It now seems that the release of the Libyan terrorist may have been part of a multi-billion dollar deal between the British government and the Libyan government, part of a deal to allow British companies to gain access to Libyan oil fields. In fact, it is not exactly clear what role the British government played, or precisely what agreement was made with the Libyan government. And, while there are counter accusations, as well as denials from each corner of the UK political arena, this does present an interesting question: if there was some influence pedaling on the part of the Foreign Office and other ministries – which certainly is, strictly speaking, legal – was it worth it?
First, to clarify something I mentioned in an earlier comment on this release: if this release was part of the British government engaging in international politics, that doesn’t change the fact that the judge who released Abdel Baset al-Megrahi for what was listed as a ‘compassionate release’ due to his prostate cancer exceeded the proper authorities of the courts. No judge should be free to exercise ‘compassion’ or any other passion on his own. Such an action is not the role of a judge. You may well object that the law in Scotland allows for ‘compassionate release’ and has for more than 70 years. However, it is worth noting as well that, per the statement from the government of Scotland, “the Act does not specify what the grounds for compassionate release are.” In short, we are left with a legislature, in this case Scotland’s, abdicating responsibility to a judge. It is the responsibility of the legislature – in every democracy – to define the law; and it the court’s responsibility to apply the law as laid out in the discussions the legislature used when drafting the law.
Nevertheless, returning to the case at hand, it is certainly within the purview of any government to make ‘deals’ with other governments, even when they are unpleasant and will likely lead to anger and frustration on the part of citizens, friends or allies. In fact, it is the responsibility of governments to make unpleasant deals when the results are in the national interest. Gilbert and Sullivan’s Pirate King said it most eloquently when he noted that
“Many a King on a first class throne
If he wants to call his crown his own
Must manage somehow to get through
More dirty work then ever I do.”
Running a country, particularly a large one, one that has a role on the international scene, such as the UK, is not a task for weak stomached people. Situations will routinely present themselves that offer choices between several different, but equally unpleasant realities. If, in fact, the government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown did apply quiet, and indirect pressure (or support) to the Scottish courts to expedite the release of al-Megrahi, it is understandable, whether we agree with it or not. Unemployment in the UK stands at 7.8% and their economy has shrunk 5.5% in the last 12 months. There are other economic indicators that are also down. Suffice it to say, the UK economy is not doing well, and the government is looking to strengthen it.
Under those circumstances it would be understandable if, in the hopes of securing some sort of multi-billion dollar deal with Libya, the UK government tried to ‘sweeten’ the deal by adding al-Megrahi. This would be interpreted as ‘realpolitik.’
The question is whether it is ‘smart politik?’
There is certainly something to be gained by signing a multi-billion dollar deal (if such was the case), and that is fairly simple: more tax revenue for the government, perhaps a bit more stability in energy prices in the UK, perhaps several thousand jobs in the oil and gas industry and perhaps a similar number in related services industries.
Is that worth it? What is lost when such deals are made? Does striking a ‘deal’ with Libya (or any government) over access to oil offset the cost to the society of not simply releasing a terrorist and murderer, but of sending the ‘signal’ to the world that the UK government is willing to negotiate, that such issues are simply matters of ‘the right price?’ I am reminded of the old vaudeville punch line to the effect that ‘we know what you are, now we are just negotiating the price.’
If there were clearly no relationship between the oil industry and the government (whether in London or Washington), this would never have taken place. As governments become closer to controlling partners in relationships with businesses, the lines will blur and recognizing the boundaries between the interests of the nation and the interests of several companies will become ever more difficult.
In the end the Libyans would find someone to work the oil fields and the oil and gas would flow. There might not be direct benefit to the UK government in the form of tax revenue, or to a few UK companies, but the oil and gas would move. And, while many will be quick to castigate the oil companies as ‘money hungry’ at any expense, it is worth noting that this was something carried out by the UK government. Oil companies are supposed to be interested in profits; that is not simply understandable, they have fiduciary responsibilities to their stockholders to work to produce profits. But the government is responsible for seeking to protect the national interest.
Nevertheless, returning to the case at hand, it is certainly within the purview of any government to make ‘deals’ with other governments, even when they are unpleasant and will likely lead to anger and frustration on the part of citizens, friends or allies. In fact, it is the responsibility of governments to make unpleasant deals when the results are in the national interest. Gilbert and Sullivan’s Pirate King said it most eloquently when he noted that
“Many a King on a first class throne
If he wants to call his crown his own
Must manage somehow to get through
More dirty work then ever I do.”
Running a country, particularly a large one, one that has a role on the international scene, such as the UK, is not a task for weak stomached people. Situations will routinely present themselves that offer choices between several different, but equally unpleasant realities. If, in fact, the government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown did apply quiet, and indirect pressure (or support) to the Scottish courts to expedite the release of al-Megrahi, it is understandable, whether we agree with it or not. Unemployment in the UK stands at 7.8% and their economy has shrunk 5.5% in the last 12 months. There are other economic indicators that are also down. Suffice it to say, the UK economy is not doing well, and the government is looking to strengthen it.
Under those circumstances it would be understandable if, in the hopes of securing some sort of multi-billion dollar deal with Libya, the UK government tried to ‘sweeten’ the deal by adding al-Megrahi. This would be interpreted as ‘realpolitik.’
The question is whether it is ‘smart politik?’
There is certainly something to be gained by signing a multi-billion dollar deal (if such was the case), and that is fairly simple: more tax revenue for the government, perhaps a bit more stability in energy prices in the UK, perhaps several thousand jobs in the oil and gas industry and perhaps a similar number in related services industries.
Is that worth it? What is lost when such deals are made? Does striking a ‘deal’ with Libya (or any government) over access to oil offset the cost to the society of not simply releasing a terrorist and murderer, but of sending the ‘signal’ to the world that the UK government is willing to negotiate, that such issues are simply matters of ‘the right price?’ I am reminded of the old vaudeville punch line to the effect that ‘we know what you are, now we are just negotiating the price.’
If there were clearly no relationship between the oil industry and the government (whether in London or Washington), this would never have taken place. As governments become closer to controlling partners in relationships with businesses, the lines will blur and recognizing the boundaries between the interests of the nation and the interests of several companies will become ever more difficult.
In the end the Libyans would find someone to work the oil fields and the oil and gas would flow. There might not be direct benefit to the UK government in the form of tax revenue, or to a few UK companies, but the oil and gas would move. And, while many will be quick to castigate the oil companies as ‘money hungry’ at any expense, it is worth noting that this was something carried out by the UK government. Oil companies are supposed to be interested in profits; that is not simply understandable, they have fiduciary responsibilities to their stockholders to work to produce profits. But the government is responsible for seeking to protect the national interest.
So, what is in the national interest? Clearly, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure the survival of the nation and promote the general welfare. This is true of any legitimate government. Beyond that, identifying the national interest requires clarity as to national goals. But, survival of the nation is inextricably interwoven with the survival of the ethos and character of the nation. We were recently reminded of this in the debate on torture in the US, and Prime Minister Churchill’s refusal to allow torture against captured Germans because, as Churchill noted, certain behavior ‘can erode the character of a nation.’ To debate the use of torture when there was a real fear as to the very survival of the nation is worthy of a great people and warrants a place in the national debate; to appease a government that supports terrorists for several billion in tax revenue is not and does not.
No comments:
Post a Comment