The Barack Obamaadministration is refusing to acknowledge an offer by the leadership of the Taliban in early December to give "legal guarantees" that it will not allow Afghanistan to be used for attacks on other countries.
The administration's silence on the offer, despite a public statement by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton expressing scepticism about any Taliban offer to separate itself from al Qaeda, effectively leaves the door open to negotiating a deal with the Taliban based on such a proposal.
The Taliban, however, has chosen to interpret the Obama administration's position as one of rejection of its offer.
The Taliban offer, included in a statement dated Dec. 4 and e-mailed to news organisations the following day, said the organisation has "no agenda of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries and is ready to give legal guarantees if foreign forces withdraw from Afghanistan".
The statement did not mention al Qaeda by name or elaborate on what was meant by "legal guarantees" against such "meddling", but it was an obvious response to past U.S. insistence that the U.S. war in Afghanistan is necessary to prevent al Qaeda from having a safe haven in Afghanistan once again.
It suggested that the Taliban is interested in negotiating an agreement with the United States involving a public Taliban renunciation of ties with al Qaeda, along with some undefined arrangements to enforce a ban al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan in return for a commitment to a timetable for withdrawal of foreign troops from the country.
Despite repeated queries by IPS to the State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley and to the National Security Council's press office over the past week about whether either Secretary Clinton or President Obama had been informed about the Taliban offer, neither office has responded to the question.
Anand Gopal of The Wall Street Journal, whose Dec. 5 story on the Taliban message was the only one to report that initiative, asked a U.S. official earlier that day about the offer to provide "legal guarantees".
The official, who had not been aware of the Taliban offer, responded with what was evidently previously prepared policy guidance casting doubt on the willingness of the Taliban to give up its ties with al Qaeda. "This is the same group that refused to give up bin Laden, even though they could have saved their country from war," said the official. "They wouldn't break with terrorists then, so why would we take them seriously now?"
The following day, asked by ABC News "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos about possible negotiations with "high level" Taliban leaders, Clinton said, "We don't know yet."
But then she made the same argument the unnamed U.S. official had made to Gopal on Saturday. "[W]e asked Mullah Omar to give up bin Laden before he went into Afghanistan after 9/11," Clinton said, "and he wouldn't do it. I don't know why we think he would have changed by now."
In the same ABC interview, Defence Secretary Robert Gates suggested that the Taliban would not be willing to negotiate on U.S. terms until after their "momentum" had been stopped.
"I think that the likelihood of the leadership of the Taliban, or senior leaders, being willing to accept the conditions Secretary Clinton just talked about," Gates said, "depends in the first instance on reversing their momentum right now, and putting them in a position where they suddenly begin to realise that they're likely to lose."
In a statement issued two days after the Clinton-Gates appearance on ABC, the Taliban leadership, which now calls itself "Mujahideen", posted another statement saying that what it called its "proposal" had been rejected by the United States.
The statement said, in part, "Washington turns down the constructive proposal of the leadership of Mujahideen," and repeated its pledge to "ensure that the next government of the Muhajideen will not meddle in the internal affairs of other countries including the neighbours if the foreign troops pull out of Afghanistan."
The fact that both the State Department and the NSC are now maintaining silence on the offer rather than repeating the Clinton-Gates expression of scepticism strongly suggests that the White House does not want to close the door publicly to negotiations with the Taliban linking troop withdrawal to renunciation of ties with al Qaeda, among other issues.
Last month, an even more explicit link between U.S. troop withdrawal and a severing by the Taliban of its ties with al Qaeda was made by a U.S. diplomat in Kabul.
In an article published Nov. 11, Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Trudy Rubin, who was then visiting Kabul, quoted an unnamed U.S. official as saying, "If the Taliban made clear to us that they have broken with al Qaeda and that their own objectives were nonviolent and political - however abhorrent to us - we wouldn't be keeping 68,000-plus troops here."
That statement reflected an obvious willingness to entertain a negotiated settlement under which U.S. troops would be withdrawn and the Taliban would break with al Qaeda.
A significant faction within the Obama administration has sought to portray those who suggest that the Taliban might part ways with al Qaeda as deliberately deceiving the West.
Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution, who headed the administration's policy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan last spring, recently said, "A lot of smoke is being thrown up to confuse people."
But even the hard-liner Riedel concedes that the Pakistani Taliban's attacks on the Pakistani military and Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) threaten the close relationship between the Afghan Taliban and ISI. The Pakistani Taliban continue to be closely allied with al Qaeda.
The Taliban began indicating it openness to negotiations with the United States and NATO in September 2007. But it began to hint publicly at its willingness to separate itself from al Qaeda in return for a troop withdrawal only three months ago.
Taliban leader Mullah Omar's message for Eid al-Fitr in mid-September assured "all countries" that a Taliban state "will not extend its hand to jeopardise others, as it itself does not allow others to jeopardise us... Our goal is to gain independence of the country and establish a just Islamic system there."
But the insurgent leadership has also emphasised that negotiations will depend on the U.S. willingness to withdraw troops. In anticipation of Obama's announcement of a new U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan, Mullah Omar issued a 3,000-word statement Nov. 25 which said, "The people of Afghanistan will not agree to negotiations which prolongs and legitimises the invader's military presence in our beloved country."
"The invading Americans want Mujahidin to surrender under the pretext of negotiation," it said.
That implied that the Taliban would negotiate if the U.S. did not insist on the acceptance of a U.S. military presence in the country.
The day after the Taliban proposal to Washington, Afghan President Hamid Karzai made a public plea to the United States to engage in direct negotiations with the Taliban leadership.
In an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour, Karzai said there is an "urgent need" for negotiations with the Taliban, and made it clear that the Obama administration had opposed such talks.
Karzai did not say explicitly that he wanted the United States to be at the table for such talks, but said, "Alone, we can't do it."
Jaclyn Nardone December 14, 2009In recent years, Dubai became known as a metropolis of wealth, the economic capital of the Middle East. This Arab Emirate, once rich in tourism and real estate, has recently taken an economic nose-dive with no promising solutions for revival. This essay will take a step back in time, to when Dubai’s markets were rich and growing, and explore how and why it became the place it is, or was. The answer is short and sweet: cheap labor and migrant construction workers. But an explanation behind the inhumane gap between the lavish rich and the destitute poor is a sad and complicated tale based on human rights violations. Living off dollars a day, exhausted and overworked, the men in hard-hats live lives completely contrary to those of the country’s capitalists. This analysis of the mass violations committed amid the UAE Federal Labor Law, leads to open-ended questions. What will the future hold for these workers, many of whom have already left the country? With Dubai’s debts channeling rumors of bankruptcy, will they be better off without the unjust jobs, or the hardest hit by this recession? It seems as though karma has crept up on the selfishness of Dubai, and with migrant workers fleeing the country, it may be too late for forgiveness, but it is worth a try. With fingers crossed and positive thoughts brewing, let’s hope Dubai can come out of this mess, and reroute the image it has given itself thus far, as a mass human rights violator within the realm of cheap labor.
The Trucial States along the Arab Peninsula transformed into the oil rich country of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on December 4th 1971. Little did the world, this country that was once summit by desert, would blossom into the Golden Capital of the world, the New York of the Middle East. In recent years, “entire cities cropped up where there was nothing 10 years ago.”[1] Dubai, one of the seven Arab Emirates, has been advertised to the world as a commercial haven of high-rise buildings, gorgeous cornices, and luxury cars. As the millennium grew older, Dubai grew richer. It has been known as a colossal metamorphosis growing within the economic sector, due to uncontrollable spikes in its trade and service industries. However, this phony economy would not last for long, and in this materialistic world of celebrity and eminence, Dubai seems to have used up its 15 minutes of fame.
The Emirate’s markets have recently become a plummeted disaster; Dubai is falling deeper and deeper into a cyclone of debt with no obvious or promising solutions for revival. This economic nosedive began in the wake of 2009, and by the year’s end, Dubai World sees itself owing some $59 billion US Dollars.[2] Wealthy brother Abu Dhabi has been criticized for not offering a helping hand, Emirates airlines has become too expensive for Dubai to single-handedly own and operate, workers have been laid off by the handfuls, newly built roads are empty of traffic, and the doors of the debtor prison are wide open. Dubai, once a place where investors played real-estate poker, now faces drastically declining shareholder confidence. This “downward spiral that has left parts of Dubai — once hailed as the economic superpower of the Middle East — looking like a ghost town.”[3]
Click for photo byEdson Walker - Dubai Indian Workers
Before understanding why Dubai’s economy is failing, which was “built on and bought with borrowed money,”[4] it is helpful to understand how it was callously built in the first place. It seems as though karma has crept up on the selfishness of Dubai, and it may be too late for forgiveness, but it is worth a try. This essay takes a step back in time, to 2008 and prior years, to when Dubai’s markets were rich and growing, and examine how mass violations of the UAE Federal Labor Law forced the migrant construction workers to live unjust lives, and suggests recommendations for future forgiveness.
Dubai’s population growth is a result of immigration’s push-pull effect, which pulls in expatriates from low waged countries, pushing them to seek employment in the growing Emirate.[5] This trend began in 1968, when migrant workers overwhelmed Dubai’s population by 54%.[6] By 2007, half a million migrant laborers were responsible for crafting the largest construction site on earth, whose projects toppled over 300 billion dollars.[7] As of 2006, these foreigners constituted 95%[8] of UAE’s workforce, outnumbering the country’s national workers by 1,000%.[9] The Dubai immigration boom has been compared to that of the United States of America, some 100 years ago; a Middle Eastern territory with a modern American Dream. Just as the “slave trade fed the wealth of the early Americas, expatriates are the foundation of growth in the UAE.”[10] Unskilled guest workers migrate to Dubai’s constructions sites from India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, the Philippines and elsewhere. It was estimated that by 2007, some 25,000[11] migrants made their way through UAE immigration each month, leered to Dubai on false promises, unsure of the life that awaited them.
Modern day slavery is often prevalent where cultures and countries undergo rapid transformation and modernization, such as in Dubai. According to political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “we have a moral obligation to condemn those who act to implement systems of slavery, caste, or racial domination.”[12] This scheme is evidently occurring in Dubai; migrant construction workers are treated like slave laborers within the lowest of class status brackets, in comparison to the local UAE citizens. “Man who are the property of another, politically and socially at a lower level than the mass of the people, and performing compulsory labor.”[13] These contemporary forms of worker subordination reveal that “there is little doubt, that in 2008, Dubai remains the region’s primary center for modern-day slavery.”[14]
Modernity constitutes modern markets and states that advance issues of equality and toleration. This hierarchical world of rulers and the ruled is progressively understood as a business, with office holders and their workers.[15] Dubai is a new state and market, and a hierarchical city of chiefs and subordinates. “A common assumption about industrialization is that "class consciousness" is the most fundamental category by means of which we are to understand workers’ experiences.”[16] Migrants are the subjugated lower class, who are subsidiary to the rule of their upper class, egalitarian supervisors and office holders. Worker’s labor is the price paid for the city’s industry, at low cost, which in turn retails basic human labor rights.
Dubai’s migrant construction workers are denied basic human labor rights, as defined by labor laws and international conventions and declarations. The business impact on human rights, with regards to labor rights, include freedom of association, the right to organize and participate in collective bargaining, right to non-discrimination, abolition of slavery and forced labor, right to equal pay for equal work, right to equality at work, right to just and favorable enumeration, right to a safe work environment, right to rest and leisure, and the right to family life. Migrant workers are denied each one of these labor rights, through the failed UAE Labor Law. “The root cause of the business and human rights predicament today lies in the governance gaps created by globalization [hence migrant workers] - between the scope and impact of economic forces and actors, and the capacity of societies to manage their adverse consequences.”[17]
The Federal Law (No.8, 1980), titled Regulation of Labor Relations, is responsible for reigning control and supervision over relationships between the state, the employer and migrant workers.[18] The UAE’s Federal Labor Law dictates all labor relations through the country, via the Ministry of Labor (directed by Dr. Dr. Ali bin Abdullah Al Kaabi) and his Council of Ministers. This Law, in partnership with labor examiners, is said to support both national and migrant workers; this is true for the former, however it fails to protect the human and labor rights of latter. “Until January 25th 2005, there were only 80 labor inspectors employed to look after the interests of approximately 2,738,000 expatriate workers. Now there are 130 inspectors; 1 UAE national inspector for every 21,062 expatriate employees.”[19]
Employers virtually own their workers once they arrive on Dubai soil. “The sponsorship system continues to be the mechanism through which workers enter labor-scarce Gulf countries.”[20] Prior to arrival in the UAE, foreign workers must be sponsored by a licensed local citizen, who is registered with the Ministry of Labor. This ensures that the workers are under full control and supervision of their sponsors during their stay in Dubai. The sponsor will decide where the workers shall travel to for work purposes, based on the economic needs of the country, at any given time. “This system, as applied to lower level positions, has been analogized to slavery because the employee is tied to one employer.”[21]
Confiscation of migrant workers passports is absolutely illegal, as stated under the UAE Labor Law and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Article 21 of the Convention states that it is unlawful for people, including employers, to withhold one’s identification unless they are of public authority authorized to do so. The UAE Labor Law states that employers are not to confiscate or destroy personal documents, muddle with documents that authorize workers to stay or leave the country, or work permits.[22] Employers seize workers documents, regardless of what the law says, since they are rarely ever punished for doing so. In 2001, the Dubai Court of Cassation legally revealed the “open secret that employers in the UAE often confiscate the passports of their employees, yet the government chooses to ignore this illegal practice.”[23] In addition, bosses will enforce longer and stricter contracts on the workers, to further prevent them from leaving the country. The sponsorship initiative violates the basic human labor right of the abolition of slavery and forced labor.
Article 2 of the UAE Labor Law indicates that migrant worker’s records, contracts, files, and data are to be documented in the country’s official Arabic language. In addition, working instructions shall also be published in Arabic. This choice of language will always prevail, even if the worker speaks in a different native tongue.[24] This overtly violates the basic human labor rights to just and favorable enumeration and non-discrimination. It has been proposed that the Labor Law should ensure contracts and instructions be printed in the comprehended language of the workers, to avoid misconceptions, the spread of misinformation, and employer deception.[25] However, in Dubai’s favor, such language confusions are a cleaver way to trick migrant illiterate workers into unforeseen contracts, which once are signed, the government cannot help them escape from.
Article 101 of the UAE Labor Law requires employees to provide migrant workers in remote areas outside of Dubai’s centrality, with transportation, comfortable living accommodations, drinking water, adequate food supplies, health facilities, and recreational opportunities. The workers are not to be charged for any of these amenities.[26] The majority of these requirements are outstandingly overlooked and discounted by employers and Labor Law enforcement. Further understanding seeks detailed explanation.
Construction workers depend on their sponsors for everything, during their stay in Dubai. Since workers contribute to local traffic, which is already held up for hours each day, they are often dropped off 5-10 KM away from their work site.[27] Workers line up by the dozens just to secure a seat on the buses, which are crammed and unsafe. When they finally make it home from work, and load off the buses, communal life is somewhat restricted. Workers must seek approval from their bosses to obtain liquor licenses and to have or rent a telephone or satellite television.[28] Workers have no independent rights to a sufficient social life, should their employers not grant them access, hence violation of the human labor right to rest and leisure.
Hundreds of migrant workers live in ghettos, dwelling on the outskirts of capitalistic Dubai. The migrant workers in blue construction uniform return home from work to a room that is shared among many men. Many men are not lucky enough to have bunk-beds, and therefore sleep atop each other on the floor. Even worse, it is said that most workers sleep in small cells that are beyond comparable to the beautiful stalls that Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum’s horses live in.[29] The rooms often have one hole for washroom purposes and one water tap.[30] In a better case scenario, the workers share communal bathrooms, showers, and kitchens. The labor camps drown in desert sand and often lack garbage systems. Sonapur has been known as the worst labor camp, lacking basic essentials, such as a sewage system.[31] Inevitably, these labor camps make prisons seem like hotels. Eating conditions and food supply are not much better than other attributes to life; in worst case scenarios, the workers are sometimes only fed “two handfuls of old rice per day.”[32]
The UN’s International Convention on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), ensures just and favorable working conditions for everyone, which includes particular safe and healthy working conditions.[33] Article 91 of the UAE Labor Law, which refers to worker’s safety, protection, health and social care states that all employers are to “provide appropriate safety measures to protect workers against the hazards of occupational injuries and diseases that may occur during the work, and also against hazards that may result from the use of machines and other work tools.”[34] This supports the basic human labor right of a safe work environment. Article 142 of the UAE Labor Law sustains that should a worker suffer injuries on the jobsite, the employer is to immediately report the injury to police or to the labor department. A report should validate all personal and employment information, such as the construction worker’s “name, age, occupation, address, and nationality, and a brief account of the accident, its circumstances and the medical aid or treatment provided.”[35] Police are entitled to follow through with further investigations, which may require questioning witnesses. However, this is hardily ever necessary, because injuries are seldom reported by employers, as it adds too much confusion to their already inhumane practices.
Unsafe working conditions are beyond hazardous, and often deadly, due to the lack of safety equipment provided by their employers. Not only do employers never report worker injuries, even worse, they rarely report migrant deaths that result from worksite blunders. It is up to the employers to immediately notify the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, should a death arise, but very few take action. Dr. Khalid Khazraji, Labor Undersecretary at the Ministry of Labor, said that this gives reason to why “the government has no comprehensive data about numbers, causes of death or injury, or about the identity of those dead or injured.” [36] In 2005, only 1/6 of the near 600 companies in Dubai reported worker injury or death; “800 workers died, only 34 were announced by the government [because] only 6 companies filed reports of death and injury.”[37]
“In an interview with the Indian consul in Dubai for the documentary Dans les Soutes de l’Eldorado, journalists Philippe Levasseur, Philippe Jasselin and Alexandre Berne claim to have been shown confidential reports showing that two Asians per day die on the construction sites of Dubai, and that there is a suicide every four days.”[38]Aside from accidental deaths, horrid working conditions lead to suicide among many labors. In 2004, the Indian consulate claimed that some 67 Indian workers commit suicide in Dubai, and some 100 more commit suicide within the following year. A specific case study details that “an Indian worker killed himself after his employer refused to give him 50 Dirhams to visit a doctor.”[39]/[40] Modern political theorists, such as Thomas Hobbs, philosophizes about his ideal state, which has strict control over its people, making them live a brutish, nasty, poor, and short life.[41] This ancient theory is recognized in the modern lifestyles of migrant workers in Dubai, hence high rates of suicide.
Employers need workers, but do not want to take responsibility of the men when they become injured on the job site, hence the rapid adoption of illegal workers to their workforce team. Seemingly very illicit, local government officials help companies and illegal workers in their efforts. These migrant laborers are of the most vulnerable, and face the most discrepancies and uncertainties, as they literally have no legal labor rights as illicit workers. A specific case study, from the Human Rights Watch organization, reveals these illegal working situations.
Chekalli, originally from Andhra Pradesh, India worked as an illegal migrant construction worker, employed in Dubai. He suffered major back injuries at the job site, especially on January 22nd 2006. Checkalli and his fellow injured work partner were dumped off at the government-run Kuwaiti Hospital in Emirate of Sharjah, to seek medical attention. Chekalli would soon come to realize that his injury caused him to be paralyzed, so not only could he no longer work, but he could no longer walk. Because injured Chekalli served no purpose for being in Dubai, due to his injury, “he would be returning to India without receiving any compensation for his work-related injuries.”[42] Without any reparations, reimbursements, or health insurance, Checkalli would have to take care of himself at home without any assistance from Dubai.
Legal migrant construction workers are paid exceptionally low wages, hence referring them to slave workers. This violates the basic human labor right of equal pay for equal work. Article 63 of UAE Labor Law states that a minimum wage shall be put in place, in accordance to the cost-of-living index payable to workers. It is up to the Minister of Labor to determine a minimum wage standard, that meets equivalencies to the worker’s cost of living, and that will provide for “basic needs and guarantee his livelihood.”[43] Migrant workers are paid close to nothing because they literally have close to nothing, as their living conditions are below minimum custom (hence a minimum wage based on the cost-of-living index payable to workers). Unlike Dubai’s wealthy, migrant’s lifestyles are not ones of extravagance. “Going to the cinema on their day off is out of the question. It costs more than a day’s wages.”[44]
Foreign construction workers are often paid about 600 Dirhams a month, equivalent to $160-170 US Dollars, while the average per capita income is over $2,000 US Dollars per month. These amounts equate to workers being paid about $1 US Dollar per hour. Workers are often in debt before traveling to Dubai, due to the loans they take from their home recruitment agencies, which secure their jobs abroad. In addition, debts increase when they arrive to Dubai, due to high visa and travel costs. Jus Codens norms prove that bonded labor in Dubai is a modern form of slavery, as “migrant workers spend several years working to pay back debts over which they have no control.”[45] This violates the 1926 and 1956 Conventions on Slavery.
Employers often illegally withhold employees low wages for months at a time. This prevents workers from sending money home to their families, who usually receive up to 80% of the migrant workers wages. Within the past few years, thousands of “workers filed complaints with the government about the non-payment of wages and labor camp conditions.”[46] This refusal of wages is of course illegal, under Article 56 of the UAE Labor Law, which indicates that workers on yearly or monthly contracts are to be paid at least once a month, while all other workers shall be paid biweekly.[47] Even though the Labor Law provides penalties for violations of its provisions, including withholding and the non-payment of wages, there has not been “a single instance where an employer was sanctioned, either by prison time or financial penalties, for failing to pay its workers,”[48] as of 2006.
In order to get paid, migrant workers must put in sufficient labor time on the construction site. Under Article 65, the UAE Labor Law states that the maximum normal working hours are 8 hours per day, totaling 48 hours per week. However, migrant construction workers often work 14 to 18 hour days, in the scorching 120(Fahrenheit) degree heat. Article 66 of the UAE Labor Law states that workers shall not labor for 5 hours without a break and Article 69 states that the “number of hours of actual overtime shall not exceed two a day.”[49] It is well know that these Laws are always violated, as laborers always work overtime, are given seldom breaks, and are never equally paid for their extra hours of labor. In addition, the UAE Labor Law’s working hours do not include “periods spent by a worker in traveling between his home and place of work.[50] Workers reside on Dubai’s outskirts, which is at least an hour drive from the construction sites and city’s lavish social scene. This means workers may spend up to 3 unpaid hours per day travelling to and from work.
Migrant workers “have great difficulty functioning outside of their own networks and have no access to government agencies or policies.”[51] They are unsatisfied with the horrid working conditions their employers force them to labor in, and therefore turn to public protests and strikes, in hopes to get their voices heard. Public demonstrations and protesting is illegal in Dubai; “when the workers strike as a result, they are jailed.”[52] Political parties, trade unions, and political organizations that may protect migrant works are also illegal. Freedom of assembly is a denied human labor right that confines migrant workers from political participation and involvement in the decision making processes. The UAE is a member country to the International Labor Organization (ILO), but their behavior does not coincide with the ILO’s Conventions on the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize (No.87) and the Convention on the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining (No.98).
Disregarding Dubai’s oppressive regimes, however, “between May and December of 2005, 8 major strikes took place.”[53] Throughout 2006, there were some 20 publically organized demonstrations in Dubai, in front of the Ministry of Labor building.[54] Amnesty International, a prominent worldwide human rights NGO, reported that in August and October of 2008, “hundreds of construction workers went on strike in Dubai to protest against low salaries and poor housing conditions, including a lack of safe water supplies.”[55] All these outbreaks prove that the Minister of Labor’s March 2006 promise for the legislation of a new Law to allow for trade unions and collective bargaining had failed. [56]
On March 11th 2007, workers of ETA Ascon, a company owned by the local Al Ghurair Emirati family of Dubai, sought revolts against their employer because of their low income wages. The companies 3,500 works only earn between 550-650 Dirhams each month. These workers demanded not only pay raises, but an “annual leave of one month and a return air ticket to their home country.”[57] 200 workers were to be deported as a result of the riots, which damaged a company vehicle, injured a company manager, and cost the company some 4 million Dirhams. Those who were allowed to keep their jobs and stay in Dubai received “a pay increase of 2 Dirhams (0.55 US Dollars) per day and a return air ticket home every two years.”[58] This situation is an example of how the migrant workers have little to no human labor rights, amid local Emirati people who seek economic gains at the expense of exploiting their workers.
Employers go unpunished for the unending lists of maltreatments that they enforce to control their migrant workers; “governance gaps between the employer and employee provide the permissive environment for wrongful acts by companies of all kinds without adequate sanctioning or reparation.”[59] More specifically, should a company be caught for breaching the law, in relation to the maltreatment of their workers, they shall only seek a small fine of between 6,000 and 12,000 Dirhams ($1,600-3,200 US Dollars).[60] Employers rarely ever take care of their workers, hence all the documented human rights violations. This leaves the construction workers with no one to turn to for assistance and aid. There is a desperate need to recognize and involve outside sources, should these human labor rights atrocities be punished and put to a stop.
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), which fall under the category of Non-State Actors, are inspired to promote basic human labor rights and change societal norms by improving understandings, documenting violations of human rights, creating and supporting enforcement mechanisms, and implementing policies to solve problems. NGOs date back to various forms of Labor Movements, often focused on helping exploited migrant workers, among various other abused minority groups. In Dubai specifically, NGO’s are desperately needed to help free the migrant construction workers from conditions of slave labor, because governmental agencies and big business conglomerates refuse to do so. All 100 some domestic NGOs within UAE must be registered with the Ministry of Social Affairs, through which they receive financial assistance.[61]
One of the most prominent NGOs in Dubai that works toward irradiating the working conditions for migrant construction workers is the Human Rights Watch (HRW). HRW lies the “legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.”[62] The HRW has been around for roughly 30 years, founded in 1978. As of 1989, one of its prominent divisions has been focused on Middle Eastern countries, hence their involvement in Dubai. The HRW monitors some 70 countries within many subcategories of violation issues, such as labor rights. In addition, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is a leading NGO that promotes humanitarian law in foreign countries through the world, including in the UAE. The ICRC recognizes the mistaken choices the UAE federal government and local Dubai municipalities have taken in protecting the voices of their workers.
Promoting, protecting, monitoring, and implementing human rights is of main concern to the United Nation’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR); “the principal forum for negotiating international human rights norms.”[63] It is devised as a forum for counties, non-governmental groups, and human rights defenders. HRW recommends the UAE to develop a tighter relationship with the UN. The UAE is a signatory to the UN, as of December 4th 1971.[64] Therefore, the people residing and laboring within the country, under the UAE Labor Law, are entitled to the UN’s basic human labor rights. The UAE is urged to consider UN International Covenants, such as the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The ICESCR seeks “the right of everyone to form trade unions and join the trade union of his choice, for the promotion and protection of his economic and social interests and the right to strike.”[65] The UAE should also consider the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees the right to freedom of association; “everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.”[66]
HRW suggests that the UAE adopt the policies of the UN’s International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (ICPRMWMF). The UN’s Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW) seeks to enable and enforce rules and regulations under the ICPRMWMF. If properly considered and implemented, it will better enhance, protect, and secure the rights of its migrant construction workforce. The CMW is practiced through independent experts who monitor human rights protections, while states submit reports to the Committee, following up on implemented or ignored human right practices.[67] These Committees can only issue observations, comments, and recommendations based on their concerns for their member states. The way in which the CMW operates is very similar to the UN’s OHCHR and the International Labor Organization (ILO).
Supported by over 180 member states (including the UAE), the ILO works toward ridding work that involves various forms of slavery, such as the working conditions endured by the migrant construction workers in Dubai. The ILO is the first of its kind and was created by the Treaty of Versailles. After WWII, important conventions were created such as “freedom of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively, discrimination in employment, equality of remuneration, forced labor, migrant workers, workers’ representatives, and basic aims and standards of social policy.”[68] Dubai evidently chooses to ignore such procedures. States and national authorities, who chose to follow the ILO’s positive worker enforcements, are to submit reports to the ILO, for the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEPCR) review. The ILO’s reporting and monitoring system can only make observations, which are supported and represented by national trade union representatives.[69]
In accordance with following the ILO’s labor laws, HRW raises prominent sections that Dubai needs to focus on; ILO’s Conventions concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour (No.29), Recommendation concerning Migration for Employment (No.86), Convention concerning Migration for Employment (No.97), Convention concerning Abolition of Forced Labour (No.105), the Convention concerning Migrations in Abusive Conditions and the Promotion of Equality of Opportunity and Treatment of Migrant Workers (No.143), the Recommendation concerning Migrant Workers (No.151), Conventions
[1] “Fastest Growing City in the World! Middle East 2.0 – Dubai.” YouTube Broadcast: Online. 18 Feb. 2007. <21 Nov. 2008.
[2] “UAE markets plunge again on Dubai debt drama.” 02 Dec. 2009. EUbusiness: Online. <10 Dec. 2009.
[3] Worth, Robert F. “Laid-off Foreigners leave as Dubai Spirals Down.” 11 Feb. 2009. New York Times: Online. <05 Dec. 200.
[4] Thompson, Ben. “What spoiled the party in Dubai?”27 Nov. 2009. BBC World News: Online. <06 Dec. 2009.
[5] Fenelon, K.G. The United Arab Emirates: An Economic and Social Survey. London and New York; Longman Group LTD, 1973. P.7.
[6] Fenelon, K.G. The United Arab Emirates: An Economic and Social Survey. London and New York; Longman Group LTD, 1973. P.7.
[8] “Building Towers, Cheating Workers: Exploitation of Migrant Construction Workers in the United Arab Emirates.” Human Rights Watch. Vol.18. No.8(E). Nov. 2006. <21 Nov. 2008. P.10.
[9] Binder, Leonard. Rebuilding Devastated Economies in the Middle East. New York: Center for Near Eastern Studies, UCLA, 2007. P. 44.
[15] Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights: In Theory & Practice. United States of America: Cornell University Press, 2003. P.58.
[16] Ong, Aihwa. “The Gender and Labor Politics of Postmodernism.” Annual Reviews: Anthropology. Vol. 20. Pages: 297-309. 1991. <20.100191.001431?cookieSet=1>. 13 Dec. 2008. P.280.
[17] Ruggie, John. “Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights.” Human Rights Council. Session 8. Agenda 3. 7 April. 2008. <13 Dec. 2008. P.3.
[18] Keane, David and McGeehan, Nicholas. “Enforcing Migrant Workers' Rights in the United Arab Emirates.” International Journal on Minority and Group Rights. Vol.15. No.1. Pages: 81. Brill (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers). 2008.<http://www.swetswise.com.ezproxy.uwindsor.ca/FullText....>. 13 Dec. 2008. P.84.
[19] Keane, David and McGeehan, Nicholas. “Enforcing Migrant Workers' Rights in the United Arab Emirates.” International Journal on Minority and Group Rights. Vol.15. No.1. Pages: 81. Brill (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers). 2008.<http://www.swetswise.com.ezproxy.uwindsor.ca/FullText....>. 13 Dec. 2008. P.91.
[20] Binder, Leonard. Rebuilding Devastated Economies in the Middle East. New York: Center for Near Eastern Studies, UCLA, 2007. P. 44.
[21] Keane, David and McGeehan, Nicholas. “Enforcing Migrant Workers' Rights in the United Arab Emirates.” International Journal on Minority and Group Rights. Vol.15. No.1. Pages: 81. Brill (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers). 2008.<http://www.swetswise.com.ezproxy.uwindsor.ca/FullText....>. 13 Dec. 2008. P.84.
[22]“Building Towers, Cheating Workers: Exploitation of Migrant Construction Workers in the United Arab Emirates.” Human Rights Watch. Vol.18. No.8(E). Nov. 2006. <21 Nov. 2008. P.66.
[23] “UAE: Draft Labor Law Violated International Standards.” Human Rights Watch: Online. 24. March. 2007.22 Nov. 2008.>
[31] Shaoul, Jean. “The plight of the UAE’s migrant workers: the flip side of a booming economy.” World Prout Assembly: Online. 9 Nov. 2007. <23 Nov. 2008.
[33] “Building Towers, Cheating Workers: Exploitation of Migrant Construction Workers in the United Arab Emirates.” Human Rights Watch. Vol.18. No.8(E). Nov. 2006. <21 Nov. 2008. P.66.
[36] “Federal Law No. 8 for 1980, On Regulation of Labor Relations The Determination of retentive Methods and Measures For the Protection of Workers From the Risks Work.” 30 August 2006, Vol. 142. No.32. 1982. <http://www.mol.gov.ae/Pages-EN/documents-en/rulelabour.>.13 Dec. 2008.
[38] Keane, David and McGeehan, Nicholas. “Enforcing Migrant Workers' Rights in the United Arab<>http://www.swetswise.com.ezproxy.uwindsor.ca/FullText....>. 13 Dec. 2008. P.93.
[39] Keane, David and McGeehan, Nicholas. “Enforcing Migrant Workers' Rights in the United Arab Emirates.” International Journal on Minority and Group Rights. Vol.15. No.1. Pages: 81. Brill (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers). 2008.<http://www.swetswise.com.ezproxy.uwindsor.ca/FullText....>. 13 Dec. 2008. P.92.
[40] Economist Intelligence Unit. “Country Report: UAE, Main Report.” 1 February 2005. 13 Dec. 2008.
[41] Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights: In Theory & Practice. United States of America: Cornell University Press, 2003. P.204
[42] “Human Rights Watch interview with Indian social activist (identity withhold).” February 21, 2006. “Building Towers, Cheating Workers: Exploitation of Migrant Construction Workers in the United Arab Emirates.” Human Rights Watch. Vol.18. No.8(E). Nov. 2006. 22 Nov. 2008. P. 48.
[44] Shaoul, Jean. “The plight of the UAE’s migrant workers: the flip side of a booming economy.” World Prout Assembly: Online. 9 Nov. 2007. <23 Nov. 2008.
[48] “Building Towers, Cheating Workers: Exploitation of Migrant Construction Workers in the United Arab Emirates.” Human Rights Watch. Vol.18. No.8(E). Nov. 2006. <21 Nov. 2008. P.15.
[51] Binder, Leonard. Rebuilding Devastated Economies in the Middle East. New York: Center for Near Eastern Studies, UCLA, 2007. P. 44.
[52] “Top 20 Reasons Not To Move To Dubai.” YouTube Broadcast: Online. 11 Sept. 2007. <21 Nov. 2008.
[53] “UAE: Address Abuse of Migrant Workers.” Human Rights Watch: Online. 28 March. 2006. <22 Nov. 2008.
[54] “United Arab Emirates.” Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: 2006. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, Labor. U.S. Department of State. 6 March. 2007. <24 Nov. 2008.
[55] “UAE – Amnesty International Report 2008.” Human Rights In United Arab Emirates. Report: 2008. Amnesty International: Online. <23 Nov. 2008.
[56] “Building Towers, Cheating Workers: Exploitation of Migrant Construction Workers in the United Arab Emirates.” Human Rights Watch. Vol.18. No.8(E). Nov. 2006. <21 Nov. 2008. P.11.
[57] Keane, David and McGeehan, Nicholas. “Enforcing Migrant Workers' Rights in the United Arab Emirates.” International Journal on Minority and Group Rights. Vol.15. No.1. Pages: 81. Brill (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers). 2008.<http://www.swetswise.com.ezproxy.uwindsor.ca/FullText....>. 13 Dec. 2008. P.89-90.
[58] Keane, David and McGeehan, Nicholas. “Enforcing Migrant Workers' Rights in the United Arab Emirates.” International Journal on Minority and Group Rights. Vol.15. No.1. Pages: 81. Brill (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers). 2008.<http://www.swetswise.com.ezproxy.uwindsor.ca/FullText....>. 13 Dec. 2008. P.89-90.
[59] Ruggie, John. “Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights.” Human Rights Council. Session 8. Agenda 3. 7 April. 2008. <13 Dec. 2008. P.3.
[60] “UAE: Draft Labor Law Violated International Standards.” Human Rights Watch: Online. 24. March. 2007. <22 Nov. 2008.
[61] “United Arab Emirates.” Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: 2006. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, Labor. U.S. Department of State. 6 March. 2007. <24 Nov. 2008.
[63] Donnelly Jack, Universal Human Rights, United States: Cornell University Press, 2003, p.129.
[64] “United Nations Member States.” Press Release: Org/1469. United Nations. 3 July. 2006. <15 Nov. 2008.
[65] “Building Towers, Cheating Workers: Exploitation of Migrant Construction Workers in the United Arab Emirates.” Human Rights Watch. Vol.18. No.8(E). Nov. 2006. <21 Nov. 2008. P.66.
[66] “Building Towers, Cheating Workers: Exploitation of Migrant Construction Workers in the United Arab Emirates.” Human Rights Watch. Vol.18. No.8(E). Nov. 2006. <21 Nov. 2008. P.66.
[67] “Charter-Based Mechanism for Human Rights Protection and Promotion.” The United Nations Human Rights System. Human Rights Education Associates. <22 October 2008.
[68] Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights: In Theory & Practice. United States of America: Cornell University Press, 2003. P.145.
[69] Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights: In Theory & Practice. United States of America: Cornell University Press, 2003. P.145-146.
[70] “Building Towers, Cheating Workers: Exploitation of Migrant Construction Workers in the United Arab Emirates.” Human Rights Watch. Vol.18. No.8(E). Nov. 2006. <21 Nov. 2008. P.68.
[71] “UAE: Workers Abused in Construction Boom.” Human Rights Watch: Online. 11 Nov. 2006. <22 Nov. 2008.
[72] Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights: In Theory & Practice. United States of America: Cornell University Press, 2003. P.104.
By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, December 16, 2009; 12:30 AM
As the Senate struggles to meet a self-imposed, year-end deadline to complete work on legislation to overhaul the nation's health-care system, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds the public generally fearful that a revamped system would bring higher costs while worsening the quality of their care.
A bare majority of Americans still believe government action is needed to control runaway health-care costs and expand coverage to the roughly 46 million people without insurance. But after a year of exhortation by President Obama and Democratic leaders and a high-octane national debate, there is minimal public enthusiasm for the kind of comprehensive changes in health care now under consideration. There are also signs the political fight has hurt the president's general standing with the public.
One bright spot for the president in the poll is Afghanistan. His announcement Dec. 1 that he was ordering an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to that country, to bolster the 68,000 already there, wins majority support. More than half of all Americans, 52 percent, approve of how he is handling the situation there, up from 45 percent before the speech.
But Obama and the Democrats have had decidedly less success convincing the public that their health proposals will bring positive change. More than half of those polled, 53 percent, see higher costs for themselves if the proposed changes go into effect than if the current system remains intact. About as many (55 percent) say the overall cost of the national health-care system would go up more sharply. Moreover, just 37 percent say the quality of their care would be better under a new system; 50 percent see it as better under the current set-up.
Even among those who presumably stand to benefit most from a major restructuring of the insurance market -- the nearly one in 5 adults without coverage -- there are doubts about the changes under consideration. Those without insurance are evenly divided on the question of whether their care would be better if the system were overhauled.
The findings underscore the political risks for Obama and the Democrats as they push to enact health-care legislation. Democrats believe passage of the bill will give them a political boost, despite the fractious debate that has surrounded the legislative struggle. But they are moving ahead in the face of a sharply divided country, with no certain guarantees that their efforts will be rewarded politically.
* * *
Obama's domestic battles have taken their toll, as his approval ratings on key issues have sunk to the lowest points of his presidency. On health care, 53 percent disapprove of his performance, a new high. On the economy, 52 percent disapprove, also a new high mark in Post-ABC polling. Same on the deficit, on which 56 percent now disapprove of his stewardship. On the politically volatile issue of unemployment, 47 percent approve of the way Obama is dealing with the issue; 48 percent disapprove.
Under the weight of these more negative reviews, the president's overall approval rating has dipped to 50 percent, down from 56 percent a month ago. Other national surveys have recorded his ratings at or below 50 percent in recent weeks, but this is his lowest level yet in a Post-ABC News survey.
The erosion in the president's standing has been driven by continued slippage among political independents, particularly among independent men. For the first time, a majority of independents disapprove of his overall job performance, and independents' disapproval of his handling of health care and the economy tops six in 10.
Americans still trust the president more than Republicans in Congress to handle the economy, health care and energy policy, although they do so by smaller margins than in recent months. Obama's advantage on the economy has been sliced in half since June, and he now holds just a narrow seven-point edge on health care.
At the same time, nearly a quarter of those who disapprove of Obama's handling of health care say they trust neither party on the issue, a sign that Republicans still have work to do to win the confidence of many Americans.
Some of the changes away from the president and the Democrats in this poll stem from a more GOP-leaning sample than in previous surveys. In this poll, the Democratic advantage in partisan identification has been shaved to six points, the first time in more than a year that the gap has been lower than double digits. There is also near-parity between the parties, when nonpartisans who "lean" toward one party or the other are counted, also a first for 2009.
The numbers of Democrats, Republicans and independents varies by poll, with each random sampling of adults producing slightly different population estimates. Samples are statistically adjusted to known census demographics, but not to predetermined levels of partisanship, which themselves change over time. A single poll is not enough to draw conclusions about a lasting GOP resurgence, or a short-term shift.
* * *
Following the twists and turns of the health-care debate has proved dizzying for insiders and the public alike, with provisions appearing and disappearing as Democratic leaders in the House and Senate try to assemble enough votes to pass legislation. The survey suggests the advocates of comprehensive reform have not been able to produce broad national support for change.
In the poll conducted this month, 51 percent say they oppose the proposed changes to the system; 44 percent approve of them. Two-thirds say the health-care reforms would add to the federal deficit, with two-thirds of those people calling such an increase "not worth it."
More than six in 10 favor expanding Medicare to people ages 55 to 64 who lack insurance--a proposal included in one Senate compromise effort that appears unlikely to survive final negotiations. By a 2 to 1 margin, more Americans say a new system will weaken rather than strengthen the Medicare system.
On the issue of whether and how to expand coverage to those who do not have it, 36 percent favor a government plan to compete with private insurers, 30 percent prefer private plans coordinated by the government and 30 percent want the system to remain intact.
On Afghanistan, the president's improved standing stems from a popular policy position -- about six in 10 back his decision to send the new forces -- and is bolstered by other big movements in public views on the war.
A narrow majority, 52 percent, see the war in Afghanistan as worth its costs, a six-point increase from last month. Most, 56 percent, now see success in Afghanistan as critical to making progress in the broader war on terrorism, the most to say so in polls back to July 2008.
For the first time, Democrats tilt toward seeing winning the Afghanistan war as essential to the overall campaign against terrorism (48 percent say so to 41 percent who say it is not). Independents -- 56 percent say essential, 38 percent say not -- are also more in this camp than ever.
One of the motivating forces here is that nearly three-quarters of Americans are "extremely" or "very" angry at the Taliban for having supported Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda before Sept. 11, 2001. Across party lines, those who are intensely angry at the Taliban are more apt to see success in Afghanistan as critical to winning the U.S. campaign against terrorism.
At the same time, barely half of those polled are confident the president's new strategy for Afghanistan will succeed, with about one in 10 highly confident.
About four in 10 say the July 2011 timeline Obama set for the beginning of a troop drawdown is "about right," about three in 10 want the pullback to start sooner and about two in 10 want it later. Regardless of their assessment of the timing, most, 55 percent, oppose Obama's having set a specific deadline for this to occur, with Republicans and independents broadly opposed and Democrats largely supportive.
More than seven in 10 expect large numbers of U.S. troops to remain in Afghanistan for many years to come, with a near-even split among those who anticipate a long-term deployment on whether that is allowable. Republicans and Democrats are about equally likely to foresee a lengthy U.S. military role there, but Republicans tilt toward supporting this, with Democrats against it.
The poll was conducted Thursday through Sunday by conventional and cellular telephone among a random national sample of 1,003 adults. The margin of sampling error for the full survey is plus or minus three percentage points.
Little hope for deal with Hamas that would allow elections
By Howard Schneider Wednesday, December 16, 2009; A08
RAMALLAH, WEST BANK -- The Palestine Liberation Organization's ruling Central Council gathered here this week to extend the soon-to-expire term of Palestinian PresidentMahmoud Abbas, a session that promised to say as much about the drift and division in Palestinian politics as about the 74-year-old leader's standing.
Delegates to the roughly 120-member body, representing a collection of political parties, labor unions and other organizations, said that with little hope of elections soon, they will authorize Abbas to stay in office indefinitely. The Hamas movement's control of the Gaza Strip has forced the cancellation of an election set for January, when Abbas's term ends, and little progress has been made toward a reconciliation agreement that would allow the vote to be rescheduled.
Delegates said they also plan to endorse Abbas's policy of refusing to start new peace negotiations with Israel without a comprehensive freeze on the expansion of its settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem -- areas that the Palestinians expect to be part of their future state.
"The Israelis are supporting something we cannot accept, and Abbas cannot retreat," said Nabil Amr, a council member and former Palestinian Authority ambassador to Egypt.
The Central Council meeting will resolve the immediate problem of continuing Palestinian governance -- at least in the West Bank, where the Abbas-led Palestinian Authority holds power. But Hamas, a militant Islamist group, is not part of the PLO, an umbrella organization formed in the 1960s that still serves as an important arbiter of Palestinian interests.
Abbas has said he will not run for reelection, but in an opening address Tuesday he gave no indication that he plans to resign or leave the stage anytime soon. To the contrary, he spelled out again what he feels is needed for negotiations to resume: a halt to Israeli settlement construction and a recognition by Israel that the territory it captured in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war forms the basis for talks about setting a final border.
"When Israel stops settlement activity for a specific period, and when it recognizes the borders we are calling for, there would be nothing to prevent us from going to negotiations," Abbas said.
There was little new substance in Abbas's remarks, and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has said he worries that the Palestinian leader has made the refusal of new negotiations a "strategic choice."
"There is a real concern now that saying no is a deliberate strategy," said Netanyahu spokesman Mark Regev. "They have become rejectionists out of a desire to not be forced to make concessions."
The Israelis have said they are ready to start negotiations without preconditions.
Abbas, who negotiated with previous Israeli governments as settlement construction continued, hardened his stance after the Obama administration pushed for a settlement freeze but was rebuffed by Netanyahu, who would agree only to a partial moratorium.
PLO delegates said the experience of the past few months -- the hopes raised by Barack Obama's election and the frustration over the lack of subsequent progress -- has left them groping for a new strategy.
"Negotiate? What for? For the sake of negotiations?" asked Adnan Garib, one of a handful of Central Council members allowed by Israel to travel to Ramallah from Gaza for the meeting. "We have to have a clear frame of reference" before restarting talks.
STANDOFF MAY END IN VIOLENCE Group's presence is sore point in ties with Tehran
By Ernesto Londoño Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, December 16, 2009; A08
CAMP ASHRAF, IRAQ -- With loudspeakers mounted on pickup trucks and riot police offering backup, Iraqi troops on Tuesday ordered a group of Iranian dissidents here to vacate their sanctuary, which has become an irritant in Iraq's relationship with Iran.
"Today is the day we start moving things out," Brig. Gen. Basel Hamad told reporters during a rare trip to the camp, 40 miles north of Baghdad. "We will not allow any foreigners to establish their own laws on Iraqi soil."
Members of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq, or MEK, who reside in the 10-square-mile compound, have warned that they will not be taken out alive. Residents and Western officials fear the increasingly tense stalemate at Camp Ashraf could end in bloodshed.
The standoff has raised questions about the extent to which the United States, which once protected the MEK, is indebted to armed groups with which it brokered deals during the course of the war. The deadlock also has shed light on the degree to which an increasingly sovereign Iraq is haunted by its past, swayed by erstwhile nemesis Iran and willing to use force.
The Iraqi government invited reporters to the camp Tuesday. The day began ominously, with three car bombs detonating at the site where the journalists later gathered. At least four people were killed in the blasts, which occurred near the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad.
At midday, Iraqi policemen donned riot gear at a staging area and spoke about what might happen at Camp Ashraf in the days ahead.
"Our instructions are that we are not to beat anyone," said Aquil Ahmed, the police commissioner, adding that troops were armed only with rubber batons and electric shock wands. "If the demonstrations reach another stage, we will need to use weapons."
Packing dozens of Iraqi and Western journalists into the backs of pickup trucks, Iraqi troops drove down the tree-lined streets of the camp dropping leaflets and blaring messages in Farsi on loudspeakers. They asked MEK members to defect and invited them to hop into four small white-and-blue buses. None obliged.
A point of contention
The MEK camp includes dozens of people with dual nationalities or with residency permits for the United States, Canada and European countries.
Their continued presence in Iraq has been a sore spot in Baghdad's relations with Tehran, which became close after the March 2003 U.S. invasion. The Shiite-led government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says the group must be disbanded and expelled, but no country seems willing to give the MEK sanctuary.
The group began as a student opposition movement in Tehran in the 1960s that sought to overthrow Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the shah. It resorted to violence during the 1970s, with members accused of bombing government facilities and killing U.S. citizens in Iran.
The MEK moved its headquarters to Iraq in the mid-1980s and fought alongside Saddam Hussein's forces during the second half of the war between the neighboring countries. U.S. and European officials say the group helped the Iraqi government crush uprisings by Shiites and Kurds.
Shortly after the U.S.-led invasion, the American military brokered the group's disarmament and offered it protection. The MEK says it gave U.S. officials valuable information about Iran's nuclear program.
The roughly 3,200 residents of the camp have since lived in a Marxist-like commune, and they say they aspire to overthrow the Iranian regime.
A group with few friends
In recent months, as the Iraqi government has become increasingly assertive, the residents' fate has become precarious. In July, Iraqi troops barged into the camp to set up a police station. Group members resisted, and Iraqi officers opened fire and ran over residents with American-donated armored Humvees, killing 11 people and wounding scores.
While it seeks a permanent home for the Iranians, the Iraqi government says it intends to take them to other camps in southern Iraq. But officials have not disclosed details.
As others debate the MEK's fate, the group appears more isolated than ever. It recently broke off communications with the International Committee of the Red Cross. The European Commission has begun distributing a white paper to lawmakers, many of whom support the MEK, in an effort to taper their support for the group.
"We're trying to educate them," said a senior Western diplomat involved in the efforts, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of diplomatic rules. "We collectively tend to forget what bad guys the MEK are."
American officials say they can do little under the terms of a bilateral agreement other than urge the Iraqis to act humanely.
"We not only have no obligation to protect them, we cannot intervene," said Philip Frayne, a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy.
MEK members say the United States owes them more.
"I am afraid of these soldiers," said Maryam Zoljalali, 28, who moved to the camp eight years ago from Sweden. "I don't know what they will do in the future."
After standing by uncomfortably for a few minutes as camp residents waved placards and photos around journalists, Iraqi troops ordered the reporters back to their vehicles.
Inside one bus, an Iraqi soldier scoffed as he looked out the window.
"They had satellite dishes before anyone in Iraq," he said, a reference to the preferential treatment accorded to the MEK under Hussein. "We used to come here as laborers when they were the commanders."
Asked whether the turned tables were an opportunity for revenge, another soldier laughed.
"I have nothing to do with this," he said. "But their state wants them back."
Special correspondent Aziz Alwan contributed to this report.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_scSdA5O0-ddsJBUBHILog-EPwZkNkJ91LY21DQPWLlbQkiz0v2Y_k-61hdmsKovoQ4PJuXtNJQo2_nT8hIVXT7umAKOXWjxv--1C-xeZgnaRZXsUh_U9Rd2DikrSduJWx8Cc2dfM0SAP1FjfblWzrv=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tuGt3Mjd6weSVC_u7rOCFfqpE96Y9uF_89C1yjOy2I0ItsdyYjElVj4K14a8lEHhiUSYMZkSeMkbL8Ey-X1MRxHlejVypRRtiVi4S1IegtcclsLV4cFOmmOhyDAhCVTnC02HfZqLlSpymLq7LMjqYD=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_s1NSOtgJnBVfTJBaL8TbOXRzUhbYL1QxNSWPhsGbQaUNZXGmRqVRNZEmd5xrvliDw7KAi6kqGk1uG8L6TAA7T2aMwf-qDjXbU8BKVPRIjBi1UlgqgsN90evxKvsfGGfe9ALfwz2_gHwZhHXdCxLjo=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vCrulTob8_Kxcmi6Jspi0jcOt5F3QdfUBu-QfCTI8EDdA1Y_qwDUDzAPxVQ7Vx5qJGzAKcLsljeaSkDDgYM7GMwCwYVLiabZyZhQgHiJkiE_IgubKJZSSfx64Jbk_Z-eL4AkeK44ZtpmK-G6AwuSmK=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vHcWxgXRg4P_13tp09LY99JUyQYg6IZx4NK1oEYTqr-EyAd4_mpmw5clrFX8b8jfpps586HsJ2NxGCpKo8W9T7vt6AB7xEmiKtNuEgRqcClW5oObTgi9MleiBynU1WAVxpIodNryf4JHR_b5FTN3A=s0-d)