Discussing politics and religion in the United Arab Emirates, arguably the richest and most tolerant country in today’s Middle East, is a surprisingly hopeful experience. The national capital, Abu Dhabi, is a calm crossroads of Arabia. No protest marches, few traces of Islamic militancy, welcoming to Christians, friendly with the U.S., well governed internally, and peaceful in its external relations. The UAE is not Utopia but it works. Abu Dhabians are proud of their Bedouin heritage so they are not exactly Washington’s kinda guys as those showy Qataris up the road pretend to be with their U.S. CENTCOM military base and American-style campuses. But nor are UAE people religious zealots like their Saudi and Iranian neighbors. Christian churches, Hindu shrines, Sikh temples, and places of worship for all faiths flourish here. Like everywhere else in the Gulf, the UAE is not a Western-style democracy. But the ruling families of these Emirates are benign and generous paternalists, so anti-government demonstrations aren’t on anyone’s agenda. Seen in the round, this is a moderate country in everything it does, other than to keep on piling up the enormous riches it earns from pumping 2.5 million barrels of oil a day. So what can be learned here about the region’s strategic trends in the post-Osama bin Laden phase of the Arab Spring? Abu Dhabi is a good listening post, full of expatriates from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and the surrounding Gulf states. Middle East government bigwigs, or at least mid-wigs, pass through here regularly. They usually come to talk about money because this country, with a population of only 1.2 million citizens, has fewer commitments and greater oil and cash reserves than any other OPEC member. With this wealth is coming increasing influence, but it is not the influence of hard-line religion. There are plenty of mosques in the UAE, but the local mullahs are moderates too. Their non-political preaching is said to date from an episode more than 20 years ago when some incendiary Islamist gave a fire-and-brimstone sermon in which he denounced all foreigners for their non-Muslim beliefs and demanded dress codes compelling Western women to wear long dresses and veils. When the founder and first president of the UAE, Sheikh Zayed, heard about these vaporings he summoned the angry mullah to tell him that this was a multi-ethnic country of tolerance that would not countenance such hostility in the name of religion. The preacher refused to back down. Sheikh Zayed is reported to have sent for a pair of scissors, saying: “If you won’t cut out your extremism, then I will have to cut off your beard.” Snip, snip, went the president’s scissors as the mullah’s hirsute bush of facial hair cascaded to the floor. This was a humiliation equivalent to the public unfrocking of a Christian clergyman. There has been no political troublemaking at Friday prayers in the UAE ever since. This and other examples of the late Sheikh Zayed’s wisdom as a ruler are being increasingly talked about amidst the neighboring turbulences of the Arab Spring. One of the reasons why the protest movements have not surfaced here is that the UAE does not discriminate against different ethnic or religious groups. This has been the most serious mistake of Bahrain’s Sunni rulers, who treated their Shia subjects badly for decades and have reaped a whirlwind of uprisings as a result. The Sunnis of Saudi Arabia have narrowly avoided the same error. Although the majority of Saudis do not love their minority Shia brothers, at least the government does not mistreat them. Much of the credit for handling the Shia sensitively should go to Prince Mohammed bin Fahd, the governor of the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. He is another wise moderate among Gulf leaders. When he was appointed to his post 30 years ago, the Shia, who make up about a third of the population of the province, were in a mood of seething discontent as a result of harsh repression by the outgoing governor. The situation in religious terms was not unlike the Catholic-Protestant tensions in Northern Ireland in the 1960s. Prince Mohammed, the son of the late King Fahd, cut the Shia some slack. He also opened the purse strings of development in their towns and cities. Most important of all he has governed fairly. However, there are still grumbles that top posts like ambassadorships and senior ministerial appointments are Shia-free zones. The contrast between the treatment of the Shia of Bahrain and the Shia of Saudi Arabia has meant the difference between near-revolution and near-calm. Tremors of the Arab Spring have been felt in the desert kingdom. But fortunately for the Al Saud monarchy, and for the industrialized world that imports more than 8 million barrels a day of its oil, there seems to be no likelihood of a Saudi political earthquake. The moderate Eastern Province governor has done a good job. So has his boss, King Abdullah, who in February announced $34 billion worth of projects and job creation schemes. Evidently the checkbook is mightier than the baton round. Another sign of the times is the Gulf’s positive reaction to the elimination of Osama bin Laden. Long before the Navy SEALs got him, his hero status at home had crumbled. So had al Qaeda’s effectiveness as a terrorist organization, not least because of the patient cooperation between the CIA, the FBI, and the intelligence services of friendly Gulf states. Now the prestige of the U.S. is riding high in the region. Respect for American valor and values is back. AS THE ARAB SPRING slows down into the long hot Arabian summer, events are changing opinions in the Middle East. The thuggery of the Syrian regime has disgusted even those who wished Bashar al-Assad well, for it is seen as terrorism in another form. The triumph of the SEALs in Abbottabad is regarded as rough justice but right justice. Closure on bin Laden brings vicarious credit to the Arab governments that have been faithful allies of the U.S. in the secret struggle against al Qaeda. The Pakistanis, long mistrusted, are even more despised for their duplicity. In other hotspots, Bahrain is still a powder keg but a sideshow. Saudi Arabia is quiet. The ulema (priesthood) and the muta’wa (religious police) are quieter still. Oman has had minor demonstrations, but the combination of the checkbook and a popular ruler in Sultan Qaboos should ensure stability. No one quite knows how Egypt is going to work out, but both there and in Tunisia the feeling is growing that the Islamist movements are overplaying their hands. Their violence against Christians, which this column reported on last month, is unpopular with mainstream public opinion, particularly with the young. Whatever the problems are in the different countries of the area, the politics of religion no longer seem to be the solution. Maybe these shifts in opinion can be interpreted as a turning of the tide, beginning to flow in the direction of moderation and tolerance. The United Arab Emirates, having practiced these virtues throughout its 40-year existence, is starting to look like a role model for the children of the Arab Spring.
Continue reading here:
An Arab Spring Model
For Installment II in our very occasional “Tale of the Tape” series ( click here for Installment I ), here’s a quick, down-and-dirty comparison of the two wars to date. But first, this video really sums all of this up better than I ever could: Tale of the Tape: . Iraq Libya Name of Operation Operation Iraqi Freedom Operation Odyssey Dawn (Changed to “Operation Unified Protector” once the original U.S.-led coalition handed off operational control to NATO, another U.S. led coalition) Connotation of Name Freedom for Iraqis, duh OOD : I’m really not sure. Something about an enigmatic sunrise? OUP : Probably sending the message that this U.S.-led coalition is unified, unlike the U.S.-led coalition that handed the mission off to it. But that’s just a guess. Commander in Chief George Walker Bush Barack Hussein Obama Objective Regime Change Nobody really seems sure, including the President. Perhaps regime change, though the administration has expressly ruled out using our military, already engaged there, for that Target Saddam Hussein’s regime and military forces who remain loyal to him Originally, Qaddafi’s Air Force and air defenses. Then, his armor and troops as well. Finally, as of 3/31, those who are fighting against Qaddafi, as well Rationale for War Iraq’s status as a state sponsor of terror, Saddam Hussein’s history of terrorism and genocide, including use of Weapons of Mass Destruction on his own people Preventing a “humanitarian disaster” in another country’s civil war Date the President Addressed the American People about the rationale for war and our objectives March 19, 2003, from the Oval Office (after a March 17 speech giving Saddam & sons 48 hours to leave Iraq to avert war, after the famous “Axis of Evil” State of the Union speech in which he laid out a case against Iraq) Does the off-site March 28 speech which addressed the former but completely ignored the latter count? Date offensive operations began March 19, 2003 March 19, 2011 Initial Phase of War “Shock and Awe” Establishing a No-Fly Zone and DON’T CALL IT A WAR! Size of Coalition 49 nations 5 initially; with full NATO involvement, plus the mysterious “Arab Partners” (read: UAE & Qatar), that number becomes 30 Conventional wisdom on the coalition The U.S. is acting unilaterally! Utterly brilliant – particularly those “Arab Partners” Relevant Congressional Resolutions H.J. Res. 114 (passed 296-133 in House; 77-23 in Senate), authorizing President Bush to “use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” None. The U.S. Congress has not yet been consulted about this military action. Relevant UN Resolution(s) UNSCR 1441, warning of “serious consequences” if regime was not forthcoming about weapons stockpiles; also, 17 previous UN resolutions whose violation the Iraqi regime had flaunted UNSCR 1973, which authorized all necessary force to protect civilians in Libya except for the insertion of ground forces UN Vote on Key Resolution 15-0 Resolution passed 10-0, only because Russia, China, Germany, India and Brazil abstained from voting Other military operations ongoing at the time Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan Unfinished operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as tsunami relief operations in Japan Military commitment Said “This will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome except victory,” and integrated ground and air campaigns in support of the mission’s objective Employed standoff weaponry (air power and TLAMs) and unsupported OGA/SOF personnel. Maintained an express commitment not to insert ground troops nor to bring about regime change militarily Involvement of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations Al Qaeda fighters streamed into Iraq from outside its borders, where they carried out some successful terrorist attacks before being turned on by Iraqis and demolished by coalition troops Interestingly, al Qaeda appears to be on the side we’re helping. Method of Bringing About Regime Change Combined air, land, and sea-based military invasion Hope Dennis Kucinich’s reaction Impeach! Impeach!
Excerpt from:
The Tale of the Tape: President Bush’s War in Iraq vs. President Obama’s Kinetic Military Action in Libya
Several stories today worth comparing — the first
John Guardiano is far too kind in his assessment that the Obama administration’s Egypt strategy (if one can even call it that) is explained by an abundance of caution or temperamental conservatism. A better explanation is simple incompetence. Consider this report on the thinking within an unnamed administration policymaker’s office, before Mubarak’s speech on Friday. “The mood was buoyant,” because “the favored bet would have been that Mubarak was about to ‘do an LBJ’ and repeat what President Lyndon Johnson did in 1968 in the face of a wave of protests: announce he would not stand in the upcoming presidential election.” In other words, it wasn’t that policymakers were worried about letting Mubarak fall so much as they were delusional about the willingness of an authoritarian dictator to loosen his grip of his own accord. Until Mubarak’s statement on Friday, Obama had deliberately avoided contacting him, on the theory that “president-to-president intervention should be held in reserve as a last recourse” since “any exchange with Mubarak would require Obama to say whether he supported Mubarak’s continued rule.” So they tried to indirectly signal that he should offer concessions to the protestors. But this was the same administration that, last fall, helped kill a Senate resolution to support a transition to democracy in Egypt, and the same administration that, despite warnings that it was time to prepare for the end of the Mubarak era by pushing for political reform, had done nothing of the sort. Given that, and in the wake of administration statements that Mubarak wasn’t a “dictator” (Biden) and that his regime was “stable” (Hillary). Why would Mubarak assume that Obama would care whether he embraced reform? Mubarak finally did announce yesterday that he wouldn’t seek another term, but it was pretty obvious that that wouldn’t be enough anymore to calm the protests down. Now pro-Mubarak forces (most of them paid thugs affiliated with the government — the backlash is clearly coordinated ) are attacking the protestors, and the Obama administration’s calls for an “orderly transition” have become a bad joke. Sultan Sooud Al Qassemi, a columnist for the UAE-based newspaper The National , sums up the perception abroad: “The White House has not looked weaker & more indecisive in decades.”
Continue reading here:
The Wages of Winging It
UAE (Emirates News Agency) – Members of the U.S. Commercial Aerospace ‘&’ Defence Trade Mission – headed by Lieutenant General (Ret.) Lawrence P. Farrell, Jr., President ‘&’ Chief Executive Officer of National Defence Industrial Association – yesterday visited the industrial facilities of Tawazun Holding with the aim to explore potential joint business opportunities. Tawazun’s Chief executive Officer Saif Mohamed Al Hajeri met with the mission and reviewed with them ways to boost cooperation in knowledge, know-how and technology transfer, as well as exchange of expertise and sharing of best practices. A presentation session was held with the agenda including an overview of the Offset Policy, Tawazun holding and its subsidiaries; Caracal International, Tawazun Precision Industries, Burkan and Abu Dhabi Autonomous Systems Investments. Tawazun was presented as a strategic investment holding firm that leads the development of an industrialised and knowledge-based economy and creates opportunities for the people in the UAE . .. They were briefed by the officials about the processes of manufacturing and assembling of the products like the Caracal pistol, the first pistol to be made in the UAE. Danny E. Sebright, President of the U.S. – UAE Business Council said the U.S. defence and aerospace businesses were looking forward to establish business partnership and sharing knowledge and know-how to the UAE. Indicating that half of the companies represented in the mission had never been to the UAE before, Sebright saw the mission’s visit to the UAE as “a wonderful opportunity for smaller defence companies to gain an insight of the UAE’s requirements and vision for the future in the defence sector.” “American companies can see where it make sense for them to try to partner, to create joint ventures and to invest on the ground alongside Emirati partners,” he added. The U.S. National Defence Industrial Association (NDIA) and the U.S.-UAE Business Council are leading the mission’s visit to the UAE. The mission is certified by the Commercial Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce and is supported by the UAE Embassy Trade and Commercial Office in Washington, D.C. Read more > > > The US – UAE Business Council describes the event : The Business Council will also partner with the U.S. National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) to lead a defense trade mission to the U.A.E. on October 2nd-7th 2010, designed to introduce new opportunities for cooperation to small and medium sized American companies in the defense sector. So, although this was targeted at promoting small and medium-sized American business, 1.) they’re still gov’t vendors and therefore dependent on big gov’t contracts and 2.) we’re not manufacturing here at home..
Continued here:
US’s Commerical Aerospace and Defense Trade Mission Meets With UAE For Business Opportunities..
