Modern Day Slavery of Migrant Construction Workers in Commercial Dubai

Image by travelmeasia via Flickr

Jaclyn Nardone
December 14, 2009

---

In 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]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/travelmeasia/3596448319/

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.

[7] “Dubai 60 Minutes CBSNEWS part1.” 60 Minutes, CBS News Broadcast: Online. YouTube Broadcast: Online. 22 Oct. 2007. <21 Nov. 2008.

[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.

[10] “Dubai Uncovered.” Kirilirik. G.P.I. Productions. YouTube Broadcast: Online. 29 Dec. 2007.

[11] “Dubai 60 Minutes CBSNEWS part1.” 60 Minutes, CBS News Broadcast: Online. YouTube Broadcast: Online. 22 Oct. 2007. <21 Nov. 2008.

[12] Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights: In Theory & Practice. United States of America: Cornell University Press, 2003. P.52-53.

[13] Kopytoff, Igor. “Slavery.” Annual Review: Anthropology. Vol.11. Pages: 207-230. 1982. <13 Dec. 2008. P.211.

[14] Davidson, Christopher. “Dubai: The Security Dimensions of the Region's Premier Free Port.” Middle East Policy. Vol. 15. No.2. 2008. <http://resolver.scholarsportal.info.ezproxy.uwindsor.ca/resolve/ 10611924/v15i0002/143_duthseprfrpo&form=pdf&file=file.pdf>. 13 Dec. 2008. P.148.

[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.>

[24] “UAE Labor Law.” Gulf Talent. January 2007. <22 Nov. 2008. P.7

[25] “UAE: Draft Labor Law Violated International Standards.” Human Rights Watch: Online. 24. March. 2007. <22 Nov. 2008.

[26] “UAE Labor Law.” Gulf Talent. January 2007. <22 Nov. 2008. P.24

[27] “Slavery in UAE.” YouTube Broadcast: Online. 13 Jan. 2008. <21 Nov. 2008.

[28] “Top 20 Reasons Not To Move To Dubai.” YouTube Broadcast: Online. 11 Sept. 2007. <21 Nov. 2008.

[29] “Dubai’s Dirty Little Secret.” Brian Ross: Investigates. 20/20 ABC News: Online. Producer: Jill Rackmill. Editor: Tom Marcyes. YouTube Broadcast: Online. 05 Aug. 2007.< 21 Nov. 2008.

[30] “Slavery in UAE.” YouTube Broadcast: Online. 13 Jan. 2008. <21 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.

[32] “Slavery in UAE.” YouTube Broadcast: Online. 13 Jan. 2008. <21 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.

[34] “UAE Labor Law.” Gulf Talent. January 2007. <22 Nov. 2008. P.23

[35] “UAE Labor Law.” Gulf Talent. January 2007. <22 Nov. 2008. P.34

[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.

[37] “Slavery in UAE.” YouTube Broadcast: Online. 13 Jan. 2008. <21 Nov. 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.

[43] “UAE Labor Law.” Gulf Talent. January 2007. <22 Nov. 2008. P.18

[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.

[45] Davidson, Christopher. “Dubai: The Security Dimensions of the Region's Premier Free Port.” Middle East Policy. Vol. 15. No.2. 2008. <http://resolver.scholarsportal.info.ezproxy.uwindsor.ca/resolve/ 10611924/v15i0002/143_duthseprfrpo&form=pdf&file=file.pdf>. 13 Dec. 2008. P.148.

[46] “UAE: Address Abuse of Migrant Workers.” Human Rights Watch: Online. 28 March. 2006. <22 Nov. 2008.

[47] “UAE Labor Law.” Gulf Talent. January 2007. <22 Nov. 2008. P.17

[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.

[49] “UAE Labor Law.” Gulf Talent. January 2007. <22 Nov. 2008. P.19

[50] “UAE Labor Law.” Gulf Talent. January 2007. <22 Nov. 2008. P.19

[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.

[62] “About Us.” Human Rights Watch: Online. <23 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.

[73] “UAE – Amnesty International Report 2007.” Human Rights In United Arab Emirates. Report: 2007. Amnesty International: Online. <http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/uae/report-2007>.23 Nov. 2008.

[74]Saleem, Nadia. “du to set up internet portal for UAE NGOs.” Gulfnews: Online. Telecom Business. 24 August. 2008.<23 Nov. 2008.

[75] Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights: In Theory & Practice. United States of America: Cornell University Press, 2003. P.52-53.

[76] “Dubai under scrutiny after debt payment delay.” 26 Nov. 2009. BBC World News: Online. <06 Dec. 2009.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Citi's Dubai Mistake: A Sign of More Bad Things To Come? (time.com)
• Dubai's $10B bailout by Abu Dhabi calms fears (thestar.com)
• Gulf rulers back monetary union plan (financialpost.com)

Public cooling to health-care reform as debate drags on, poll finds

Image via Wikipedia

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.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Poll: Public skeptical of war ramp-up (msnbc.msn.com)
• Bin Laden's death would not stop al-Qaeda (telegraph.co.uk)
• Obama Declares War On Pakistan (thetruthwarblog.blogspot.com)
• Obama's Afghanistan Surge: A Long War With an Uncertain Outcome (time.com)
• Terrorist recruiters leverage the Web (msnbc.msn.com)

Palestinian leaders to extend President Mahmoud Abbas's term indefinitely

Image via Wikipedia

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 President Mahmoud 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.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Abbas Sets Terms for Resuming Stalled Peace Talks (nytimes.com)
• Divided Palestinians expected to agree on status quo (telegraph.co.uk)
• Palestinians mark Arafat's death (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Palestinians 'to ask' UN to endorse independence (telegraph.co.uk)

Iraq orders Iranian exiles to vacate camp, raising fears of bloodshed

Image via Wikipedia

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.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Camp Ashraf (news.bbc.co.uk)
• End Iran exile demo - UK archbishop (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Iranian opposition detainees freed in Iraq (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• In Iraq, Tensions Bubble Inside and Outside an Iranian Exile Camp (nytimes.com)

Obama administration to buy Illinois prison for Guantanamo detainees

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

CONGRESS MUST VOTE ON PLAN
Critics are calling facility 'Gitmo North'

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 16, 2009; A03

CHICAGO -- President Obama, determined to change U.S. detention policy and shut the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pointed Tuesday to a small town in Illinois as a big part of the answer.

A state prison in rural Thomson will be purchased and refitted to house dozens of terrorism suspects now held at Guantanamo Bay, the administration announced. But Obama immediately drew criticism that revealed just how controversial the issue remains.

Republicans in Illinois and in Washington called the president's move risky and reminded the administration that a congressional vote is required before detainees not facing trial can be held indefinitely on U.S. soil. GOP members of the House will "seek every remedy at our disposal to stop this dangerous plan," vowed Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). A vote is weeks or months away, Democrats said.

Civil liberties groups, while embracing the goal of closing Guantanamo Bay, said the administration would be wrong to move prisoners to the heartland without charging them with a crime.

"If Thomson will be used to facilitate their lawful prosecution, then this is truly a positive step," said Joanne Mariner, counterterrorism director at Human Rights Watch. If not, "President Obama will simply have moved Guantanamo to Illinois."

White House officials did not say how many inmates are likely to be transferred to the Thomson Correctional Center. Some detainees will be held for trial by military commissions on the prison grounds, while others could be held without charges.

"We are trying to get to zero here with the detainees," one administration official said, referring to the prison in Cuba. "If we have to detain any without trial, we will only do so as a last resort."

The official said individual cases will be subject to oversight by Congress and the federal courts.

One piece in the puzzle

The Thomson decision alone will not get Obama to his goal of shutting Guantanamo Bay, which became a symbol of what critics said was the Bush administration's willingness to flout international conventions.

But the plan is another piece of a puzzle that includes the prospective departure of 116 detainees recommended for release by an interagency team led by Justice Department prosecutors. The administration also announced last month that several suspects will be tried in New York federal court and others by the military.

Prisoners scheduled for transfer overseas will go directly from Guantanamo Bay, a White House official said, while detainees scheduled for trial in U.S. district courts will be held in nearby facilities.

To try to convince skeptics that terrorism suspects can be held safely in a farming town of fewer than 600 residents about 150 miles west of Chicago, U.S. officials pledged to create "the most secure facility in the nation."

Prisoners will not be permitted visits by family or friends, officials said. They will be guarded by military personnel. They will not mix with federal inmates who will share the prison. They will not be released in the United States.

The Pentagon said 1,000 to 1,500 personnel would move to the Thomson area to operate the military side of the prison once it is upgraded. About two-thirds would be members of the uniformed military, and the others would be civilians.

Improvements to the 1,600-bed prison, built eight years ago for $145 million and now housing fewer than 200 minimum-security inmates, are likely to take six months or more. Congress will be asked to approve the funding.

In addition to extra security, the prison is expected to need a courthouse for trials, an improved medical facility and a kitchen staff trained to prepare religiously appropriate meals.

'It's a wonderful thing'

Democrats pushed the prison's selection after Gov. Pat Quinn (D) relayed the suggestion to Obama in a White House meeting. They argued that a federal purchase of the 146-acre facility would produce as many as 3,000 jobs in a region with a 10.5 percent unemployment rate.

"It's a wonderful thing," said Thomson real estate agent Jeannine Mills. "At first, I was very apprehensive, but now I feel it will be very secure and, all in all, a good thing. We certainly need the economic boost."

Republicans have focused on security. Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.) and several colleagues warned Obama in a letter last month that "our state and the Chicago metropolitan area will become ground zero for Jihadist terrorist plots, recruitment and radicalization."

"The administration," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), "has failed to explain how transferring terrorists to Gitmo North will make Americans safer than keeping these terrorists off of our shores in the secure facility in Cuba."

Democrats on Capitol Hill voiced confidence that, once it is clear that sturdy security measures will be in place, Congress will reverse the bipartisan vote that barred prisoners from being held without trial on U.S. soil.

In a letter to Quinn announcing the decision, leaders of Obama's national security team said closing Guantanamo Bay "should not be a political or partisan issue." They said the project is backed by "the nation's highest military and civilian leaders who prosecuted the war against al Qaeda under the previous administration and continue to do so today."

Staff writers Kari Lydersen in Chicago and Perry Bacon Jr. and Peter Finn in Washington contributed to this report.

Related articles by Zemanta

• AP Poll: Gains for Obama, not his Afghan plans (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Obama Green Lights Thomson-Gitmo Deal (chicagoist.com)

Google phone would break industry model

Image via CrunchBase

In challenge to Apple, plans call for it to operate on any network

By Cecilia Kang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 15, 2009

With Google's disclosure over the weekend that it would launch its own cellphone, the online giant is staking claim to a piece of the fast-growing mobile marketplace and making a direct challenge to Apple's swift rise in the sector.

Google said in a corporate blog on Saturday that it has developed a phone based on its Android mobile operating system and distributed it to employees to try out. Soon after, pictures of the phone surfaced on the Twitter feeds of employees and outside bloggers with details that the device would be launched next month and sold directly to consumers. The new phone would be capable of operating on any network, according to a source close to the company who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Google's approach would run counter to the current practices of handset makers and carriers that partner up in exclusive deals to market and sell phones, and provide mobile service. AT&T, for instance, has been the sole provider of service for Apple's iPhone since the device was launched in 2007. Sprint tied up with Palm for its Pre smart phone earlier this year, and Verizon exclusively runs several versions of Research in Motion's BlackBerry.

In iPhone's case, the exclusivity agreement goes far beyond the choice of service provider. Apple tightly controls the applications that are available for the phone through its iTunes store, and its decision to block a voice application from Google sparked an inquiry by the Federal Communications Commission.

How Google's phone would connect to wireless networks was not clear Monday, and the company declined to comment on its plans beyond its Saturday blog posting. Apple also declined to comment.

But Google's latest plans appear to be aimed at countering that "closed loop" business model with a product that can run any application on any network -- a tactic that reminds experts of the battles between Microsoft and Apple over computer operating systems in the 1980s.

"This is a replica of the open-versus-closed war of the IBM mainframe versus the Macintosh for the mobile space," said Tim Wu, a professor of law at Columbia University. "And Google is settling in for a long war here."

The diverging approaches of Google and Apple, however, touch upon several regulatory debates playing out at the FCC. The agency is reviewing wireless industry practices, including exclusive handset agreements, and examining roaming deals after rural carriers asked for help in forcing bigger providers to share their networks.

Industry experts say any attempt by a carrier to block Google's phone could raise questions about net neutrality in the wireless industry. The FCC is considering proposed new rules that would prevent Internet service providers from blocking content. Wireless carriers have argued that those rules shouldn't apply as strongly to them and that such rules shouldn't prevent carriers from blocking certain devices.

"It will be interesting to see if Google or other handset manufacturers raise concern that consumers might be blocked from using unlocked handsets," said Jason Oxman, senior vice president the Consumer Electronics Association, an Arlington-based trade group. "Whether that is the case today -- that carriers can block you -- is unclear."

Google's apparent approach is the standard practice in Europe, where customers typically pay higher upfront prices to buy phones but can carry them on any network at lower costs and without contract obligations. It's unclear how Google would price the phone, but industry experts say that if the company decides to charge more upfront for the phone, consumers may balk.

"We're not starting with a clean slate here," said Larry Downes, a non-resident fellow at Stanford University Law School. "The question is, who will pay the subsidy?"

Carriers subsidize a large portion of the cost of a phone to attract customers to buy new gadgets. The iPhone, for example, is estimated to cost AT&T about $350 in subsidies in order to offer the device to consumer for $199. In return, it asks consumers to sign one-to-two-year contracts to ensure it recoups the costs of those subsidies. Such exclusive contracts have come under fire recently, with the FCC asking Verizon to explain why it recently increased its penalty for customers who leave contracts early. Last month, Verizon began charging customers $350 instead of $150 for early-termination fees.

And even with the iPhone, its fastest version was initially priced at $599 in 2007 before AT&T began dropping the price. Thirty-three million iPhones have been sold worldwide.

"So this is a very, very different model, but if anyone can pull it off, it would be a Google, because of its brand awareness and ability to market it," Oxman said.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Google employees testing new mobile device (sfgate.com)
• T-Mobile to offer Google phone: source (financialpost.com)

Human rights essential to U.S. policy, Clinton says

Image via Wikipedia

Speech follows criticism that administration has lagged on issue

By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that human rights and democracy promotion are central to U.S. foreign policy, in a major speech after months of criticism that the Obama administration was being too timid about denouncing abuses of basic freedoms abroad.

Clinton emphasized that the U.S. government could demand other countries observe human rights only if it got its own house in order, a reference to President Obama's moves to end torture and close the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center.

She also put new focus on expanding the human rights discussion to include freedom from hunger and disease, an approach often emphasized by Third World countries.

But perhaps the most notable aspect of Clinton's speech was that she gave it at all, said activists and other experts on human rights. Her talk, and one last week by Obama at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony, appeared to respond to concerns that the administration has not been forceful enough about abuses in places such as China.

"I think she went a long way in addressing what had become a kind of an issue that started to dog the Obama administration -- where do human rights and democracy fit with them?" said Sarah Mendelson, director of the human rights and security initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

In her speech at Georgetown University, Clinton outlined several elements of the administration's approach. First, she said, every country would be held accountable for hewing to universal human rights standards -- "including ourselves."

Second, Clinton said, the administration would be pragmatic. She cited, for example, the decision to begin "measured engagement" with Burma after determining that isolating the regime was not helping.

Third, the administration plans to work with grass-roots groups as well as governments. Finally, Clinton said, human rights should be viewed as a broad category that includes issues such as women's rights and development.

Clinton was assailed early in the administration for appearing to play down human rights problems in China and the Middle East. On a recent trip to Russia, however, she denounced attacks on human rights promoters in a local radio interview and at a reception with pro-democracy activists and journalists.

David J. Kramer, an assistant secretary of state for human rights and democracy during the Bush administration, praised Clinton's speech for reflecting a bipartisan tradition of support for democracy and freedom.

He noted that Obama administration officials were initially reluctant to adopt some of the Bush administration's emphasis on promoting "freedom" and "ending tyranny." Critics had said Bush undermined that effort by inconsistently applying the ideas, especially in the Middle East.

"They wanted to distance themselves from it. But I think they made a mistake," Kramer said.

Carroll Bogert, associate director at Human Rights Watch, said Clinton's speech differed from Bush administration policy in its emphasis on accountability for the United States as well as for foreign countries.

Although human rights activists are pleased with Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, they are upset that some detainees there may be held indefinitely without trial in the United States. The administration may deem detainees too dangerous to release, but also may lack enough evidence to produce in court to convict them.

"Guantanamo is not a place; it's an idea," Bogert said. "They're still going to detain people without charge."

Clinton emphasized that her speech was not a "checklist" on how countries are doing on human rights. But she did single out some cases. She denounced the prosecution of signatories to Charter 08, a pro-democracy document in China.

And she noted the harassment of an elderly Chinese doctor, Gao Yaojie, for speaking out about AIDS in China.

"She should instead be applauded by her government for helping to confront the crisis," Clinton said.

Staff writer John Pomfret contributed to this report.

Related articles by Zemanta

• A Nobel winner who went wrong on rights (starting-points.blogspot.com)
• Hillary goes from strength to strength (guardian.co.uk)
• Tibetan Filmmaker Tried for Subversion (nytimes.com)
• China govt pleased but ordinary folk cool on Obama (sfgate.com)

Supplying troops in Afghanistan with fuel is challenge for U.S.

Image via Wikipedia

By Steven Mufson and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, December 15, 2009

President Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan will magnify one of the Pentagon's biggest challenges: getting aviation and diesel fuel to U.S. air and ground forces there.

As the number of U.S. and coalition troops grows, the military is planning for thousands of additional tanker truck deliveries a month, big new storage facilities and dozens of contractors to navigate the landlocked country's terrain, politics and perilous supply routes. And though Obama has vowed to start bringing U.S. forces home in 18 months, some of the fuel storage facilities will not be completed until then, according to the contract specifications issued by the Pentagon's logistics planners.

"Getting into Afghanistan, which we need to do as quickly as we can possibly do it, is very difficult because . . . next to Antarctica, Afghanistan is probably the most incommodious place, from a logistics point of view, to be trying to fight a war," Ashton Carter, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, said recently. "It's landlocked and rugged, and the road network is much, much thinner than in Iraq. Fewer airports, different geography."

Navy Vice Adm. Alan S. Thompson, who directs the Defense Logistics Agency, earlier this year called support for operations in landlocked Afghanistan "the most difficult logistics assignment we have faced since World War II."

The military's fuel needs are prodigious. According to the Government Accountability Office, about 300,000 gallons of jet fuel are delivered to Afghanistan each day, in addition to diesel, motor and aircraft gasoline. A typical Marine corps combat brigade requires almost 500,000 gallons of fuel per day, according to a recent study by Deloitte Analysis, a research group. Each of the more than 100 forward operating bases in Afghanistan requires a daily minimum of 300 gallons of diesel fuel, the study said.

The GAO report said that in June 2008 alone, 6.2 million gallons of fuel went for air and ground operations, while 917,000 gallons went for base support activities including lighting, running computers, and heating or cooling.

The U.S. military remains heavily dependent upon supplies traveling long, windy and dangerous roads in the south from Pakistan to Afghanistan. Along those mountainous routes, theft is common and cash payoffs to insurgents and tribal leaders are believed to be made frequently by truck drivers navigating the region. The Defense Department reported that in June 2008, 44 trucks and 220,000 gallons of fuel were lost because of attacks or other events, according to the GAO.

"This has become a business," said Tommy Hakimi, chief executive of Mondo International, which arranges deliveries by 300 to 500 trucks a month. "The Taliban doesn't have interest in taking the life of a driver. And instead of blowing trucks up, they take possession. It's an asset. . . . Most of the time, they will sell it on the black market."

Bribery is illegal for U.S. firms, but local drivers and truck owners make their own decisions. People "factor into the cost of services the bribes or tributes or whatever you want to call it," said Brian Neuenfeldt of Atlas Freight Systems, which is seeking Pentagon contracts and proposing a way to make fuel tankers more secure.

In an effort to diversify its supply sources, the Defense Department is asking contractors to bring in more fuel supplies by northern routes. Although the routes are more secure, they are still long and costly. Contractors bring refined oil products from Russia and central Asia through pipelines or from Azerbaijan across the Caspian Sea before transferring the product to tanker trucks. It means making transit arrangements across Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan.

Although the Pentagon declined to give details, the blog of Sohbet Karbuz, an engineer and economist who specialized in fuel logistics, says that refined oil products are shipped more than 1,000 miles by rail and truck from a Turkmen refinery or by barge and railcar from Azerbaijan to U.S. facilities in Afghanistan. The fuel takes up to 10 days to reach the Afghan border. There it is loaded onto trucks and can take two to four days to reach one of the military's fuel hubs.

In August 2008, the Pentagon gave a $308 million two-year contract for jet fuel delivery to Red Star Enterprises, a London-based company that is bringing in fuel from the north. The Pentagon's Defense Energy Support Center said that Red Star has been working in the region for about 15 years. Earlier that month, Red Star received a $721 million contract to deliver fuel to Bagram Air Base through a six-inch pipeline it built from its 3 million gallon storage facility near a former Russian air base. Under that contract, it delivers about 250,000 gallons of jet fuel a day to the base.

To facilitate increased supplies from the north, the Pentagon has been talking to other contractors such as Hakimi, who is part Uzbek and speaks Uzbek, Farsi and English. Hakimi said he is negotiating with two refiners for possible deliveries through northern Afghanistan. The Pentagon is also seeking help in tracking possible shipments across the Caspian Sea from Baku, a major oil city.

Another measure of the fuel needs -- and the long-term planning associated with them -- can be seen in the number of solicitations for storage facilities being put forward in the past months.

The largest would construct a new bulk fuel storage system for Bagram. It would require tanks to hold 1.1 million gallons of fuel, along with pumps, controls and supporting facilities. The overall facility, including electric, water, sewer, curbs and security measures, is to cost up to $25 million.

Although Obama has said that U.S. forces would begin returning home in 18 months, the fuel storage facility at Bagram would take almost 15 months to build, once the contract is awarded early next year. The contract requires storage for 6 million gallons of U.S.-standard jet fuel, 3 million gallons of Russian standard jet fuel and 1 million gallons of diesel fuel. The facility must be capable of receiving fuel from up to 100 tank trucks a day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Facilities that can store 3 million gallons will be built in Ghazni and at Sharana.

U.N. urged to cease aid to Congo regime accused of horrific acts

Image by Julien Harneis via Flickr

Human Rights Watch cites surge in brutal killings and gang rapes

By Stephanie McCrummen
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, December 15, 2009

NAIROBI -- The U.N. peacekeeping mission in Congo is collaborating with known human rights abusers as it backs a brutal Congolese military operation that has led to the deliberate killing of at least 1,400 civilians and a massive surge in rapes, according to a report by Human Rights Watch.

The 183-page report, the fullest accounting so far of the operation, is a chronicle of horrors. It describes gang rapes, massacres, village burnings and civilians being tied together before their throats are slit -- many incidents carried out by a Congolese army being fed, transported and otherwise supported by the United Nations.

The report calls for the U.N. peacekeeping mission to "immediately cease all support" to the Congolese army until the army removes commanders with known records of human rights abuses and otherwise ensures the operation complies with international humanitarian laws.

"Continued killing and rape by all sides in eastern Congo shows that the U.N. Security Council needs a new approach to protect civilians," said Anneke Van Woudenberg, a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch.

The Security Council is scheduled to meet this week to discuss the Congolese peacekeeping mission's mandate, which is the United Nations' largest and most expensive. A mission spokesman said officials are studying the report and declined to comment. The United States also has a small military team in Congo assisting the Congolese army.

The Congolese military operations, which began in January, were intended to root out abusive Rwandan rebels who have lived mostly by force among eastern Congolese villagers for years, fueling a long-running conflict that has become the deadliest since World War II.

The rebels -- known as the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, or FDLR -- include some leaders accused of participating in the 1994 genocide in neighboring Rwanda. The initial phase of the military operations were backed by Rwandan troops.

But as the Rwandans departed in February, U.N. peacekeepers stepped in, supplying attack helicopters, trucks, food and other logistical support to a Congolese army known as one of the most abusive militaries in the world. At the time, the head of the U.N. mission, Alan Doss, said that the operations were necessary and that some civilian casualties were inevitable.

But the Human Rights Watch report does not document the story of civilians accidentally caught in the crossfire. Instead, it details a chilling pattern of deliberate civilian killings by Congolese and Rwandan soldiers and the rebels they are fighting. Both sides, the report says, have carried out a strategy of "punishing" villagers they accuse of supporting the wrong side.

To that end, the report says, Congolese soldiers and their Rwandan allies did not simply shoot their victims but beat them to death with clubs, stabbed them to death with bayonets or chopped them into pieces with machetes, making a pile of body parts for other villagers to see.

In one village, the soldiers called women and children to a school for a meeting and then systematically began killing them, the report says. In another case, a woman said she watched as soldiers beat six members of her family to death with wooden clubs. Four soldiers then accused her of being a rebel wife and gang-raped her. In general, the report found, rape cases skyrocketed in areas where Congolese soldiers were deployed.

The report documents a similarly ruthless pattern of retaliation by the FDLR, which killed with machetes and hoes, accusing villagers of betraying them. The rebels often targeted village chiefs or other influential people to frighten the wider population, the report says. They gang-raped women, frequently telling their victims they were being punished for welcoming the Congolese army.

In all, the report's authors documented more than 1,400 killings, roughly half by the Congolese army and their Rwandan allies and half by rebels. It said more than 900,000 people have been forced to flee their homes since January, the sort of massive displacement that has led to an estimated 5 million deaths from hunger and disease since eastern Congo's conflict began about 15 years ago.

Related articles by Zemanta

• UN 'failing' in Congo says own report (telegraph.co.uk)
• UN's Congo policies 'must change' (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Huge UN Congo Force Fails To Defeat Rebels (news.sky.com)
• Aid groups are little match for Congo brutality (cnn.com)

The Palestinians' opposite poles

Image via Wikipedia

Divide between Gaza and West Bank may affect thinking on an independent state

By Howard Schneider
Tuesday, December 15, 2009

JABALYA, GAZA STRIP -- Sami and Tayseer Barakat grew up together in the concrete warrens of this refugee camp in Gaza, but the common thread ends there.

As young adults, Tayseer moved to the West Bank while Sami remained in Gaza. The choices have shaped the brothers' lives, values, prosperity and opportunities, and they have placed the two at very different points in what is now a three-way feud among Israelis and Palestinians.

More than ever before, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank represent opposite poles of a future state of Palestine, each increasingly distinct, adding fresh obstacles to the quest for a two-state solution that envisions Israel and Palestine existing side by side. Gaza has become imbued with a narrow Islamist culture that considers Israel's elimination the ultimate goal; the West Bank, in contrast, has become relatively open and secular, with its government trying to resolve disputes with Israel through politics and diplomacy.

In the process, the two Palestinian territories have grown increasingly antagonistic toward each other.

The notion of a single "Palestine" seems to be receding, for the Barakat brothers and all Palestinians, a process accelerated by Israeli policies that restrict travel into and out of the Gaza Strip and limit its economic growth in a bid to undercut support for the area's ruling Islamist Hamas movement. Gaza and the West Bank are not only run by competing governments but also differ in indicators such as birthrates, population growth, cultural and religious attitudes, and prosperity. What is a two-hour car trip seems like a world away, with travel and other restrictions making it difficult for friends to visit and family members to gather.

Where the West Bank is enjoying renewed economic growth and an emerging sense of possibility, Gaza -- dependent on foreign aid even in the best of times, because of its large refugee population -- has become a place of makeshift jobs, handouts and smuggled goods, still not able or allowed to rebuild after a punishing three-week war with Israel that began last December.

Doubts have deepened about how and whether two places so different can be knit back together. As the different lives being lived by the Barakat brothers suggest, the divergence has a momentum of its own.

In one, an aspiring lot

On a Thursday in the West Bank, men and women gather at Ramallah's Ziryab restaurant for the start of the weekend. They sip beer and smoke in a room decorated with original art and sculpture, much of it made by Tayseer Barakat, the owner and the younger of the Barakat brothers.

There's a new burst of activity in Ramallah, the center of cultural and political life for the West Bank's 2.4 million Palestinians. Construction cranes slice the sky, and bulldozers clear large lots for the next project. There are film festivals and investment companies, new shopping centers and planned communities.

Though the West Bank remains occupied by Israel and suffered years of violence during an intifada, or uprising, this decade, Barakat has seen his horizons gradually open. He arrived here in the mid-1980s after attending art school in Egypt, looking for a livelihood that would leave time to paint and sculpt. After teaching for a few years, he pursued a more independent path, opening a restaurant and redecorating it by hand with a modern and elegant collection of artwork.

Ramallah was the ideal spot. It had a professional class that could afford a night out, returning expatriates who might splurge on a painting and the cultural temperament to let him do what he wanted.

"The situation here -- it is like giving someone an aspirin," said Barakat, 50. "It could change at any time. But compared to Gaza, it is good."

The politics of struggle has been replaced by a more aspirational sensibility. On a recent fall afternoon, Barakat prepared to say goodbye to his son, Odai, 18, who is soon leaving to study at Eastern Mediterranean University in Cyprus.

It's a routine family passage, but it is profound in the Palestinian context. Tayseer Barakat is among the few Gazans allowed by Israel to shift his legal address to the West Bank -- a change in status that, among other things, means predictable access to the world beyond.

Odai hopes to study film and then return to make his contribution to Palestinian society. It has nothing to do with reconquering land, he said, but reflects an idea taking root in the West Bank -- to help put a bandage on old wounds so they can heal and give rise to something new and durable.

"The first film I'll make will be about the Palestinian cause. I'll tell the story," he said, likening his vision to the movie "Braveheart" and its tale of Scotland's rise alongside England. The Scottish leader William Wallace was not trying to destroy the English, Odai pointed out, but was attempting to carve out a place for his people on land of their own.

In the other, a grim lot

In Gaza, Sami Barakat gave his children strict instructions as an uprising against Israel raged through the first years of the decade: Stay away from protest sites such as the Erez crossing into Israel. On an October day in 2000, that advice came undone. Yousef Barakat, then 13, boarded a bus headed to a rally at Erez. Later that day, a rubber bullet hit him in the head.

He survived but lost sight in his right eye. A plaque displayed in the family's living room, sent to Yousef by the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, honors "the blessed intifada, that you enflamed, and gave it your blood, which scents the Palestinian sand."

Yousef, now 22, is studying history at al-Quds University and has no clear sense of what will follow his upcoming graduation. Under the strategy that Israel has employed in Gaza, that lack of opportunity should lead the young man to certain conclusions: reject Hamas, reconcile with the rival government in the West Bank and then with Israel, and see Gaza reopened to the world.

But the incident nine years ago left its mark. If the West Bank branch of the Barakat family views coexistence with Israel as important, the Barakat branch in Gaza is not so sanguine. Although hardly radical and not supportive of violence -- the family members here say they are disenchanted with aspects of Hamas's governance -- the children, in particular, do not envision peace.

"There is no chance to coexist," Yousef said. "Israel does not want peace."

Israel's rules have choked off the economy in Gaza, increasing poverty and despair among its 1.5 million people. In addition, since winning elections two years ago, Hamas has shut down much of the cultural and political life.

The seaside nightspots that began to develop here in the 1980s and 1990s, a more open era, are now limited to ragged tea huts and a handful of hotels and clubs that host international visitors and the well-to-do.

There are no cinemas and little nightlife. Even seemingly nationalist events -- the anniversary of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's death or an annual Palestinian independence day -- are shaped to reflect Hamas's aim of building a "resistance society" hunkered down for a long-haul struggle. That means tough going for anyone trying to build a business.

Sami Barakat, 55, ran a small grocery store near Jabalya before learning the money-changing trade and opening an office. It let him pay the bills and buy a house. But of late, being a money-changer is a losing proposition in an economy with little cash and little commerce with the rest of the world. He now depends on whatever Tayseer Barakat and a brother in the United States can contribute each month.

Nor are things much easier for the one member of the family who sees his future in religion -- what might be considered Gaza's growth industry.

Mohammed Barakat, 23, just graduated from Gaza's Islamic University with a degree in Islamic law and hoped for appointment as an imam at a mosque. He sees himself as a sort of bridge, strict in his observance of Islam's social aspects but against the use of violence against Israel.

But he is not a member of Hamas. As a result, his ideas won't be heard from the pulpit at Friday prayers.

"The problem is that people who rely on their emotions are the majority," he said. "I try to convince them that you should react out of logic. They call me a coward."

Related articles by Zemanta

• Rhetoric and Reality in Gaza (firedoglake.com)
• Palestinian tunnel tycoons feeding demand for banned goods (guardian.co.uk)
• Hamas celebrates 22nd anniversary (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Hamas blames Israel for breakdown in Schalit talks (seattletimes.nwsource.com)