Roads to Prosperity
Saif Qaddafi and Me
Dani Rodrik
|
|
|
|
CAMBRIDGE – Not long ago, a Harvard colleague wrote to me that Saif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, a son of Libya’s dictator, would be in town and wanted to meet me. He is an interesting fellow, my colleague said, with a doctorate from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE); I would enjoy talking to him, and I might be able to help his thinking on economic matters.
The meeting, as it turned out, was a letdown. I was first briefed by a former Monitor Company employee, who gently intimated that I should not to expect too much. Saif himself held photocopies of pages from one of my books on which he had scribbled notes. He asked me several questions – about the role of international NGOs, as I recall – that seemed fairly distant from my areas of expertise. I don’t imagine he was much impressed by me; nor was I much taken by him. As the meeting ended, Saif invited me to Libya and I said – more out of politeness than anything else – that I would be happy to come.
Saif never followed up; nor did I. But if a real invitation had come, would I have traveled to Libya, spent time with him, and possibly met his father and his cronies? Would I have been tempted by arguments such as: “We are trying to develop our economy, and you can really help us with your knowledge?” In other words, would I have followed in the footsteps of several of my Harvard colleagues who traveled to Libya to exchange views with and advise its dictator – and were paid for their services?
These scholars have been pilloried in the media in recent weeks for supposedly having cozied up to Qaddafi. Sir Howard Davies chose to resign as Director of the LSE, which awarded Saif his doctorate (which some allege was plagiarized) and took money for the school from the Libyan regime.
There is a strong sentiment that academics and institutions that collaborated with such an odious regime – often with the encouragement of their governments, no doubt – suffered a grave lapse of judgment. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s murderous stance during the uprising has revealed his true colors, regardless of his more moderate posture in recent years. And Saif al-Islam’s recent support for his father suggests that he is not the liberal reformer many took him to be.
But it is much easier to reach such judgments with hindsight. Were the moral overtones of dealing with the Qaddafis so obvious before the Arab revolutions spread to Libya? Or to pose the question more broadly, is it so clear that advisers should always steer clear of dictatorial regimes?
Universities all over the world are falling over each other trying to deepen their engagement with China. Most academics would jump at the chance to have a meeting with China’s President Hu Jintao. I haven’t heard much criticism of such contacts, which tend to be viewed as normal and unproblematic. And yet few would deny that China’s is a repressive regime that deals with its opponents harshly. Memories of Tiananmen are still fresh. Who is to say how the Chinese leadership would respond to a future pro-democracy uprising that threatened to undermine the regime?
Or what about a country like Ethiopia? I have had intensive economic-policy discussions with Prime Minister Meles Zenawi in Addis Ababa. I must confess to having enjoyed these talks more than most meetings I have in Washington, DC and other democratic capitals. I have no illusions about Meles’ commitment to democracy – or lack thereof. But I also believe that he is trying to develop his economy, and I offer policy advice because I believe it may benefit ordinary Ethiopians.
The conundrum that advisers to authoritarian regimes face is akin to a long-standing problem in moral philosophy known as the dilemma of “dirty hands.” A terrorist is holding several people hostage, and he asks you to deliver water and food to them. You may choose the moral high ground and say, “I will never deal with a terrorist.” But you will have passed up an opportunity to assist the hostages. Most moral philosophers would say that helping the hostages is the right thing to do in this instance, even if doing so also helps the terrorist.
But choosing an action for the greater good does not absolve us from moral culpability. Our hands do become dirty when we help a terrorist or a dictator. The philosopher Michael Walzer puts it well: “It is easy to get one’s hands dirty in politics.” He immediately adds, however, that this getting one’s hands dirty in this way is “often the right thing to do.”
In the end, an adviser to authoritarian leaders cannot escape the dilemma. Often, leaders seek the engagement only to legitimize their rule, in which case the foreign adviser should simply stay away. But when the adviser believes his work will benefit those whom the leader effectively holds hostage, he has a duty not to withhold advice.
Even then, he should be aware that there is a degree of moral complicity involved. If the adviser does not come out of the interaction feeling somewhat tainted and a bit guilty, he has probably not reflected enough about the nature of the relationship.
Dani Rodrik, Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University, is the author of The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011.
www.project-syndicate.org
For a podcast of this commentary in English, please use this link:
http://media.blubrry.com/ps/media.libsyn.com/media/ps/rodrik55.mp3
You might also like to read more from Dani Rodrik or return to our home page.
|
|
grassmarket 11:11 19 Apr 11
Mr Ridrik asks "Were the moral overtones of dealing with the Qaddafis so obvious before the Arab revolutions spread to Libya?"
Yes, they were, and anyone who had a) an ordinary knowledge of the international media, b) an ordinary degree of common sense and c) an ordinary moral sensibility could have seen it.
Take this episode for example, widely reported at the time it happened in 2008.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7512925.stm
Gaddafi's son Hannibal was arrested by the Swiss Police for mistreating two "servants". In return Gaddafi took two Swiss citizens hostage, held them for a year and extorted a large sum of money from the Swiss Government to resolve the incident.
From this story, it was easy to conclude 1) that the Gaddafi clan were slave owners, 2) that when confronted they would react like mafia bosses and that 3) all their pretensions to reform and enlightenment were bogus.
Now, I do not blame politicians and businessmen for holding their noses and dealing with the devil, as they must, but I'd like to think that intellectuals ought to hold themselves to a higher standard. They, at any rate, should be least able to plead ignorance as an excuse.
VanMorrisonFan 04:08 19 Apr 11
The standards of the academic left when dealing with totalitarian governments are outrageous. I'll wager that some of those who cozy up to Qaddafi and his ilk are calling for a boycot of Israel! What is even more outrageous is that this matter will never be investigated in depth. The LSE will find other thugs to befriend and the FULL story will never be known.
justathought 07:20 19 Apr 11
How easy it is to rationalize. First you establish that you're a nice guy and alert to the moral peril of dealing with despots, especially if they're educated and good conversationalists. Then you establish that you too are not above being tempted by appeals to vanity (I might be able to help the suffering people). Even eminent thinkers are human after all. But, you hasten to reassure yourself, you have the fineness of sensibility to resist temptation where your advice just gives legitimacy to a cynical regime. Finally, you have the good grace to admit that, yes, you do have "dirty hands." But not only is "bringing water to hostages" an interesting intellectual conundrum in itself, but just the sort of compromise that adults who live in the real world are obliged to make. No doubt you expect your fees to be paid, or at least your expenses covered, but there's no risk you'll be corrupted because you're really, really smart and well-meaning. And your expertise is not something widely available in newspapers, books and by word of mouth from one despot to another.
lucidian 10:14 20 Apr 11
There is no moral dilemma. An absolute moral imperative that transcends all the others mentioned in this column is openness. We must talk to everyone, we must engage with everyone, we must try to help everyone. The huge moral mistake that the West keeps making is measuring other societies by our standards. We utterly fail to appreciate that other societies are at different stages of political evolution. Politically, Western Europe (and America, its offspring) is like a sixty year old person. Libya is, by comparison like a toddler. It is absurd to expect such a young country to act like a mature grown up. We are making the same mistake with Libya that we did with Iraq: expecting political maturity from a place that is in its infancy. Monarchy is natural, in fact it is the only option, for young countries. All European countries went through centuries of monarchy. It is not easy to rule a tribal society. There are always forces bound to hurl it apart. Sometimes brutal tactics must be used to hold it together. All politically evolved nations went through this process. It is not pretty, but it is absolutely necessary, lest it disintegrate. Order is the most basic thing that a government must provide. It is something that we take for granted in the West. But order is very tenuous in many parts of the world. Democracy without order is not only meaningless, but dangerous. Chaos is the enemy. And we, by meddling in Libya's civil war, have greatly increased the likelihood of chaos there. If Ghadafi is toppled, and chaos ensues, and Libyans slaughter each other by the tens of thousands (this is very likely in a post-Ghadafi vacuum), then the fault will be the West's. Liberal, enlightened democracy only comes to a nation (if it comes at all) after a long, painful period of monarchy. Not understanding this, pushing democracy, as if it was some panacea, onto places that are not ready for it, has had disastrous consequences. It led to the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis. It led to Hamas taking power in Gaza. It led to the the loss of our valuable ally Musharraf in Pakistan, and the subsequent assassinations and instability there. Now in our meddling in Libya, it is leading to destabilization there. Talk to everyone, trade with everyone. Keep all doors open. That is the most compassionate, progressive, enlightened, morally defensible way to deal with the entire world. America's pathetic arrogance toward Cuba is another case in point. Because of our morally superior attitude, we have had the absolutely idiotic embargo in place for more than fifty years. And what effect has it had? Castro has stayed in power. Cubans have suffered. But America has taken the high road! It is a terrible embarrassment. And immoral. Do you see? In our arrogance, we cause suffering. We must not isolate people less politically evolved than us. We must not meddle. We must not punish. We must engage. That is the moral high road. So, get off your high horse, and talk to Ghadafi, and his sons, all dictators and monarchs, communist, fascist, theocratic, whatever, whenever you get the chance. It is the morally correct thing to do.
lucidian 03:56 20 Apr 11
I'm sorry, my comment yesterday got all mashed up into one paragraph. I meant it to be several paragraphs.
VanMorrisonFan 04:02 20 Apr 11
In response to Lucian (below) I doon't think anyone opposes talking...what people do oppose is accepting money from morally corrupt regimes and then conferring on them legitimacy through glowing endorsement of them. It's not about judging Lybia per se, it's about endorsing its horrible leadership. The UN documents on human rights never endorse them as Western Concepts, but as universal concepts. People in Lybia have just as much right to not be gassed by their government as people in the UK, France, or Australia do. Democracy may have roots in the west, but I don't think people anywhere in the world are less deserving of it just because they aren't western. Someone who is "disappeared" in the middle of the night, tortured, locked away without being charged, no right to counsel, etc. is suffering no matter where that person is, and his/her ethnicity or nationality should not matter when it comes to saying "This is wrong." The fact that we in the West don't live up to our standards 100% of the time (who does?) does not mitigate the value of those standards. At the very least one should have a right to criticize one's government without the risk of being shot - whether one is Lybian or American or Kenyan or Mongolian.
lucidian 04:30 20 Apr 11
Here is my comment again, properly formatted (I didn't realize I had to use html): <br> <br>
There is no moral dilemma. An absolute moral imperative that transcends all the others mentioned in this column is <span style="font-style: italic;">openness</span>. We must talk to everyone, we must engage with everyone, we must try to help everyone. <br> <br>
The huge moral mistake that the West keeps making is measuring other societies by our standards. We utterly fail to appreciate that other societies are at different stages of political evolution. Politically, Western Europe (and America, its offspring) is like a sixty year old person. Libya is, by comparison like a toddler. It is absurd to expect such a young country to act like a mature grown up. We are making the same mistake with Libya that we did with Iraq: expecting political maturity from a place that is in its infancy. <br> <br>
Monarchy is natural, in fact it is the only option, for young countries. All European countries went through centuries of monarchy. <br> <br>
It is not easy to rule a tribal society. There are always forces bound to hurl it apart. Sometimes brutal tactics must be used to hold it together. All politically evolved nations went through this process. It is not pretty, but it is absolutely necessary, lest it disintegrate. <br> <br>
Order is the most basic thing that a government must provide. It is something that we take for granted in the West. But order is very tenuous in many parts of the world. <br> <br>
Democracy without order is not only meaningless, but dangerous. <br> <br>
Chaos is the enemy. And we, by meddling in Libya's civil war, have greatly increased the likelihood of chaos there. If Ghadafi is toppled, and chaos ensues, and Libyans slaughter each other by the tens of thousands (this is very likely in a post-Ghadafi vacuum), then the fault will be the West's. <br> <br>
Liberal, enlightened democracy only comes to a nation (if it comes at all) after a long, painful period of monarchy. Not understanding this, pushing democracy, as if it was some panacea, onto places that are not ready for it, has had disastrous consequences. It led to the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis. It led to Hamas taking power in Gaza. It led to the the loss of our valuable ally Musharraf in Pakistan, and the subsequent assassinations and instability there. Now in our meddling in Libya, it is leading to destabilization there. <br> <br>
Talk to everyone, trade with everyone. Keep all doors open. That is the most compassionate, progressive, enlightened, morally defensible way to deal with the entire world. <br> <br>
America's pathetic arrogance toward Cuba is another case in point. Because of our morally superior attitude, we have had the absolutely idiotic embargo in place for more than fifty years. And what effect has it had? Castro has stayed in power. Cubans have suffered. But America has taken the high road! It is a terrible embarrassment. And immoral. <br> <br>
Do you see? In our arrogance, we cause suffering. We must not isolate people less politically evolved than us. We must not meddle. We must not punish. We must engage. That is the moral high road. So, get off your high horse, and talk to Ghadafi, and his sons, all dictators and monarchs, communist, fascist, theocratic, whatever, whenever you get the chance. It is the morally correct thing to do.
lucidian 04:33 20 Apr 11
Sorry, my formatting still sucks. But I won't post it again.
lucidian 04:50 20 Apr 11
VanMorrisionFan
I disagree with you. You are committing the same mistake again. You are judging other countries by Western standards. From an ivory tower. Just because the UN says it is so, doesn't make it so.
Rights are what a government grants its people. Saying they're "universal" is more of an expression of an ideal, a wish. It may be a good wish, a desirable wish, but we have no business saying what the "rights" of a person in another country are.
The truth is, after order is established, it's healthy and sensible for a government to allow its people to express public dissent. But in the tribal stage, before a natural identity has taken root, it is dangerous. No monarch in his right mind will tolerate it. It is indeed a threat to the state. Not just the regime, but to the polity itself.
It has been so long since the West was in tribal stage that we have forgotten. We think our privileges and abstractions are normal. But we are not the norm. We are the freaks.
VanMorrisonFan 08:18 20 Apr 11
But Lucidian...who has the power or the wisdom to judge if a society is "tribal" or not? That person then can determine if people stay in chains or are free to express themselves. Is any person so wise and should any person have so much power? I don't think so. What leader would ever say, "My people are no longer tribal...guess I'd better give them their rights and stand for an election."
There's a huge debate over where rights come from. Government doesn't exist to grant rights but rather to preserve the rights people have intrinsically that flow from being human. When a government does not respect those rights, it is the right of people to agitate for change in order to bring about a government that will preserve their rights.
The hypocrisy (sorry if that's not spelled right) in the London School of Economics case is that they judge Qadaffi (again, sorry for spelling) by one standard, and confer legitimacy on him, take his money, and keep absolutely silent about his appaling record on human rights, but turn right around and condemn Israel, a country which has a far far better record on human rights than Lybia.
I can't think of a single time when a group of people was told, "Congratulations! You're no longer tribal. Here are your freedoms."
llisa2u2 05:34 24 Apr 11
There are many fine lines in any interpretation of any discourse between one human being and another. Any exploitation, motivation and final results are revealed gradually.
Complicity and degradation of ethical principles for short term profits seems to be the new international game played to the public.
Regardless of individual and national political posturing, international political, intellectual and corporate leaders continually reinforce publicly that individual lives and reasonable social community principles are meaningless and deserve no consideration without immediate profits for specific commercially closed and specific entitled social groupings.
rebentisch 12:25 07 May 11
What you didn't reflect upon is what they want from you, what they need you for.
ToniKamau 03:58 13 Apr 11
The moral dilemma Mr.Ridrik describes is much more complex and refers to the power of knowledge in general.
The rule simply says:Knowledge is always neutral. Any knowledge is power and can either be used to increase the wellbeing of individuals or a cociety,but the same knowledge can be misused and bring harm to the same people.
I prefere to use as example Mr. Kahn "The father of the Pakistan Atomic Bomb". His knowledge of the physics of atoms and how to handle them could also increase the wealth of his people.
Well, some might find this example too far-fetched. Here is another one:
Its the knowledge bout money and financial services, which happens to be concentrated in the hands of a few. Just look wat harm they bring to society.
Quite naive Mr. Rodrik.....