Talk:Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

South Africa theory - disputed

The section concerning the theory that South Africa was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing is not up to the stardard of verifiability that Wikipedia requires. The prose is extremely POV ("The motive and opportunity to commit the crime were both in place. The question remains: did South Africa carry out the bombing of PA 103?", sounds like a cheap tabloid television show) and there are lots of broad allegations and assumptions with very little evidence and few cited sources.

The few sources that are cited ("...according to the Swedish newspaper iDAG of March 12, 1990...") are not verifiable to our audience (no link). This section looks like it was probably originally a cut-and-paste from a primary source somewhere. It is better to summarize the alleged facts and provide links to the original source, otherwise we get into original research.

The disputed tag should remain until the prose is improved and more verifiable sources are cited. --Bk0 (Talk) 16:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Bk0 removed the disputed tag after text was improved, references added and sources cited.Phase1 12:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This section is completely unacceptable in terms of research and NPOV. The South African connection was only raised by investigators blaming the CIA, citing a possible tip-off from them to the SA government for the change of flights by the SA delegation. It is clearly ridiculous to suggest that any government would draw up an intricate plan to bomb a civilian airliner and then book an entire delegation including ministers on the very same flight. The second tie-in of the radio-detonation theory (itself extremely weak) to the SA government by virtue of a previous accusation regarding navigational beacons it an unacceptable leap. The SA government of the time was only ever accused of deploying a false radio beacon; not only was no evidence of this was ever found, but to go from a decoy beacon to a ridiculous theory of trigger a bomb using a radio beacon is absurd to say the least. Deon Steyn 06:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have clean up this section adding sub headings, but most importantly some counter points to create a more NPOV (see WP:NPOV) and removed some leaps of faith and false claims such as the theory "being supported by fact" when the fact in question is that SA delegation was booked on same flight (guilty by association???). These counter points should create a more sober view of the theory, which in turn would make it clearer that this is one of the more far fetched alternate theories. There is a dead external link (ref no. 24) that someone may wish to correct or remove. --Deon Steyn 08:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The points made and questions you raise, Deon Steyn, are important and relevant, but are best addressed – in my view – on this talk page rather than as a series of eight edits to the article itself. Some of these edits removed objective information supporting the theory and may need to be rv'd in due course. But first let's address your 6 serious questions:

• Motive - A good starting point in answering this question is the History of Namibia article. At the Reagan/Gorbachev summit on September 29, 1988 it was decided that Cuban troops would leave and Soviet aid to Angola would cease, if South Africa complied with UN Security Council Resolution 435 and ended its illegal occupation of Namibia. The so-called tripartite agreement (covering Angola) and the Namibia independence agreement were both set for signature at UN HQ in New York on December 22, 1988 (the day after the Lockerbie bombing). Upon signature of the Namibia agreement the UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, would assume control of the country and guide it to its first universal franchise election. Carlsson was the seventh UN Commissioner but South Africa had refused to recognise him or any of his predecessors. Indeed, president P W Botha insisted on calling the country South-West Africa rather than the internationally accepted Namibia. So the motive would have been to prevent control of Namibia passing to the UN.
• Timing - If Carlsson were to die too far in advance of the date of signature, the UN would have simply appointed another UN Commissioner for Namibia: so control would still pass to the UN. As it turned out, the South African appointee Administrator-General Pienaar took over (this fact was removed from the article in one of the eight edits).
• Planning - Precisely not: if the South African government had sponsored the blowing up of Pan Am Flight 103, there would have been a high probability of success! South African agents have admitted the assassinations of Ruth First and Dulcie September, and are alleged to have assassinated Olof Palme (close friend of Bernt Carlsson). It would have been painfully obvious who did it if Bernt Carlsson were to be similarly bumped off. So, taking out a civilian aircraft to get one individual would have been a change of modus operandi as well as a good way of covering SA's tracks.
• Association - The fact that the SA delegation were booked on PA 103 may actually have been an enticement for Bernt Carlsson to join them, when he changed his travel plans at the last moment and made his fateful stopover in London. Any implicating of South Africa for the cancelled booking didn't happen because six long years elapsed before Pik Botha was forced to come clean in 1994 (after revelations in the film Maltese Double Cross), and well after two Libyans had been indicted for the crime in 1991.
• Loss of life - For South Africa the late 1980s was a very troubled period, when it must have seemed the whole world was ganging up against it (total onslaught). For security and economic reasons South Africa needed an orderly transition to independence in Namibia, which some said would be regarded as a model for the dismantlement of apartheid in South Africa itself. So the loss of many innocent lives would have been balanced in the minds of the SA securocrats by continuity considerations and the very survival of the South African state.
• Court judgement - There are more court cases scheduled to be heard where the guilt of other parties may be overturned. This is true also of the Samora Machel aircrash.

I'll look at the other matters you raise (such as the dead external link) once we can agree on a revised text.Phase4 15:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Motive - Apologies for removing the references to AG Pienaar taking over from Carlsson, it is only now that you explain the link that I understand the reason it was mentioned, the section was a bit unclear. First off, Pienaar was the 5th "Administrator General" of Namibia and was appointed in 1985 already. [1] So it seems clear that whomever was serving as South Africa's AG of Namibia would remain in place during the transitional period and saying that he replaced Carlsson or was pushed in or whatever is simply false. In another UN report Pienaar is simply referred to as Ahtasaari's counterpart. [2] Secondly, Carlsson's absence made absolutely no difference to the process whatsoever, everything happened according to the laid out schedule from the tri-partheid agreement ending in SA's sworn enemy SWAPO winning the elections, so I fail to see what SA gained from Carlsson's death or even hoped to gain from it???

Louis Pienaar would have been out of a job if Carlsson had taken control of Namibia on December 22, 1988: just as SA consistently refused to recognise each of the seven UN Commissioners for Namibia, so the UN did not accept the "puppet" appointees of the illegal occupier of that territory (SCR 435). Pienaar may well have been referred to as Ahtisaari's counterpart, but the latter was simply the "UN Special Representative in Namibia": he was not Carlsson's successor as the "UN Commissioner for Namibia". (Although previously Ahtisaari had been the fifth UN Commissioner). Carlsson's absence made a great deal of difference in the run up to Namibia's first universal franchise elections: he would have had a role in the elaboration of the independence constitution; he probably would not have allowed Koevoet to operate during the transition period, intimidating and killing SWAPO members returning to Namibia to vote; the South African Government (SAG)'s greatest fear was that SWAPO would get 66% or more of the vote and could thus change/overturn the independence constitution (which, in Carlsson's absence, SAG was allowed to design). As History of Namibia records, SAG desperately financed opposition parties in Namibia to ensure that SWAPO didn't manage to achieve the magic 66% target (they got just 57%!).

Can you please cite a reference that says SA would have abandoned the post of AG during the last 10-12 month transition period? After refusing to recognize any of the UN Commisioners why now kill the last one? Let us say Carlsson remained in place and for some bizarre reason this meant SA removed the AG role for the last 10 months, who would this have prevented them from funding opposition parties. Your comments on Koevoet are also innaccurate and totally biased. Whether Carlsson was there or not, the UN only later learned that they were more "paramilitary" than "police" and subsequently they were disarmed too. The killing and intimidation is also taken out of context, you might be referring to the "9 day war" in which a rather naive SWAPO still thought they would rather take the contry by violent means and streamed across the border in large heavily armed groups going against all UN resolutions at which point the UN REQUESTED SA's help in controlling the situation due to UNTAG lacking the resources. Koevoet members were recalled and hastily re-armed with whatever they could gather and had to confront these large armed groups.

My comments on Koevoet were taken from the objective text in History of Namibia#Negotiations_and_transition. I believe them to be accurate and unbiased. Had UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, been alive on December 22, 1988 he would have assumed control of the country. There would then have been no role for A-G Louis Pienaar to perform. But Carlsson died on Pan Am Flight 103 the previous day and, since UN procedures to appoint a new Commissioner would have taken quite a time, the SAG submitted a protocol to the Namibia independence agreement substituting Pienaar for Carlsson.

Please cite a source stating the SAG would have been removed for the last period, but wasn't because of Carlsson's death.

I guess you mean the A-G rather than the SAG. My previous answer covered this point.

• Timing - SA never wanted to sabotage the fragile process and had since the 70s only been looking for a balanced transition of power in the region and had been demanding since that time that the large cuban/soviet presence first be curtailed. Once this had been negotiated they would not have put the entire process at risk for some benefit which I still fail to see.

SAG were in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 435 for decades. US/Soviet geopolitics decided when SA had to get out of Namibia: the timing was not a South African decision!

The "timing" in this context referred to that of Carlsson's death so close to the signing of peace talks. The fact is that SA wanted this to proceed as smoothly as the other parties and they wouldn't want to risk upsetting it by killing someone so close to the transition. A much more believable scenario is that the Libyians – ACTUALLY CONVICTED OF THE BOMBING – acted under orders from Ghadaffi (alligned with liberation movements) to sabotage the peace process by killing the SA delegation. If you had to have a conspiracy theory this would make more sense, don't you agree?

The Libyan scenario is certainly an interesting one: you may wish to develop it into yet another of the (currently seven) alternative theories into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

You have to look at the bigger picture of the regional history from the early 70s not just Namibia. There were failed negotiations earlier (late 70s or early 80s) in which SA first demanded Cuban/Soviet withdrawal from Angola as a pre-condition to peace (and resolution to Namibian question). You also have to look at the years following this. Clearly the SA government of the time wanted to have a smooth transition in the region and not only did enter into negotiations and sign agreements to this effect in '88, but Namibia was independent by '90 and then they also unbanned the ANC in '92 (IIRC) and democratic elections were held in '94. You have to take this context into account.

Again, Deon, the bigger picture is very well and accurately covered in History of Namibia#Negotiations_and_transition, which I have just realised fails to mention the Reagan/Gorbachev summit of September 29, 1988 that paved the way for the signature of the December 22, 1988 agreements.

• Planning - One can't compare a parcel bomb to this operation, especially when you include complexities such as radio beacons. They would only have had a few months after negotiations started (May-88) to decide Carlsson was such a massive threat that they needed to kill him, then they would have to plan and implement a complicated attack taking place very far from SA targeting an unknown flight from/over unknown destinations. If it really was so important to kill Carlsson, I don't see any country risking the operation on such a complicated plan.

As previously stated, there would have been no point in killing Carlsson any earlier: the UN would simply have appointed a successor UN Commissioner for Namibia who would have taken charge on December 22, 1988. It had to be a last-minute execution!

That does not make sense, what prevented them from simpy appointing Ahtasaari as UN Commissioner and how could the South African know that the UN wouldn't immediately replace Carlsson with another UN Commissioner?

As explained above UN appointment procedures are time-consuming. Pienaar was therefore substituted for Carlsson.

• Association – it may have only become known much later, but it was mentioned sooner and surely it was much too great a risk to assume any serious investigation would not uncover it.

You therefore assume that there was actually a serious investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

The South African could not have known what sort of investigation there would have been. Any logical person would assume there would be an investigation of some sort and that they could be connected to it, therefore it would have been TOO greate a risk of their association being discovered.

If, as was probably intended by the saboteurs, PA 103 had come down in the Atlantic rather than in Scotland that risk would have been minimised.

• Loss of life – Again this is a biased view of the SA government of the time. Crazy as it sounds they still held themselves to high moral standards and twisted as those standards were they would not at such a high level approve the killing of so many innocent people. Their assassinations or actions always included only direct targets where possible, whereas this was a UN member and 250 innocent nationals from completely unrelated countries.

Again, as previously stated, this was a pivotal moment in SA's history: being forced to get out of Namibia at a time not of SAG's choosing. The "securocrats" had to act quickly and decisively!

Were/what exactly was this event that you keep mentioning of South Africa being forced to get out??? You have to remember that the first casualty of war is the truth and both sides (in the Angolan conflict) would employ propoganda tactics. Even if SA decided to leave Angola, they could still have stayed in Namibia for much longer as SWAPO wasn't really a military force of any reckoning. You have to keep a balanced view of matters, one such balanced outlook is that it had become clear to Cuba and SA that neither would ever have complete control of Angola and as such all parties negotiated a withdrawal and for SA's part this allowed them to relinquish control of Namibia in '89 and then also transit it's own government without the fear of masses of Cuban forces invading Namibia.

The event that forced South Africa out was the Reagan/Gorbachev decision taken on September 29, 1988.

• Court judgement – True, the Machel case will be investigated again, but even if that proves to have been an SA government assassination the ONLY connection to this case is that both involve aircraft. The court judgement I'm referring to however is that of the conviction of other parties. Let us not lose sight of the fact that they have in fact been convicted after several court cases.

The Libyan Megrahi was convicted on January 31, 2001. His co-accused Fhimah was acquitted. Although Megrahi's appeal against conviction was turned down in 2002, his appeal against sentence and another appeal against conviction (see SCCRC) are still very much on the cards.

But you have to concede that a court of law has found enough evidence to convict him.

Yes, I fully agree. However, Megrahi's guilt (or innocence) has an effect not just upon the South Africa theory but the other six theories in this article as well.

Deon Steyn 10:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My further comments (in italics above) are meant to assist in getting an acceptable revised text for the article.Phase4 22:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Also, answered previous point in text above

Of the problems I pointed out innitially the most important remain:

• Motive

1. Pienaar was AG since 1985 and there is no proof that this role would have been suspended before the end of the transition period in Nov-1989.
2. There is no evidence that the UN would not have immediately replaced Carlsson with another Commissioner.
3. There is no evidence that Carlsson's presence would have prevented SA from funding opposition parties
4. There is no evidence that Carlsson's presence would have identified Koevoet as a paramilitary unit at an earlier stage.
5. Carlsson's absence did no change the original agreement and the transition, election and independence was completed accordingly.

Have a look at the actual agreement signed by the parties, it doesn't even mention the role of AG or UN Commissioner, let alone the AG role being replaced/scrapped or even that the status quo of SA control would change.[3] Please provided reference where it states that a) the role of Admin General (AG) would have been suspended, b) The UN would not have been able to replace Carlsson with another commissioner.

This is some background that is related to the biased view of some commentators that might have a bearing on this article: South Africa's general attitude and motives, please see this UN document for a concise explanation. [4] I would like to highlight the following section:

In 1980, South Africa accepted the plan proposed by the five Powers and in 1981 participated in a pre-implementation meeting at Geneva. However, South Africa did not agree to proceed towards a ceasefire, one of the conditions set by the United Nations for implementing resolution 435. Negotiations were again stalled when South Africa attached new conditions which the United Nations did not accept, in particular one which linked the independence of Namibia with the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola.

Therefore, the agreement finally adopted in 1988 was essentially what SA had agreed to in 1980 with the addition of their 1981 demand that Cuba withdraw. The Cuban presence had always been the remaining obstacle to peace, because of SA fears of communist expansionism. So, here we have an agreement in 1988 essentially the same as one from 1980/81 (including UNTAG) and it is in fact implemented with elections and independence. The presence/absence of one Commissioner or another was fairly irrelevant.

• Conviction - of another party. The fact that another party has been convicted can not be ignored.

I don't mind this is an alternate theory, Wikipedia should document all of this, but it should do so with a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and not attempt to created "original research" (see WP:NOT), rather citing source of existing facts. The so called "facts" supporting this theory (that an SA delegation cancelled their booking on the flight) can in my opinion just as well support the contrary viewpoint that it could not have been an SA plot, because they would clearly have implicated themselves. As for the "motives" ("replacing Carlsson with Pienaar) they are completely unsupported and in fact counter-intuitive illogical, but I guess that's why this page is called "alternative theories" as they are alternatives to the commonly accepted one? --Deon Steyn 08:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Proposed solution

Good, I think we have cantered well around this topic - covering a lot of issues and angles. I propose to rewrite the article in the light our discussion during the next few days, starting with the last version by Metros232 of August 2, 2006.Phase4 10:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Good luck, I'd like to see some additions on the original:

• At each step listing opinion against certain things.
• Explain the Pienaar versus Carlsson motive right at the top, but also mentioned the counter point of view questioning the ultimate effect of his death.
• Perhaps trim down the Namibia info... wikilinks to the topic and a one sentence summary should be sufficient.
• Perhaps trim DeBeers section, it's not clear and a bit too long with all sorts of quotes. It would perhaps suffice to say Carlsson's schedule was perhaps purposefully changed/manipulated by a DeBeers rep requesting a meeting in London. Currently the paragraph goes more to proving a DeBeers conspiracy?
• More balanced tie-in to Machel incident, pointing out that it was 1) a different MO and 2) not conclusively proved to be SA assassination and itself still only a theory.
• Replace ref links to talk page with links to actual Reuters article?

--Deon Steyn 13:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I see we are almost back to square one and the section remains largely as it was; that is: riddled with biased views and allegations counter to researched fact and NPOV.

I have removed some of the dubious content, such as that SA nuclear weapons were developed jointly with Israel, which has NO bearing on this article on the first place and is itself only a theory/allegation.

I have also added some the obvious question any neutral observer should ask of this theory and trimmed down the Machel connection to the concise fact that the only link between the two incidents were the ALLEGED use of radio beacons. --Deon Steyn 08:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I had simply paused for one day in my rewriting of the South-West Africa (Namibia) article. You have now edited out much of the text I had intended to reference. However, I hope you will allow me to tweak the remainder into some sort of logical sequence, including some obvious typos!Phase4 21:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)