tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post8800309691876431111..comments2023-12-28T02:11:22.501+00:00Comments on The Streatham & Brixton Chess Blog: You've Gaddafi jokingTom Chivershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-30272831759039653532011-06-25T16:55:42.595+01:002011-06-25T16:55:42.595+01:00They hate us for our freedoms.They hate us for our freedoms.hylennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-48978082199722271922011-06-25T16:42:36.520+01:002011-06-25T16:42:36.520+01:00I'm not "buying into" anybody's ...I'm not "buying into" anybody's propaganda: how would I? What do you think I do, watch Libyan state television? It's not a channel my satellite subscription covers.<br /><br />I'm not having any of this "grit your teeth" nonsense. If you deal with them, you don't turn round next day and say it's a pariah state. You just can't flip-flop like that and expect everybody else to go "duh, yeah". And I'm not going to.<br /><br />As far as "constituency" is concerned - <i>everybody</i> has a public opinion constituency. Otherwise there wouldn't be any such thing as propaganda, and (as I'm sure I don't need to tell you) some of the countries, and individuals, who have been furthest from democracy, have been most concerned to appeal to public opinion. (Were this not true, then Amnesty International, for instance, would be wasting their time, since what they do in relation to political prisoners is draw public attention to them. If dictators didn't care about public opinion, what would be the point?) "Constituency" is a broader term than simply those people whose votes one seeks. And, in Kirsan's case, buys.<br /><br />It's a wider constituency - and this, I think,is the most important thing - that Kirsan's <i>opponents</i> need to appeal to. Presently, I don't think we do: we just lament how terrible it is. One of the reasons for that, I think, is that I don't think we care very much about chess and chessplayers outside the places where the top players are, the top tournaments are and the sponsorship is. So we don't really care what we look like, to others than ourselves. And I don't agree with that approach.<br /><br />I don't care so much about not-playing-chess-in-a-civil-war. The principle has much to commend it, but I can just think of too many examples to the contrary. The one that occurs to me most readily, since I'm listening to cricket commentary while I'm typing this, is that there was a very long civil war in Sri Lanka in which a great deal of international cricket was played in that country. Very few people outside the Tamil community had anything critical to say about this, and certainly I never did. Truth is that sport <i>is</i> played in civil wars, and in other wars too, and in those circumstances it necessarily plays a propaganda role. Yet we normally accept it. It might be a very good idea if we didn't: but we do.<br /><br />At the end of the day I stick to my points that:<br /><br />1. you can't have a "pariah state" that everybody was only just now going out of their way to deal with, because that's a nonsense; and<br /><br />2. however anybody else may choose to organise their priorities, I personally am not going to equate a "pariah" with "whoever we're right now at war with". For several reasons, but one of them is because if we do that, a lot of people are going to look at us and think we're hypocrites.ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-43516486381301697752011-06-25T12:35:11.182+01:002011-06-25T12:35:11.182+01:00I think you're partly buying into Gaddafi and ...I think you're partly buying into Gaddafi and Ilyumzhinov's propaganda. Of course they want to represent the situation as NATO (or "the West") against Libya, but there was a civil war and killing before foreign countries got involved. Simply the idea of playing chess as a publicity stunt while your country's in a state of civil war is grotesque.<br /><br />While you're no doubt right there's public sentiment against the bombing campaign in much of the world (Russia might top that list), I'm not sure it's stronger elsewhere than it is in "the West" itself - i.e. your view is hardly a minority opinion. But the idea that Ilyumzhinov's trying to appeal to that "constituency" is far-fetched. Ilyumzhinov's real constituency is just a handful of officials in countries around the world, who are presumably more interested in bribes than any geo-political issues.<br /><br />The other point I'd make is that you take moral relativism too far. Yes, Western leaders have dealt with Gaddafi in the past - but still, it's one thing to grit your teeth at a photo op after calculating the benefits outweigh the costs (e.g. apart from the less-defensible oil contracts... Ilyumzhinov quoted Gaddafi as lamenting that he'd been persuaded by western leaders to abandon his nuclear program) - and quite another to let yourself be used for pure propaganda in the middle of a war. I also don't agree that present-day China and Vietnam are comparable pariah states - the world isn't black and white - though again, if one of those countries was in a state of civil war it would of course be absolutely unacceptable to visit as a publicity stunt.<br /> <br />p.s. Ilyumzhinov is now reported as saying he's returning to Libya at the start of July...mishanphttp://www.chessintranslation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-29436317990529264982011-06-24T10:19:24.245+01:002011-06-24T10:19:24.245+01:00What he probably didn't ask himself, all that ...<i>What he probably didn't ask himself, all that much, is how it was going to look to <b>you</b>. Assuming that you are in the West.<br /><br />This isn't because he's bad, although he surely is. Nor because he's mad, although he probably is not. It's because his constituency isn't <b>you</b>.</i><br /><br /><br />I think you make good points. I'd just like to add one thing that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else in relation to the Kirsan trip to see Gaddafi.<br /><br />When the London bid for the 2012 World Championship match collapsed somebody - I think it was Malcolm Pein - said the only strategy FIDE had left was approaching the home country of whoever turned out to be the challenger and hoping they would come up with the cash (like Bulgaria for the Anand - Topalov match).<br /><br />From that point of view it was rather unfortunate - to say the least - that Kirsan should make a point of going to Libya so soon after the challenger turned out to be Boris Gelfand: home country ... Israel!<br /><br />FIDE's consituency might not be me, but in terms of getting legitimate sponsorship it is the west. I think Kirsan's pretty much boshed that on the head now.<br /><br />Of course he could dip his hand into his own pocket again - although it's far from obvious that the money he'll find there is actually his own.<br /><br />For myself - I'm far from certain a match will actually take place next year. Hopefully, I'll be proved wrong about thatJonathan Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00293162543015231439noreply@blogger.com