Why Am I Still Engaged?

I am still engaged in speaking and moderating at the Future Investment Initiative in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia next week. I will be speaking on digital currencies, technological changes, and the future of money. (A video of the event is available via this address: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OApY2e1DL5o&t=240s )

I had not expected this to be a controversial decision. But given the horror of Jamal Khashoggi's killing at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, I think one should explain the logic of the decision not to drop out, even if I am not a public figure.

I understand the logic of sending a message, especially for public figures, by dropping out of the FII event. It is a statement that a red-line has been crossed. However, if a truly uncompromising principled stance is taken, then one should not just drop out, but entirely stop doing business in such instances. We shouldn’t just not speak at their events but also stop taking associated investment funds, stop buying their products and selling them ours (certainly not weapons!), and completely stop engaging with companies and governments that have any association with ethical violations.

In reality this is not going to happen – at least not yet, and not anywhere. The world will be engaging with Saudi Arabia despite the killing of Mr. Khashoggi; with Israel, despite the atrocities in Palestine; with China, despite Tiananmen Square; with India, despite Gujarat; with Russia, despite Crimea; with Egypt, despite the actions to end the Arab Spring; with Iran, despite its mischief in the 'Shia Crescent,' etc. The stark and even more dramatic fact is that we will remain engaged with the US, despite Iraq, Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay; and with both the US and the EU, despite them being by far the largest weapons exporters in the world – weapons that have killed far more than any terrorist group ever did; and far more than authoritarian regimes have done.

So, where do we draw the lines? How can an ethical engagement be constructed in complex cases?

If one line of logic is taken, one should drop out of the entire system of global engagement – and that today is impossible.

And it isn’t that I did not try.

I dropped out for 2-3 years on Bonaire, in the Caribbean Netherlands, but then concluded that walking away is also not an option, since in a world of globalization no island is an island. Climate change, refugee crisis, economic upheavals, terrorism, epidemic disease, etc. are all now global. What happens in one part of the world, affects all other parts of the world.

Instead, I decided to remain engaged, on difficult subjects and in tough places, ultimately to make a difference. Walking away to make symbolic statements seemed satisfying at one level; but ultimately unsustainable and even hypocritical. Public relations based compromises work in the short term but are not impactful in the long run.

Selective and smart engagement is where I think a difference can be made. I continue to believe so. And I hope that this approach can still be pursued even in compromised societies like Saudi, Israel, China, India, Russia, Egypt, Iran, – and yes, US and Europe – in fact in all of our ‘civilized’ world.

The goal is to stay engaged and make a difference in small steps and one person at a time. It is not easy. But nothing great was ever easy. And just because it isn’t easy, doesn’t mean we don’t try.

In some sense, Mr. Khashoggi could have walked away. He did not. He stayed engaged. Till the end. Sadly.