Curious minds select the most fascinating podcasts from around the world. Discover hand-piqd audio recommendations on your favorite topics.
piqer for: Globalization and politics Climate and Environment Technology and society Boom and bust
Cristina is a Spanish journalist based in London, she holds master’s degree in Journalism, Media and Globalisation at City University London and Aarhus University (Denmark). She has a keen interest in sustainable development and human rights and she curates -mostly- stories related to the Sustainable Development Goals. She has previous worked for United Nations and now collaborates with various publications such as El País, Chatham House, Huffington Post, Equal Times or eldiario.es.
Exile has been the salvation for most dictators since the end of World War II. Think about Idi Amin, Ferdinand Marcos or Jean-Claude Duvalier to name but a few.
Even if nowadays exile is way less accessible than it used to be due to the strength of international law, there are still certain cases: Yahya Jammeh, former Gambian leader, has been granted retirement in Equatorial Guinea this year.
But little has been studied about the implications of this phenomenon in depth, apart from the general idea of dictators enjoying a sweet retirement in an ivory tower. Two scholars have collected new data on the destinations of all dictators going into exile since 1946.
They found that a massive number of dictators in the developing world seek refuge in their country’s former colonizer. France, for instance, is in the top 10. That said, the study also found that, if possible, dictators rather find asylum in a non-democratic regime.
But what really caught my attention is the following idea: "without an exile option, embattled and unpopular rulers have incentives to entrench themselves in power".
Following this logic, when back in 2011 the International Criminal Court labeled Gaddafi a war criminal, it gave him no other choice but to fight to the bitter end with disastrous consequences. How come that prosecuting a criminal could have negative implications at all in the conflict resolution process?
According to the authors, this dynamic is likely occurring in the current Syrian conflict. To me, it has been always crystal clear that the culture of impunity leads to more violence, but they claim that one of the reasons why Assad desperately clings to power is because he has nowhere to go. If this is the case, which allies could welcome him and what is the moral cost of hosting and protecting a tyrant?
Another interesting reading on the matter is No Sanctuary for dictators.
Source: Daniel Krcmaric and Abel Escribà-Folch Image: Jerome Delay/AP washingtonpost.com
Moral hazards choose the lesser evil