Avast Ye Furriners! Arab Spring and 'Saudization'

One of the more interesting angles that migration researchers have focused on in recent years has been that of South-South migration. While the common perception we have of economic migration is of those from developing countries travelling to developed countries, about half of all migration occurs between developing countries themselves. That is, there are gradations of economic development and opportunity between, say, Ukraine and Russia or Bangladesh and India.

It is well-known that workers with various skill levels ranging from Sri Lankan construction workers at one end to British bankers at the other have travelled to the Middle East in droves over several decades. Aside from providing manpower that relatively small countries there lack, they provide technical expertise not necessarily found among Mideast elites. Right? Well, maybe not for so much longer. As the Arab Spring seems to be demonstrating, there is a lack of employment opportunities for Arab youth in many of the MENA countries, often resulting in outpourings of negative sentiment against monarchical classes. But, it also poses the question of how much citizens of these countries would tolerate '3D'-type jobs: difficult, dangerous or dirty.

As a student of regional integration schemes, one of the common refrains you get from the Gulf Cooperation Council is to hire less foreign workers and employ more locals. Like in other regions, skilled migration that aims to keep talent within the Middle East is a common objective. Here is a typical example:

Implementing the Supreme Council’s resolution in the previous session with regard to employment of the national work force, and in order to facilitate their mobility from one Member State to another; and with a view to increasing the job opportunities for the GCC citizens and to nationalize jobs in the various sectors, and to achieve coordination among the Member States in this field, the Supreme Council approved the views of the Consultative Commission in this regard. The Council decided to assign the Consultative Commission with the task of undertaking an evaluation of the process of joint action in the field of economy, asking it to present its views in the 21st session of the Supreme Council.

Again, it seems the Arab Spring has spurred efforts to employ more locals. Take Saudi Arabia, for instance. For years and years, Saudi Arabia has been among the top destinations for Filipino migrants. While they have a fairly vast range of skill levels, Philippine employment authorities are keeping a close eye on lower-skilled migration in particular as a programme of 'Saudization' takes place. Various news outlets have bandied about massive figures on how much Saudi powers-that-be are spending to buy off dissent and discontent; some say this amounts to up to $130 billion. But, aside from that massive sum, how do you create a more sustainable way of dealing with pent-up demand for domestic employment? Answer: you finally deliver on promises to hire fewer foreigners and more nationals. From the Philippine Star:

The implementation of the new hiring policy in Saudi Arabia, also known as the “Saudization” program, may displace 90,000 low-skilled workers, the Department of Labor and Employment said yesterday. Labor Secretary Rosalinda Baldoz said the Philippine government is assessing the impact of the new policy on Filipino workers employed by small establishments.

The Saudi Labor Ministry is classifying 300,000 local companies into four categories: excellent and green (complying companies), and yellow and red (non-complying companies). Local firms will be required to hire a minimum number of Saudi citizens. The categorization is expected to be completed on Aug. 30.

Baldoz assured Filipinos employed in Saudi that the government is prepared to act on the challenge of the new policy. She said the Philippine labor offices in the kingdom are educating Filipino workers on the impact of the program.

So they're even going to colour-code firms based on certain hiring criteria of Saudis--the exact formula is not exactly known. (There's also the assertion of Philippine central bankers that many of those heading to Saudi Arabia are now more highly-skilled to contend with.) However, one thing I will readily concede is that there is likely a sizeable number of young unemployed locals. Arab News offers this take on 'Saudization':

Saudi Arabia announced Sunday new plans to intensify the Saudization of jobs in private companies as part of efforts to reduce the unemployment rate. According to official statistics, there are more than 448,000 Saudi jobseekers, including women, in a country with eight million expatriate workers.

Labor Minister Adel Fakieh said private companies would be classified into green, yellow and red categories considering their performance in the Saudization of jobs. “We have set out new standards to assess the employment of Saudis in private firms. We have differentiated between companies that have achieved high Saudization rates and those refusing to employ Saudis,” he said.

He said companies in the red category would be prevented from renewing work visas of their expatriate workers while companies in the green category would be allowed to select foreign workers in the other two categories and transfer their sponsorship without the approval of theirs employers.

Fakieh said the new Saudization plan has been designed to keep most private companies in the green category and considering the reality of the labor market. He said details of additional incentives given to Saudization-friendly green companies would be announced on June 11 on the ministry’s website.

It's not as if Saudization hasn't been tried before. Yet the aforementioned payments and wage hikes aside, the events currently engulfing the Gulf seems to have forced the Saudi authorities' hand in a more pronounced fashion:

The new measures came after Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah set up a high-level ministerial committee to find a quick way to employ the growing number of graduates in public and private sectors. The king increased the minimum salary of Saudis to SR3,000 and ordered payment of a SR2,000 monthly allowance for the jobless.

Fakieh acknowledged that the real number of the unemployed could be higher than 448,000, because of the increasing number of Saudi university graduates. He also pointed out that about six million of the country’s eight million expatriates work in the private sector. “These expatriate workers cost the Kingdom SR98 billion annually in terms of transfer of salaries to accounts in their respective countries,” the minister said. “They also put additional pressure on the country’s infrastructure and service sectors.”

Fakieh said there was a five-percent annual rise in the number of expatriate workers, which is double the size of annual Saudi population increase. “This increase of expatriates is causing imbalance in the job market and preventing Saudis to get jobs in private companies. Most companies prefer to employ expatriates as they are ready to accept low salaries,” he pointed out.

He said the new measures were taken as previous Saudization plans were not successful due to various reasons. Saudis working in private companies do not exceed more than 10 percent of the total workforce. He also pointed out that 84 percent of expatriate workers carry only secondary school certificates, adding that these unskilled expatriates could be replaced by Saudis gradually.

Fakieh said companies who had poor Saudization record would be given a time limit to change the situation before preventing them from enjoying the new facilities and incentives. “Saudization has become a national necessity rather than a choice,” the minister said, adding that it would boost the economy.

My question is simple and hearkens back to what I stated earlier: given that many of the jobs on offer will be to of the '3D' difficult, dangerous or dirty variety, what guarantee is there that Saudi nationals will readily fill these posts when foreigners will no longer be allowed to occupy them? For instance, the burgeoning number of university graduates is mentioned, but wouldn't they be seeking white-collar employment more than low-skilled work?

As they say, it's very much a work in progress.

Bahrain Brutality, But F1 Show Must Go On There

A few months ago I covered how the so-called Arab Spring protests in Bahrain scuttled the first Formula One race of 2011 that was to be held there on 13 March. While the local race organizers and F1 powers-that-be did not rule out holding the event at a later date in 2011, let's just say that many were sceptical that the race would indeed be held given current circumstances.

And so we find ourselves in the same place a few months later. Protester fatalities are still occurring that various reports put at more than two dozen. While martial law has recently been lifted, the Shiite majority still chafes under Sunni rule and protests are still ongoing. Yet both the local organizers and the FIA have now decided that "national reconciliation" demanded that the race be held. First we have the FIA statement:

Following a fact-finding mission undertaken at the request of FIA President Jean Todt, FIA Vice-President Carlos Gracia visited Bahrain on 31 May, 2011 to assess the situation in the country. Meetings were conducted with the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, the Bahrain Motor Federation and Bahrain International Circuit, as well as other national and international organisations including Mr. Tariq Al Saffar at the National Institute of Human Rights. It should be noted that the recent announcement by the King of Bahrain has established a political dialogue and reconciliation process.

After considering all the factors and taking into consideration all stakeholders' concerns, the WMSC unanimously agreed to reinstate the Bahrain Grand Prix in the 2011 FIA Formula One World Championship.

This decision reflects the spirit of reconciliation in Bahrain, which is evident from the strong support the race receives from the government and all major parties in Bahrain, including the largest opposition group, all of whom endorse the F1 grand prix and motorsport in the country.

The WMSC [World Motor Sports Council] feels that reinstating the grand prix is a means of helping to unite people as the country looks to move forward, and also recognises the commitment made by the F1 teams, their employees and families, and personnel associated with the championship including the local team of volunteers who are so vital to the event.

And so now the final race of the season will be in December, the inaugural Indian Grand Prix. Meanwhile, the Bahrainis also made similar-sounding noises about "national reconciliation":

The head of the Bahrain International Circuit (BIC) today welcomed the decision of the FIA (Federation Internationale de L’Automobile) World Motor Sport Council to reintroduce the Bahrain Grand Prix to the 2011 calendar. The decision, announced by the FIA after the Council’s meeting in Barcelona, follows a FIA delegation visit to Bahrain to assess the situation in country this week.

Zayed R. Alzayani, Chairman of the BIC, said: “This is welcome news for all of Bahrain. As a country we have faced a difficult time, but stability has returned; with businesses operating close to normal, the State of National Safety lifted and countries removing travel restrictions. “Collectively, we are in the process of addressing issues of national and international concern, and learning lessons from the recent past. By the time the Grand Prix arrives we will be able to remind the world about Bahrain at its best.

“The Bahrain Grand Prix has always been a source of national pride and it is an event than transcends politics. Not only does it receive strong support from the Government, but also from all major parties in Bahrain, including our largest opposition group, Al Wefaq, who yesterday endorsed both the BIC and motor-racing in Bahrain. Importantly, it will also offer a significant boost to the economy. The Grand Prix attracts 100,000 visitors, supports 3,000 jobs and generates around $500m of economic benefit. Its positive effect will be felt throughout the country.

The evidence for the usual plea to set politics aside is the major Shia opposition Al Wefaq party endorsing the staging of this grand prix. Then again, you have to wonder how closely Al Wefaq represents the more demonstrably opposed voices to continued Sunni rule. In short, did the authorities consult those most clearly associated with the protesters? There is, for instance, an online activist presence petitioning that the race not go forward with over 320,000 signatures already.

As the video clip in this BBC article points out, F1 impresario Bernie Ecclestone management company FOA stands to lose £21 million if the race isn't held, while the various teams would lose £24M. Ferrari alone it is said would lose £7M. Although Ecclestone says money has nothing to do with the decision to go on with the race later in the year, I leave it to you to figure that one out.

Meanwhile, two of the more conscientious F1 drivers are expressing dismay: retired 1996 champion Damon Hill and Red Bull Racing's Mark Webber (who already discouraged racing there earlier this year):

Before the announcement of Friday's decision, Red Bull driver Mark Webber had gone public with his opposition. "When people in a country are being hurt, the issues are bigger than sport," the Australian wrote on Twitter. Former world champion Damon Hill had expressed his personal view that F1 "will forever have the blight of association with repressive methods to achieve order" if it returns to Bahrain this season.

What price participation? BBC sports commentator Jonathan Legard believes F1 teams must dutifully follow where ringleader Ecclestone goes, public relations folly or otherwise:

The teams won't be happy but Bernie Ecclestone is the man who pays their bills and so they will go along with it. You risk running into another storm of civil unrest. Martial law has only been lifted there a couple of days ago and you wonder what Formula 1 is gaining by this return.

The Atlantic also has some good insights on this decision. With many more months till the race is held, this story is not yet over, and overt targeting of the race by protesters is certainly possible.

June 7 UPDATE: The Formula One Teams Association (FOTA) is not keen on racing in Bahrain. The emphasis of its complaint is on rearranging the calendar yet again, with the season being extended so late in the year through the reinstatement of the Bahrain event and the Indian Grand Prix being moved into December. Since such rearranging requires team assent, it looks like Bahrain is to be struck off the calendar (again). Meanwhile, the politicos have chimed in on the distastefulness of it all:

The FIA effectively has no choice but to accede to the teams' demands - although its World Council voted through the date changes last week, it did so without the full written agreement of the teams, which is constitutionally required. The FIA based its decision on a report written by one of its vice-presidents, Spaniard Carlos Gracia, who visited Bahrain. The report has now been leaked online.

MPs used a debate on the situation in the Middle East on Tuesday to criticise the FIA's decision to reschedule the race. Sir Menzies Campbell, the Lib Dems' former foreign affairs spokesman, said the decision was "simply shameful". Foreign Secretary William Hague added: "Formula 1 has not done itself any good by what has been announced. The important thing is to encourage all sides to get back into a real dialogue."

Whoever hatched this scheme must be under duress right about now.

World Bank Lends for Worker Repatriation from Libya

Well this is a somewhat newer form of lending that just shows you the increasing prominence of migration not only in the headlines but in development work in general. Once more, it seems our friends from Bangladesh have felt the brunt of global events. If there is a country that has been terribly unlucky with fate practically from its very inception, it's Bangladesh.

Unfortunately, no one should be surprised that many of our Bangladeshi colleagues find themselves stuck amidst an ongoing conflict in Libya. Unlike, say, the Philippines with its comparatively sizeable apparatus for handling economic migration, the public management of migration flows is less formal in Bangladesh. To help resolve matters, the country has now been granted loans by the World Bank's concessional lending arm the International Development Association (IDA) to fund repatriation from Libya. While nearly half are now safely home, some 36,000 or so remain in Libya:

The World Bank today approved $40 million for the Repatriation and Livelihood Restoration for Migrant Workers Project in support to the Government of Bangladesh for repatriation of its migrant workers escaping the ongoing conflict in Libya. In addition to bringing them back to their home country, the project will provide a one-time cash grant to help returning migrant workers meet immediate needs.

“Migrant laborers have contributed mightily to sustained growth and development in Bangladesh. Their remittances fuel domestic investments throughout the country and boost consumption to alleviate poverty,” said Ellen Goldstein, World Bank Country Director for Bangladesh. “It is fitting that Government would support them in their time of need, and the World Bank is pleased to be able to respond to Government's request for support within just a few weeks’ time.”

Libya has been a host-country for migrant workers from Bangladesh as well as from other countries in South Asia, East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and other countries in the Middle East and North Africa. An estimated 70,000-80,000 Bangladeshis were working in Libya before the crisis of which about 34,000 have since returned due to the security concerns.

The project will finance part of the cost of transport of returnees and provide a one-time $775 cash grant following their return to support their immediate needs while additional donor funds will help returning workers seek available employment opportunities.

“The crisis has created a very serious situation requiring humanitarian support by the international community,” Bernice Van Bronkhorst, Project Team Leader said. “For those who have only recently migrated, this crisis has not only rendered them penniless but heavily indebted. The project is designed to help them get back on their feet. ”

The $74.1 million project is supported by a $40.0 million World Bank Credit in conjunction with a government contribution of $4.6 million and $29.5 million by donors through the International Organization for Migration (IOM), which will implement the project on behalf of the Government of Bangladesh.

The credits from the International Development Association (IDA), the World Bank’s concessionary lending arm carries a maturity of 40 years with a 10-year grace period with a 0.75 percent service fee.

It's a sign of the times, I guess. Development concerns are a-changing, and migration is one of the more prominent items on today's checklist.

Mideast Migrant Spillover II: UK; Italy v France

On my walk home from work, I regularly pass by the statue of Bernard "Monty" Montgomery--a British war hero whose exploits in the desert sands made him famous. So, I just wanted to make a follow-up post on what I wrote on the "Pottery Barn" effect of European countries becoming involved (so there, I avoided using the word "intervention") in the Middle East / North Africa. We have two stories here. On a positive note, the land of Monty--Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein to be exact--appears to be returning to the desert in a big way. No, the UK isn't confronting Erwin Rommel's successor. Rather, it's supporting a ragtag army of rebels going up against the erstwhile Gadhafi regime. Given its involvement in the conflict, it's good the UK at least recognizes an obligation to evacuate the worst affected:

The UK is to help free 5,000 migrants trapped by fighting in western Libya, the UK's international development secretary has said. Andrew Mitchell said funds of £1.5m would pay to charter ships to get people out of the rebel-held town of Misrata and provide medical supplies. The minister is in New York attending a UN meeting to discuss the humanitarian situation in Libya.

Aid workers and Misrata residents have said the situation there is "dire". They have reported shortages of food, power, water and medicine, as forces loyal to Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi intensify their shelling of the city. The BBC's Barbara Plett, reporting from the United Nations, said some of the most desperate were thousands of migrant workers from the Middle East, Africa and South Asia.

Mr Mitchell said Britain would help fund their evacuation in ships chartered by the International Organization for Migration. Further funds would go towards the International Medical Corps (IMC) to provide medical aid for those caught up in violence across western Libya, he added. The money comes from the department's humanitarian aid funds.

On a negative note, however, Italy's plan to let the migrant overflow from MENA go to neighbouring EU countries has not gone down well with the others to no one's real surprise. Given that France's desert involvement exceeds that of Italy, it's highly questionable why France tries to wall itself off from refugees coming from Italy. Let's first recount France's resurrection of borders in the post-EU age:

The migration wave unleashed by North African unrest has prompted France to resurrect its border with Italy—a barrier that was supposedly consigned to history's dustbin with Europe's unified economy.

A couple of miles from the beach town of Ventimiglia, nestled along the Italian Riviera, French police have restaffed a formerly abandoned checkpoint along the country's Mediterranean border with Italy. In the nearby French town of Menton, French police in riot gear board trains crossing into France, grilling passengers while other police forces are monitoring roads and foot trails that lead into French territory from Italy.

The operation is part of France's attempt to stop a wave of North African migrants who, having fled violence back home, regard Italy as a way station as they travel by boat, train and foot toward jobs and family in French cities. More than 700 migrants who have crossed into French territory via Italy have been detained by French police and escorted back, Italian officials said.

More recently, the Italians have lodged a diplomatic protest against the French over the matter. Towards a common EU migration policy? You must be joking:

A train carrying Tunisian immigrants from Italy was halted at the French border Sunday in an escalation of an international dispute over the fate of North African migrants fleeing political unrest for refuge in Europe. But France blamed what it said were hundreds of activists on the train planning a demonstration in France, and posing a problem to public order. Traffic was re-established by evening - but not before Italy lodged a formal protest.

“At no time was there a ... closing of the border between France and Italy,” French Interior Ministry spokesman Pierre-Henri Brandet said. It was an “isolated problem,” he said by telephone, “an undeclared demonstration. He estimated that up to 10 trains may have been affected, five on each side...

Italy has been giving temporary residence permits to many of the roughly 26,000 Tunisians who have gone to Italy to escape unrest in northern Africa in recent weeks. Many of the Tunisians have family ties or friends in France, the country’s former colonial ruler, and the Italian government says the permits should allow the Tunisians to go there under accords allowing visa-free travel among many European countries.

Dreams of a borderless Europe are fading as the French have come up with this excuse that activists were also on the train planning public disorder there. Let's see how long that excuse holds up as these inflows will certainly not come to a rapid halt:

France says it will honor the permits only if the migrants prove they can financially support themselves and it has instituted patrols on the Italian border - unprecedented since the introduction of the Schengen travel-free zone - bringing in about 80 riot police last week. Germany has said it would do the same. A spokesman for the Italian rail company, Maurizio Furia, told The Associated Press in Rome that the train carrying migrants and political activists who support them wasn’t allowed to pass into Menton, France, from the border station of Ventimiglia on Sunday.

Italy lodged a protest with the French government, calling the move “illegitimate and in clear violation of general European principles” the Italian Foreign Ministry said. Foreign Minister Franco Frattini ordered his envoy in Paris “to express the strong protest of the Italian government...”

“We have given the migrants travel documents, and we gave everything (else) that is needed, and the European Commission recognized that, it has said that Italy is following the Schengen rules,” Italian Interior Minister Roberto Maroni said in an interview on Italy’s Sky TG24 TV. Visa-“free travel is legitimate for all those with the papers and who want to go to France,” said Maroni, a top official of the anti-immigrant Northern League party, a main coalition partner of Premier Silvio Berlusconi.

To which we now arrive at the main problem of Sarkozy himself. Despite backing all sorts of uprisings in MENA, he also adopts an anti-immigration rhetoric. Are freedom of speech and association incompatible with freedom of movement? That's what I would like to ask President Sarkozy as further blowback from mucking about in his backyard is imminent:

While he has robustly backed pro-democracy movements in the Arab world, triggered by the Tunisian uprising, conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy is also trying to cut back on the number of migrants arriving in France, whose former colonies in North Africa already provide the majority of immigrants.

With muscular rhetoric must come deeds that back them up. One avenue is to promote sufficient stability and development in MENA states that reduces pressures to immigrate. I am certainly unsure whether European efforts at nation building will succeed where those of the Americans failed. Remember that the Europeans have a longstanding colonial history there and are bound to invite suspicion. Moreover, remember who preceded the Americans in Vietnam--an eventual economic success story...after the white people finally gave up and let the "freedom-hating" Communists have a go. (Is there a lesson in here somewhere?)

Until then, Sarkozy's lip service for freedom of speech and association will sit ill at ease with the French government's hardline policies on freedom of movement.

American Hypocrisy on Libya & Int'l Criminal Court

I read with no small amount of amusement the grandiosely titled op-ed "Libya's Pathway to Peace" by Barack Obama, David Cameron, and Nicolas Sarkozy. One way or another, none are free from hypocrisy to keep things lively. When the Libya mess erupted, Cameron was on a junket to the Middle East selling arms. Meanwhile, Sarkozy in the not-too-distant past was encouraging Western defence firms to hawk their wares in Libya.

As usual, though, the Americans take the grand prize in the hypocrites' sweepstakes. Sometime ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had the chutzpah to suggest China and the Southeast Asian countries disputing islands in the South China Sea resort to "international law" when the US was famously not even a signatory to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In the grand American tradition of paying international cooperation lip service but flouting the United Nations' various conventions and instruments, the lead author and president of a country that hasn't signed up to the International Criminal Court had this to say:

Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power. The International Criminal Court is rightly investigating the crimes committed against civilians and the grievous violations of international law. It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government. The brave citizens of those towns that have held out against forces that have been mercilessly targeting them would face a fearful vengeance if the world accepted such an arrangement. It would be an unconscionable betrayal.

That's pretty rich stuff, Obama. Why don't you get Congress to sign up to the ICC, then you can talk about it investigating "grievous violations." Indeed, US policy concerning the ICC is built around non-signatories being free from its jurisdiction. From a rather helpful article comes this summation of US policy concerning this very issue:

This article examines the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) over nationals of states not party to the ICC Statute. The article first addresses the US argument that the exercise of ICC jurisdiction over nationals of non-parties without the consent of that non-party would be contrary to international law.

As I've said, one reason for UN dysfunction is its ill treatment at the hands of its hosts. As for Obama's obvious vexation with international law and the ICC, let's just say he's even worse than Clinton. Clinton's hypocrisy was wanting to subject others to laws the US itself did not follow. Obama's hypocrisy is claiming that Libya should be investigated by the ICC in accordance with international law when the unrevised US position is that the ICC exercising jurisdiction over citizens of non-signatories is a contravention of international law.

These US foreign policy statements are strictly amateur nite.

Euro Mideast Intervention = Own the Refugees?

We've heard this story before. Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell is usually credited for applying the Pottery Barn principle to foreign intervention. For international readers, Pottery Barn is a housewares retailer in the US. Instead of breaking what the Brits call "crockery," Powell asserts that breaking a country results in the interventionist taking responsibility for the "broken" country. Among these, of course, are its people.

Alike the quarrels over a two-speed Eurozone with stalwart countries alike Germany and the Netherlands outperforming their southerly peers, we appear to have something of another North-South divide in dealing with crumbling Middle East / North African states. Just as there is no "one-size-fits all" policy rate, there may be no pan-EU migration policy as countries bordering the Mediterranean are inundated with refugees. So, as some European heads of states act as cheerleaders for "the spread of democracy" and some actively participate in armed intervention, they have another hot topic for integration on their hands. The Italians in particular are keen on passing refugees through to other European states. What's Italy to do with the 23,000 or so who've landed on Lampedusa? From the New York Times:

Since the global financial crisis, the European Union has been deeply divided over economic policy. With the Libya intervention, it has split over foreign policy. But today few issues are proving more divisive within the bloc than immigration. That much was clear this week, when the fractious 27-member European Union rejected Italy’s idea to make it easier for immigrants who first land in Italy to travel elsewhere in Europe. At a time when a wave of immigrants fleeing the unrest in North Africa shows no signs of abating, the rejection raised the possibility of tightened intra-European border controls for the first time since visa-free travel was introduced in the 1990s.

Frustrations have been building here for weeks, and over the weekend Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi finally said enough was enough. Visiting the Italian island of Lampedusa, the point of entry for thousands of North African immigrants to Europe, he said: “Either Europe is something that’s real and concrete or it isn’t. And in that case, it’s better to go back to each going our own way and letting everyone follow his own policies and egotism.”

Mr. Berlusconi’s statement, echoed by other members of his government and criticized by his European counterparts, highlighted a looming showdown within Europe over how to handle the 23,000 migrants who have arrived in Italy since January. Fears of immigrants, fanned by right-wing parties and voter discontent over economic malaise, have deepened already profound divisions within Europe. Experts say the issue is proving to be at least as problematic — and potentially as destabilizing — as Europe’s struggle to manage a succession of financial crises. And it adds a new source of friction over NATO’s intervention in Libya.

The majority of Africans seeking work or refuge in Europe are Tunisians, but a growing number are sub-Saharan Africans fleeing Libya. To reduce tensions in the makeshift tent camps in Italy where officials shipped the migrants who first arrived on Lampedusa, Italian officials said they would issue temporary residence permits to qualified migrants.

Italy had asked fellow European Union member states to recognize the permits as valid for entry — essentially condoning the migrants’ passage to France and beyond. At a meeting of European Union interior ministers in Luxembourg on Monday, other member states, chief among them France and Germany, said no. In response, Italy’s interior minister, Roberto Maroni, asked, “I wonder if it makes sense to stay in the European Union?”

While European neighbors have criticized the Italians for their poor handling of the immigration situation, the stalwarts of Mr. Maroni’s Northern League party, known for its anti-immigrant stance and fierce Euro-skepticism, have criticized the interior minister for not being tough enough.

Will bribing the states refugees want to flee work? I have my doubts, but some Europeans apparently hope so:

Instead, Europe’s policy has been to hope that immigrants will not come and to try to persuade North African nations to compel their citizens to stay home. Although the collapse of governments in Tunisia and Egypt and the unrest in Libya have undone a variety of bilateral treaties with European countries, including agreements on migration, that policy is still in place.

Expanding the pottery barn argument, I suppose it becomes a valid question of who broke these MENA countries. Is it the "EU," its more busybody states, even "NATO"? The answer points to both the fate of supranational migration policy and the aftermath of these conflicts in terms of handling refugee flows.

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.

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.