The discussion was focused on Libya but fairly wide-ranging and really fast-paced; a lot of time with Q&A type events, audience members can be a bit...long-winded with their questions, spending a lot of time setting them up by outlining their own opinion/experiences. Tonight, though, the questions were very quick, sharp and interesting - none of the soft touch stuff about the role of Twitter.
Anyone who follows me on Twitter has probably already been subjected to my live-tweeting of the event (sorry, work), so I won't re-cap it. But I was very interested in the stuff that came up about Muammar Gaddafi's son, Saif al Islam Gaddafi. I think Saif represents everything that is uncomfortable about Libya for western countries. He was a well-educated, charitable and relatively liberal man who seemed genuinely interested in reform in his country. He was, on the surface, a respectable person to do business with, to accept money from, to partner with. Except, then he wasn't.
This has been the narrative of our political class as well. After Libya dismantled its nuclear programme in 2003/2004, it became acceptable to do business with Muammar Gadaffi again, to pointedly ignore the lack of democracy and the human rights abuses in the country. Sure, Gaddafi was seen as a bit of a nut, but he was endured. Libya was even elected to the UN Human Rights Council just last April. Libya was alright, all things considered, until, of course, it wasn't.
The panel tonight had some polarised views on Saif. David Held opened by explaining his relationship with Said; they had worked quite closely together in the partnerships LSE had with Saif's charitable foundation, and Held said he was appalled by Saif's February 20 speech and shocked by how little it turned out he knew of him. But he also said that Saif had been genuine about the reforms he was trying to implement - that, essentially, it had come down to choosing between his father and everyone else, and he had chosen his father. Richard Dalton said much the same thing - from a British foreign policy perspective, Saif was ideal to deal with and used his foundation to support real issues aimed at genuine change.
Benotman took a less kind but still fairly moderate view, which was a bit surprising for someone who was once actively involved in trying to bring down the Gaddafi regime. He, too, felt that the reforms Saif had been interested in were genuine, but pointed out that they were still meant to be implemented in the context of the Gaddafi regime. Improving democracy or human rights would not, in Saif's view, have in any way involved removing his father from power or giving up control. Benotman said Saif had a choice between the new and the old way, and that he had chosen - historically - to side not just with his father but with the entire old power structure and way of viewing the country, something much more significant than simple family loyalty.
Bishara, though, had the most scathing words for Saif Gaddafi and they really made me think about the way the media portrayed him. He said Saif was a playboy - cosmopolitan, well-traveled, well-educated, yes, but all this and 'charitable' with money that was not his. "He charmed the west at the expense of the Libyan people," Bishara said. There is nothing good or moral about a playboy, and Saif proved in the end that he is his father's son - nothing but the son of a dictator and a thug. Telling here is the fact that I've never in mainstream media heard Saif described this way (well, those exact words I wouldn't expect in an objective article anyway); he's always been seen as the acceptable public face of the Gaddafi regime, as a somewhat liberal, reform type - the way Held and Dalton described him. There's always been talk of his foundation, his charity, and never questions about where that money comes from. After all, what has Saif al Islam Gaddafi ever done to earn the millions he uses to fund projects and aid flotillas, to study at top universities? It was maybe always assumed as obvious that the money came from his father, but never pointed out that Muammar Gaddafi was not from a wealthy family, that the only access to wealth came from his access to the wealth of the state. Like the political class, the western media has now turned on Saif, but at some point it should examine why it was so easy to go along with the acceptable face he presented without question.
On a lighter note, Bishara did compare the Gaddafi family to the Kardashians, saying that he had seen their TV show and saw similarities between the sponging, drunken, playboy brother and Saif - meaning for years the Arab world had been "Keeping up with the Gaddafians".
No comments:
Post a Comment