English Chess Forum

I just wondered what the opinion was on the ECF's ' official' condemnation of the visit to Tripoli ?




http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?p=11552

It's covered in this thread.

It isn't actually, because I am not at all sure of the wisdom of the ECF taking ' an official position' on the matter.

andrew martin wrote:It isn't actually, because I am not at all sure of the wisdom of the ECF taking ' an official position' on the matter.

If that's purely for fear of losing popularity with the current FIDE President then I think our supporting Karpov had already sealed our fate there. Or are you disputing that his being pictured with Colonel Gaddafi isn't damaging to the image of chess?

A much better position would have been,on this occasion, to say absolutely nothing.

Why?

andrew martin wrote:A much better position would have been,on this occasion, to say absolutely nothing.

I suspect we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. There may also be people who consider that you could have followed your own advice when starting this thread

Chess and politics do not mix very well.

andrew martin wrote:Chess and politics do not mix very well.

Not sure I agree with that. Without the political tensions in the 1970s, would the world have had anywhere like the interest they did in Fischer v Spassky?

andrew martin wrote:Chess and politics do not mix very well.

Nor do Chess and the Press these days.

Sorry, Andrew, I can't see where you're coming from here. Our Armed Forces are in military combat with the forces of a tyrannical international pariah and likely war criminal, and you think ECF should stay silent?

I thought the statement was prompt, pithy, and proportionate. Not often one can say that of ECF announcements

I respect your point of view Dave.

A Press release from FIDE on the matter

http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... lease.html

People who know I have a connection with the chess world are approaching me to ask me what I think of this development. This is what I think;

a) If Kirsan, who has known Gaddafi for over a decade, is talking to Gaddafi in the middle of a civil war in order to persuade him to agree to step down, and to accept a safe haven in Kalmykia then that may be a legitimate role for Kirsan to play as a private individual, but probably not as the head of FIDE.

b) In choosing Kirsan to play the game with, he was looking for, and Kirsan allowed him, a propaganda coup. Gaddafi, shaking hands warmly and playing chess for the world's media, is effectively saying 'I have nothing to worry about from NATO or the rebel forces, I am healthy and active and have time to relax and play mind games for two an a half hours with my friends'. I have to question whether Kirsan has allowed himself, and by extension FIDE, to be manipulated.

c) "K. Ilyumzhinov: Well, I’d be happy to meet with anyone. I was also a politician in the past. If there was a parliament, elected by the people, or a government, chosen by parliament. Currently all the embassies of the Russian Federation are located in Tripoli, and the ministers – they’re chosen by parliament, which was elected by the people. So then, I met with the Minister of Education, the Minister of Foreign Affairs i.e. the legitimate authorities. If there’s going to be a new authority, then of course I’ll also meet with that. But FIDE is a public sporting organisation, outside of politics, and we meet whoever appears to be legitimate.

At the moment the government located in Tripoli is legitimate for the international community. If that wasn’t the case, then the embassies of the foreign countries would no doubt have switched to another city. But well, I don’t know, that’s simply my opinion. I’m not a politician. I came here as a sportsman."

http://www.chessintranslation.com/2011/ ... eces-move/

This is a fine argument. And in fact many people have visited Gaddafi in the past, including major politicians. However Ilyumzhinov claimed that he visited Libya with the approval of the Russian authorities. Margelov (Russian presidential envoy Mikhail Margelov, who is trying to mediate in Libya's civil war) said while visiting the rebel stronghold of Benghazi last week that the Libyan leader had lost his legitimacy. So where does that leave FIDE?

Alex McFarlane wrote:A Press release from FIDE on the matter

http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... lease.html

Should I be more disappointed with him visiting Libya, or the horrible split infinitive to start the final paragraph?

In case you were wondering whether it was appropriate to visit a legitimate head of state in order to have a chat and a game of chess, the United Nations does not recognise Gaddafi as a legitimate leader, instead recognising 'The Interim Transitional National Council' since March 2011. Libya was the first country to be supended from the UN Human Rights Council, and Gaddafi's regime will eventually face investigation from the International Criminal Court for war crimes.