Democracy from above

Two articles,  a long one in the NY Times and a shorter, somewhat less confident one in The Guardian,  take the German government to task for not joining the coalition bombing and enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya.  The papers quote leading German newspapers and former politicians stating that the decision not to participate in the action over Libya was a grand mistake.  The primary reason why Germany should join the action--because everyone else is doing it. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/world/europe/24germany.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/24/germans-disquiet-absence-libya-action?INTCMP=SRCH

No compelling case is made concerning the Libyan people, the future of democracy, or the humanitarian suffering to be averted.  Instead the argument runs like this:  all your friends are in the coalition, you should join as well, otherwise you won't be invited next time there is a party (or seat on the UN Security Council, permanent or otherwise).  I have gone to parties with the thought "If I don't go this time, I won't get invited back."  Lame excuse to get me out of the house, but sometimes I wind up having fun.   The same reason can not and should not be the basis for armed military intervention. 

Merkel and Westerwelle are spoiling their relations with France, England, Turkey and the US.  Never mind that the French have abstained from participating in any number of NATO endeavors over the life of the alliance.  True, Westerwelle is probably more interesting in giving himself the profile of an independent-minded foreign secretary, one who does not cave in to allied pressure but who weighs the situation for himself.  Yes, Westerwelle is copying Gerhard Schroeder's trick of abstaining from US military actions in the Middle East.  It worked brilliantly for Schroeder when he ran against George Bush in Germany; it probably won't get Westerwelle as many points running against Obama in the upcoming election.

Aside from these tactical calculations, there is the real democratic point that a very large majority of the German population is opposed to German military intervention in Libya.  The Guardian acknowledges that Germans really don't want to go to war again and that the Afghanistan expedition is profoundly unloved in Germany.  The NY Times wants to argue past this fact.  Neither article considers whether British or American popular opinion supports military engagement in Libya.

It is almost as if the two newspapers are advocating that Germany, as well as other governments, should ignore the popular, anti-militarist opinion of their own populace even as NATO is supposedly fighting to defend the democratic will of the Libyan people.   Ignore democratic will in order to defend it.

Politicians as Students

Universities cannot compete in high-level politics, but they have a financial need to do so.

As European and American universities are racing each other to establish a top-tier of elite institutions that will command respect globally, they have increasingly enjoyed the attention of politicians, who want the caché of an academic degree and a smooth rhetorical command over complex political discourse. Seems like a nice match, but alas in their eagerness to show that they attract the upper echelon to their seminars, universities have gotten themselves caught in political fights they have no control over.

Saif, son of Khadaffi, ruler of Libya, and the doctorate he earned from the London School of Economics provides the clearest example these days. As of this last week, the LSE is distancing itself as quickly as possible from its former student. Yet not too long ago, there was a lot of understated, self-congratulatory talk that the institution was grooming the next ruler of Libya.

After the uprising in Libya and Saif's defense of his father's crack down, the professorial tone has changed dramatically. Never mind the minor controversy about whether he received help from a consulting company or whether financial donations had any role to play in his education, as this week's broadcasts from Tripoli show, the Enlightened son speaks of civil war and blood flowing, in order to justify his father stomping out democracy.

What was the title of Saif's dissertation? "The Role of Civil Society in the Democratisation of Global Governance Institutions: From 'Soft Power' to Collective Decision-Making?" In other words, the transition to democracy Saif and his professors discussed is now underway in a surprisingly radical way ---and there is no soft power coming from the guns of mercenaries defending the old regime.

The contradiction between the content of the dissertation and the political repression its author condones is too much for the university, but what can they really do about it?

Similarly the University of Bayreuth is back-peddling from the German defense minister, who, as everyone now recognizes, presented a plagiarized dissertation to earn a doctorate. To top it off, and to make the comparison with Saif even more explicit, there are questions whether Guttenberg arranged a donation for an endowed professorship in the same institute where he earned his PhD.

The major difference: The London School of Economics attracts the ruling elite from around the world whereas the University of Bayreuth plays in a lesser league.

But here is a lesson for the admissions committees: When these scandals erupt, there is almost nothing a university can do except retreat. They have no means of actively engaging in a power struggle except to refuse to participate, to preserve their autonomy. We have little or no influence on what students do once they graduate.

As Voltaire and any number of Enlightenment intellectuals learned, educating the prince, even if you are sleeping with him, never works out well.

American universities do operate their own kind of soft power: they have remarkably sophisticated means of tracking former students and they know how to inspire nostalgia and idealism for a lost youth. But the donations that follow these emotions are made long after the degrees have been granted, and they have more to do with first kisses and football games than with changing the face of Middle East democracy.

Invade Libya, or not

Invade Libya. You know Sarkozy is talking about it with his advisors right now. Someone is calling Angela Merkel's assistant to check what she thinks. The State Department has been sounded out, they have first dibs on invading Muslim nations after all.

The initial reports are that Europe is not excluding the possibility of undertaking an humanitarian intervention:

http://www.faz.net/s/Rub87AD10DD0AE246EF840F23C9CBCBED2C/Doc~E47BBA80825954D448673557FB3778E0E~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html

NATO Secretary General, Rasmussen, states there are no plans to intervene, but with every denial comes its antithesis, and the French defense minister, Alain Juppe, has suggested taking action, in the form of sanctions, to prevent further humanitarian violations.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/02/libya-protests-5.html

Yet there is a cardinal rule in politics: when your opponent is self-destructing, get out of the way.

What better way to save Khadaffi than to turn him into a defender of national security. Right now his opponents are citizens of his own country and the military is wavering in their resolve to shoot. This has obviously been the key to the entire democratic movement in the Middle East: armies who do not wish to massacre the people.

Given the prospect of French, British or German ( I doubt it) troops in Libya, the situation would change dramatically. The Libyan army and air force would snap to attention and obey the commands of the supreme leader to defend the nation against colonialist aggressors using this moment of domestic turmoil to invade.

The best policy is to let the democratic revolution unfold without reviving French or even Turkish fantasies of Mediterranean hegemony. So long as Khadaffi is in power it would be madness to present him with a rallying cry for the nation. Right now he is blaming the uprising on Al-Kaeda and Nescafe spiked with Ecstasy. Better to leave him to his mad delusions than to give him a ideological lifeline.