US embassy outing in Lebanon attacked by stones

A general view shows the Palestinian refugee
camp of Ain el-Helweh on the outskirts of Sidon
© AFP/File Joseph Eid

AFP

SIDON, Lebanon (AFP) - A group of angry Lebanese youths on Saturday threw stones and bottles at a group from the US embassy in Beirut visiting the southern port town of Sidon, a security official said.

A spokesman for the US mission confirmed there had been "an incident."

"The embassy can confirm that a group of employees went to Sidon today on a tourism trip. An incident occurred, and the group returned back to the embassy. No injuries," he said, without elaborating.

Local media had spoken of the presence in the group of the embassy's political charge d'affaires.
"A group of youths intercepted a US embassy delegation as they left a restaurant and insulted them before throwing stones and empty glass bottles at them," the security source said.


He said the youths accused the members of the group of being "criminals, Israelis... you have soiled the land of resistance and martyrs."

South Lebanon is the heartland of the country's Shiite Hezbollah militia, and saw heavy fighting in the short but sharp summer war of 2006 between the group and Israeli forces.

The 34-day conflict killed more than 1,200 people in Lebanon, mainly civilians, and 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers.

Lebanese security forces accompanying the US group intervened on Saturday, but stones continued to be thrown, breaking car windows. The army then arrived and arrested three of the attackers, the security official said.

Protesters later staged a sit-in in Sidon to demand the release of the three arrested in connection with the attack.

Osama Saad, head of the Nasserite Popular Movement, a Hezbollah ally, gave a speech describing the detained men as "heroes."

Saad called for their "immediate release because they were trying to protest against the positions of the United States, with Israel, against Lebanon and US interference in Lebanon's internal affairs."

A group of men blocked roads into the Sunni majority city with burning tyres for an hour before the army dispersed them.

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

The Sporting Legacy of Clan Gadhafi

[How's that? It's been too long since I've had a weekend feature, so here's one that's macabre yet fascinating in equal measure--and it's not solely about money. A weird tale in three parts.]

(I) Sporting venues the world over hold pride of place in the national firmament. Not only do they often reflect a country's achievements in competition, but also its idea of nationhood. Some we are familiar with through hosting marquee events over the years and whose location is never in doubt: Madison Square Garden, Wembley Stadium, Stade de France, and the Tokyo Dome among others.

However, it's perhaps a reflection of cricket's relative obscurity outside of the Commonwealth that Pakistan's hallowed ground for the sport is little known to the rest of the world--trivia buffs like yours truly aside. It's called--you guessed it--Gadhafi Stadium and happened to host the 1996 Cricket world Cup. A few weeks ago, the UK Foreign Minister William Hague embarrassed the FCO by suggesting that Lider Maximo Moammar Gadhafi was en route to Venezuela, even earning the opprobrium of Venezuela's diplomatic corps. Yet what is there to suggest that Pakistan--duplicitous erstwhile American ally--is an unlikely place for him to literally pitch his tent? The Indian Express had a story recently on how it came to be named after a man known for his brutality long before his (short-lived) international rehabilitation. Let's say it has something to do with Moammar supporting Pakistan's nuclear arms programme:

The Gaddafi Stadium in Lahore is Pakistan’s Lord’s or Eden Gardens, no less. It is one of the best-equipped cricket grounds in the world, a symbol of national pride, which hosted the 1996 World Cup final. But this being Pakistan, it follows, as if as a rule, that this national structure too be blemished somehow. And it has got enough infamy to its credit in recent years...

It was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, as the prime minister, who embarked on the policy of looking west to the Arab world for bonding and the obvious financial benefits that would accrue to Pakistan by being a player in the petrodollar economy of the Arab states, even if they were run by despotic autocrats. In 1974, Bhutto hosted the heads of Muslim states in Lahore for the Organisation of Islamic Conference summit, which included such adversaries as the reigning sheikhs of the oil-rich Gulf and Arab revolutionaries like Gaddafi and Yasser Arafat. The occasion was chosen to elicit support for Pakistan’s nuclear programme, as India was all set to go nuclear, and Gaddafi fitted the bill. In a grand ceremony at the Lahore Stadium, Bhutto announced the renaming of the cricket ground after the man whom he came to call one of his best friends.

Only Bhutto could have got away with feting and feasting such pro- and anti-US leaders as the Gulf sheikhs and the Shah of Iran on the one hand, and the Syrian, the Libyan and Palestinian leaders on the other, at the same table. At the Lahore summit, there were no walkouts by Gaddafi or other revolutionaries from the proceedings, as was and has been the norm at OIC summits held before and after 1974.

Lahoris cherished the grand mela that was being held in their city and broke into spontaneous dance at the sight of a visiting dignitary’s convoy. It was in such spirited bonhomie that they lost their stadium to the man called Gaddafi, although they have a long history of resisting any change of names, be it the city roads, neighbourhoods or landmarks.

In the rest of the article, let's just say Gahdafi stands accused of fomenting subversive activities in Pakistan--why oh why does trouble always have to be there--after the coup overthrowing Bhutto pere.

(II) We've heard a lot about Moammar's progeny in recent days for obvious reasons. First came the LSE PhD Saif, the "Arab Michael Corleone." There's also "Khamis Does America" of Khamis Brigade infamy (home from being feted across the US, he's now busy stamping out ill-equipped rebels). But wait, there's also Saadi Gadhafi, whose sporting achievements are slight but are definitely ones to remember for trivia buffs. John Foot of UCL offers this indictment of money in sports and Italian football in particular:

It is perhaps for this reason that Saadi Qaddafi thought that he might be able to play in Serie A, despite not being good enough. The strategy was simple — pay teams to have him in their squad, and train with the first team. He might even get a few minutes on the field, on rare occasions... Having served his ban [for using performance-enhancing drugs], Saadi finally saw some action, for 15 minutes, in a key relegation game against Juventus in May as Perugia won, 1-0. A week later an attack of appendicitis conveniently put him out for the rest of the season

In 2006, Saadi Qaddafi had his second 11 minutes of fame, turning out for Udinese in a dead end-of-season match against Cagliari (again the manager was Cosmi) and coming close to scoring with a “great left-foot shot from the edge of the area” His statistics for the entire season consisted of eight passes, one shot and two tackles.

Qaddafi’s final season in Italy was an inglorious one. He was on Sampdoria’s books for a whole season, but was not even allowed the regulation 10 minutes on the field. All in all it is an extraordinary story. It tells us a lot about the corruption of Italian soccer, the power of (Libyan) money and the occasionally the farcical nature of Serie A in the age of Moggi and others.

(III) OK, so Saadi was never going to be a soccer hero--not even good enough for a lousy Nike commercial methinks. Allegations of current misadventures aside, perhaps his prowess was ever-so-marginally greater in the boardroom. As you probably know, Western powers recently froze foreign assets of entities linked to the Libyan government, including those of the Libyan Foreign Investment Authority (LAFICO). Partly due to Saadi's interests, LAFICO held some 7.5% of the shares in the troubled giant of Italian football prior to the freeze. What's more, Saadi used to be on Juventus' board of directors as befitting the owners of a fairly substantial share. However, he resigned this post in 2003. You've heard of player/coaches in sport, right? Saadi did them all one better by being a player/owner of sorts:

Al-Saadi Gaddafi, son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, has resigned from the board of Juventus, the Serie A club said on Wednesday. Al-Saadi Gaddafi had represented Libyan Arab Foreign Investment Company (Lafico), which holds a 7.5 per cent stake in the Italian champions, since October last year. Gaddafi’s passion for soccer is well known. As player/owner of Libyan first division side Al-Ittihad the striker scored 25 goals in the last two seasons and in June he signed a two-year contract for Serie A side Perugia.

In a statement on its website, Juventus said Gaddafi had presented his resignation to the board “with immediate effect”. A source familiar with the situation said Gaddafi’s resignation from the board would not trigger changes in the club’s share holders structure, adding that the move could be linked to his transfer to Perugia.

As you'd expect, the reasons for Saadi giving up a seat on Juventus' board all those years ago remain obscure. Indeed, mystery surrounds the involvement of clan Gadhafi in sport. Yet, from still having Pakistan's hallowed cricket ground named after them to owning part of one of the world's ten most valuable football teams, their puzzling legacy lives on.

And yes, the stadium is long overdue for renaming. I just hope it won't be as bad as George W. Avenue.

Inevitable Reform Candidate for FIFA President?

Governance of sport should be of considerable interest to its followers given how much attention and money fans devote to sporting events. At the same time, let's just say that global governance of sport often fails the smell test on justifiable grounds. If there ever were institutions that could use standard prescriptions of transparency and fair dealing, the backroom world of sports politics is long overdue for attention.

Now, the words "FIFA" and "corruption" go together in popular discourse alike "America" and "bankrupt." Despite my tendency to favour new locations all over the world to host World Cups--especially in regions where they haven't been held before--you certainly have to wonder about how poorly some obvious bidders did. While us Londoners have major gripes about the cost and quality of public transportation here, London will host the 2012 Summer Olympics. So the UK sent Becks (David Beckham), Wills (Prince William), and PM Cameron (Cams?) to Zurich to secure the 2018 event--with nothing to show for as its bid was dismissed early. Also, despite hosting the 1994 World Cup well--the lack of on-field action isn't America's fault, obviously--the United States lost out to the rather daft choice of Qatar in 2022. Having been in the American and MENA deserts at the height of summer, I can only imagine what athletes will have to contend with--oddball promises of cloud climate control notwithstanding. ("But it's a dry heat.")

In the meantime, the political circus that is FIFA rolls on. Incumbent President Sepp Blatter is keen on securing a third term as FIFA president despite the controversy which continues to surround his tenure. His former ally, Qatari Mohamad Bin Hammam--president of the Asia Football confederation--is keen on unseating Blatter. However, I tend to believe that Hammam's bid would do little to dispel allegations of corruption at FIFA since, er, he promises larger giveaway packages to national member associations if elected:

Mohamed Bin Hammam, who is challenging the Swiss national [Blatter] in the June 1 vote, has said he’d double the $250,000 that each of FIFA’s 208 national member associations get each year. Blatter said only FIFA’s governing panel can change funding as he dismissed the offer from the 61-year-old Qatari, who runs Asia’s soccer federation. Blatter, 75, has run FIFA since 1998. “We’ve already made the budget” for 2011-15, Blatter said. “If you give only money and you don’t control where the money is going, this is not a good gift.”

As a champion of lost causes--I supported rally legend Ari Vatanen's bid to succeed Mas Mosely as FIA president over that of Jean Todt (formerly Ferrari team boss)--I must therefore support someone who isn't Blatter or Hammam. Potentially, step forward the great Chilean central defender Elias Figueroa:

Former South American player of the year Elias Figueroa may challenge Sepp Blatter for the presidency of FIFA, the Chilean said on Friday. The 64-year-old ex-central defender said he was the choice of a group called FIFA Change who are seeking a new leader of world soccer's ruling body at the June 1 election in Zurich.

"This arose through a group in England and other parts of Europe who wanted to present someone as a candidate for FIFA and they called me to join a committee which later decided I was the most suitable person as a candidate," Figueroa told Reuters. "I really didn't want this to be known (yet) but the news came out. I'll only be replying on Monday or Tuesday and if I accept I'll reveal who my backers are."

Blatter, who succeeded Brazilian Joao Havelange in 1998, has said he will seek re-election for one more four-year term before retiring in 2015. The Swiss is already certain to be up against Qatar's Mohamed Bin Hammam, leader of the Asian Football Confederation, in the June 1 presidential election.

Figueroa, who shone for Penarol of Uruguay and Internacional of Brazil and played for Chile at three World Cups, said the support group had gained backing from a FIFA national federation. "If I accept I know I'll face a rather difficult scenario but nothing is impossible ... I know very good things have been done in football but we also have some proposals," said South America's triple player of the year from 1974-76.

A long shot, yes, but hey--we've seen upsets before in world sport. Certainly, FIFA's reputation has nowhere to go but up as a result of a long-overdue change.

The PR Art of Selling Authoritarian Regimes?

Here we go again with the alleged dark arts of the marketing trade. Flipping through the London dailies, there's apparently a new cause celebre here in Britain. And no, I'm not talking about fish pedicures--that's so 2010, dahling. As a business major from days long gone, I think of marketing concepts as general-purpose tools of persuasion whose principles can be applied in many realms--selling products, services, candidates, or even countries. (Remember the notion of "nation branding.") As you will read, it turns out that among the most avid users of advertising and public relations services here in Blighty are authoritarian regimes from the Middle East and elsewhere. For the benefit of IPE Zone's international readers, the graphic to the right is supposedly illustrative of these activities--Persil is a major brand of detergent sold by Unilever here in the UK.

On one hand, you can say that it's a perfectly legitimate enterprise. For instance, any number of them are keen on branding themselves as financial services and tourist destinations in that part of the world. Bahrain has (had?) seats to fill for its F1 race, for instance, On the other hand, you have articles like what follows that attribute more sinister motives to these activities in attempting to conceal blood on their hands while suppressing dissent. Reputation laundering, they call it. Which way you see it is up to you. From the Evening Standard:

London's public relations industry has got a PR problem. Top firms such as Bell Pottinger, Brown Lloyd James, Portland and Grayling are coming under intense scrutiny because of their work for foreign governments or in regimes of dubious repute. The catalyst has been the Arab uprisings in Libya, Egypt, Bahrain and Tunisia, which have raised questions about the ethics of these PR firms. Critics claim that London has turned into the global capital of reputation laundering.

Bell Pottinger, run by Margaret Thatcher's former image adviser Lord Bell, has already faced protests outside its High Holborn office because of its work for Bahrain. But it is not just spin doctors working in the Middle East that are being accused of "propping up" unplesasant regimes. Tonight, opponents of the authoritarian regime in Belarus are demonstrating outside the Victoria HQ of Grayling because the PR firm has opened an office in the former Soviet republic. Actor Jude Law and playwright Sir Tom Stoppard are backing the protesters, who are then marching to the House of Commons to hear the two theatre stars speak at a rally, organised by Index on Censorship and the Free Theatre of Belarus.

Tory donor Lord Chadlington, boss of Grayling's parent company Huntsworth, is adamant that his firm is not an "apologist" for Belarus and does not work for any foreign government. Grayling's office in Minsk is just to help international clients keen to invest and explore privatisation opportunities. But Mike Harris, public affairs manager of Index on Censorship, says: "We are targeting Grayling because it is currently working in getting inward investment in Europe's last dictatorship and it is the only major PR firm in Belarus."

For Index on Censorship and other critics, there is a wider point about PR firms in dubious regimes. "They are not just the messenger," says Harris. "They try to normalise these regimes with nice pieces in the papers about holidays in these places and business features on investment. They are instrumental in keeping the economy of these regimes going."

If there is one London firm synonymous with this international spin it is Bell Pottinger - even though, as Britain's biggest PR agency, it also represents many uncontroversial UK household brands. Recent clients have included the Egyptian Ministry of Information, the Economic Development Board of Bahrain and the governments of Belarus and Sri Lanka, and it has also worked in Yemen.

I am of two minds about these practices. Positively, you can say that helping authoritarian regimes solicit business is welcome insofar as their citizens can benefit from the arrival of commercial opportunities. Negatively, you can say that these firms are indirectly contributing to inflows which help solidify these regimes' financial stature.

Unless you have a Bushian-Manichaean world view--or an intractable aversion to all things Libyan, for that matter--there are no easy answers.

The Surprising PNAC Connection to Libya

Zen Gardner
Before It's News

Looks like the PNAC, or Project for A New American Century, agenda of 1997 is rolling along as planned.  Just as has been outlined by other think tanks, Illuminati writers and social programmers.

But a blind world reels on the defensive when they could have known what was coming all along.  Notice, mind you, that the portrayal of an unstable Middle East includes every "rogue" nation BUT Israel. Israel oddly enough is never "on the table" for discussion, when in fact they are the fomentors and co-creators of the entire "terrorist" threat fabrication. 

Recent Developments
If you want to know exactly what's happening or about to transpire, keep an eye on Neocons like Bill Kristol at rabid Zionist Murdock's Fox News, the former head of PNAC when they made their famous study, proposal and "Statement of Principles" preceding the staged 9/11 events and ensuing bogus "war on terror".

It looks like despite Obama's "promises" to not send troops, we're about do it anyway. Surprise. So expect a real good reason to be fabricated soon, like tales of horrific atrocities by Gaddafi, to make sure the public is behind it. A false flag or two within Libya is probably on the table right now, like the staged theatre fire massacre in Abadan, Iran during the Iran revolution.

Read Full Article 

Related Articles:

WikiLeaks: U.S. Punished Costa Rica For Not Signing Covert ...

Obama Starts Another Illegal War, Rangel Calls For Draft

Fighting shifting in Kadhafi's favor: US intel

US vetoes UN resolution on Israel settlements

The Deliberate Lies That Shift Attention Away From The ...

LinkWithin

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Would You Stay in Libya as a Nurse for More Pay?

The Philippines is widely recognized as one of the world's top labour exporters. Although its Department of Foreign Affairs began evacuations from Libya shortly after the troubles began like many other countries, it appears that one of its main exports have chosen to stay. Among others, Filipino medical professionals--doctors, dentists, and nurses--have been in great demand abroad as evidenced by their sheer numerical strength.

The situation is no different in the Middle East. With their ability to adapt to local cultures, Filipino nurses--particularly those of Muslim faith--have been practising in these countries. Loath to let them go, it turns out the Libyan government has promised increased pay in exchange for Filipino nurses not leaving the country immediately. While the risk-reward ratio of such an action is debatable, these nurses are hedging on medical facilities not being targets for the pro-Gadhafi forces, the rebels, or the Western no-fly zone enforcers. Risky? Yes, but I hope their safety is indeed what they believe it is. From the Philippines' Daily Tribune:

At least 2,300 Filipino nurses have refused to be evacuated even after the United Nations approved military strikes against Libya. Acting Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario said the nurses, 2,000 of whom are based in capital Tripoli and 383 in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, opted to stay following request from the Libyan government, which promised to increase their pay significantly if they remain.

“We have not received any request to come and provide transport so they can leave Tripoli,” Del Rosario said. “They feel safe being in a hospital and there’s nothing safer than being in a hospital.” But if the situation worsens, he said the government can arrange another ship to pick them up. The government has ended its evacuation in Libya and has moved to safety some 13,000 Filipinos.

Foreign Affairs spokesman Eduardo Malaya said the Filipino nurses chose to stay “in order to fulfill their professional obligation and attend to the needs of the sick and wounded...The safest places for them are the hospitals were they work. Hospitals are considered protected areas under international humanitarian law,” he added.

Matters are complicated by Manila throwing its backing to UN Resolution 1973:

Manila has expressed support to the UN resolution in Libya. Malaya said the Philippines “abides by the decision of the UN security council in imposing a no-fly zone over Libyan airspace as a member of the UN and a signatory of the UN charter. “This UN action is a humanitarian measure which is meant to safeguard the civilian population in Benghazi and other contested areas of said country,” he said.

Recent developments, he added, “will not likely adversely affect Filipinos, as the bulk of our nationals already exited Libya.” The Philippine Embassy in Tripoli will remain open to serve the needs and oversee the safety of the remaining Filipinos there, he said. “Ambassador Alejandrino Vicente and the embassy staff in Tripoli will remain to take care of the country’s interests and ensure the safety of Filipinos who chose to remain for personal reasons,” Malaya said.

And speaking of which, the Philippine government is on the hook for its citizens in several other Middle East destinations where ongoing protests may yet put them in harm's way. Take Syria and Bahrain:

In Syria, Philippine officials there are ready to activate the country’s contingency measures once the political strife worsens. A stock estimate from the Commission on Filipinos Overseas showed 19,423 Filipino workers in Syria. Syrians also took the same path as their neighbors by staging similar loud protests against their authoritarian government, hoping it would result in having their political freedom restored.

“The Philippine Embassy in Syria is closely monitoring developments in certain parts of the country,” Malaya said, adding that the 1,050-strong Filipino peacekeepers stationed in Golan Heights who were deployed to the country as part of a UN peacekeeping contingent can be mobilized to evacuate the thousands of Filipinos if needed.

Meanwhile, Bahrain Prime Minister Shaikh Khalifa Bin Salman Al Khalifa has assured the Philippine government that all Filipinos will be provided protection amid the growing unrest in the Middle East state. Khalifa on Saturday personally relayed this message to Del Rosario, who is currently on five-day Middle East swing to check on the condition of Filipino workers trapped in the spreading conflict across the region.

I suppose this is one of the unspoken responsibilities of mass migration in the 21st century. For, we have an international system where (economic) migrants are ultimately no one's responsibility except for the home country.Given that the Philippines does promote such migration, it's only fair. Then again, there will always be those who are more adventurous--alike the Filipino nurses in Libya.

Moammar, Italy & BRICs: The Battle for Libyan Oil

A few days ago, we had former UNDP head Mark Malloch Brown talk impressively about global events, especially goings-on at the UN in relation to the Middle East/North Africa. One of the things he pointed out was that perhaps an even worse humanitarian disaster is occurring in Cote d'Ivoire. While this is sadly and undoubtedly true, I'll take the crude Marxist route of economic determinism and suggest the difference boils down to energy. Possessed of the finest grades of petroleum reserves--light, sweet crude that is easy to refine--Libya will remain a prize far greater than the Ivory Coast. Tis the way of the world: I am afraid and ashamed of in equal measure.

Arguably, two of the countries that have pressed hardest for a no-fly zone over Libya are those with the most commercial interests there. Perhaps it's a matter of saving face. Remember that prior to leading the current international effort to penalize the Gadhafi regime, Nicolas Sarkozy was telling everyone not too long ago that it was OK to sell arms to Libya. Given its imperial history, Italy has invested in Libya and has in turn attracted investment by Libyan powers-that-be. However, the head of Italy's largest petroleum company ENI (formerly Agip), has been thinking ahead about the future implications of sanctions should Gadhafi remain in control--or at least of the key oil-producing regions. From the WSJ:

The head of Italian oil giant Eni SpA called for Europe to drop sanctions against Libya, saying it was "shooting itself in the foot" and endangering its energy security by punishing the Gadhafi regime.

Eni Chief Executive Paolo Scaroni's comments come against a background of threats and warnings by Col. Moammar Gadhafi against foreign oil companies, especially those from countries that have backed the opposition rebels and called for a no-fly zone above Libya...Foreign companies such as Eni, which suspended production and evacuated staff when the violence erupted, are keen to resume operations in a country that holds the largest oil reserves in Africa and has long been considered one of the great unexplored frontiers of the global energy industry.

But they face a dilemma. Libya is likely to face an era of deep international isolation, with a new round of sanctions that could affect foreign oil companies. Those from states that called for Col. Gadhafi's ouster, like France and Italy, may be singled out for punishment by the leader and his inner circle.

And those that try to rekindle their relationship with a reviled regime face grave risk to their reputations in Western markets. "Companies that go grovelling back to Gadhafi are not going to look great in the eyes of Western public opinion," said Samuel Ciszuk, a North Africa energy expert at IHS Global Insight. "It's going to be a very uncertain environment for them."

Indeed, it's by no means certain that the West will not eventually forgive and forget as it has done in the past. ENI thinking is simple: if the West offends Gadhafi sufficiently but he is not dislodged from power, then there are others who would certainly welcome the opportunity to take its place:

In interviews published this week, Col. Gadhafi indicated that contracts with Western oil companies could come under review. He told the Italian daily Il Giornale he felt "betrayed" by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who had previously courted the Libyan leader but called for him to step down after the uprising broke out...Italy has suspended its 2008 "friendship treaty" with Libya and frozen Libyan investments in the Italian economy, including large stakes in defense contractor Finmeccanica SpA and lender UniCredit SpA.

Asked whether Libya might reconsider its contracts with Eni, the Libyan strongman said he "believes and hopes" that the "Libyan people" would reconsider their economic, financial and security ties with the West. Speaking to Russia Today, the pro-Kremlin channel, Col. Gadhafi said Libya can "no longer trust the West...That is why we would like to invite companies from Russia, China and India to invest in our oil production and construction industries," he added.

Other officials in Libya have said they are eager to have Western companies back. Shokri Ghanem, head of Libya's National Oil Corp., or NOC, and the country's de facto oil minister, said last week that Libya would respect all contracts and wanted its current partners to return to work as soon as possible.

Speaking on the sidelines of a parliamentary hearing on Italy's energy ties to Libya, Mr. Scaroni said imposing sanctions was "shooting ourselves in the foot," because not taking Libyan gas would undermine Italy's energy security. Eni has been in Libya since 1955 and is the largest single foreign investor there; in 2007 it signed a $28 billion deal to extend its Libyan oil contracts to 2042. But sanctions have forced Eni to suspend shipments of the oil it produces there, which account for about a quarter of Italy's oil supply. It also shut down the Greenstream pipeline which supplies 10% of Italy's natural gas.

With Libya's political future still uncertain, Mr. Scaroni appeared to hedge on where Eni's allegiances lie. "Whatever political system there is in the future, it will have its own NOC, which will have contracts and relations with us," he said. "I don't see any reason that these ties should be compromised."

Now for more on the BRICS--all of which declined to cast their vote. Permanent security members China and Russia unsurprisingly did not vote on the resolution implementing the no-fly zone. While Russia being attracted to Libya's energy supplies is indeed like bringing coals to Newcastle as the saying goes, the Chinese would certainly welcome the opportunity to expand its access to such supplies. Are they currying favour just in case? In addition to abstaining, both countries now express "regret" over military action.

Meanwhile, non-permanent security council members Brazil and India did the same. (Remember, there are five permanent security council members and ten rotating ones--which Brazil and India happened to be at the time of the vote.) Brazil does not lack for energy resources, but India could certainly stand to gain in the aftermath if Gadhafi manages to cling to power. Gadhafi has already suggested as much.

Although I suspect these major emerging economies are more concerned with keeping the principle of non-interference intact, you cannot rule out the possibility of some--particularly China and India--hedging their energy bets. Energy realpolitik--if the Italians can't do without it, imagine how countries many time its size keep it in mind.

Ultimately, it hinges on whether Moammar Gadhafi remains in power or nor. Insofar as Western enforcers of the no-fly zone are reluctant to launch a ground effort lest another protracted counterinsurgency-type challenge appear (as Gadhafi warns), there are any number countries and companies jockeying for position in anticipation of ever after.

When the "Fox News Babes" Met al-Jazeera

As a business major, I've always had a problem with the American cable network Fox News. On one hand, it's a master stroke of marketing in selling to a Middle American demographic; an odd mix of conservative righteousness combined with titillation via the omnipresent "Fox News Babes." It's always odd to see gents fully dressed in suits alongside the aforementioned FNBs in ever-shorter skirts (maybe the male anchors should be attired like DJs at strip joints at this rate), sleeveless blouses and tight sweaters. But hey, I guess Roger Ailes doesn't mess with a formula that works. On the other hand, Fox News is next to worthless in its primary purpose as a news outlet. Although I disagree with Hillary Clinton on most things, one thing we can agree on is that Fox News is a lowest common denominator manifestation of modern America--a sort of endless WWE newscast (Americans have big guns! American women are all leggy conservatives!)

Anyway, I bring this matter up in the wake of Hillary Clinton testifying before Congress. Thankfully, she recognizes the utter feebleness of American television of which she says, in her own words not mine, "we are in an information war and we are losing that war." While I dislike the war references, she actually makes a good point that al-Jazeera is more like real news instead of Fox News--especially with regard to goings-on in MENA. Something very notable though is the sparseness of broadcasters carrying al-Jazeera in the United States. While some local stations carry it, cable giants alike Comcast do not carry it, unlike one featuring Tea party favourites and all the rest. What is the reason for this omission? It's an open question, though I will (perhaps surprisingly) discount one that reflects badly on the US government:

(1) The US government actively discourages cable providers from carrying al-Jazeera for ideological reasons. Today, I had the opportunity to meet an honest-to-goodness State Department official prior to Alec Ross speaking about his digital statecraft efforts at the LSE. When I asked whether the US government actively discouraged cable providers from carrying the pan-Arabian channel, he said "no." While it's true that the Bush administration did not view al-Jazeera favourably, and perhaps did not apply direct pressure to the likes of Comcast, it may nonetheless be true that government regulators could have made life difficult for those that did carry the channel. I will give the benefit of the doubt here. At best with Hillary Clinton now lauding al-Jazeera, perhaps it's the Fox News crowd more than the US government that Comcast et al. fear offending during the Obama administration.

(2) Cable service providers are reluctant to pay al-Jazeera's licensing fees when it's cheaper to provide their own content. The State Department official then suggested that the real reason is cable providers prefer providing a vehicle for channels they produce since they don't have to pay for license fees alike those they would have to pay for carrying al-Jazeera. This is a plausible argument. However, it is also possible for cable providers to create a separate, additional package for those who want to watch al-Jazeera and other MENA content and charge viewers accordingly.

(3) By and large, Americans prefer a rose-tinted view of how they are such a positive influence on the world. In its own way, Fox News is a highly advanced manifestation of the white man''s burden. What's more, there are many parts of the Amerocentric blogosphere where you can get this sort of reasoning on a daily basis, so I needn't rehash it here. In this manufactured approach, while US has problems, they are inconsequential compared to those of the rest of the world. Strictly speaking, (1), (2) and (3) are not mutually exclusive. However, my own view is that this explanation is best.

While certain (obviously more on the left than Fox News) Huffington Post readers are now clamouring for al-Jazeera to be carried by US cable service providers, I would be very surprised if Middle America will switch over in droves. For the same reason that the more straightforward CNN is literally walloped by Fox News, I doubt whether the Qatari's erstwhile gift to world media will gain much traction. Fox News redefines mendaciousness by calling its coverage fair and balanced. While you can of course say I am equally slanted, the main difference is I disclose that I am offering my own opinion instead of parading what I say as fair and balanced.

So there you are. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, the majority of the American public cannot handle the truth. I may be proven wrong, but I simply don't think anyone will dethrone the news T&A crowd anytime soon. Ironically, another place where a media revolution is long overdue is the United States of America.

UPDATE: In case you were wondering, I couldn't name the State Department official in question since the aforementioned meeting was held under a (weaker form) Chatham House rule. My LSE colleague Charlie Beckett who heads POLIS, Media and Society, blogs more about the meeting.

Lord Mandy On the Libya Witch Hunt in the UK

As one not to shy away from unpopular causes, I have never attempted to hide my admiration for a man who revels in being called the "Prince of Darkness," Lord Mandelson. Being at the centre of government for so long as a New Labour stalwart and former EU trade commissioner, the controversial politico has now mounted a spirited defence of Britain's role in opening up to Libya. His argument is on similar lines to mine: how else would the rest of the world have helped normalize relations with a former rogue regime other than through trade and diplomacy? Until current events, such phenomena were readily observable. However, events have famously forced the hand of Libya's erstwhile leaders and the ejection of a much-admired LSE director.

At any rate, here is Lord Mandy taking his critics to task. As a person who believes in second chances, I too doubt the logic of forever treating pariahs as such. What would it mean if there were no way back from the brink for any number of countries finding disfavour among powerful Western ones? What incentive would there be of turning back on an older way of life?

The stigmatising of every business leader, academic, politician and public servant who has had anything to do with Libya in the last seven years has been taken to ridiculous lengths in some quarters. Spurred by universal disgust with the Gaddafi dictatorship’s recent outrages, sense and judgment have flown out of the window as normally intelligent commentators vie in their denunciation of anyone who acted in the public interest in deepening ties with Libyan people, institutions or that country’s economy.

If, as a result of this pressure, British businesses in future shy away from international investment for fear of risking similar opprobrium, Britain’s relative decline in the global economy can only worsen. It is difficult enough already for us to compete against the world’s rising economic powerhouses. If on top of our present disadvantages – high relative costs of production, considerable regulatory constraint, weak entrepreneurial drive and barriers to entry to many fast-growing markets – we introduce a further hurdle of rejection of any country less savoury and democratic than our own, our employment levels and standard of living are going to fare very badly in this century...

I also happen to believe that in our welcome of Muammer Gaddafi’s rejection of his terror-supporting past, the Labour government sometimes gave the appearance of going further and embracing him or at least tolerating his excesses and shortcomings. Incidentally, before this month’s uprising in Libya, I saw absolutely no sign of the coalition government following any different policy, for all their wise-after-the-event high-minded statements since.

It is also arguable that those senior members of the Libyan regime who burnished their pro-democratic credentials should have been treated even more cautiously than they were. There are lessons to be learnt and we need to reflect, not on the principle of bringing people like Colonel Gaddafi in from the cold but the degree of warmth we appear to show them afterwards, before they start to reform their domestic ways and methods.

This lesson is not an easy one to apply. For example, when you reach out to repenters, you do not then turn on your heels and start treating them like pariahs. Such reaction is hardly going to entrench their changed behaviour or encourage others to follow suit. There are also realities of international trade and investment to understand. When every other country is busy trading and investing, including the US and in Europe, it is odd to practise a unilateral boycott of your own. Would it have made sense to outlaw British Airways, HSBC, Marks & Spencer, BP and other British brands from entering Libya? Or British universities from making similar contacts? I don’t see that it would have. I am not suggesting that we operate with the standards of our lowest denominator partners. We have values as well as interests to bind us. But nor can we operate exceptional and unrealisable rules just for ourselves.

Being the odd ones out not only does ourselves economic harm but does nothing to assist the process of change in countries such as Libya. Our policy goal should be to do all we can, with others, to put such a country on to the path of transition. Opening up its economy, helping it to tap its natural resource wealth, deepening its integration to the rest of the world and stimulating domestic enterprise and business will spur the growth of aspiration, demands for freedom and the spread of pluralistic values in that society.

And here's his wrap-up:

This weekend, I was “exposed” by a British newspaper because, when a cabinet minister, I “struck a deal with the Gaddafi dictatorship” to encourage contact with Libyan universities and for their students to come to Britain. The fact that this could only have done good for the students involved was apparently immaterial. Under media pressure, the reaction of my successor has been to suspend all co-operation. Perhaps this is excusable, as a further demonstration of Britain’s disapproval of Gaddafi’s killing of his own people.

But, as a general policy, we were right to foment such contacts. We were also right to do business in the country. Our timing was right and the current attempt to whip up a phobic reaction to those who led this commercial activity as Libya was putting its terrorist past behind it, is wrong and misplaced.

Thou shall listen to thy Lord (Mandelson)--a thoroughly clever chap. There is also fine commentary on the ongoing witch hunt at the LSE by the Evening Standard's Jenni Russell. Then again, his former cabinet colleague David Miliband, the former foreign secretary, seems to be rather more casually dismissive of New Labour bringing Libya in from the cold. How quickly (and conveniently) some forget the very recent past.

Philippine-PRC Spratly Islands Spat + PR Spin

In politics, joining up seemingly unrelated issues is a frequent occurrence. Sometimes it goes by the name horse-trading, other times logrolling. Whatever it's called, there's no escaping it. A few months ago I penned a feature for LSE IDEAS that neatly encapsulates my ideas about China's territorial conflicts with its Southeast Asian neighbours over islands in the South China Sea. So many months after that Hillary Clinton-fuelled diplomatic row, we have another one on our hands. Last week, a Philippine-flagged vessel it calls a seismic surveillance ship was confronted by Chinese vessels in these troubled waters. The PRC calls the surrounding islands Nansha, while the Philippines calls them the Kalayaan ("freedom") islands. In geographic terms, the Red Bank where the incident took place shows you the vastness of China's claim given how much nearer it is to the Philippines (see map point). Feeling aggrieved, the Philippine armed forces scrambled a few planes and boats to look into what was going on, but the Chinese boats had already left the scene when they got there:

Two Chinese Navy gunboats reportedly harassed a vessel owned by the Department of Energy (DOE) that was conducting maritime research off the disputed Spratly Islands last Wednesday. Armed Forces Western Command (Westcom) commander Lt. Gen. Juancho Sabban confirmed that the Air Force deployed bombers and an Islander reconnaissance aircraft while the Navy dispatched three vessels to intercept the two Chinese vessels. “But they did not catch the Chinese vessels that already left when the planes arrived. The DOE ship just resumed their research in the area,” Sabban said in a telephone interview.

Sabban said the incident occurred at around 9:30 a.m. in the vicinity of Reed Bank, 250 kilometers west of Palawan. He said Reed Bank is well within Philippine territory and Navy gunboats were deployed to secure the DOE [Department of Energy] research vessel M/V Venture...

Initial exploration of the Reed Bank by the DOE revealed that the area contains about 3.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 440 million barrels of oil. Sabban said two white Chinese gunboats with the markings No. 71 and No. 75 tried to drive away the DOE research vessel from Reed Bank. The Navy and the Air Force reported that the two Chinese vessels conducted a side-by-side maneuver, virtually “sandwiching” the DOE research vessel, prompting its alarmed personnel to radio for help.

The incident also prompted the Philippine government to file a protest with the PRC:

Manila has filed a formal protest with Beijing after two Chinese patrol boats allegedly harassed a government-authorized seismic survey ship near the disputed Spratly Islands "We have already brought the matter up [with China]. We handed them a protest [letter] on the incident," President Benigno S. C. Aquino III told reporters in an interview after attending a multisectoral dialogue here.

Mr. Aquino also said the country will send to Beijing an expert on the issue to discuss the matter. Pending resolution of the issue, he said a Philippine Coast Guard vessel has been deployed to the area to assist the survey ship. "The Coast Guard ship will ensure that our rights are protected by making sure that this survey ship [authorized] by our government would finish its job," said the President.

The Chinese embassy got a ring from the president's office shortly thereafter:

Meanwhile, "peaceful negotiations" are the way to "solve the dispute, if there is indeed a dispute" over the incident last March 2, said Ethan Y. Sun, deputy chief of political section and spokesperson of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila. Mr. Sun said China has always been "committed to maintaining the peace and stability in the South China Sea...If there is dispute between China and the Philippines, this should be made up by peaceful bilateral negotiations," said Mr. Sun in an interview on Friday.

"Aggressive" is not a word he would use to describe any of the recent the actions from the Chinese and the Philippines side, as "it does nothing beneficial to peace and stability in the region." Nevertheless, he maintained that "ever since ancient times, China has indisputable sovereignty over Nansha Islands and their adjacent waters." Nansha is the Chinese name for the Spratlys.

China, Mr. Sun added, has been consistent in upholding the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea [signed in 2002]. He reiterated a statement made by the Department of Foreign Affairs that the lines of communication between the Philippines and China remain open.

A consideration is that Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Liu Jianchao will likely return to Manila next week from an annual home office reporting to discuss the matter with the government. "Sometimes it is necessary and more than appropriate to have a high-level exchange," Mr. Sun said.

And now for the joining up of issues. It is well-known that 8 million Filipinos are economic migrants working abroad. As it so happens, some of them just happened to work in Libya. The Philippine press has been critical of what it perceives to be slow government evacuation of its nationals from Libya. While visiting the China Daily, still our favourite official publication, I came across an article which boasts of how China is facilitating the evacuation of other countries' expatriates. As you would expect, including those of the Philippines:

China, in conducting its largest overseas evacuation, helped more than 1,100 foreigners leave Libya over the past two weeks, transporting them on chartered Greek vessels, said China's Ambassador to Greece Luo Linquan. Calling it an act of humanitarianism, Luo said the foreigners were mainly from Greece, Italy, Poland, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Vietnam. A total of 35,860 Chinese citizens had been evacuated from Libya as of Wednesday night, according to the Foreign Ministry. Of these, 20,745 had already returned to China, Vice-Foreign Minister Song Tao said...

Once the maritime evacuation commenced on Feb 22, three Greek ships undertook six voyages from the Cretian capital, Heraklion, to Benghazi and Misurata, two port cities in eastern and western Libya. By Wednesday, more than 13,000 Chinese citizens had been transported to Crete. So far, eight chartered flights have been arranged to take Chinese citizens home...

On the morning of Feb 22, the Chinese government leased two Greek ships to sail to Libya and the vessels departed at 6:50 pm that same day. "The efficiency was unimaginable," as in normal circumstances the process should take days, said Luo.

These seemingly unrelated but ultimately linked occurrences demonstrate a couple of things. First, China would waste the Philippines if hostilities broke out given the former's vastly superior resources. Second, China is still canny in using other diplomatic avenues to win over Philippine friends such as by helping the evacuation of RP nationals from Libya. Third, the Spratly islands issue is not yet out of the limelight, though you'd wish they'd come up with a lasting diplomatic solution sooner or later.

BTW: There is video footage available of the Philippines' modest installation in the disputed islands.

UPDATE: The Philippines is thinking of sending an envoy to China to discuss things. The Reed Bank itself is not being contested according to reports, but the waters in which the incident took place are, hence the entanglement.

Killer Apps of Western Society Meet the Middle East

Say what you will about self-described "punk Tory" commentator Niall Ferguson (to which my boss Michael Cox calls himself a "baroque Trotskyite"[!]), but no one can argue that self-promotion is one of his weaknesses. After attending his Tuesday night lecture at the LSE, I was struck by the historian's assertion that the conventional shorthand that Islamic faith has limited Middle Eastern development is just that--an intellectual shortcut.

In an op-ed in the Evening Standard to help promote his new book (and TV series), he goes through great innovations and empires emanating from Islamic cultures. More contemporaneously, however, he goes into how a failure to transplant the signal features of Western rise will probably mean that even the toppling of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East won't result in a neoconservative vision of paradise. For him, the extent to which Asian nations have achieved a semblance of development probably boils down to imbibing killer apps of Western civilization (his terminology, not mine):

In Civilization, my new Channel 4 series and book, I argue that what distinguished the West from the rest - the mainsprings of global power - were six big ideas: competition; science; property rights; medicine; the consumer society; and the work ethic. To use the language of today's computerised, synchronised world, these were the six killer applications - the killer apps - that, taken together, allowed a minority of mankind, originating on the western edge of Eurasia, to dominate the world for the better part of 500 years.

The Muslim world was not incapable of downloading at least some of these apps. Go to Istanbul today and you'll encounter a remarkably dynamic and competitive economy. Go to Tehran and you'll meet - actually, probably not - scientists capable of enriching uranium. Go to Dubai and you'll see state-of-the-art hospitals and glittering shopping malls. But killer apps three and six - property rights and the work ethic - are more or less invisible. Unemployment and under-employment are staggeringly high in most of the Muslim world. And there are few places where it is harder to establish secure legal title to private property, or to start a new business, than Egypt.

The weakness of property rights is part of the reason for poor economic performance in Arab countries. But it is also a key cause of democratic failure. That's because democracy tends only to work in societies that have already laid the right foundations: a substantial property-owning middle class and a well-developed civil society of free associations, free political parties and a free press. The problem in the Arab world is not that Muslims live there. The problem is that where the West led, the Middle East has - thus far - failed to follow.

OK, so many of these ideas are not entirely original and are observable in works of classic political economy. Qualms aside, though, I'm sure that Niall Ferguson will be selling no small amount of books and TV documentaries by building on the hoopla he of course is thoroughly capable of generating.

Reform Interruptus: IMF Kudos for Pre-Crisis Libya

This post is a follow-up to one I have just made on the reformist direction Libya was headed prior to the present crisis. In no small part due to Saif al-Islam Qadhafi's prodding, there were indications that the state was indeed normalizing itself as a market-based economy.

From the last (meaning previous, one hopes) Article IV IMF consultation dated 9 February 2011, we gather a number of interesting factoids:

An ambitious program to privatize banks and develop the nascent financial sector is underway. Banks have been partially privatized, interest rates decontrolled, and competition encouraged. Ongoing efforts to restructure and modernize the CBL are underway with assistance from the Fund. Capital and financial markets, however, are still underdeveloped with a very limited role in the economy. There are no markets for government or private debt and the foreign exchange market is small.

Structural reforms in other areas have progressed. The passing in early 2010 of a number of far- reaching laws bodes well for fostering private sector development and attracting foreign direct investment. The success of the new laws, however, hinges on promoting inter-agency coordination and open consultation with the legal and business communities, and establishing permanent bodies to monitor, assess, and oversee implementation. A comprehensive civil service reform is needed to facilitate more effective wage and employment policies that would address the needs of a young and growing labor force.

Recent developments in neighboring Egypt and Tunisia have had limited economic impact on Libya so far [sure...whatever]. To counter the impact of higher global food prices, the government abolished, on January 16, taxes and custom duties on locally-produced and imported food products. Later in January, the government also announced the creation of a large multi-billion dollar fund for investment and local development that will focus on providing housing for the growing population.

Call it Bretton Woods postcards from the edge. So the IMF observed two trends it welcomed in moving away from reliance on oil revenues for growth and towards private sector employment to provide work to a young population. I guess the speed at which it had moved towards both has not proven to be fast enough to outrace regional events:

Executive Directors agreed with the thrust of the staff appraisal. They welcomed Libya’s strong macroeconomic performance and the progress on enhancing the role of the private sector and supporting growth in the non-oil economy. The fiscal and external balances remain in substantial surplus and are expected to strengthen further over the medium term, and the outlook for Libya’s economy remains favorable. Directors saw as the main challenges the need to provide employment opportunities for a young and growing labor force, and the steadfast implementation of reforms to diversify the economy and reduce the high dependence on oil revenue.

The entire text is not very long and is well worth reading for a glimpse of the Libya just before tumult engulfed the Gulf. The dry text aside, you can see why even the Washington-based pooh-bahs welcomed the direction it was heading. Again, how would you have helped normalize global relations with a pariah state but through commercial exchanges? The Qadhafi clan's siege mentality to recent events is a regrettable regression, though recent indications suggested that Libya was indeed headed in a different direction. Go ask the IMF.

Critics of those who sought to de-isolate Libya should remember that. To paraphrase a certain commercial, this was becoming less and less Moammar's country.

Bad Timing: PM Cameron in Mideast Selling Arms

The British press is having a field day with the coalition government's apparent delay in retrieving its citizens from Libya. Delay aside, let's say there are a lot of incidents suggesting the government was caught unawares. Foreign Secretary William Hague made a gaffe a few days ago in suggesting Moammar Qadhafi was on his way to Venezuela to join his good friend Hugo Chavez. Meanwhile, Deputy PM Nick Clegg forgot he was in charge while Cameron was away on...an interesting business trip.

As it turns out, part of the reason for the slack government response has been PM David Cameron being away on business in the Middle East. Among the wares he was hawking on behalf of British industrialists included, er, weaponry. While the UK decries what's happening in Libya with the ruling Qadhafi clan in last stand mode, it's probable that arms the current government continued to sell to Libya figure into Qadhafi's current repression. From Defence Management [!]:

Prime Minister David Cameron has defended the decision to bring arms industry representatives with him on a trade mission to the Middle East. Cameron has been criticised for taking BAE Systems chief executive Ian King and representatives of Thales, Qinetiq and Rolls-Royce on his current Middle East trade mission. Weapons sold by the UK had reportedly been used to suppress civilians in Libya and other countries affected by civil unrest in recent weeks.

Speaking in Kuwait, Cameron said: "A properly regulated trade in defence is nothing we should be ashamed of.,,The fact that there are British defence companies on this visit – BAE, Thales and others – is perfectly right in this regard...We have probably the toughest set of export rules probably anywhere in the world. It is obviously difficult to get it right on every occasion."

Defence Secretary Liam Fox earlier said the UK should get "a healthy slice" of arms exports in the Middle East within certain ethical limits.Speaking after a speech at thinktank Civitas, Fox said that there were always a "great deal of unknowns" and that each export should be dealt with on "a case-by-case basis."

"We have to recognise that countries have a right of self-defence and not all of them have a defence industry so they will always buy externally," he said. "I want to make sure the United Kingdom - within the limits that we set ourselves ethically on defence exports - is getting a healthy slice of that."

The New Statesman juxtaposes matters thusly:

In his speech to the Kuwaiti National Assembly on 22 February, David Cameron appeared to acknowledge the limits of the policy so far when he declared that "denying people their basic rights does not preserve stability, rather the reverse". But the Prime Minister's laudable words were undermined by his decision to travel to the region with eight of Britain's leading arms manufacturers [out of 30 concerns]. To his critics, Mr Cameron replied: "A properly regulated trade in defence is nothing we should be ashamed of." Yet the presence of Gerald Howarth, a defence minister, at an arms fair in Abu Dhabi - where British companies sold tear gas, stun grenades and rubber bullets for the purposes of "crowd control" - was something to be ashamed of. Rather than delaying action until the moment governments open fire on their own people, as happened in Bahrain and Libya, ministers should declare an immediate arms embargo.

Talk about corporate social responsibility issues galore. It's a hard decision to make on several levels. Defence industries provide employment. Oftentimes, they also lie at the forefront of research and development that are crucial to enhancing much-ballyhooed international competitiveness. How do you channel these two positively without selling these wares to such regimes? This balancing act is certainly a difficult one.

UPDATE: Sarkozy too was keen on selling arms to Libya.

LSE Alum Saif Qadhafi, Libyan Michael Corleone?

Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in - Al Pacino as "Michael Corleone" in The Godfather III.

When I was a wee lad, my uncle who was a big fan of The Godfather series forced me to watch these movies with him when I would much rather have watched The Smurfs. Being older--wiser I am not so sure of--I have gained a grudging appreciation for a genre that was already hackneyed in its heyday. We follow Michael Corleone, scion of a family with a colourful history, evolve. Although he tried to move on, make the Corleone name shed its past and go legitimate--events, dear boy, events conspire to bring him back to confront the skeletons in the closet that have piled up over several years.

Khaddafy, Khaddafi, Qaddafi, Gaddafi, Qadhafi, ...who knows what the correct English equivalent is? I have long grappled with this question as the transliteration of this name has never been constant in Western media. For obvous reasons, an old post of mine about Saif al-Islam Qadhafi has received a lot of hits in recent days. To recount, Said Qadhafi is of particular interest to the LSE crowd since he received a PhD from our government department not too long ago. What's more, he was apparently impressed enough with our programmes to give the Global Governance unit a donation of £1.5 million. As you can imagine, it was the cause of much consternation among LSE bigwigs back then. Recent events may have even vindicated the late Fred Halladay who expressed caution. No matter; it's all done and dusted now.

PhD students generally do not lead exciting lives, but Saif al-Islam Qadhafi was an exception. He successfully helped negotiate for the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi over health grounds. Though subsequent WikiLeaks indicate that Tripoli applied pressure on London, which then twisted the arm of the supposedly devolved Scottish administration in Edinburgh, involvement in freeing a terrorist is clearly not part of average grad student life. Alike the British government with its concern with business deals, the LSE has benefited from the Libyan connection in other ways. Our consulting arm organized a series of training events for Libyan bureaucrats.

At that stage, it looked like a win-win: Libya was turning its back on being an international pariah. It even attained an investment grade credit rating in 2009. You could have imagined a neat story for Libya: it would have become more of a conventional state as it opened up to foreign businesses wishing to invest in this energy-rich state. Meanwhile, the reformist Saif al-Islam Qadhafi would continue moving his country on a moderate, daresay even democratic path. Working in academia, I've also contemplated the issues behind receiving funding from sources some would consider questionable.

It is during the turmoil in the Middle East / North Africa that events proved unkind to such scenarios. Just as Michael Corleone was a victim of events, it appears the same can be said of another favoured son--not the eldest, likewise--with Saif al-Islam Qadhafi. As the protesters mounted their challenge, he soon appeared on TV speaking of "thousands of deaths" and "rivers of blood." Apparently, this was the last straw for the folks at Global Governance as it decided not to receive any more money from Saif al-Islam Qadhafi's foundation. David Held, co-director of Global Governance, was also rather shocked by the TV appearance:

Professor David Held probably knows more about the beliefs of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, son of the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, than anyone else in Britain. For four years, Held was an informal academic adviser to Saif, who has warned in an address on state television that protesters in Tripoli will be eradicated if they continue their unrest.

"Watching Saif give that speech – looking so exhausted, nervous and, frankly, terrible – was the stuff of Shakespeare and of Freud: a young man torn by a struggle between loyalty to his father and his family, and the beliefs he had come to hold for reform, democracy and the rule of law..." Held was not Saif's tutor during his years at the LSE but the young man frequently sought out the professor for advice on his PhD, which called for greater democracy in global governance.

The discussions were passionate and often "very, very heated", Held said. "When I first met Saif, he was struggling with himself and his place in the world, in the context of his family. By the end of his time at the LSE, he had discovered a deep commitment to liberal democratic reform of his country. "The man giving that speech wasn't the Saif I had got to know well over those years. The Saif I knew will be in turmoil over the beliefs he had to betray in order to demonstrate his support to his father. "My support for Saif was always conditional on him resolving the dilemma that he faced in a progressive and democratic direction. The speech makes it abundantly clear that his commitment to transforming his country has been overwhelmed by the crisis he finds himself in."

Held remembers Saif as man with a curiosity for knowledge and a huge appetite for reading and learning. "He always wanted to test arguments for his views, always wanted to engage in dialogue," said Held. But the professor was appalled by the contrast between the relaxed, charming student who took a masters in comparative politics at LSE and a PhD in philosophy and the man who scorned protesters on Monday, talking of "drunkards and thugs" driving tanks about the streets of Benghazi.

"I was appalled to see him on the television. That young man was not the person I knew: the funny, witty man who, while always guarded about his family, was always willing to talk frankly with me about the fundamental questions about his own country and the Middle East in general," said Held. "Saif arrived at the LSE very set in his opinions. I was of the view that here was a relatively unformed young man, struggling to make sense of his life as a member of the Gaddafi family and someone who was also increasingly aware that the democratic reform of his country was essential to its continued existence. Over a period of time, however, he showed every sign of being committed not just to opening up his country but reforming it on liberal democratic principles."

Held pointed out that, far from just talking the talk, Saif put his newfound beliefs into action. He played a key role in opening Libya to the west, in helping to disarm his country when it looked capable of developing a nuclear programme, and in coming to a settlement over the Lockerbie plane bombing. When campaigning organisation Human Rights Watch planned to launch its report on Libya from Cairo, Saif arranged for its staff to present the report in the country's second biggest city, Benghazi.

"The Saif I came to know was one committed to strong liberal values and democratic standards," Held said. "He looked very much to Britain and to the US for inspiration and he certainly was passionately committed to constitutional reform of his country, the rule of law, to democratic elections and to human rights.

"After his speech on Monday, there is no way now in which he can be a credible agent of reform. He was developing a set of democratic and liberal beliefs and he was putting those into practice. He saw them as seeds – as a stepping stone for the reform of his country...The only way I can make sense of his speech is that the speed of change in the Middle East has caught him unawares and overwhelmed him. The position he has taken compromised him in every way, and made him the enemy of ideals he once proclaimed."

Let me say that, had I been in Professor Held's shoes, I'd have done the same things. As an academic with limited sway, how else do you help normalize the rest of the world's relations with a country like Libya? Also, Saif al-Islam Qadhafi's foundation has done a lot of good work that most Westerners don't often recognize. Take the Telegraph (please). For instance, in our part of the world, it has helped broker reconciliation talks in the restive Southern Philippines between Christians and Muslims. In this day and age, must a son be identified as being one and the same as the father?

They say that truth is stranger than fiction, but it seems that truth has emulated fiction in the rather sad case of Saif al-Islam Qadhafi. Despite the best intentions--and you know what they say about those--he's come undone by events that culminated in an ill-judged TV appearance, to say the least. Say what you will about the LSE, but it's usually never dull when you're at the epicentre of global events.

UPDATE 1: Some of our militant students have made a sit-in protest demanding that the LSE return the £300,000 contributed by Saif al-Islam Qadhafi's foundation and that his alumni status be revoked.

UPDATE 2: Aside from being slow on affairs in this part of the world in typical American commentariat fashion, Martin Peretz fails to make distinctions made above.