The institutional ties and geopolitical interests that have bound the United Kingdom to the United States are likely to survive the tawdry revelations surrounding the release of Al-Megrahi. It is doubtful that parties on either side will allow the invidious attitudes and decisions of the Labour party to undermine longer-term relationship.
With such a context, the facts seem to be clear: the United States was promised that Al-Megrahi would be kept in prison in Scotland until he died as a response to the worst terrorist atrocity in recent British history. This promise was broken, in principle, when government ministers stated to Libya that they had no objection to the release of Al-Megrahi, on the grounds of realpolitik. As an assignment of values, this was a diplomatic blunder of the highest order: trading an important alliance for potential advantage to domestic multinationals. Even a comparison of values would suggest that this was a high-risk manoevre.
The result is that Brown's reputation has reached an execrable level in the United States:
Former U.S. Justice Department official David Rivkin said: 'This is the kind of duplicitous behaviour that most people here do not expect from Britain.
I really can't think about a more duplicitous act by Britain vis-a-vis the United States in the post-war period.'This reputation was not enhanced by a press conference that denied accusations of a cover-up but did not address the charge of oath-breaker. By picking and choosing the charges which he feels he can address comfortably, Brown prolongs the agony and exacerbates the damage. His silence is preferable.
Perhaps only Alex Salmond will have been damaged at a more fundamental level. Losing a symbolic vote in the Scottish Parliament would prove a strong symbol for acknowledging the deep hurt caused and stating that an error was made. Instead he circled the wagons, defended his Justice Minister and, in partisan mode, confused Scotland with the SNP:
The First Minister later told the Daily Telegraph the real scandal was the
"double standards between the Labour Party in Scotland and the Labour Party
in London."
He claimed it was "impossible" for Scottish Labour to attack Mr MacAskill, without also criticising the Prime Minister. .
Despite their differences in belief, both Salmond and Brown have proved that they remain fixed in their harmful mindsets, blind to the moral damage of their decisions and unable to raise their eyes above partisan advantage. Both leaders are an example of the problems of British politics: weak leaders who have sullied their countries reputations and undermined the good works of others, unwilling ad unable to recognise their limitations.