The Libyan man known to many around the world as the "Lockerbie bomber", Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, has been released on compassionate grounds after heated debates between politicians in the United States and United Kingdom. The decision to release al-Megrahi was made by Kenny MacAskill, Justice Minister in the devolved Scottish Government, and perhaps should have concluded one of the most remarkable cases in contemporary international law and international relations. Instead, the decision drew politicians from the devolved Scottish Government, the UK Government and United States into a series of emotive, and widely publicised, exchanges. In this article, the debates surrounding the issue will be discussed along with various reactions to the release of the Lockerbie bomber and we will search for an answer to the ultimate question: was it a good decision?
Lockerbie Bombing, an Extraordinary Trial and the Debated Release
On the 21st of December 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 from London to New York exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie killing 270 people, including 11 on the ground. In 1991, US and British investigators accused two Libyan men, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, of being Libyan intelligence officers and orchestrating the bombing. It took over seven years for the Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi to agree to hand over the suspects for trial, despite mounting international pressure and sanctions being imposed on Libyan air travel and arms sales by the UN Security Council. An agreement was finally reached following a compromise between Libya, the US and the UK which would see the trial conducted in the neutral venue of the Netherlands, with the trial proceedings governed by Scots Law. On the 5th of April 1999, the two Libyan suspects were handed over, and the historic legal proceedings at the specially convened Scottish court at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands could begin. In January 2001, the judges found al-Megrahi guilty and recommended he serve a minimum sentence of 20 years, whilst his fellow Libyan was cleared of the accusation and released to go home. Despite the guilty verdict, al-Megrahi has always protested his innocence and launched two appeals against his conviction. The first of these was unsuccessful, whilst the second appeal was abandoned by al-Megrahi and his legal team so that he could be considered for release on compassionate grounds under Scots Law. Whilst the withdrawal of his appeal leaves Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi as the only person ever convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, he has at no point accepted his guilt and has continued to protest his innocence since his release from prison and return to Libya. The continued release of these statements has caused anger among a number of the relatives of the victims, as well as drawing scorn from politicians in the US and the UK, who question whether the Scottish Justice Minister made the right decision.
Was it the Right Decision?
The decision of whether al-Megrahi should have been released or not was suggested to be one of common humanity by Jim Swire, a father who lost his daughter in Lockerbie bombings. Keeping a man with terminal cancer in jail and letting him die there was against human rights, as advocated by various human rights organizations. This basic, universal argument that is based on conscience underlies the decision for the release of al-Megrahi. Considering it as a human rights issue, there is no doubt that it was the right decision, regardless of the crime he committed.
The timing was particularly significant as al-Megrahi was released right before Ramadan and this fact attracted bitter comments from those declared against the decision. Why the killer of 270 people was granted the luxury to spend the holy time with his family when his victims were not given the same chance, is a question asked by many critics who believe that compassionate release should never have been an option. The best answer to this question is another question: do two wrongs make a right?
It was most importantly a question of legal coherence and integrity. Not only did Kenny MacAskill accept full responsibility for his decision, but also consistently implied that the sole reason behind it was "the ideals of the Scottish legal system," not any political, diplomatic or economic considerations as argued by some. Scottish law allows the release of a convict on compassionate grounds in some cases. Once al-Megrahi's situation was confirmed by the medical report as one of terminal illness, the decision was up to the Justice Minister and a judgment of this sort relies heavily on the past legal precedent. In this case there was an existing legal precedent, with a former Justice Minister having freed a convicted child killer from a life sentence on compassionate grounds.
The Westminster Government denied intervening in MacAskill's decision, despite various speculations in the UK media, and asserted throughout that it was the Scottish Government's responsibility. Prime Minister Gordon Brown indicated numerous times that it was not his decision to make and carefully avoided giving his personal opinion on the controversial release of the Lockerbie bomber. However, if the decision was down to the UK Government Justice Secretary, Jack Straw might have given the same decision, relying on precedent. According to BBC Scotland political correspondent Glenn Campbell, "compassionate release is not unique to the Scottish justice system" and a similar decision was recently given by Jack Straw, who granted freedom to the infamous robber Ronnie Biggs on that basis.
The White House, on the other hand, declared its position days before the decision of the release and expressed the US government's belief on keeping the dying man in prison. President Obama kept his stance clearly against the release of al-Megrahi at all times. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and seven US senators repeated their views in the same lines and urged Kenny MacAskill not to free the convict of a horrendous crime. Bitter declarations continued to be made from various US statesmen, but FBI boss Robert Mueller's portrayal of the decision as "a mockery of justice" and "comfort[ing] to terrorists around the world" attracted criticism from both UK and Scottish politicians, including the UK Prime Minister and a former First Minister of the devolved Scottish Government. Whilst seeing no problem with the interventionist tone which permeated throughout many of the statements issued by US Senators and Administration, it is doubtful whether they would have tolerated a similar level of criticism were the decision theirs to make.
MacAskill has also been criticized by his fellow parliamentarians at the Holyrood Parliament but one in particular is worth mentioning here. During the discussion in Scottish Parliament after the release, another alternative was advocated by the Scottish Conservatives. It was to let him spend his last days at a hospice in Scotland instead of keeping al-Megrahi behind the bars until his death or releasing him on compassionate grounds. MacAskill dismissed that option, suggesting that it would generate great security concerns as well as disturbing other residents in the hospice.
A Hero's Welcome in Tripoli and Further Reactions
The sight of jubilant crowds greeting al-Megrahi at the Tripoli airport mounted the intensity of the already existing debates. It was a hero's welcome that al-Megrahi received with cheers, applauds and waving flags of both Libya and Scotland. Seif al-Islam Gaddafi, Colonel Gaddafi's son, described the release as a "victory," sharing the view of the mass media in Libya. On the other hand, speaker of the African Union parliament Idris Ndele Moussa bluntly supported al-Megrahi's claim to innocence, saying that he was "the victim of international justice and a policy of double standards."
While in the West, the heroic welcome drew immense criticism from even a larger group of people. It was depicted as "deeply upsetting, deeply distressing" by the UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband and "highly objectionable" by US President Obama. Disappointment was shared widely by the mass media as well as by the US, UK and Scottish public. The Scottish Justice Minister commented on the criticisms, explaining that "[a]ssurances had been given by the Libyan government that any return would be dealt with in a low-key and sensitive fashion," which was apparently far from what was witnessed.
Regrettable as the incident is, the heroic welcome received by al-Megrahi is still not enough to dismiss the righteousness of MacAskill's decision. In a way, the insensitive celebrations in Tripoli demonstrate that Libya's perspective, and that of Colonel Gaddafi, has not improved much since the pre-trial period. The heroic welcome and depiction of al-Megrahi's compassionate release as "a victory" can also be seen as disregard of his claims to innocence, for which he continues to publicize evidence in his death bed.
The Release of al-Megrahi and its Effects on British Foreign Policy
For a long time, the UK Prime Minister and his cabinet kept their silence and avoided expressing their stance, underlining that it was nobody's decision but the Scottish Justice Minister. Their silence generated speculations about a previous deal between the governments of Libya and Westminster, regarding the possible inclusion the Lockerbie bomber in the prisoner trade agreement. Another strong argument was that UK government wanted to secure the Libyan-UK relations for economic reasons and British interest in Libyan oil. Miliband was the first to officially confirm that the UK government didn't want to see al-Megrahi die in a Scottish prison.
It's obvious that this exceptionally controversial situation left Gordon Brown in a no-win situation, ironically similar to the devolved Scottish government if not worse. While the Scottish government had no excuse but to deal with the case, the UK government could have, and legally should have, avoided intervening. It was also the most sensible route to take diplomatically, rather than risking the good relations with US on one hand or Libya on the other. However the pressure mounted with the press getting hold of letters and reports and David Miliband had to declare UK government's stance in favour of MacAskill's decision, while insisting that "no pressure had been placed on the Scottish government ahead of its decision" to free the Lockerbie bomber. Gordon Brown repeated Miliband's account during a recent conference in Birmingham, saying "There was no conspiracy, no cover-up, no double dealing, no deal on oil, no attempt to instruct Scottish ministers, no private assurances by me to Colonel Gaddafi."
Obama condemned the MacAskill's decision on numerous accounts and expressed his disappointment on Gordon Brown's lack of intervention against the release the Lockerbie bomber. However, looking at the broader picture, the Scottish Minister clearly saved the UK government's relations both with the US and Libya. Since Kenny MacAskill stated that he, and only he, was responsible for al-Megrahi's release, Westminster was freed of all the accusations, ranging from private assurances to Gaddafi to the oil deal on one side and the inevitable role of the close strategic alliance with the US.
The Lockerbie incident has cemented its place in the history as one of the most controversial cases in both international relations and international law literature. The fact that Scottish authorities were in the centre of the entire process as decision-makers, from the trial of Lockerbie suspects to the release of al-Megrahi, also adds to the distinctiveness of the case. It can be fairly said that the devolved Scottish Government's responsibility and handling of the case, no matter how controversial it has been, saved the UK government having to deal with Libya on one side or the US on the other. Having no say in the country's foreign policy, the Scottish Government won't be affected diplomatically, despite the unrealistic speculations of a boycott of Scottish goods by the US. Whilst the release of the Lockerbie bomber will continue to divide opinion on both sides of the Atlantic, even those who doubt that Kenny MacAskill made the right decision must at least recognise that he attempted to make a righteous one.