber's release was "wrong and misguided", it was "legally and constitutionally proper" that the decision had been made by the Scottish government.
Mr Hague did, however, confirm that several discussions were held between the then foreign secretary, Jack Straw, and BP ahead of a controversial prisoner-transfer agreement being agreed with Libya in 2007.
BP meanwhile is pressing ahead with deep-water drilling off the coast of Libya "within weeks". The oil firm is refusing to delay its plans, outlined as far back as 2007, despite fears that it has not learned any lessons from the Deepwater Horizon disaster. At 1,700m, the Gulf of Sirte well would be 200m deeper than the ill-fated Gulf rig. A spokesman would not be drawn on an exact timetable. "We are exactly on schedule," he said, adding: "If there are any lessons that come out of the investigation in to the Deepwater Horizon spill we will of course apply them to our operations all over the world."
BP struck a $900m exploration deal with the Libyan government in May 2007, barely three months before the Scottish government released Megrahi. The agreement allows it to explore 54,000 square kilometres (21,000 square miles) of the onshore Ghadames and offshore Sirte basins, which could see it drill 17 exploration wells and up to 20 appraisal wells.
I just read that Hayward may be retiring very soon.
ReplyDeletehttp://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0725/deep-state-bureaucrats-blocking-iraq-inquiry/
ReplyDeleteAs it happens, I believe Salmond when he says he was never lobbied by BP. They had no need to, they already had the British government and Tony Blair in their pocket. It is inconceivable that BP didn't put unrelenting pressure on Downing Street over Megrahi and that the PM didn't try everything he could to rid ourselves of his turbulent presence in Greenock prison.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, BP had a chance to make a billion dollars worth of black gold off the Libyan coast. We will never know for certain there was a deal. But that Blair lobbied for BP's deal is certain. Well, the prisoner was released and BP got the deal and, according to Gaddafi 's son, Blair has embarked on a mini career as an adviser to the Gaddafi family on the country's sovereign wealth funds. Just What was it that brought together the New £abour governments' interest in Megrahi's release and the otherwise virulently hostile SNP administration's interest in closing this file? Why did the sovereign government of the UK allow this decision of such vital moment to the foreign policy interests of the whole state to be taken by a devolved executive and in the persona of MacAskill? The answer is that the clock was ticking in Edinburgh loudly enough for Whitehall to hear.
Not the life-clock of Megrahi but the clock ticking to Megrahi's appeal. Whitehall realised they might never need their prisoner transfer agreement. at they could let MacAskill be the patsy. Anjd they could let Scotland take the blame for a release bound to cause outrage in the US, whose nationals were the overwhelming majority of those slaughtered by the bomb.
Right, anon. The lightning conductor leads to Blair IMO.
ReplyDelete