Perennial fall-guys face new US threat

When I made a second approach, however, the officials seemed more positive. I was advised at a meeting that if the Libyans would publicly express regret about the death of Yvonne Fletcher it could make a considerable difference. To avoid misunderstandings, I sent a document to the Foreign Office with a copy to the head of the Libyan desk, suggesting that the right formula might be an official expression of regret and a donation from Libya to a police charity, both of which should, as the Foreign Office requested, come with the specific backing of Colonel Gaddafi.

I travelled to Libya, secured a letter from their foreign minister expressing regret, and a cheque for #250,000 made out to the police dependants' fund. I then had a meeting with Gaddafi, who assured me he was aware of both items, to which he gave full support, and he offered as a ``bonus'' a pledge to seek to secure the release of a British citizen held as a hostage in the Middle East.

I returned to Britain with my achievements and contacted the Foreign Office. I was contacted thereafter by an official who stated that Douglas Hurd, the Foreign Secretary, wished to see me. We met in his office. Unusually, no officials were present. Mr Hurd explained that, sadly, since my departure, it had emerged there was damning evidence that Libya had been involved in the Lockerbie disaster, so it was impossible to proceed. I accepted all he said, stated that I would advise the Libyans, and the issue would be forgotten. The Libyans expressed regret and assured me there had been no Libyan involvement.

About 10 days later, however, it was learned from an embassy on the Continent that Gaddafi had offered #250,000 ``blood money'' in recompense for the murder of Yvonne Fletcher, that the Government had rejected it with contempt, and that they would continue their battle.

I saw a junior minister at the Foreign Office because the Foreign Secretary was not available, and protested vigorously that far from ``offering'' blood money Gaddafi had simply responded to a proposal I had made which had been discussed with the Foreign Office and conveyed to them in writing. As he seemed puzzled, I pointed out that a copy had been sent to the head of the Libyan desk. I was, however, advised that the official concerned had left public service, that there was no knowledge of his whereabouts, and that in any event my letter could not be found.

The following week, after the most astonishing spadework which included the use by me - for the first time in my life - of a private detective, I was able to inform the minister that the lost civil servant, Mr Baker, was employed by the Foreign Office in our Prague embassy, doing a Czech language course, and that there was a telephone number on which he could be contacted. I treasure the reply I had from a Foreign Office minister apologising for the ``misunderstanding'' over Mr Baker. But this matter, which apparently identified the Libyans as the self-confessed perpetrators of the murder of Yvonne Fletcher, is small compared with the others.

There seems to have been a similiar ``misunderstanding'' about the bombing of Libya from British airfields, announced by Mrs Thatcher in April, 1986. She explained the Government had agreed to provide facilities to the US aircraft for what she described as ``self defence'' measures against ``terrorist'' targets in Libya. The US bombers bombed the Tripoli home of Gaddafi, and some miscellaneous houses in Benghazi, killing 15 people, including Gaddafi's 15-month-old adopted daughter, and wounding about 100 others.

The reason for the bombing of these terrorist targets, we were told, was because of the bombing in Berlin in which two US servicemen had died, and the killing of Yvonne Fletcher. We were assured the facts on both issues were clear and precise. But what are the facts?

Fulcrum Productions showed a detailed and dramatic programme on Channel 4 recently in which they provided astonishing evidence, supported by respected experts, that the bullet which killed WPC Fletcher could not have come from the three-storey Libyan embassy, but must have come from the sixth storey of an adjacent building. Government ministers expressed outrage at the conclusions of the programme and stated it was unfair to the deceased's family to raise the issue in this way. But when a Home Office minister was asked to explain why the programme makers had, at first, been denied a sight of the post-mortem reports, he explained the papers could only be made available to members of the family and they had been released at the specific request of Queenie Fletcher, mother of the deceased, who had co-operated fully with the programme. I would not seek to go through all the points in the programme, but it was one of the most devastating I have seen.

But what about Lockerbie? Recent evidence has shown that one body and a large package were removed after the disaster. We now know that people on the aircraft were involved in a drugs-transporting opeation, apparently designed to identify drug operators, that special arrangements were made to ensure luggage involved in the operation would not be inspected in Frankfurt airport, and that there were a multitude of strange happenings.

The official line, however, is that the explosives were placed on the aircraft by two Libyans in Malta, and their trial in the United States or Scotland is demanded. The Libyans, who claim the two were not involved, have been advised by Scottish lawyers that a fair trial would be impossible because of press referenced to the two as ``Libyan bombers'', but have offered to send the two for immediate trial in any other nation. More recently, the Libyans offerd to send the two to the Hague for trial by a Scottish judge using Scottish legal procedures. But the offer has been rejected, despite the Hague being used for trials for war crimes committed elsewhere.

It has been argued that even if the British Government agreed, the devious Libyans would be unlikely to produce the two suspects. But would this not be the clearest way of establishing the issue? A failure to appear would be the clearest evidence of guilt.

The more I look at Lockerbie, the more I worry. The Swiss who sold the timing devices has explained he sold two types. He has stated that if he saw them he could state without difficulty whether they were the ones sold to the Libyans or to terrorist groups operating in East Germany. I and other MPs have asked Scottish law officers if the authorities would be willing to show the evidence to the Swiss salesman, but we have been advised that this would be ``improper''.

Irrespective of whether any of these matters might ever be resolved, there is at least a case for preventing future problems. The Libyans have spent a fortune on what is referred to as the man-made river. For a water-starved nation, they have utilised massive underground lakes to create an enormous river and miles of pipes carry water all over Libya. In Saidi Seah, just outside Tripoli, there is a tank larger than the Albert Hall to store water, which for the first time will provide supplies to the million residents. The water starts to flow on September 1. To reach this tank, the water has to be piped through a large hill at Trhuna. The United States allege that as well as this large pipe there is to be a factory under Trhuna to make chemical or atomic weapons, and they say that they are planning to bomb it.

President Mubarak of Egypt has sent an army of officials at Libya's request to the Trhuna hill and has confirmed they can find no evidence of a chemical factory. So will the bombing go ahead and destroy the new water supply?

There have been few references in the British press to the latest Libyan problem. But if the bombs fall and there are reports of conclusive proof of the chemical warfare factory, will many worry? I believe that the British and other governments should make a genuine effort to clarify the facts before the bombs drop.

But why should the United States be so obsessive? It may be that, because of the vital discussions on the Middle East ``peace process'', it is simpler to place the blame for everything on Libya, which has acquired a bad reputation.

But it seems clear to me that something unusual and worrying has been happening for a considerable time. A genuine inquiry by Britain would, in my opinion, be a step forward.

n This article appears in the latest issue of the Spectator.