Revisiting the "The Lockerbie Deal" and Libya...

By Larisa Alexandrovna

The UK is very concerned about current human rights violations in Libya, as indeed they should be. America has also suddenly arisen from its silent slumber to condemn the violent attacks by Libyan forces against Libyan citizens. In an ideal world, the US and the Brits should easily be able to point at Qaddafi's crimes against humanity and condemn them. But we live in the desert of the real and as such, the people condemning this violence are the very people who have long provided material support for it: both the UK and the US have provided arms and training to Libya for several years now.

In January of this year, a little discussed but very important article came out by David Rose that gives a glimpse into how such arms deals with despots are agreed upon. You will not be surprised to find that human rights issues have nothing to do with contracts of this nature.

In 2009 the convicted Lockerbie bomber was sent home to Libya from a Scottish prison on grounds of “compassionate release”—he had only three months to live, authorities said. A year and a half later the man is still alive—and a Vanity Fair investigation reveals new details about the business interests and private dealings that lay behind the prisoner’s release. At the heart of the matter: the cozy and “profitable relationships” between the Blair government and Qaddafi’s Libya.

Like a medieval prince, Blair was accompanied on his journey by a retinue not just of government officials but of merchants—the top executives of several major U.K.-based companies. The companies included General Dynamics U.K., the military-hardware and communications specialists; the missile manufacturer MBDA, which was hoping to sell Qaddafi its Jernas air-defense system; and the petroleum giant BP. All three firms had been assured by the Libyans that their executives would accompany Blair into Qaddafi’s tent, where the colonel would approve the deals they had been negotiating. >

As for General Dynamics, it had to wait another 11 months, until May 2008, before Libya finally signed a contract worth $165 million to equip the Libyan army’s elite second brigade, which was commanded by Qaddafi’s son Khamis. In poker, there is a stratagem known as “deep stack,” in which a rich player with mediocre cards intimidates opponents into folding by raising the stakes to levels so high that they dare not call his bluff. And that, says one frequent visitor to Libya, is the way Qaddafi does business. But if Tony Blair found himself outplayed in 2007, he gave no hint of it when he took his leave. “The relationship between Libya and Britain has completely transformed,” he said. “The commercial relationship, as you can see by this huge investment deal today, is simply going now from strength to strength.” Blair knew what he was talking about. He was about to become one of its beneficiaries.

There has long been a symbiotic connection between BP—the biggest corporation listed on the London Stock Exchange—and the British government. Tony Blair’s first trip to Libya came in March 2004—a reward for Qaddafi’s decision at the end of the previous year to give up his attempts to acquire nuclear armaments and other weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.). John Browne, BP’s chief executive officer at the time, had already been appointed to the House of Lords. Now Blair gave BP the opening that was to lead to the exploration deal by taking Browne to meet Qaddafi. BP’s deal was still some way from being done by the time Lord Browne was forced to resign, in 2007, in the aftermath of a sex scandal. But having made at least one further visit to Qaddafi, he later said: “It did not happen but I think I got quite a way forward.”

I urge you to read the whole thing and closely and keep in mind that General Dynamics is a US company with a branch in the UK - the branch involved in the deal. It should come as no surprise that Gaddafi's assets were frozen by Swiss banks only recently. It seems a despot's money is good so long as the US and UK can prop him up.

Why is Syria under attack? - Part 4

When you peek below the surface, it becomes clear that Syria is under attack due to the interests of the parties involved. ‘Syria’ is about power, money, influence and energy.

read more

Why is Syria under attack? - 3

read more

Why is Syria under attack? - Part 2

In the event of major military conflicts that risk considerable humanitarian and economic consequences, it is useful to examine the interests of all parties involved as well as the role that the media plays in reporting the events.

read more

Why is Syria under attack? - Part 1

On the surface it’s straightforward: the U.S. wants to liberate Syria from a brutal dictator who is attacking his own people with poison gas. But beneath the surface there is something very different going on.

read more

Daan de Wit (DeepJournal) interviewt Webster Tarpley op het Magneetfestival

​Het Magneetfestival gaat de diepte in met vier interviews. Daan de Wit interviewt Webster Tarpley, Albert Spits, en Mike Donkers.

read more