Having followed the Lockerbie case closely since 1993 here is a summary of my views on the case:
( 1 ) Lockerbie can be described as a Crime or a terrorist incident. It was also, if not primarily, an exercise in International Relations and explicable in terms of elementary International Relations theory.
( 2 ) Lockerbie was intimately connected to the Vincennes Incident and without the Vincennes Incident there would have been no Lockerbie.
( 3 ) Lockerbie was not unexpected. Because of the “Vincennes Incident” it was expected and planned for.
( 4 ) The “Vincennes Incident” obviously gave Iran a motive to retaliate. No commentator has noted that it also gave the USA a motive to collude in a measured and appropriate response. To understand Lockerbie watch the film “Fail Safe”.
( 5 ) The relationship between Lockerbie and the Vincennes Incident is something the authorities have gone to great lengths to deny. To acknowledge the link they would have had to respond and escalate the situation. With “honour” satisfied it was best to move on.
( 6 ) The arrest of the PFLP-GC “Autumn Leaves” group is of relevance because this represented an excessive and inappropriate response. It also indicated that –
(a) Iran had not decided to forgive and forget.
(b) The CIA had an active policy.
(c) The timing of “Autumn Leaves” was of crucial importance.
(d) It may cast light on who built the IED that destroyed PA103.
( 7 ) Libya was blamed for reasons largely but not entirely unrelated to the bombing itself. These reasons may even be regarded as laudable and may have saved many lives. Libya was blamed as –
(a)The creation of a false solution, any false solution, was necessary.
(b) The authorities pretended the case was solved to appease the
families of the victims who became a tool of policy..
(c ) a prelude to UN sanctions with the object of regime change
( d ) to moderate or eliminate Libyan support for various terrorist
groups and National Liberation movements notably the IRA.
( e ) payback for previous Libyan support of same and “pour
encourager les autres” .
( f ) As an employee of Libyan intelligence and a procuror of
sophisticated timers Al-Megrahi may have been personally
involved in these activities.
( 8 ) The only logical alternative to Al-Megrahi’s guilt is that agencies of the British and US Government knew that PA103 was doomed and colluded in the bombing.
( 9 ) This allows for the manipulation of passenger lists. One victims may not have been on the plane.
( 10 ) The IED that destroyed flight PA103 was not introduced at Malta. It is irrefutable that it was introduced at Heathrow.
( 11 ) The Malta scenario was created to implicate Libya in general and Megrahi in particular. The implementation of this plan largely pre-dated the bombing.
( 12 ) Lockerbie may have been the inspiration for the UTA 772 bombing. Evidence of Libyan responsibility fore the UTA case is compelling.
( 13 ) The object of the indictment of the two Libyan suspects was demonstrably not a trial but UN sanctions against Libya.
( 14 ) The defector Majid Giaka may have been recruited to play a role that the late Ian Spiro should have played.
( 15 ) The plan to blame Libya had nothing to do with the Gulf War which had ended several months before the indictment was announced.
( 16 ) The timing of the announcement of the indictment was related to;
( 1 ) Lockerbie can be described as a Crime or a terrorist incident. It was also, if not primarily, an exercise in International Relations and explicable in terms of elementary International Relations theory.
( 2 ) Lockerbie was intimately connected to the Vincennes Incident and without the Vincennes Incident there would have been no Lockerbie.
( 3 ) Lockerbie was not unexpected. Because of the “Vincennes Incident” it was expected and planned for.
( 4 ) The “Vincennes Incident” obviously gave Iran a motive to retaliate. No commentator has noted that it also gave the USA a motive to collude in a measured and appropriate response. To understand Lockerbie watch the film “Fail Safe”.
( 5 ) The relationship between Lockerbie and the Vincennes Incident is something the authorities have gone to great lengths to deny. To acknowledge the link they would have had to respond and escalate the situation. With “honour” satisfied it was best to move on.
( 6 ) The arrest of the PFLP-GC “Autumn Leaves” group is of relevance because this represented an excessive and inappropriate response. It also indicated that –
(a) Iran had not decided to forgive and forget.
(b) The CIA had an active policy.
(c) The timing of “Autumn Leaves” was of crucial importance.
(d) It may cast light on who built the IED that destroyed PA103.
( 7 ) Libya was blamed for reasons largely but not entirely unrelated to the bombing itself. These reasons may even be regarded as laudable and may have saved many lives. Libya was blamed as –
(a)The creation of a false solution, any false solution, was necessary.
(b) The authorities pretended the case was solved to appease the
families of the victims who became a tool of policy..
(c ) a prelude to UN sanctions with the object of regime change
( d ) to moderate or eliminate Libyan support for various terrorist
groups and National Liberation movements notably the IRA.
( e ) payback for previous Libyan support of same and “pour
encourager les autres” .
( f ) As an employee of Libyan intelligence and a procuror of
sophisticated timers Al-Megrahi may have been personally
involved in these activities.
( 8 ) The only logical alternative to Al-Megrahi’s guilt is that agencies of the British and US Government knew that PA103 was doomed and colluded in the bombing.
( 9 ) This allows for the manipulation of passenger lists. One victims may not have been on the plane.
( 10 ) The IED that destroyed flight PA103 was not introduced at Malta. It is irrefutable that it was introduced at Heathrow.
( 11 ) The Malta scenario was created to implicate Libya in general and Megrahi in particular. The implementation of this plan largely pre-dated the bombing.
( 12 ) Lockerbie may have been the inspiration for the UTA 772 bombing. Evidence of Libyan responsibility fore the UTA case is compelling.
( 13 ) The object of the indictment of the two Libyan suspects was demonstrably not a trial but UN sanctions against Libya.
( 14 ) The defector Majid Giaka may have been recruited to play a role that the late Ian Spiro should have played.
( 15 ) The plan to blame Libya had nothing to do with the Gulf War which had ended several months before the indictment was announced.
( 16 ) The timing of the announcement of the indictment was related to;
(a) the objective of imposing sanctions
(b) the return of the second defendant to Libya from Tunis.
( 17 ) The attempt to impose sanctions could not commence until the 1.1.92 when significant changes to the UN Security Coucil took effect.
( 18 ) The conclusions of the 1990 Fatal Accident Enquiry that the primary suitcase arrived at Heathrow unaccompanied on flight PA103A and that it had likely been Interlined there was based on the evidence of the Lord Advocate’s Deputy and successor Andrew Hardie QC. This “evidence” was based on flawed deductive reasoning that was expressly repudiated in the Judgement at Camp Zeist.
( 19 ) The Scottish Judiciary, individually and collectively regarded “Camp Zeist” as an abomination a venue and form of trial arrived at by political negotiation and were determined to convict if they possibly could. They were determined that this experiment should not be repeated and to convict if they possibly could. Al-Megrahi was convicted because of “Camp Zeist”.
( 20 )The relationship between the McKie case and Lockerbie is solely based on the claims of Juval Aviv which are always unsubstantiated..
( 21 ) “Interfor” and the alternate “Drug Conspiracy Theory” expressed in the documentary “The Maltese Double Cross” are untrue, not because of moral rectitude, not because they are unsupported by a shred a real evidence, but because the primary suitcase was not on flight PA103A on the 21.12.88.
( 22 ) Khalid Jafaar was an innocent victim. He had nothing to do with the bombing.
( 23 ) The claims that Charles McKee, Ron LaRiviere, Daniel O’Connor and Matthew Gannon were a “team” is unsupported by any evidence.
( 24 ) Claims of South African involvement are based merely on a hunch and are unsupported by evidence. Indeed there is no credible motive. If the apartheid regime was involved one might think the successor government, good friends of Libya and Colonel Gaddafi might have come up with some evidence.
( 25 ) Lockerbie buffs should “google” Luis Posada Carriles.
(b) the return of the second defendant to Libya from Tunis.
( 17 ) The attempt to impose sanctions could not commence until the 1.1.92 when significant changes to the UN Security Coucil took effect.
( 18 ) The conclusions of the 1990 Fatal Accident Enquiry that the primary suitcase arrived at Heathrow unaccompanied on flight PA103A and that it had likely been Interlined there was based on the evidence of the Lord Advocate’s Deputy and successor Andrew Hardie QC. This “evidence” was based on flawed deductive reasoning that was expressly repudiated in the Judgement at Camp Zeist.
( 19 ) The Scottish Judiciary, individually and collectively regarded “Camp Zeist” as an abomination a venue and form of trial arrived at by political negotiation and were determined to convict if they possibly could. They were determined that this experiment should not be repeated and to convict if they possibly could. Al-Megrahi was convicted because of “Camp Zeist”.
( 20 )The relationship between the McKie case and Lockerbie is solely based on the claims of Juval Aviv which are always unsubstantiated..
( 21 ) “Interfor” and the alternate “Drug Conspiracy Theory” expressed in the documentary “The Maltese Double Cross” are untrue, not because of moral rectitude, not because they are unsupported by a shred a real evidence, but because the primary suitcase was not on flight PA103A on the 21.12.88.
( 22 ) Khalid Jafaar was an innocent victim. He had nothing to do with the bombing.
( 23 ) The claims that Charles McKee, Ron LaRiviere, Daniel O’Connor and Matthew Gannon were a “team” is unsupported by any evidence.
( 24 ) Claims of South African involvement are based merely on a hunch and are unsupported by evidence. Indeed there is no credible motive. If the apartheid regime was involved one might think the successor government, good friends of Libya and Colonel Gaddafi might have come up with some evidence.
( 25 ) Lockerbie buffs should “google” Luis Posada Carriles.
5 comments:
I fully agree with proposition (8) above but strongly disagree with (24): "Claims of South African involvement are based merely on a hunch and are unsupported by evidence. Indeed there is no credible motive. If the apartheid regime was involved one might think the successor government, good friends of Libya and Colonel Gaddafi might have come up with some evidence."
In my view, there is clear circumstantial evidence against apartheid South Africa. This is it:
1. The Reagan/Gorbachev summit in Moscow in May 1988 decided that South Africa had to grant Namibia its independence, in return for Cuba's withdrawal of troops from Angola and the cutting off of military aid by the Soviet Union (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Accords)
2. It was US presidential election year in 1988, and Democrat nominee Michael Dukakis would have declared South Africa to be a "terrorist state" (along with Libya and Iran) if he were elected US president (see http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFDC133BF930A25755C0A96E948260).
3. Foreign Minister Pik Botha and a South African delegation of 22 were booked on Pan Am Flight 103. It took six years after the event before a Reuters news agency report of 12 November 1994 confirmed that the booking had in fact been made. But there is no explanation why none of the party travelled to New York on PA 103 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:REUTERS12NOV94.jpg).
4. UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, was to have travelled direct from Brussels to New York but was persuaded to stopover in London. Carlsson thus became the most high-profile victim on PA 103. He was in an anomalous position being the UN's Governor of Namibia (see http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4D9143EF931A15751C1A96E948260). But, United Nations authority over Namibia was never recognised by the South African Government, who administered the territory through an Administrator-General, Louis Pienaar, and it is unclear what role Bernt Carlsson would have played in the run-up to Namibia's independence. A UN Inquiry into Carlsson's death on Pan Am Flight 103 will doubtless help to resolve this anomaly.
5. South Africa's nightmare was to have SWAPO take control of Namibia with more than 66% of the vote, since this would have allowed SWAPO to re-write the independence constitution (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Namibia#Negotiations_and_transition). Measures were therefore taken for South Africa's Civil Cooperation Bureau to disrupt the election process, to harass the UN Special Representative Martti Ahtisaari (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martti_Ahtisaari#Diplomatic_career) and to take out prominent SWAPO activists (eg Anton Lubowski). The Koevoet paramilitary force was also deployed to prevent SWAPO's military wing returning from overseas bases. And, according to The Guardian of July 26, 1991, Foreign Minister Pik Botha told a press conference that the South African government had paid more than £20 million to at least seven political parties in Namibia to oppose SWAPO in the run-up to the 1989 elections. Botha justified the expenditure on the grounds that South Africa was at war with SWAPO at the time.
Here is the full text of ten letters I had published in The Guardian (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Patrick_Haseldine#Letters_to_The_Guardian. The first letter was published 14 days before the Lockerbie bombing. The nine subsequent letters all seek to incriminate the apartheid regime for Pan Am Flight 103, and one even suggests that South Africa was responsible for the UTA Flight 772 bombing ("The bearer of strange tidings from Islamic Jihad")!
Dear Patrick,
Thank-you for taking the time to respond. I stand-by my propsition. I see no motive for the South African regime to murder Bernt Carlsson. What was the motive? What would they gain from it? How did Lockerbie change anything in Namibia?
What you describe as "clear circumstantial evidence" I see, save perhaps for point 3, as being of no relevance whatsoever to Lockerbie.
Thanks to the "Autumn Leaves" arrests Dukakis wasn't elected President. But how is his statement relevant?
You agree with my proposition 8 that at some level the authorities knew in advance PA103 was doomed. Botha and party took an earlier flight. Why not? Should he not take PA101 but hang around for a later flight?
I have read your ten letters. They are a little short on evidence. When I wrote they were based "on a hunch" those were your words. You claimed South Africa was also responsible for the UTA772 bombing. On what evidence? I see no reason to question Libyan responsibility for UTA772
The two articles I have published so far are based on relevant evidence, evidence that has been dismissed or suppressed. I see no evidence of South African involvement, not even a motive.
With best wishes
Dear Baz,
I apologise for the following extremely long reply to the points you have raised. It covers most if not all of the points but doesn't mention Democratic Party presidential nominee, Michael Dukakis. Had Dukakis been elected US President in November 1988 and put apartheid South Africa on the US list of "terrorist states" this would have triggered automatic mandatory economic sanctions, and would almost certainly have caused the precipitate downfall of the apartheid regime that had always been strongly supported by the Reagan and Thatcher administrations (see http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFDC133BF930A25755C0A96E948260).
REPLY STARTS HERE:
In 1976, Bernt Carlsson became Secretary-General of Socialist International (SI), based in London, at the same time as former Federal German Chancellor, Willy Brandt, assumed the SI presidency. For the next seven years, Carlsson was engaged in extending the SI's influence beyond Europe to Third World countries, channelling money and political support to the struggle for liberation in Southern Africa. When there was a break-in at his London apartment, Carlsson confided to his Canadian SI colleague Robin V Sears:
"They messed things up and pawed through my papers. Then just to make sure I knew it wasn't a simple burglary they piled my money in the centre of the living-room rug." South African goons were active in London at the time, and some had a bizarre sense of humour. "But don't talk about it, and I'm not going to report it. That would just give the bastards their little victory."
Carlsson also pioneered moves towards Middle East peace using the SI's unique position of having Israel's governing Labour Party as a member, and at the same time retaining very good ties with Arab countries and Yasser Arafat's faction in the PLO. Carlsson developed a particularly close relationship with Arafat's right-hand man, Issam Sartawi, who was murdered (allegedly by the Abu Nidal Organization) during an SI conference in Portugal on April 10, 1983. Earlier in 1983, however, in a dispute about what he perceived as the SI president's authoritarian approach, Carlsson rebuked Brandt saying: "this is a Socialist International — not a German International". Following the April 1983 SI congress in Albufeira, Portugal, which Brandt had contentiously decided to relocate the SI's conference from Sydney (due to the protests of newly-elected pro-Israeli Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke against the PLO's inclusion), Brandt retaliated by forcing Carlsson to step down.
Swedish diplomat Carlsson left London and returned to Sweden in 1983 and, for two years, became Palme's special emissary to the Middle East and Africa. Palme entrusted him with an important Middle East role in delicate attempts to negotiate a peace agreement between Iran and Iraq. From 1985 to 1987 Carlsson was head of Nordic Affairs in Sweden's foreign ministry. In 1986 Palme was assassinated. [In 1996, South African convicted killer, Eugene de Kock, identified SA superspy Craig Williamson as Palme's assassin.]
UN COMMISSIONER FOR NAMIBIA
On July 1, 1987 Carlsson was appointed an Assistant-Secretary-General of the United Nations and the UN Commissioner for Namibia. A year later, he convened a meeting in Stockholm between the SWAPO leadership (Sam Nujoma, Hage Geingob and Hidipo Hamutenya), and a delegation of "whites" from Namibia to discuss developments in the independence process.
Namibia's independence had been expected to take place soon after United Nations Security Council Resolution 435 was agreed in September 1978. However, it took over 10 years for UNSCR 435 to be implemented. The delay was blamed by author and journalist, Christopher Hitchens, on Chester Crocker's 'procrastination' and on President Ronald Reagan's 'attempt to change the subject to the presence of Cuban forces in Angola' as well as the 'flagrant bias' in America's Namibia policy in favour of apartheid South Africa. Hitchens praised Carlsson's role as a 'neutral mediator' in the process leading to Namibia's independence:
"An important participant was Bernt Carlsson, UN Commissioner for Namibia, who worked tirelessly for free elections in the colony and tried to isolate the racists diplomatically. Carlsson had been Secretary-General of the Socialist International, and International Secretary of the Swedish Social Democratic Party. He performed innumerable services for movements and individuals from Eastern Europe to Latin America. His death in the mass murder of the passengers on Pan American Flight 103 just before Christmas 1988, and just before the signing of the Namibia accords in New York, is appalling beyond words."
An editorial in The Guardian of December 23, 1988 stated:
"Two days before Christmas, two tides flow strongly. One - the greater tide - is the tide of peace. More nagging, bloody conflicts have been settled in 1988 than in any year since the end of the Second World War. There are forces for good abroad in the world as seldom before. There is also a tide of evil, a force of destruction. By just one of those ironies which afflict the human condition, peace came to Namibia yesterday. Meanwhile, on a Scottish hillside, the body of the Swedish UN Commissioner for Namibia was one amongst hundreds strewn across square miles of debris: a victim - supposition, but strongly based - of a random terrorist bomb which had blown a 747 to bits at 31,000 feet."
Ten years were to elapse until the Ronald Reagan/Mikhail Gorbachev summit of the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union in Moscow (May 29, 1988 – June 1, 1988), finally secured the implementation of UNSCR 435, which would require South Africa to relinquish its control of Namibia.
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernt_Carlsson)
UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, was the highest profile victim of the 21 December 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
On 12 March 1990, Swedish newspaper "iDAG" carried the first of three articles written on successive days by journalist Jan-Olof Bengtsson (who has authorized reproduction of his original work) which was headlined: "Pressad och nervös före dödskraschen".
The English translation of the three articles is as follows:
"Stressed and nervous before air crash"
"Bernt Carlsson, UN Commissioner for Namibia, had less than seven hours to live when at 11.06am on December 21, 1988 he arrived in London on flight BA391.
Strictly speaking he was meant to fly directly from Brussels to New York in time for the historic signing of the Namibia Independence Agreement the day after.
But Bernt Carlsson could not make it. He had a meeting. An important meeting with a "pressuriser" from the South African diamond cartel, which was so secret that evidently not even Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, UN Secretary-General, knew anything about it.
Here iDAG maps out the last 24 hours in the life of Bernt Carlsson.
BERNT CARLSSON IN A SECRET MEETING WITH "PRESSURISER" FROM THE DIAMOND CARTEL
The memorial service in the Folkets Hus in Stockholm on January 11, 1989 for Bernt Carlsson gathered most of our Heads of Government, representatives of the Namibia independence movement SWAPO and Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, the UN Secretary General. [Transiting London on his way back from Bernt Carlsson's funeral in Stockholm on 11 January 1989, SA Foreign Minister Pik Botha was interviewed on BBC Radio 4. In the interview, Botha confided that if he (Botha) had been the intended target of the Lockerbie bombing, the ANC would most likely have been the perpetrators.] When he died in the Pan Am bombing, Bernt Carlsson was less than 24 hours away from the fulfilment of his dreams - the signing of the Namibia agreement in New York which would finally pave the way to a free and independent Namibia. This was supposed to be the climax of his career with the UN, a career that began in December 1986 when he was appointed Commissioner for Namibia.
Bernt Carlsson had great support from SWAPO but much less so from South Africa because of that country's substantial economic interests in Namibia: an interest in gold, uranium but above all in diamonds. Javier Pérez de Cuéllar in his speech at the memorial ceremony on a cold day in January last year described the last 24 hours in the life of Bernt Carlsson:
"Bernt Carlsson was returning to New York following an official visit to Brussels where he had spoken to a Committee within the European Parliament about the Namibia agreement," Pérez de Cuéllar began. "He stopped briefly in London to honour a long-standing invitation by a non-governmental organization with interests in Namibia."
Pérez de Cuéllar was wrong. True, Bernt Carlsson's trip to Brussels had been planned almost six months earlier. But his decision to return to New York via London was only made on December 16, 1988. The meeting in London was definitely not a long-standing invitation by Namibia sympathisers.
A DIAMOND GIANT
This was about a secret meeting with a "pressuriser" from De Beers, the giant diamond company. This company in turn owns Consolidated Diamond Mines (CDM), the world's largest producer of diamonds which have been produced for more than 60 years in Namibia. It goes without saying that Bernt Carlsson in his capacity of Commissioner for Namibia had contacts with representatives of a great number of countries and political organizations as part of his job.
FORCED TO TRAVEL
But why a secret meeting with the diamond cartel in London? A meeting which to all intents and purposes he did not want to have but was forced to. On around December 8 or 9, Carlsson receives a telephone call from the "pressuriser" at his United Nations office in New York. The telephone call is from London. We do not know what the telephone call was about. However, Bernt Carlsson is unsure. He does not know whether to act or not. As if going might put him in a compromising position. On the morning of December 16, the day on which the travel arrangements are changed, Bernt Carlsson meets up with an old friend who has come to see him. He is Weine Karlsson, head of department at Stockholm University:
"In the early morning we sat talking in Bernt's office," he explains. "But after only a few minutes he became uneasy and asked me to go and wait in another room of the office. He had something urgent to deal with. It is possible that it had something to do with the trip. He said that 'important business needs to be done'. He was away for about half an hour."
POLISHED GANGSTERS
Weine Karlsson continues his story:
"We all know that Bernt was very unobtrusive. Shy almost. Only, now and again he exploded. As when suddenly he said to me, 'You've got no idea what polished gangsters (South Africans) we are dealing with here'."
On December 19, Bernt leaves New York for Brussels to make his speech in the European Parliament the next day. The visit was arranged by David Lowe, now with the Socialist International. Right up to this interview, he has felt 'guilt-ridden' and convinced that it was he who 'enticed' Carlsson to go to Europe and therefore is 'indirectly responsible for his death on the plane'. But when Lowe learns about the secret meeting in London, he is calm again.
"He made his speech on December 20, before the Development Committee in Brussels," Lowe says. "After the meeting we went to a restaurant for lunch and discussions with some other friends. Our discussions continued until about 3pm." David Lowe continues: "It was at this point that Bernt suddenly said that he had to check out as he had to meet 'some friends' in London. I thought to myself, Good Lord, he has all this going on in New York. He will be even more tired than he is already. I remember thinking he was mad and why not go directly to New York for the signing of the agreement? I gathered he would catch a flight from Brussels to London at about 5pm that evening."
However, Bernt Carlsson had 'lied' to his friend David Lowe. He stayed in Brussels that afternoon and only arrived in London the day after - on December 21.
MYSTERIOUS PRESSURISER
When we telephoned his old colleagues at the Namibia office, not one of them wished to talk about the meeting with the mysterious 'pressuriser' from the diamond cartel:
"All I know is that Bernt Carlsson was travelling to London to meet representatives of an NGO (in this case organizations friendly towards Namibia)," says Malthi Ranin who was his secretary at the time.
iDAG has a copy of a private memorandum which says something completely different. This is a memorandum to Bernt Carlsson from his own office: "Mr Timothy says he will be waiting for you as soon as you get through the tunnel. Your meeting will finish in time for your next arrangement at 2pm. He will also provide a car to take you round."
'Mr Timothy'? His full name is Bankole Timothy. Not much known about him. Just another name working for the diamond cartel. But one who does know something about him is Randolph Vigne, secretary of the Namibia support committee:
"Bankole Timothy worked for the PR department at De Beers for 15 to 20 years. I understand they pensioned him off but called him back when the independence of Namibia suddenly started accelerating. They probably felt they needed someone like him with contacts." Vigne continues:
"I don't think he works for them any more. I believe he had a temporary assignment which is now completed."
Was Bernt Carlsson that temporary assignment?
AGGRESSIVE DISCUSSIONS
iDAG managed to track down Bankole Timothy. But the telephone conversation was brief. And aggressive:
"Could you tell me what you and Bernt Carlsson talked about when you met in London on December 21, 1988?"
He replied: "I am sorry. I am very, very sorry but I have nothing to say about it."
You do not want.....(we are interrupted).
"Do not disturb me any more. I am going out. I don't know how you got my number. I'm going out and you start asking questions about....."
INTERRUPTED
You met Bernt Carlsson on the morning of December 21 and.....(we are interrupted)
"Don't disturb me anymore. What are you on about? (screams) I don't know who you are. And you want to interview me on the phone. I have no comments to make!"
At about 5.30pm on December 21, 1988 the telephone rings in the home of Pentti Väänäänen, then Secretary General of the Socialist International, and an old friend of Bernt:
"It was Bernt calling from the airport just before he boarded Pan Am 103," he says. "We exchanged Christmas greetings and talked a little about the Namibia agreement."
Did he tell you who he had seen in London?
"No".
How would you describe his frame of mind?
"If you want me to tell you in just a few words, he sounded nervous," he replied.
THE CLIMAX OF HIS LIFE
Nervous? Why? Bernt Carlsson was close to the climax of his life with the Namibia agreement the next day. He should have been happy and optimistic. But why nervous?
PICTURE CAPTIONS
(Page one of article):
Not even Javier Perez de Cuellar, UN Secretary General, knew about Bernt Carlsson's new travel arrangements. Today, not one of Carlsson's old colleagues wants to say anything about the mysterious meeting with the diamond cartel in London.
(page two of the article-large picture):
Bernt Carlsson should have travelled directly from Brussels to New York for the historic signing of the Namibia agreement. Instead, he altered his travel arrangements and became one of the passengers who died on the Pan Am flight.
(Picture left-hand side):
His friend, Pentti Väänäänen, thought that Bernt Carlsson seemed nervous before his trip to New York, despite approaching the climax of his life.
(Right-hand picture):
Bernt Carlsson had a secret meeting in London with the world's largest producer of diamonds. It would seem that he was coerced into it.
TOMORROW:
When, in the days following the crash, Carlsson's belongings are checked in his sealed UN office in New York, people find to their amazement that his safe is empty.
In the days before his death he warns a friend in New York not to open a parcel by sender unknown.
The day after Bernt Carlsson's death, CDM, the diamond producer, publishes the discovery of a new diamond mine in Namibia.
BEWARE CHRISTMAS PARCEL BOMBS!
[The second iDAG article about Bernt Carlsson was published on March 13, 1990]
Kassaskåpet var tomt (THE SAFE WAS EMPTY)
WHO BROKE THE SEAL TO BERNT CARLSSON'S APARTMENT?
When Bernt Carlsson's safe was opened six days after the Pan Am explosion, those present had a minor shock: the safe was empty! Despite the fact that the office had been sealed already on December 21, 1988, and his private apartment the day after, by the UN's own security staff. The opening was witnessed by, among others, Bernt Carlsson's girl friend Sanya Popovic, his sister Inger Carlsson-Musser and Embassy Counsellor Stefan Noréen of the Swedish Delegation at the UN. In the days immediately before Bernt Carlsson made the trip to his secret meeting in London, which we wrote about yesterday, he was very uneasy. According to Sanya Popovic:
"December was like clouded in a nightmare. He became increasingly nervous. He said that if I received a parcel I was not to open it under any circumstances. This was on December 17. He said that people usually start getting parcels at this time, it being Christmas. But unless I knew who sent it, I was not to open it."
On December 22 - the day after the Pan Am bombing - Bernt Carlsson's apartment was sealed off.
"The lock was changed," says Sanya Popovic. "I was given one key, and the UN security department had another. I was told that sealing off everything could take a long time pending the analysis. I therefore ensured that all windows were properly locked, all lights switched off, etc. A few days later, however, a friend and I passed by the apartment in a taxi. The apartment is easy to recognize from the outside: front view, third floor and five windows. My friend pointed out that the lights were on. So I got out and walked back. I found that some lights were switched on but there was no-one there." Sanya Popovic continues: "If there was anything of interest in the apartment, someone else got to it first."
On the evening of the disaster, the Swedish foreign minister, Sten Andersson, telephoned Bernt Carlsson's sister Inger Carlsson-Musser, who had lived in the US for almost 20 years, to give his commiserations. On December 28, 1988 Inger Carlsson-Musser travelled to New York to go through Bernt Carlsson's belongings in his UN office. This was the office which had been sealed off since the day of the accident. She asked Sanya Popovic and the Embassy Counsellor Stefan Noréen to help.
We understand that his safe was empty. What can you say about that?
"Yes, it was empty," says Sanya Popovic. "And this was very unlike Bernt who was very security-conscious and kept all his documents under lock and key. But above all the office was sealed off. No-one should have been able to get in."
REFUSAL TO COMMENT
Embassy Counsellor Stefan Noréen:
"I was assisting Inger Carlsson-Musser in taking charge of her brother's personal belongings in the office. Nothing else happened there."
Can you confirm that the safe was empty when it was opened?
"I refuse to comment," Noréen replied.
Is it true or not?
"I refuse to comment. I was there. But I do not want to talk about what exactly happened. If anyone should comment surely they should be Bernt Carlsson's family."
iDAG tried to contact Inger Carlsson-Musser, but without success. We would have asked her about the empty safe. Also, to explain information from foreign investigative journalists who claimed that foreign minister, Sten Andersson, had asked her to keep an eye out for a specific document which was supposed to be held in the safe.
THE WANTED DOCUMENT
We have not obtained any comments from Sten Andersson either. We did, however, speak to his private secretary, Pierre Schori, who used to be a close friend of Bernt Carlsson.
During a secret meeting in London, Bernt Carlsson met a person called Bankole Timothy. Do you know him?
"No, I know of no-one of that name."
He represents the diamond cartel.
"The diamond cartel," queries Pierre Schori, almost laughing. "I know nothing about that."
We know that Sten Andersson telephoned Bernt's sister Inger Carlsson-Musser in the USA.
"Naturally."
We are informed by foreign journalists that Sten Andersson was looking for some documents which Bernt's sister Inger was supposed to be able to help in finding, and which were kept in Bernt's safe.
"This is nonsense, as far as I'm concerned. What's this all about?"
We understand that the safe was empty when it was opened.
"I know nothing about that. I don't understand a word. All I can say is that it is nonsense to claim that Sten Andersson should have done this or that."
Sten Andersson is difficult to get hold of. Perhaps we should ask him?
"I know this is all nonsense. I think you're on the wrong track," Schori replied.
NEW DIAMOND MINE
On December 22, the day after the Pan Am bombing, it was announced by CDM, wholly-owned by De Beers, that $36m is being invested in new diamond production in Namibia. This will be done in Auchas, 45km from Oranjemund. It is estimated that the annual yield of diamonds over a ten-year period will amount to roughly the equivalent of 50 million Swedish Krona (SEK).
The announcement is mentioned in a 'country report' about Namibia which was issued last year [1989] and published by the Economist Intelligence Unit. The report says, inter alia: "The company made their announcement on December 22, 1988, which was also the date that the Namibia agreement was signed. This is brushed aside as pure coincidence by De Beers representatives in London."
CRITICISM BY CARLSSON
Bernt Carlsson, as the intended UN Commissioner for Namibia, rarely spoke about the enormous diamond assets in the country and the multi-national companies exploiting the finds. There is, however, one exception. He was interviewed for a British TV documentary entitled 'The Disappearing Diamonds' by Granada which was broadcast early in December 1988. In the program, Bernt Carlsson speaks about the ruthless exploitation taking place in the diamond business:
"The business has tried to pick the raisin from the cake. This means that they have been after the large diamonds instead of calm but constant development. The way they are doing it will endanger the survival of the mines."
HUNGRY FOR PROFIT
Carlsson continues:
"One would expect from a worldwide organization like De Beers to behave in a socially and financially responsible manner. However, as far as Namibia is concerned, they have only been interested in the maximum profit without regard to social, economic-political or even legal considerations."
On March 16, 1989 De Beers announced yet another diamond find in Namibia. This time it is a mine in Elizabeth Bay from which over the next ten years SEK300m-worth of diamonds are expected to be dug up. This particular find appears to delight the mysterious Bankole Timothy and, unusually, he himself issues the press release to the surprised public.
PICTURE CAPTIONS
(Page 1 of article - picture 1)
Sanya Popovic was present when the safe was opened and discovered to be empty. Bernt was very security-conscious and kept all his documents under lock and key.
(Picture 2)
Bernt Carlsson felt very uneasy. He warned his girlfriend about opening parcels from senders unknown.
TOMORROW
"I cannot say that I can explain why Bernt changed his travel arrangements. Bernt took the only explanation with him", says a very close friend for many years.
This friend always walked close to Bernt Carlsson, and yet was out of the public eye.
CHANGE OF TRAVEL PLANS
[This is the third and final part of Sweden's iDAG newspaper reportage by Jan-Olof Bengtsson on March 14, 1990.]
Han tog Svaren på Frågorna med Sig
(HE TOOK THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS WITH HIM)
I cannot say that I can explain why Bernt changed his travel arrangements. Bernt took the only explanation with him.
Her name is Meta Johansson, and she is a close friend of Bernt Carlsson for many years. A close friend who was always there but out of the limelight and away from all the scrutiny. iDAG spoke to her.
Bernt Carlsson in his many years as an international worker for solidarity experienced a great deal of misery, a lot of drama and many weird and wonderful cases. But he carried on regardless and worked for what he believed in. In a discreet, almost shy, manner. Always determinedly and in a very competent way.
WITNESS TO MURDER
On April 10, 1983, Bernt Carlsson who was Secretary-General of the Socialist International (SI) at the time, was an eye witness to the fatal shooting of the moderate Palestinian Issam Sartawi in the lobby of Hotel Montochero in Albufeira, Portugal. The terrorist, Abu Nidal, claimed responsibility for the killing. Because of his job as SI Secretary-General, his apartment in London at the time was subject to a number of break-ins while he was overseas.
These are some examples of the security measures taken by Bernt:
When they opened Bernt's safe in his New York office, it was found to be empty.
"Yes, so I heard," replies Meta Johansson.
Isn't that strange?
"Yes, clearly this is very strange. But I do not know the rules of the game in cases such as this."
NO THEORY
She continues:
"I have helped his family go through all the papers and documents which we found in his apartment in the US. Neither the family nor I have found any papers linked to the accident."
Do you have any theory as to why the safe was empty?
"I have no theory. Nor do I know who had access to the safe. Bernt's sister Inger does not know either."
Do you know anything about what Sten Andersson spoke to the sister, Inger Carlsson-Musser, about?
"No, as I was not there, I cannot know what he asked her to do. And I was not present when the safe was opened. So I'm sure you will understand that I cannot comment on this."
SPECULATIONS
Meta Johansson continues:
"If I may say so without being misunderstood, I have had so many speculations in my head that I doubt if there can be any more. Some more constructive than others."
Bernt was very security-conscious, isn't that right?
"Yes, very much so. But being security-conscious also meant that he carried important documents with him in his hand luggage. There were documents that he would want to take personal care of."
But the safe was completely empty. Also of 'unimportant documents'?
"That is true."
SECRET MEETING
What do you know about Bankole Timothy, the person Bernt Carlsson met in secret in London?
"I am very sorry, but I cannot help you with any information about that meeting."
Why is the subject so sensitive?
"I don't think it's sensitive. I just feel the people involved with the matter should speak."
We understand that Bernt was not particularly interested in meeting this person. That he was afraid he might be discredited as a neutral UN official?
"Obviously, with the kind of work Bernt was engaged in he would meet many people. And of course some people are more interesting to meet than others. But you are forced to. With Bernt, whatever he considered important to his work, he would go and do. Even if not every time he would jump with joy and shout hooray and think this was the best thing in the world. He was extremely dutiful."
Do you know anything about the position of Bankole Timothy?
"I know who he is and what he is doing."
How would you describe it?
"No, I do not want to."
How would you explain why Bernt changed his travel arrangements at the 11th hour? His intermediate landing in London and this meeting before he returned to New York?
"I cannot say that I can explain the change in travel arrangements. Bernt took the only explanation with him. You can speak to a lot of people. But only a few are likely to know why Bernt changed his mind."
MANY QUESTIONS
iDAG does not wish to claim with these articles that Bernt Carlsson was the target of the bomb which blasted Pan Am 103 from the air and in which he was one of the 259 victims. We have no basis to make such a claim.
We have only wanted to point out what seems to be a number of curious circumstances and that maybe no-one will ever have the full answers to the questions.
What forced Bernt Carlsson to fly to the secret meeting in London and which was against his will?
Why does Bankole Timothy refuse to say what the meeting was about, but gets aggressive when he is asked?
Why was Bernt Carlsson's safe in New York empty when it was opened on December 28, 1988?
The questions are many, but the answers are few.
PICTURE CAPTIONS
(Top)
iDAG has in a series of articles revealed a number of fascinating facts linked to Bernt Carlsson and the Lockerbie disaster.
(In main text)
The Swedish diplomat and UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, was killed on December 21, 1988 when a Pan Am flight on its way to New York crashed at Lockerbie in Scotland.
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alternative_theories_of_the_bombing_of_Pan_Am_Flight_103/Archive_2&oldid=164269416)
A Reuters news report of November 12, 1994 finally confirmed – after an interval of nearly six years – the early rumours that South Africa was closely linked to PA 103. A South African delegation of 23 negotiators, headed by foreign minister Pik Botha, arrived at Heathrow on December 21, 1988 en route to UN headquarters to sign an agreement relinquishing control of South-West Africa (Namibia) to the United Nations, as demanded by Security Council Resolution 435. The whole delegation – including the defence minister, General Magnus Malan, and the head of military intelligence, General C. J. Van Tonder – were booked for onward travel by flight PA 103. But, according to the Reuters report, their inward South African Airways (SAA) flight from Johannesburg had cut out a stopover in Frankfurt, which was SAA's European hub, and arrived early at Heathrow. The SA embassy in London managed to re-book Botha and six of his party on the 11:00 Pan Am 101 Flight to New York (according to the 1994 documentary film The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie). The remaining 16 negotiators cancelled their booking on PA 103 and returned by SAA to Johannesburg. The full text of the Reuters report can be read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:REUTERS12NOV94.jpg.
UN COMMISSIONER FOR NAMIBIA
On December 19, 1988 UN Commissioner for Namibia Bernt Carlsson left New York for an official visit to Brussels. After a speaking engagement in the European Parliament, Carlsson was expected to return from Brussels to New York on December 20, 1988. He would have been there in good time for the signing of the Namibia independence agreement at UN headquarters on December 22, but, according to the Swedish newspaper iDAG of March 12, 1990, Carlsson had been pressured to stop off at short notice in London to meet with officials of the De Beers diamond mining conglomerate.
SOUTH AFRICA LUGGAGE SWAP THEORY
On December 21, 1988 Bernt Carlsson arrived at Heathrow from Brussels on flight BA 391 at 11:06 with a booking to travel onward to New York by flight PA 103 at 18:00. The UN Commissioner for Namibia was met at the airport by Bankole Timothy of De Beers and taken by car to London. After the meeting with De Beers, Carlsson was brought back to Heathrow Airport, arriving at about 17:30. Carlsson's already checked-in suitcase would have remained at Heathrow airport for about seven hours, thus providing South African airside-authorized personnel with ample opportunity to substitute it for the bomb suitcase. [An English translation of iDAG's Swedish text is printed above.]
That SAA were involved in unlawfully switching baggage on December 21, 1988 was confirmed by a Pan Am security officer, Michael Jones, at the Lockerbie fatal accident inquiry (FAI) in October 1990. Jones told the FAI a breach of aviation rules had been committed because the suitcase of South African passenger, Miss Nicola Hall, had been put on the earlier Pan Am 101 flight (with Pik Botha's delegation) whereas Miss Hall was booked – and died – on PA 103.
MAKING A LINK BETWEEN THEORIES
The theory of radio detonation can be linked to this theory because the South African government of the time had been accused by Soviet accident investigators of employing a decoy navigational radio beacon to cause the 1986 Tupolev Tu-134 air crash, in which Samora Machel (then president of neighbouring Mozambique) was killed.
It has been suggested that, on instructions from the State Security Council, SA military intelligence operatives would have installed the bomb on PA 103 once it was confirmed that their target, Bernt Carlsson, was to join the flight at Heathrow. As per the theory of radio detonation, the bomb would have been set to detonate when PA 103 was prompted by the Dean Cross navigational beacon to re-tune to 123.95 MHz, Shanwick Oceanic Control's unique radio frequency.
PA 103 AFTERMATH
Within a week of the death of Bernt Carlsson on flight PA 103, his office safe at the United Nations had allegedly been broken into. And his apartment, which had been sealed by the UN's security staff, had also apparently been burgled. It later transpired that neither Carlsson's girl-friend, Sanya Popovic, nor his sister, Inger Carlsson-Musser, was able to identify 'one single shred of anything in his checked luggage at the property store in Lockerbie'.
"His bag was sitting at Heathrow, in the baggage area, from early that day. There is quite an important question about it, as neither I nor his sister was able to identify the bag. Just didn't seem like his (it was apparently immediately underneath the one containing the bomb, and quite considerably shattered). Not to mention the size was totally off (much too small)," says Sanya Popovic.
"I was quite surprised to find that despite our reactions to that bag, the Crown chose to say there was a definitive identification. Which there certainly wasn't," added Sanya Popovic.
NAMIBIA'S FIRST UNIVERSAL FRANCHISE ELECTION
Because the UN Commissioner for Namibia died the day before signature of the New York Accords, and the likely time it would take the UN to appoint a replacement for Carlsson, the South African government proposed its Administrator-General, Louis Pienaar, should continue to administer South-West Africa (Namibia) in the run-up to that territory's first universal franchise election to be held in November 1989. Implementation of Security Council Resolution 435 by the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG), providing for a cease-fire, a phased withdrawal of Cuban and South African troops from Angola and South-West Africa (Namibia), the dissolution of Koevoet and the deployment of both SWAPO guerrillas and South African forces to designated assembly points, was scheduled to commence on April 1, 1989. Straightaway, there was a breach of the cease-fire when South Africa alleged that a large number of SWAPO fighters were crossing the border into Namibia and wanted to use force to repel them. Martti Ahtisaari, the new UN Special Representative and head of UNTAG conceded to pressure from British prime minister Margaret Thatcher – who was visiting the region at the time – and South African foreign minister Pik Botha, and permitted the redeployment of Koevoet and other military units into northern Namibia. More than 300 Namibians were reported to have been killed as a result, some said to have been summarily executed with single bullet holes to the back of the head. Later in 1989, both Ahtisaari and UNTAG facilities were targeted by the South African Civil Cooperation Bureau (CCB) whose eight separate regional groups were tasked to concentrate on disrupting SWAPO's electoral campaign. However, Ahtisaari managed to escape injury and SWAPO was swept to power with 57% of the vote – but well short of the 66.6% that would have allowed the new SWAPO government to change the constitution imposed on Namibia by South Africa.
IED CAPABILITY
There is little doubt that apartheid South Africa – at the time a regional superpower armed with nuclear weapons and with technologically-advanced aerospace companies such as Kentron and highly-qualified individuals such as the Coventry Four – would have had the expertise to design an improvised explosive device (IED) capable of bringing down an aircraft. In fact, the Electronic Magnetic Logistical Component (EMLC), a division of the SADF, actually developed such specialist weapons in the form of letter, car and briefcase bombs, as well as gadgets like umbrellas and radios. Moreover, the Directorate of Military Intelligence – with close links to Western intelligence agencies – would have been fully aware of the arrest of the PFLP-GC Frankfurt cell; the "Helsinki warning"; and, the motives of both Libya and Iran for revenge against the United States.
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_theories_of_the_bombing_of_Pan_Am_Flight_103&oldid=167512609#South-West_Africa_.28Namibia.29)
In the context of UN Commissioner for Namibia Bernt Carlsson's criticism of De Beers in Granada TV's November 1988 documentary 'The Disappearing Diamonds', and of Carlsson's meeting with De Beers on the day of the Lockerbie bombing (21 December 1988), the following 'ZNet' article appears to be relevant.
NAMIBIA: EXPOSING THE CORRUPT PRACTICES OF THE DE BEERS DIAMOND CARTEL - June 12, 2008
By Laurie Flynn of 'The Guardian' and formerly 'World in Action'
(http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0103ij.html)
Gordon Brown is a Scots born whistleblower who exposed the De Beers diamond cartel's overmining at the worlds richest mine and has consequently paid a heavy price for telling the truth about the largest international mining company.
In 1993, Gordon Brown was arrested on an Illicit Diamond Buying charge in Namibia. Facing trial on very serious charges in 1994, he was given an unprecedented five year jail sentence on a first offence by a single judge sitting on his own without a jury. Gordon had no serious legal representation at the trial; his lawyer of choice withdrew at the very last moment leaving him in the hands of a lawyer who was wholly unfamiliar with the details of his defence. Freed from jail after seven weeks pending appeal, he was advised that it was unlikely that he would get justice in a land where De Beers was so powerful. Later, fearing for his life after the death squad murder of a friend (Anton Lubowski), Gordon fled the country as a fugitive from injustice.
Namibia was illegally occupied by apartheid South Africa throughout the 1970s and 1980s. The UN passed a special decree forbidding mining companies from extracting minerals unless they had specific permission. De Beers and its sister company, Anglo-American, defied this decree and made secret arrangements to overmine the diamonds ahead of Namibian independence. As the technical assistant to the mine manager, Gordon Brown felt it was his simple duty to blow the whistle and came forward to give hard evidence of this illegal behaviour to a judicial enquiry. Since then he has been targeted by members of De Beers' security and their colleagues in the Police Diamond Branch.
Since his arrest and trial Gordon Brown has always maintained his complete innocence. He recently came into possession of conclusive evidence to prove he was telling the truth: the sole prosecution witness, Joseph Eben Dawid, admitted on oath and in writing that he had given perjured testimony to secure Gordon's false conviction. His reward for lying had been a well paid job in De Beers' diamond security division which he had taken up just before the trial.
As soon as Gordon discovered that the UN had modernised its procedures and was admitting human rights complaints from individuals, he began to prepare his complaint. Travelling to Geneva in the summer of 2006 he lodged his complaint at the correct office and obtained a receipt. He heard nothing for a whole year despite emails and phone calls from his home in Cape Town, South Africa. Then, in 2007, Gordon discovered that his complaint had mysteriously disappeared.
Only after repeated complaints was he able to get back on track in autumn 2007. The Namibian government has now cobbled together a response to Gordon's complaint and is hoping to have it ruled out as inadmissible. But the nature and extent of the human rights abuses against Gordon Brown are so considerable and his case is so well particularised that this is unlikely.
In addition to the UN initiative, action is being taken to bring the De Beers diamond cartel to account for its human rights abuses, illegal diamond mining operations in Namibia and a raft of other human rights abuses including conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, malicious prosecution, suborning and interfering with witnesses. Brown wants the directors and officials who conspired to destroy his reputation and his business activities in Southern Africa brought to book and punished for their crimes.
For decades De Beers worked hand in glove with the apartheid government and the Namibian and South African diamond police to protect its monopoly and hobble its critics and business rivals.
Thanks to Gordon Brown's courage in telling the truth about the way De Beers and its sister company Anglo American worked in gem mining, our knowledge of the realities behind these corporate veils has increased dramatically.
TEN THINGS WE KNOW ABOUT DE BEERS DIAMOND CARTEL BECAUSE OF GORDON BROWN:
1. The Anglo-American Corporation obtained control of the Namibian diamond deposit in highly dubious circumstances during and after World War I and ran it as a monopoly business even though the League of Nations/United Nations mandate expressly outlawed all monopolies.
2. De Beers took control of a diamond deposit the size of Wales in return for an annual ground remit of £130 per annum. This rent never changed between 1920 and 1970.
3. The Namibian Police Diamond and Gold branch was a De Beers front - with offices provided and furnished by the cartel.
4. The South West Africa Diamond Board was a joke watchdog with its offices situated in and paid for by De Beers.
5. The Diamond Board secretary, Stanley Jackson, was seconded to the post by his employers, De Beers and all controls over the movement of diamonds in and out of Namibia were in the hands of cartel officials.
6. The De Beers group opposed all cutting of diamonds in Namibia and structured itself to avoid tax and move minerals though a worldwide web of companies each of which added costs and subtracted profits in order to maximise De Beers returns abroad. This scam is known as transfer pricing.
7. The company had so effectively colonised the government mining department supposedly responsible for regulating it, that the top government mining officials didn't even know the name, never mind the detailed terms of the law they were supposed to enforce.
8. This put De Beers in prime position to abuse the mine, overexploit the diamonds by grade and stone size for many years while the cartel's friends in politics in Britain, America and South Africa delayed independence for Africa's last colony.
9. In this way De Beers shortened the life of the mine and took away an extra billion pounds worth of diamonds ahead of Namibian independence. With working costs at 25% of revenue this means that the company plundered £750 million in excess profit and unjust enrichment from a poor country heading for independence.
10. De Beers diamonds will be remembered as tokens of some people's wealth and other people's poverty because conditions at the world's richest mine were ferociously exploitative with black miners condemned to inhuman conditions, the shocking details of which Gordon Brown, among others, exposed.
A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
In 2004, De Beers was given a formal criminal conviction in the United States for conspiracy to violate competition law and fined the maximum amount of $10 million. In November 2005, the group agreed to pay $295 million to settle price fixing and restraint of trade lawsuits brought by individuals who had bought over-priced diamonds from cartel customers and jewellers in the United States. De Beers sister company, Anglo American, has recently been fiercely criticised for human rights violations in the Congo. Other companies in the Anglo group are the subject of criticism in South Africa for its treatment of miners and local people living near the mines.
With Gordon Brown's UN case, De Beers and its friends in the Namibian state hierarchy are hoping to have the complaint dismissed on the basis that Gordon should return to the Namibian capital, Windhoek, for justice. But sadly, the state party's poor overall human rights track record, its persistent human rights violations and abuses, its disregard for the fundamental human rights and freedoms entrenched in the Namibian constitution and its disrespect for the workings of the Human Rights Committee mitigate against this.
The annual reports of Amnesty International, other human rights organisations, and even of the US Department of State, contain numerous references to evidence of torture and ill-treatment of prisoners, detention without charge or trial, extra judicial executions, disappearances after arrest, denial of freedom of expression and association, police brutality, hate speech, prison abuses and denial of fair trial rights in Namibia. A further aggravating issue is the lack of separation of government powers; proper separation of powers is essential to create or maintain a democratic state based on the rule of law. The accumulation of all power, executive, legislative and judicial in the same hands may by contrast be regarded as the very definition of tyranny. Yet Namibia massively centralises power.
One of Namibia's leading government ministers, Pendukeni Iivula-Itlana, holds no less than five key appointments and serves as Minister of Justice, Attorney General, person legally responsible for the Office of the Prosecutor General, secretary general of the ruling SWAPO party and SWAPO member of parliament. She also serves on the Judicial Services Commission which appoints judges in Namibia.
This concentration of executive, legislative and administrative power in the hands of one individual in the Namibian government makes a mockery of its claim to be functioning on the principles of democracy, the rule of law, and justice for all. Furthermore, the Namibian justice system is in severe crisis. According to the 2007 US State Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices, there are around 50,000 unresolved cases on court dockets and people have to wait years and years for justice.
JUSTICE FOR GORDON BROWN CAMPAIGN
De Beers Security and the Police Diamond Branch came to court against Gordon Brown with extremely dirty hands, employing perjury and suborned witness to obtain a conviction. This extremely serious perversion of the course of justice has been repeatedly brought to the attention of the Namibian police, the Ministry of Justice, and individual judges and still nothing has been done to annul the conviction of an innocent man and punish those who perverted the course of justice.
Gordon has another reason for declining to put his fate once again in the hands of a corrupted process in Namibia. As he left the court in 1994 to begin his five year jail sentence following his false conviction for Illicit Diamond Buying, he was arrested yet again and charged with still another concocted crime: extortion from his former employer De Beers.
The arresting officer had come to the court at the bidding of De Beers which has enormous power in Windhoek, the nation's capital, and throughout the land. The officer concerned, Chief Inspector Terblanche, had earlier been exposed as an accomplice to the murder of Anton Lubowski, a prominent Windhoek lawyer and one of the first white people to join SWAPO, by the apartheid death squads, the so-called Civil Co-operation Bureau.
Prior to his murder, Mr Lubowski had shown great interest in reforming the corrupt world of diamonds in Namibia. He and Gordon Brown had travelled to Lusaka, Zambia on two occasions to present their proposals for change to the SWAPO leadership in exile. Gordon had also advised both Sean MacBride and Bernt Carlsson, the United Nations High Commissioners for Namibia, on just how much better the industry could be run.
De Beers felt threatened by this and fabricated the phoney extortion charge which still hangs over Gordon. Time and time again Gordon has demanded details of this charge but De Beers and the Namibian prosecuting authorities decline to provide any such information.
Gordon recently returned to his native city, Glasgow, Scotland to inform his supporters about the latest moves in his campaign to clear his name. As well as pursuing the Namibian state parties implicated in the frame up and destruction of his reputation and business interests, Gordon is preparing to pursue De Beers and Anglo-American through the law courts in Britain for their part in the campaign against him. He also plans to take his campaign to the United States, De Beers' biggest market and the scene of the recent criminal conviction for illegal business practices. (Source: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/17899)
Dear Baz,
I'm sorry but there's a little more on the South Africa connexion to come:
EDWIN BOLLIER WOULD HAVE IMPLICATED THE APARTHEID REGIME
Edwin Bollier and Erwin Meister of the Swiss firm Mebo Telecommunications gave evidence at the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial in June 2000 (see http://web.archive.org/web/20021105041308/www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/week8.html).
During Bollier's testimony, it was revealed that the prosecution had been considering charging him with the same conspiracy to murder charge as the two Libyans, Megrahi and Fhimah, faced. When the defence protested that they had not been given notice of that position, prosecuting counsel, Alan Turnbull QC, told the court: "If we were going to libel him we would have done so, these issues have been considered. The decision not to include him as a co-conspirator is not a recognition that he has nothing to do with the matter. The extent of his involvement is yet to be developed in evidence. It may be he has involvement in what occurred, but unless the Crown is able to adduce evidence that places him in the conspiracy, it is not appropriate to libel him as a co-conspirator.
"As a discouragement to the prosecution, Bollier is alleged to have let it be known before the start of the trial that if he were to be charged for the PA 103 bombing he would call the following high-ranking and controversial witnesses to appear:
a. Jaswant Basuta - checked-in PA 103 passenger who missed the flight;
b. George H W Bush - former US President;
c. Vincent Cannistraro - Chief of CIA's Counter Terrorist Center;
d. Lester Coleman - (1953-2007) Defense Intelligence Agency official;
e. Tam Dalyell - former Labour MP;
f. Alan Feraday - British forensics technician at Defence Evaluation & Research Agency;
g. Dr David Fieldhouse - former British police surgeon;
h. Ray Fitzwalter - executive producer of Granada TV's World in Action;
i. Tony Gauci - owner of clothes shop Mary's House in Malta;
j. Michael T Hurley - Drug Enforcement Administration station chief, Cyprus;
k. Ulrich Lumpert - Mebo's electronics engineer;
l. John McCarthy - US Ambassador to Lebanon;
m. Edward Marshman - FBI agent who interviewed bomb maker Marwan Khreesat;
n. Sir John Orr - Strathclyde Police's senior investigating officer into Lockerbie bombing;
o. Gerrit Pretorius - Private Secretary to SA foreign minister Pik Botha;
p. Chris Revell - son of FBI executive assistant director Oliver 'Buck' Revell;
q. Thomas Thurman - formerly of the FBI forensics laboratory; and,
r. Gen. C J Van Tonder - apartheid South Africa's Military Intelligence chief.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Bollier#Co-conspirator and http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/ceocities/ebolist99.htm).
Edwin Bollier's own website also records the following cryptic evidence:January to August 1994
A Mr XY, allegedly general manager of the intelligence company XX in the USA, kept close contact during this period of time with E. Meister and E. Bollier. Tape-recordings and other documents held by MEBO indicate that Mr XY actually works for an Intelligence Service. A comparable service from England sent documents to MEBO that prove Mr XY to also have worked for the South African Service BOSS ! (or may be he still works for BOSS). Remember that the South African delegation of Pik Botha had booked on flight Pan Am 103 with General Van Tonder, Head of the South African Secret Service BOSS, but had their trip to the USA changed to another flight by the South African Embassy in London, following the known warning! When XY's true identity had been uncovered by MEBO, he ended the conversation in typical intelligence fashion! His last words were sent to MEBO by fax on August 1, 1994:
"Smears are being made against me arising from my longstanding research of the outrage against Pan Am Flight 103. The most serious of these is an utterly false allegation that I am working for Libya in this matter. I am not now working for Libya nor any Libyan accused nor have I ever done so. Nor have I ever been in communication with Libya. In contrast, at all times since December 1988, I have kept appropriate officials of State in USA and UK informed of my 103-research directions. Because of the smears against me I have decided that, with immediate effect, I shall not seek further input about Flight 103, nor under any circumstances will my research archive or analysis be available to any instance. I am appalled by the internecine warfare in this case. I do not wish to be any part of that warfare, hence my withdrawal. I shall have no further comment. XY
August 1, 1994"
(see http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/ceocities/eboeventlist99.htm).
Yours sincerely,
Patrick Haseldine
Post a Comment