Hospitality and bad guys
Keep your friends close and your enemies–where?
Muammar Qaddafi (whose name has withstood all attempts at an official spelling) had a lot of trouble finding a place to stay this past Wednesday, as his planned locale, Donald Trump’s 213-acre estate in Bedford, New York, had cancelled on him.
The longtime Libyan leader gave a lengthy speech to the U.N. Security Council and faced a bit of backlash from Americans after his inflammatory remarks and recent congratulatory welcoming of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, who was responsible for the bombing of PanAm 103 and the deaths of 270 people. Trump’s estate, which had already begun constructing a series of large tents for Qaddafi (he has a fear of elevators and prefers this sort of arrangement), was the last of several New York-area venues to reject the leader’s requests for lodging.
Qaddafi met with local opposition at each proposed spot. It appears that concerns hovered around two major issues: first, his very presence in these communities offended many residents, who see the leader as a nothing more than a terrorist. This repugnance is nothing new, since NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) is a philosophical staple in American culture. We’re generally tolerant of ditches, prisons, and radio towers-just not in our backyards, of course.
Second, Qaddafi requires quite a bit of security, and much of it would have to be provided by local, taxpayer-funded police. Perhaps this objection could be called NWMM (Not With My Money). Both attitudes were aptly expressed by Bedford county executive Andy Spano, who said this:
We have no choice but to help with law enforcement, but I remain outraged that our taxpayers have to help protect someone that we don’t want in this county.
But what are we to do with visiting arch-enemies? It’s worth pointing out that Qaddafi encountered trouble only because he wanted a fancy, public venue-previously he had asked to camp out in Central Park. Normally foreign leaders are put up in nice hotels or stay at their respective consulates, embassies, or state-owned residences. There is an assumed obligation on the part of the host country to at least arrange minimal comforts for diplomatic visitors, but what happens when said visitor is universally despised, or when they request additional accommodation?
These problems could be resolved either by the establishment of an across-the-board protocol for foreign visits, or by some spectrum of hospitality contingent on one nation’s relationship with the other. A hard-line approach to international relations might place Qaddafi’s care within framework of power and strategic messaging; “we don’t negotiate with terrorists,” and indeed we don’t make their beds either. A more conciliatory approach might view each conflict as an opportunity for mutual understanding, and gladly accommodate Qaddafi’s requests with a view toward improved relations.
Regardless, the leaders of both countries must face the NIMBYs and NWMMs, and rightly so. Diplomacy is nothing without its economic and moral implications, and its fissures are perhaps most appropriately fixed by those who have to foot the bill.
-Colin
Related posts:
- Obama & international relations
- Obama and Afghanistan
- Should government undo residential segregation?
- The American public and Afghanistan
- Community first?
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
