Latest Channel 4 News:
Row over Malaysian state's coins
'Four shot at abandoned mine shaft'
Rain fails to stop Moscow wildfires
Cancer blow for identical twins
Need for Afghan progress 'signs'

Megrahi inquiry 'is kicking BP while it's down'

By Channel 4 News

Updated on 19 July 2010

The BP spill and a senate inquiry in the release of the Lockerbie could overshadow David Cameron's visit to the US. But former UK Libyan ambassador Oliver Miles tells Channel 4 News the al-Megrahi inquiry is a case of kicking BP while it is down.

Abdel Basset al-Megrahi at the time of his release in August 2009 (Reuters)

Last week's announcement that the US Senate foreign relations committee is to hold a special inquiry into the Scottish government's decision to release Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, has prompted speculation about the names of witnesses likely to be called.

On 12 July a group of Democratic senators, led by New Jersey's Frank Lautenberg, wrote to John Kerry, chair of the senate foreign relations committee, that "the prospect that oil contracts between BP and the government of Libya" may have affected the release of al-Megrahi.

A list of witness names could be published this week, and they could include former justice secretary Jack Straw, Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill, Lord Browne, the former BP chief executive, and former prime minister Tony Blair.


Today Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking ahead of tomorrow's visit to the United States, appeared to set the British government on a collision course with its Scottish counterpart when he told BBC television the decision to release al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds was "completely and utterly wrong".

At the time of al-Megrahi's release in August 2009, the Scottish authorities said they thought he had no more than three months to live (see Jonathan Miller's accompanying video). But 11 months on, al-Megrahi is still alive.

The release prompted the suggestion that it was part of a deal between the UK and Libya to protect British business interests in north Africa, although Kenny MacAskill told the Scottish parliament last August that al-Megrahi had been released on compassionate grounds and not as part of a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya.

'BP's a baddie, and this is the time to kick them'
Channel 4 News spoke to Oliver Miles, former British ambassador to Libya and director of MEC International Ltd

You told Channel 4 News last year that you thought there had been a deal on al-Megrahi's release. How would it have worked?

The problem is this: why did Megrahi and Libya decide to abandon the appeal. It was probably Libya rather than Megrahi, because Megrahi was very ill and had given the Libyans full powers to act on his behalf.

The obvious reason for abandoning it was that it was a precondition under the prisoner transfer agreement – but the PTA wasn't actually used. And under Scottish humanitarian arrangements, it wasn't a precondition. It means we're left with an unanswered question as to why he abandoned it.

So there's a mystery there. The only half-solution I can think of is that someone convinced the Libyans or Megrahi that this was the only way he’d get a ticket home.

And has UK-Libya trade improved since al-Megrahi's release?

UK trade has improved. That's a fact if you believe the statistics. But whether one can link it to Megrahi or any other political factor, I would doubt.

The position I probably was taking last year and my feeling now is that if this had gone wrong, it would have had a serious negative impact on relations, including trade.

Put it this way. I was in Libya in May leading a delegation of British business people, and Megrahi wasn't mentioned - and I would have been amazed if he had been.

What will the US Senate inquiry reveal?

It seems to be there is no basis for an inquiry at all. Why are they raising this? The answer, to be blunt, is because of BP? Everybody knows that BP s a baddie, and when they're nearly down, this is the time to kick them.

Libya knows the only way it can achieve a boost in oil production is by bringing in the world's biggest oil companies – that’s the country has signed a deal with BP, with Shell and with Exxon Mobil as well.

You don’t have to look for any dirty business to explain why they’re doing business with BP.

More on the al-Megrahi release from Channel 4 News
- US senators target BP over Lockerbie link
- Was a Lockerbie bomber deal done?
- MacAskill: why I released the Lockerbie bomber
- Was Megrahi’s release a mistake?
- Lockerbie bomber Megrahi drops appeal

The British government also rejected accusations that it wanted al-Megrahi freed for business reasons. And last Thursday the British ambassador to the US, Nigel Sheinwald, wrote to John Kerry stating there was no truth in an alleged link between al-Megrahi's release and UK business dealings with Libya.

The prospect of high-profile politicians from the UK being called to testify in the United States comes at an important time for Anglo-US relations, with David Cameron due to begin his first visit to Washington as British prime minister tomorrow.

The BP oil spill, which happened on 20 April, just over two weeks before the UK general election, may have tarnished the "special relationship" in the last three months. Obama's handling of the disaster has become an environmental litmus test for the president, while Mr Cameron has had to defend the interests of the 18m people in the UK who own BP shares, either directly or via a pension fund.

There was good news last week when, on Thursday, a new cap was put in place over the deep-sea Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico. At the weekend BP officials said they hoped the cap could remain in place until the construction next month of a relief well that would permanently seal the leak.

But on Sunday evening the US government released a letter to BP referring to an unspecified seepage near the well.

A critical distance in the special relationship
British officials are trying to play down two issues ahead of this visit: the release from Scotland of the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, which has enraged the US administration, and the BP oil spill off Louisiana, writes Channel 4 News foreign affairs correspondent Jonathan Rugman.

Mr Cameron is expected to repeat his already often repeated view that the release of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi was a "mistake", though this may not be enough to deter the US senate foreign relations committee from calling British witnesses from the Blair-Brown years to hearings scheduled to begin in Washington on 29 July.

BP is a related issue, because the Americans have accused the company of lobbying for Megrahi's release to help them win Libyan contracts.

Cameron's responsibility to BP probably lies no further than reminding his American hosts that the company is a US employer, and that it should not be driven into the arms of a US takeover bid by politically motivated attacks.

The Cameron government has spoken with apparent detachment about a pragmatic - rather than fawning - relationship with the US. "Realistic, practical and sensible" are the Downing Street watchwords, though Obama's general coolness and his recent criticism of "British Petroleum" have probably created all the critical distance that both sides need.

Send this article by email

More on this story

Channel 4 is not responsible for the content of external websites.


Watch the Latest Channel 4 News

Watch Channel 4 News when you want

Latest International politics news

More News blogs

View RSS feed

Living with the Taliban

Taliban on the Afghan frontline

A rare film of Taliban fighters on the Afghan frontline.

Pakistan appeal

image

Actor Art Malik on why he is fronting the DEC's flood appeal.

Tackling Taliban IEDs

image

Bomb disposal soldiers on lonely walk to defuse bombs.

Snowmail




Channel 4 © 2010. Channel 4 is not responsible for the content of external websites.