British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has done a U-turn. Whereas he had previously told families of IRA victims that he wouldn’t put pressure on Libya to pay compensation fearing a deterioration of relations between the UK and Libya vis-à-vis trade and intelligence cooperation, he is now firmly backing their demands. Libya is alleged to have supplied the Irish terrorist group with the explosive material ‘Semtex,” during the early to mid-1980s at a time when Tripoli actively supported freedom fighters around the world. And victims’ families are holding Libya responsible for their pain rather than the Irish perpetrators. Later this month, representatives of those families who lost loved ones at the hands of the IRA are traveling to the Libyan capital to promote their case. They may believe that Brown’s dramatic change of stance gives extra grist to their mill but if the reaction of the Libyan leader’s son Seif Al-Islam is anything to go by, they’re wasting their time.
When asked for his reaction last Monday, Seif Al-Islam said his country’s answer to demands for compensation would be a simple “No.” “Anyone can knock on our door. You go to the court. They have their lawyers. We have our lawyers,” he said.
Now that the British government’s under-the-table deal for oil, gas and hotels in return for the release of the so-called “Lockerbie bomber” has come to light, Brown is working hard at damage control. He does not want to be seen as someone who swapped an incarcerated “terrorist” for filthy lucre and so he hides behind IRA victims in the hope that their “worthy” cause will rub off on him, while at the same time, he avoids appearing buddy-buddy with Libya.
In other words, he is sending the message, “See! I don’t care a jot what Tripoli thinks of me. I am standing by my principles.” For his part, Seif Al-Islam has characterized British politicians as “disgusting and immoral” for making political capital out of the release of Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi. He’s absolutely right. British and Scottish officials have been racing to distance themselves from Al-Megrahi’s repatriation on compassionate grounds with expressions of faux revulsion, even those who were directly involved in the barter, such as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice Jack Straw.
The government’s sudden backing for compensation claims by IRA victims’ families is nothing more than a blatant attempt to take the heat off Downing Street by changing the argument regardless of the rights or wrongs.
Libya has gone the extra mile in its attempts to rejoin the international community by shelling out $2.8 billion to Lockerbie claimants, handing over Lockerbie suspects for trial, ceasing its support for international extremist groups, and dismantling its nuclear program. In recent decades it has proved its willingness to be a responsible state but it seems it just cannot win. It has given a lot more than an inch and now Brown is shamefully demanding a lot more than a mile. Tripoli should not even entertain these latest demands for cash for several reasons. Firstly, its eagerness for international acceptance should not extend to being ground into a pulp so that Brown gets a halo.
Secondly, and more importantly, Libya isn’t the only country that provided the IRA with cash and weaponry. If Libya is to be called to account, then so should the United States. According to an article in the Boca Raton News dated March 28, 1972, American money accounts for 90 percent of the current IRA funding for “special action projects.”
The article goes on to quote intelligence sources as saying, “most of the cash paid out by the IRA for munitions is collected in the United States.”
Indeed, one of the most fervent American IRA supporters was the late Ted Kennedy, as Simon Heffer pointed out in The Telegraph, last March. He said that “honoring Ted Kennedy was an insult to IRA’s victims. Even I felt sorry for Ted Kennedy when I heard he had a brain tumor,” he wrote. “I temporarily forgot the support he gave to IRA murderers during the 1980s and 1990s. Since some nasty people flew airliners into a few buildings in 2001, the Americans have stopped seeing the glamour of terrorism. Until then, however, Fenian murderers were routinely feted on St. Patrick’s Day and no American welcomed them more warmly than Ted.” Thirdly, if weapons-supplying countries are to be held responsible for the carnage they wreak, then the same principle should be extended to all, and not just Libya. Both Britain and the US supply Israel with weapons that have been used to kill Palestinians and Lebanese, for instance. In this case, anyone who has been shot or injured by a missile or bomb should be automatically compensated by the country of manufacture.
Fourthly, if any country is responsible for compensating IRA victims or their families, it is Britain, in the same way that Washington shelled out huge sums to 9/11 families. The British government is charged with keeping its citizens safe and if it failed in its duties it should be made to pay. Instead, wealthy Libya is seen as an easy touch and especially when it forked out such a massive sum to Lockerbie victims even while maintaining its own innocence. And, to be frank, evidence is mounting that neither Libya nor Al-Megrahi had any hand in bringing down Pan Am flight 103.
Later this month, it is likely that President Muammar Qaddafi and Gordon Brown will come face to face at a UN Security Council meeting in New York and at a dinner to be hosted by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Given recent events, such encounters are likely to be fraught, especially in light of the Libyan leader’s tendency toward frank expression.
There is no doubt that Qaddafi will receive an icy reception from the Americans too. Some are asking their government to bar the Libyan president from stepping foot on their soil, while others are organizing protests. Municipal officials in Englewood, New Jersey, have already revoked permission for Qaddafi’s air-conditioned Bedouin tent to be erected in the garden of a mansion owned by the Libyan Embassy.
Is all of this stark hatred due to a low-key welcome given by Libya to the returning Al-Megrahi? Or is it indicative of the West’s inability to shake off old grudges and turn a new page?
