A través de un LSE alumni group de Linkedin me llega un texto de un compañero desconocido que inicia una discusión sobre este tema. Me parece adecuado y sobre todo ante el espectáculo de desorientación que todos en occidente estamos dando ante los acontecimientos de Líbia y del resto de paises árabes:

> I don’t think anyone is suggesting that this is an LSE only problem. You
> are right that other institutions should be investigated. Presumably the
> LinkedIn pages of Oxford and Cambridge will be debating similar
> questions. The real issue here is that British Universities and British
> Politicians are very eager to get their hands on money of any country
> with a huge balance of payment surplus and to hawk whatever they are
> offering at any price just to get a slice, even if it means being silent
> on human rights and democracy.
>
> This is the fundamental challenge for western nations as they diminish
> globally not just in their military might, but in their economic
> position as well, as other developing nations emerge. Sometimes, the
> softly softly approach works in moving dictators towards more political
> and economic liberalisation. But you need to investigate thoroughly
> their commitment to these issues. While Gaddafi might have toned down
> his anti-western stance for fear of being chased out of Libya by the
> Americans like they did Saddam, he was still creating politically
> instability by financing rebel groups in places like Sierra Leone and
> Liberia, who went on to commit a lot of atrocities in those countries.
> We have seen how he has relied on the same African rebels for support
> against his own people.
>
> Against this backdrop, LSE should have been judicious about who it is
> getting into bed with and not just accept the £1.5m in the hope that
> Gaddafi (or his family) were reforming simply because he was now
> acceptable to western leaders like Blair, who simply wanted to get
> Britains hands on Libyan oil. LSE’s role is to continue to expose,
> critically evaluate and challenge these sorts of political developments,
> not become part of the process by prostituting themselves for money.
> Houghton Street should continue to create space for political and
> economic debate and discussion both inside and outside the lecture
> rooms.

Lord Dahrendorf, el Baró Dahrendorf of Clare Market (la localització a Londres de la LSE) era, va estar, força distant. La seva presència, mirada i ironia em va recordar Ramon Trias Fargas. Em vaig presentar com a aprenent de liberal (jo era llavors el vicepresident de LYMEC, les joventuts europees liberals).  Recordo que usualment se’m treia  de sobre amb alguna recomanació de lectures. Una d’elles, encara tinc l’edició d’Oxford , els Four essays on liberty d’Isaiah Berlin.

Des de llavors, Dahrendorf ha estat “el referent intel.lectual” de la Internacional Liberal malgrat que ell ha preferit un compromís més aviat tebi. Fou parlamentari Alemany i Europeu adscrit al partit i grup parlamentari liberal però en la House of Lords va preferir actuar com a independent. El que alguns liberals li criticaven, un discurs ambigu en ocasions i potser massa proper a la socialdemocràcia, jo crec que era el que el feia atractiu i l’apropava a l’actitud iconoclasta de Berlin. En el seu darrer llibre: “La libertad a prueba. Los intelectuales frente la tentación totalitaria“,  Dahrendorf es situa ja plenament al costat de Berlin. Com en el moment de la mort.