About Social Media Today
Much has been said about the role of British and Scottish government ministers in the decision to release the Lockerbie terrorist. But what about the role of our Foreign Office?
It now seems certain that our diplomats have been manoeuvring towards some sort of deal over al Megrahi for months – if not years. Indeed, Britain had made a prisoner exchange agreement with Tripoli at least as early as June 2007 – proof that al Megrahi’s release was on the cards in King Charles Street.
In the intervening 26 months, there have been two different Prime Ministers and half a dozen different MPs rotated in and out of the Foreign Office, playing the role of minister. But it is the officials and the Sir Humphrey's who've remained constant.
When it comes to Saudi Arabia, we know the Foreign Office has been consistently keen to see certain UK companies secure contacts. So much so, in fact, our diplomats are no longer able to distinguish between the commercial interests of certain British companies with our wider national interests.
Could it be that something similar is dictating policy towards Libya? Could it be that the Foreign Office now regards the commercial stake certain UK companies have in Libya as paramount? So much so, that they’re willing to shepherd successive ministers towards a prisoner exchange / oil investment deal?
Of course there’s always a tension between doing what is morally right and realpolitik in our relations with foreigners. But surely it’s wrong that those who decide where the balance lies do so without accountability to the rest of us? This case proves how little democratic scrutiny there is over those who make our foreign policy.
It’s not merely Gordon Brown and Ivan Lewis that need to be thrown out of office - but those officials in King Charles Street behind this extraordinarily foolish and deeply harmful neo-mercantilism.
