Lockerbie: Have Government Ministers Contradicted One Another?

Monday, 7th September 2009

James says that the government is at odds with itself over the Megrahi Case. He cites these statements to support his argument that while either of these claims may be true, they cannot both be:

David Miliband on the Today Programme on September 2nd:

“We did not want him [Megrahi] to die in prison.”

Ed Balls on the Today Programme on September 7th:

“None of us wanted to see the release of al-Megrahi”

On the face of it, James is correct. But only, I hazard, on the face of it. That is, the contradiction - or the seeming contradiction - may be explained as follows.

1. Miliband's line echoes that allegedly made by FCO Minister Bill Rammell. To wit, the government assured the Libyans that there was no desire to see Megrahi die in a Scottish jail.

2. This does not, in fact, contradict Balls's assertion that "none of us" wanted to see Megrahi released.

I appreciate that the proposition that, technically, Balls and Miliband could both be telling the truth is a tough one to swallow but there it is. Their statements are artful to the point that they come close to sophistry but they are not, I think, outright falsehoods.

That is that though it may seem as though the Libyans held the whip hand throughout this entire sorry process - no trade opportunities for British firms unless Megrahi's status is on the table - the Libyans were in fact sold a pup. In other words, the British government was happy to suggest that it might write the Libyans a cheque, even though London was in no position to cash it.

Hence London's happiness to accede to Libyan demands that Megrahi be included in, not excluded from, any Prisoner Transfer Agreement. Hence too, London's happiness to suggest, explicitly or not, that they would have no objection to Megrahi being transferred to a Libyan prison even though London knew that this was not a decision that would or could be taken in London.

And, for all that one may wonder what sort of conditions Megrahi might have been held under had he been transferred to Libya, it still remains the case that, technically, this would not have constituted his release. If he were to die in a Libyan jail, well that would be a different matter and something that would be fine with London.

You may complain that all this is shabby and you might well be right. You may also observe that the Americans certainly though there was an undertsanding that Megrahi would serve out his sentence in Scotland and again you may be right. London, I suggest, would argue that this commitment was given at a time when Libya remained a pariah state and that, consequently, it was open to revision if, but only if, events moved on and circumstances - to say nothing of realpolitik - changed. As in fact they did.

Again, the PTA and any potential developments from it govern the terms and conditions of Megrahi's incarceration; his cancer, inoperable and terminal, determined his release and were, like everything else, a matter for Holyrood, not Whitehall. They are seperate issues.

And, to reiterate, it is inconceivable that London pressured Edinburgh into releasing Megrahi and no-one in Edinburgh has said anything, let alone complained, about it. London may well have winked at the Libyans and assured them that there was no objection to Megrahi going home but it is still the case that this was an assurance that was not in London's power to give.

Indeed, it seems likely that London was trying to have it both ways: placating the Libyans while leaving, properly, the decisions to Edinburgh. This may have been too clever by half and borderline duplicit but that's Perfidious Albion for you.

However, while too subtle by half and open to accusations of double-dealing and treachery, Nevertheless in a strict technical sense I'm not sure that there is actually as glaring a contradiction between the statements made by Balls and Miliband as James thinks.

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (6)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Craig Strachan

September 7th, 2009 3:48pm Report this comment

Bit Jesuitical, isn't it?

Cormac

September 7th, 2009 4:59pm Report this comment

Following the logic of the two statements, perhaps they wanted him to remain where he was but hoped that a miracle cure for cancer would emerge from the walls of Greenock prison?

Ben

September 7th, 2009 5:51pm Report this comment

Alex, here you are on 19th August, enjoying the moral high ground:
"If - or possibly when - Abdebaset Ali al-Megrahi is released, it will be on the compassionate grounds that he is a dying man whose cancer is inoperable and terminal.."
Which release and its aftermath is now summed up today, by yourself, as: "...this entire sorry process..", with, I'm sure, more people agreeing with the second comment than the first. Where you then get - given the torrent of recent revelations - this claim from:
"...it is inconceivable that London pressured Edinburgh into releasing Megrahi.." is beyond me. Have you not spotted a theme in your readers' comments? It must be getting a bit lonely on Planet Massie with only Gordon, Kenny, Eck, Jack and Peter for company.

this entire sorry process

Beefeater

September 7th, 2009 6:03pm Report this comment

You have done quite enough justice to this topic. Take a rest to prepare for the next time Edinburgh shuffles on to the international stage.

Richard T

September 8th, 2009 9:14am Report this comment

Taking what Ben has said, I and a lot of folk north are sitting on planet Massie as certain as we can be that, had there been any pressure from London to release Magrahi, Alex Salmond would be shouting from the roof tops. Setting aside his natural inclination for London bashing, he has a by election coming up with a candidate who perhaps is not as sure footed as he might be (bearing in mind he keeps shooting himself there) and the referendum on independence to take through Parliament. I just cannot believe that if he had anything at all to say about London interference, he would not have held forth when announcing the legislative programme. It is outwith his nature to keep quiet.

The Welsh Jacobite

September 8th, 2009 10:21am Report this comment

Aren't you missing the obvious, viz. that the statements simply aren't contradictory (of themselves)?

The clue is the word "want". The whole point about a dilemma is that it presents you with two (or more) alternatives, neither of which you want, but one of which you must choose. Otherwise it wouldn't be a dilemma.

http://welshjacobite.blogspot.com/2009/09/libya-milliband-balls-contradiction.html

Post comment