Eleven and one-half days. That’s how much prison time columnist Charles Krauthammer reckons Libyan terrorist Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi served for each of the 270 people he murdered when he planted the bomb that blew Pan Am flight 103 out of the skies. Nothing like the 27 years to which Megrahi was sentenced. But the terrorist has terminal prostate cancer, or so the doctors say, so the Scottish authorities decided “compassion” and “Scottish values” dictated his release and return to Libya, where he formerly served as an intelligence agent.
American outrage at the decision of Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s decision to ignore the pleas of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and allow Megrahi to return to Libya in time for Ramadan, and to a hero’s welcome, was predictable. But nevertheless it seems to have come as a surprise to Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), which wants to break free from the United Kingdom and become an independent country — taking the North Sea oil with it, of course. Salmond says that the relationship with the United States will be unaffected by the decision, and will remain “strong and enduring.” He might be counting on the millions of Americans who claim Scottish descent, and the 50-member Friends of Scotland Caucus in Congress, which has its own tartan. Never mind that this is the same Scottish leader whom the Financial Times reports has “criticized the folksy ‘whisky-and-shortbread’ image of Scotland among their American cousins.”
The large Scottish-origin population might reduce the fall-out from the Scots’ display of “compassion” and their particular “values.” But not soon, and not certainly, since Americans by and large, whatever their origin, are not sympathetic to the release of a terrorist who slaughtered so many of their fellow citizens. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), the Senate’s point man on the issue, along with Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have asked British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to mount an inquiry to determine just how this decision was made, and why. That won’t happen: Brown wants this whole thing to become old news as soon as the vigorous British press will permit, and has confined himself to a statement yesterday that he is “angry and repulsed” by the hero’s welcome that Qaddafi organized after solemnly promising Brown and MacAskill not to do just that.
More important to both our country and to the UK, the security services are re-examining their relationship with their counterparts both in Scotland and in England. For the decision to release Magrahi is only the latest thumb in the eye of U.S. security services. The British government has refused to extradite six suspected terrorists, including a Saudi wanted in connection with bomb attacks on U.S. embassies. Remember: This is the same British government that raised no objection when British businessmen were extradited to face trial in the United States on charges of violating antitrust laws and other statutes. Apparently, Scottish desire to show compassion to a mass murderer is matched by British desire to keep wanted terrorists from facing justice in U.S. courts.
There is also a boycott of Scottish goods being promoted on the Internet, and not only by families of the 189 Americans murdered by the Libyan terrorist. According to the BBC, visitors from the United States last year accounted for 340,000 trips to Scotland and, reports VisitScotland spent £260 million, 21% of all spending by people from outside the UK. The number of Americans cancelling trips is increasing, but whether the total will in the end make a significant dent in the Scottish economy is not yet known. All in all, Americans, who constitute Scotland’s largest export market, spend almost $4.5 billion on Scottish goods and services, much of that on whiskey that can be replaced with Canadian and Irish products, I am told, but even more on financial services. Given the shaky nature of the financial system, cutting ties with the Royal Bank of Scotland, which has a substantial presence in the United States, might be more trouble than it is worth.
Salmond also says there was no commercial quid pro quo for the release of Megrahi. He is joined in this denial by Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who calls any such talk “a slur both on myself and the Government.” And by Lord (Peter) Mandelson, by far the most powerful minister in the Brown cabinet, fresh from his Corfu vacation at which he discussed the Megrahi case with Colonel Qaddafi’s son, Seil al-Islam, but at which no specific linkage to a trade deal was mentioned. Even to imply such a thing, says his Lordship, would be “quite offensive.” So I won’t.
Of course there was no explicit quid pro quo. As Ambassador John Bolton pointed out in a recent op ed, “That is not the way it’s done.” But the deal-deniers have yet to explain Qaddafi’s claim that the prisoner release will have a positive effect on “all areas of cooperation between the two countries.” Or the amazing coincidence between BP’s signing of a £500 million deal with Libya and Qaddafi’s meeting with Tony Blair two years ago, a meeting at which the release of al-Megrahi was discussed. Perhaps Seil was fibbing when he told the Al Mutawassit television channel, “In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, [Megrahi] was always on the negotiating table.” But what reason would Seil have to embarrass Gordon Brown and the Scottish authorities involved in this display of “compassion” after his father thanked “my friend Gordon Brown,” among others, for taking “this historic and courageous decision, despite the obstacles”?
Which brings us to Brown’s role. So long as he continues the Macavity game for which he is now justly famous in Britain, it is difficult to pin down the role of the Prime Minister. As the poem goes, “When the Foreign Office finds a Treaty’s gone astray it’s useless to investigate — Macavity’s not there.” We do know that Brown knew of the decision to release Megrahi before it was announced, and had asked Qaddafi not to make a fuss about his return to Libya. No luck: Qaddafi apparently gave assurances to his new friend that the Lockerbie bomber would be slipped quietly into the bosom of his family, and then threw the mother of all welcoming parties. In sum, Brown must have been involved on some level, despite his denial at yesterday’s press conference.
But when the Prime Minister argues that this is purely a matter for the Scottish government he is inadvertently confessing fundamental responsibility for this fiasco. “Because it was a quasi-judicial matter, because it was a matter legislated for by the Scottish Parliament and not by us, it was a matter over which we could not interfere and had no control over the final outcome,” the Prime Minister told the press this week.
But that ducks the fundamental issue: how is that the Scottish Parliament has such complete control over a matter that effects the entire United Kingdom? Answer: It is because Gordon Brown promoted Scottish devolution, the ceding of the British Parliament’s power over local affairs, including the criminal justice system, to the Scottish Parliament. This was done to cool some Scots’ ardor for complete independence from London. In a world in which terrorists have no regard for international borders, decisions taken by those in charge of the justice system are inextricably linked to a nation’s foreign policy. Even MacAskill, the upholder of Scottish values, admits the question of releasing a convicted terrorist is “a global issue.” For the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to have outsourced that system to authorities who can bring the entire nation into international disrepute and strain its relations with its allies was irresponsible. And, having done that, when the inevitable storm breaks, to hide behind his spokesman’s statement that the decision is so “uniquely sensitive and difficult” that the Prime Minister will not comment is not exactly to emulate the heroes of Brown’s latest book, Courage.
So where do we go from here? No.10 is pressing Qaddafi to call off any other celebrations he might be planning, but putting a lock on that barn door seems pointless. The Government had the Palace announce, “There are no plans for the Duke of York to visit Libya,” rather than to tell the truth: that Prince Andrew is cancelling a long-planned trip in response to Qaddafi’s welcome-home party for Megrahi. This, in an apparent effort to avoid insulting Qaddafi.
More significant would be a U.S. and UK refusal to attend the celebration in Libya next week of the 40th anniversary of the coup that overthrew King Idris and brought Qadaffi to power, and the September 15 opening of the 64th session of the UN General Assembly, over which Ali Abdussalam Treki, a Libyan diplomat and enthusiastic supporter of President Obama’s hard-line opposition to the expansion of Israeli settlements, will preside as its President. To commemorate the event, Qaddafi will be making his first visit to New York City.
Which opens three possibilities to express American disgust. First, when President Obama chairs a September 24 Security Council meeting to discuss nuclear proliferation, he can make sure that Qaddafi, who will be representing Libya, doesn’t play him like a fiddle, as Hugo Chávez did at the 5th Summit of the Americas in April: no friendly chats and photo ops. Second, the President could adopt Senator Lautenberg’s suggestion that the Colonel’s visa be restricted to limit his travel. Finally, Mayor Bloomberg might recall that when PLO terror chief Yasser Arafat visited New York then-Mayor Rudi Giuliani ordered him out of a gala UN party at Lincoln Center. Giuliani, referring to the murder of wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer, said “I don’t forget.” Neither should Bloomberg.
Irwin M. Stelzer is a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute, and a columnist for the Sunday Times (London).
