I also wonder if there is not some degree of hypocrisy in the approach of critics of the LSE.
I smell a degree of hypocrisy because if not for this unprecedented uprising in Libya and Ghadaffi's disastrous response, this LSE/ British government deal is likely to have been seen as evidence of enlightenment on the part of the Libyan government.
After all, to go for training at the lSE, one of the bastions of Western educational and cultural hegemonic power cannot but signal a readiness to immerse oneself in the values of this hegemonic civilization, values that will make those officials so trained more amenable to implementing policies that represent those values back home. That is a far cry from the cultural reductiveness of the Taliban and the equation of the West with evil from some perspectives.
So, what really, is there to be embarrassed about?
When Saddam Hussein was being demonised by the US and its allies, preparing the public consciousness for the assault that would destroy his government, brutalize his country, murder his sons and execute him through a trial the results of which were as clear as the sun from the beginning, in the name of WMD that would never be found, ostensibly based on evidence that would later be publicly declared to be false by the source of that evidence , a company that used to sell Saddam arms argued that their business was legitimate, morally speaking, because at the time they sold him arms, he was seen by Western governments as a good guy.
Now Ghaddafi is known to have made efforts to align himself with Western political orientations in the time of the terror inspired by 'shock and awe' president George Bush, whom none wanted coming to knock at one's door after his adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, so it was expedient to show that one was not going to be troublesome.
Having made his obeisance to the powers that be, Ghadaffi was free to continue in power till whenever, no one would speak up, including Bush who claimed he was taking democracy to the Middle East,.
So why is the LSE head resigning? Is he resigning to deflect attention from the British government, a kind of sacrifice to public consciousness?
"This issue is damaging the reputation of the school – it should be a place of learning – not at the centre of unscrupulous dealings with Libyan regime."
How is it unscrupulous? Libya came to an education merchant to purchase services in a publicly negotiated deal.
The LSE deal is a very good idea. The Libyan government might do well to continue with it. It would expose the Libyans to a more cosmopolitan learning environment than they are likely to have in Libya, an environment at the centre of global scholarship in the social sciences and the humanities, in a city that is a global cultural crossroads.
Even after Ghadaffi leaves, they would do well to develop the idea.That kind of education is not likely to encourage a dictatorial mentality.
I wish such a point was made instead of the LSE being embarrassed.
What of those who sold Ghaddafi weapons? Are they to resign too or did Libya manufacture all its weapons, aircraft and ships?
It looks unlikely to me that Libya would make such a large investment in training for its political elite at the LSE,an institution described as playing an important role in the formation of English polItical ideology, without the express understanding of and active collaboration with the British government.
Ghaddafi has become an embarrassment, so people dont want to be known to have had dealings with him, not even beceause of the rebellion but beceause of his desperately murderous response to it.
Its a shame that an idea that shows a willingness on the part of Ghaddafi to expand the intellectual and cultural scope of the Libyan political class is now being understood as something to be ashamed of by his erstwhile partners in educational development.
Meanwhile, the blood of the victims of China's Tianammen Square massacre continues to cry out. Victims making demands similar to those being made in North Africa/the Levant/Middle East but who lacked the momentum to succeed, and whose government is much more invested in the perpetuation of dictatorship than even Ghadaffi seems to be.
thanks
toyin
On 3 March 2011 20:59, Hetty ter Haar <oldavenue@googlemail.com> wrote:
LSE head quits over Gaddafi scandal
London School of Economics director Howard Davies resigns after fresh
allegations over institution's links to Libyan regime
Jeevan Vasagar and Rajeev Syal
Thursday 3 March 2011 20.36 GMT
Howard Davies has resigned as director of the London School of
Economics. Photograph: Eamonn Mccabe for the Guardian
A deepening row over the London School of Economics and its dealings
with the Gaddafi regime has claimed the career of the university's
director.
Sir Howard Davies resigned over fresh revelations that the institution
had been involved in a deal to train hundreds of young Libyans to
become part of the country's future elite. Davies admitted at the
start of this week that he felt embarrassed about the university's
ties with the dictator's family.
A leaked US diplomatic cable indicates that the British government was
also party to the deal to bring 400 Libyans to Britain for leadership
training. The cable, published by WikiLeaks, suggests that other UK
universities were involved in similar schemes, though there is no
independent confirmation of this.
The university's reputation has taken a battering over links with the
Libyan regime, which include a donation of £1.5m from a charitable
foundation run by one of Muammar Gaddafi's sons, Saif al-Islam, who
studied at the LSE. On Tuesday, the LSE agreed to put £300,000,
equivalent to the cash it has received from the foundation, into a
scholarship for north African students.
But that was not enough to draw a line under the affair. On Thursday
morning, a report of the WikiLeaks claims was circulated to members of
the LSE council, its governing body in advance of a crisis meeting on
Thursday night.
In September 2009, US diplomats were told by Libya's national economic
development board: "The NEDB is cooperating with the UK government and
the London School of Economics, among other UK institutions, on an
exchange program to send 400 'future leaders' of Libya for leadership
and management training."
A Libyan official told the diplomats that, apparently as part of the
same deal: "Two hundred and fifty additional Libyan 'future leaders'
would also be trained in Libya. Likewise, the NEDB is working with
universities in the United States (Michigan State and elsewhere), the
UK, and France to manage exchange programs for 90 young Libyan
diplomats (30 Libyan diplomats are currently being trained in each
country)."
The official, Faouzi Saleh Elmozogi, said the NEDB "had also sent 70
Libyan judges to the UK to study English language and international
law".
The Foreign Office confirmed that the NEDB had sent 70 Libyan judges
and 30 diplomats to the LSE to study English language and
international law.
It remained unclear whether these were in addition to the 400 "future
leaders" agreed as part of a £1m deal to train the dictatorship's
elite.
A diplomatic source said: "The Foreign Office was aware of the deal.
But it was a purely private arrangement and was not something that the
Foreign Office was intimately involved with."
The source added that as far as the Foreign Office was aware, the LSE
was the only British university involved in the Libyan leaders'
programme.
These revelations put fresh pressure on Davies, who had begun the week
attempting to salvage the LSE's reputation with an act of contrition.
He appeared on BBC Radio 4's Today programme to say: "We thought that
since he [Saif al-Islam] was not going to control the research that
this was a reasonable thing to do and this was supported widely in the
school.
"It was debated at some length. We took a risk on that and I think
it's right to say that that risk backfired on us.
"I feel embarrassed about it but I don't think the decision was made
without due consideration at the time."
The LSE has separately confirmed it was investigating claims that Saif
Gaddafi had plagiarised parts of his doctoral thesis, allegations that
have caused further embarrassment.
On Tuesday, after a meeting of the LSE council, the university said in
a statement that the governing body had endorsed the director's
decisions to date.
It said that the Gaddafi grant proposal had been "agreed by the
council for reasons which appeared sound at that time".
The LSE has come under pressure from its students to return the
Gaddafi donation.
Ashok Kumar, the education officer of the LSE students' union said :
"The recent revelations have shone a light on one part of the
relationship between the upper echelons of the LSE and the Gaddafi
family, which is deeper and more perverse than we would have ever
imagined.
"This issue is damaging the reputation of the school – it should be a
place of learning – not at the centre of unscrupulous dealings with
Libyan regime."
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2011
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment