PRIME Minister Gordon Brown was warned that soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan had threatened to down arms over his refusal to back IRA victims' battle for compensation from Libya, previously unseen documents have revealed.
Mr Brown, who despite offering on Sunday to help victims travel to Libya next month, has steadfastly refused to call on the Libyans to compensate them, was warned by Lord Brennan, the eminent London QC, that some British soldiers were so disillusioned by their Government's stance they could stop fighting.

He told Mr Brown that the soldiers, who are understood to be relatives of IRA victims, were asking why they should fight in the 'war on terror' when their Government was refusing to fight for victims of terrorism.

The letter, among Foreign Office files on Libya released to the News Letter under the Freedom of Information Act, was sent to the Prime Minister on September 19, 2008 from Lord Brennan and another individual, seemingly the victims' lawyer Jason McCue, whose name was blacked out by the Foreign Office.

It was Mr Brown's dismissive response to the letter, leaked to the Sunday Times at the weekend, which suddenly propelled IRA victims' long-standing attempts to extract compensation from Libya for Colonel Gaddafi's arming of the IRA.

Another letter to the Prime Minister from a victim of the IRA also hinted at military unhappiness with the Government's stance: "The victims of these tragedies...deserve the Government's help. I don't want their brave relatives who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan to down weapons and leave the Army."

Lord Brennan wrote: "...thought needs to be given to the likely reaction of the UK victims to this news.

The UK clients that we have spoken to are simply livid.”

He said that victims had demanded demonstrations outside BP headquarters, the Libyan Embassy and Downing Street.

“Others, serving soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, have suggested downing arms if their own Government will not support them as victims of terrorism on the basis of why should they fight in the war on terror if the Government will not fight for them?

“Others have discussed utilising the full support of unionist MPs as well as other cross-party MP support to object to 42 days (the controversial legislation allowing terror suspects to be held without charge for 42 days, which eventually passed with the DUP’s support) on the basis of hypocrisy about the policy on the war against terror.”

In comments which have proved an accurate prediction of the perils facing the Government over its refusal to back the victims, he said: “Whatever they (the victims) choose to do, the resulting political and foreign policy damage will be sizeable.

“At present, HM Government’s stance will further incense them, rather than placate them.”

In the four page letter, Lord Brennan and the other lawyer proceeded to, point-by-point, rebuff the Prime Minister’s contentions in a previous letter as to why the Government could not support IRA victims against Libya.

He also warned the Prime Minister that British companies doing business in Libya will find themselves increasingly under an uncomfortable focus in the absence of proper compensation for the victims of Libya’s past wrongs.

And, in stinging criticism of a Prime Minister who spoke of his “moral compass” when entering 10 Downing Street, Lord Brennan said that the Government’s “focus in Libya has been commercial and security...therefore it is thus implied and stated in your letter that commerce and security override the moral imperative.”

Citing how the US, Italian and French Governments had all negotiated compensation for their victims of Libyan terrorism, then struck trade deals, he added: “For some reason, the UK Government only managed to get a good deal for BP and nothing for its own victims.”

Responding to the letter, Mr Brown said: “The UK Government does not consider it appropriate to enter into a bilateral discussion with Libya on this matter. This remains the Government’s position.”

He argued that raising the issue with Libya would involve “substantial risks” but denied that those risks were solely centred on trade deals, adding “I do not think it appropriate to take this matter further”.