Eternal Bond: Zayed and The Creation of a Country

            Forty years ago, seven Emirates, or city-states, shared culture, tradition, language, religion, and customs, separated by border-like barriers. In an era when the whole of the Arab world was busy with Pan-Arabism and the discourse of unity was the main headline, little attention came to these tiny city-states, quietly drifting toward the end of British rule. Sheikh Zayed said, “Do not speak of what you will do, but let your achievements speak for you”; in the spirit of those words, Sheikh Zayed took it upon himself to unite the Emirates, and create a nation, through great toil. The achievements of Our Father Zayed speak for themselves, but this is a humble homage to one of the greatest men in history, which left his children a country that rose from the desert dunes to be a model to, and home for, a great many people from around the world.

            Today the United Arab Emirates has come a long way from where it once was, forty years ago at its birth. Though I am only in my late twenties, I have witnessed the growth of a nation the birth of which my own father witnessed before me.  Those generations to follow will see it progress further. Not many today in the same household can claim to have seen the birth, growth, and progression of a nation as successful as the UAE. With all the development in human capital, infrastructure, healthcare (and the list goes on), what we have built in only forty years is a source of pride for every UAE national and resident who has seen the nation grow. The main source of pride, however, to me at least, is the unification and the assimilation of people under one nation, one identity, and one common cause: on December 2^nd 1971 we became the people of the United Arab Emirates under the leader of the father of the union Sheikh Zayed. But is that all? Is that the tale of the UAE? Of course not.

            To us all, we will always be indebted to Sheikh Zayed for what he did to for us, and we should all give back to this country what it deserves. While we are a young nation with many achievements, however, the road ahead is long, and tough. In that, it is similar to the road our Father took to build and unite this nation, where he faced hardship, opposition, and many surprises along the way. We, today, also have a long way forward to make our beloved country even better than what it is today. Sheikh Zayed believed that progress is a never-ending cycle; upgrading and reforming must never stop if our goal is to be our best.  And thus this responsibility falls on every one of us to make sure we work for our country the best we can, through our professions, education, family: in every way possible. Zayed believed human capital is the greatest resource of this nation, and we must live up to the expectations our Father has for us, for his living memory will always be witness to our accomplishments.  Our pride in this nation leaves us no choice but to continue his legacy for the sake of this country, and to honor the great man that made that dream a reality.  

            Mere words cannot fully express how any UAE national feels towards her or his country; our achievements will stand testimony to how we carry on the legacy of Sheikh Zayed, Zayed Al Emarat, hand in hand with our leaders. I, for one, have pledged to myself before all, to always represent my country how I want others to see it, and that the ideal way to do that is to always work and strive to be the very best we can be. We have come a long way from the 2^nd of December 1971, to what we are today on the 2^nd of December 2011. One can only be honored by our past, proud of our present, and confident in our future, in this new nation drawn out from the desert sands by Zayed, the Founder, the Leader, our Father. Let’s celebrate on the 2^nd of December; celebrate the 40^th anniversary of our beloved nation, for all its values and achievements. And on December 3rd, let us start working once again for our nation, honoring our Father, and all that he has given to us.

A Personal Letter to my Brother, Ahmed Mansour Al-Shehhi

 Dear Ahmed,

I am writing you this letter, my brother, as you and I are part of the same extended family, one shared by all Emiratis, with the same founding father.  And I am writing you this letter, shocked that a family member would cross the lines that you have crossed.  It is for this reason that I, and many others who feel the same shame that I do for your actions, stood and will continue to stand outside the courthouse where you are on trial, condemning your actions.  And as we feel a responsibility for the shame that you have brought to our family, Ahmed, so do we feel a responsibility to make sure that the stain you have brought to our name is wiped clean by showing our pride and respect for what this family represents.

When a father shares of his food and clothes to make sure all his family is fed and clothed, Ahmad, do you consider this to be a bribe?  When our late father Sheikh Zayed gave land and homes to the people of the UAE as citizens of our federated state, were those bribes? Exactly what was he bribing them for, starting as far back as 1972?  But this is exactly what you accuse Sheikh Mohammad bin Zayed of doing in his visit to the Northern Emirates, on the direction of our President.  So when our leaders continue the policies of our founder, for some reason it is only you who can see that the motivation has changed.  That is it not for the good of the people and the nation, but out of self-interest.  Surely you must have sound evidence for making such a claim; I hope it couldn’t simply be due to attention-seeking and arrogance.  But then your history speaks against you on those counts.

But in choosing to ignore our late father’s good will for all of our family and the natural continuation of this generosity in his successors today, you not only had the audacity to slander our leaders’ genuine efforts, you even had the audacity to say it on television.  But if you had the bad manners and poor taste to make such ungrounded accusations in public, I very much want to know what else you were willing to say behind our backs, behind closed doors.  I would be willing to bet that those things were far worse; it is probably very fortunate for you that these things have not been made public.   If they were, it would be a lot more difficult for you to hide behind the fiction that you made these slanderous and libelous remarks as an “activist,” when they are surely nothing more than insults of the gravest and most reprehensible type.   

But you have chosen to not only embarrass us inside our family, but to go outside and insult our family in front of the neighbors, without even trying to reconcile your concerns with our father directly; the act not only of a liar but of a coward.  Our family provides proper channels, some of which are more direct than those found almost anywhere else in the world, to sound our concerns; all of which are familiar to you. Yet you resorted to public betrayal, using the foreign media to present your one-sided and vicious criticism.

           

But I suppose this should be no surprise; the list of those with whom you choose to associate speaks as badly of you as your own mouth.  And if these groups and interests stand by you through their willingness to confuse your criminal charges with broader issues, be assured: if the full extent of your libel were known, you would watch this support melt away.  Even as it stands now, who do you see in your camp?  Intellectuals?  The business community?  Students? Make no mistake, Ahmed my brother: None of these people, whatever their other beliefs, support your libel.  You stand in that courtroom to face the evidence of your rudeness and disloyalty alone. 

That is why I have stood outside your trial each day you have been seated inside, that is why my other brothers and sisters stand there alongside me, and that is why the rest of our brothers and sisters throughout the nation stand united with us to condemn what you said, the disrespect and disloyalty that are the reasons you said it, and the type of person it shows you to be. You have crossed the line, my brother.  Now, for once, stand like the man you should be, and face the consequences of your actions.  A proud family could, and should, demand no less.

Sincerely,

Thabet 

(@Thabet_UAE) 

On Duties: The Professor

In response to my last blog post, I received this message on Twitter:

So I clicked on the link, and came up with this . . .

Comments below . . . 

In Stephen Law’s Believing Bullshit, he asks: “How reasonable a response is “I just know”?

It depends. Sometimes, by “I just know”, people mean you should just take their word for it, perhaps because time is short and the evidence supporting their beliefs too complex to present in a convenient sound bite.  So, what if there is enough time to provide evidence, and the evidence is not complex. Do we just believe an argument when someone says, “I just know”?

Over and over, I run into this conundrum with respect to a university professor, a well-recognized figure in UAE academia and public figure who, nonetheless, consistently fails to provide evidence for his “scholarly” opinions. This is unfortunate in an op-ed, and unjustifiable in a scholarly piece like Dr. Abdulkhaleq Abdullah’s “Contemporary Socio-Political Issues of The Arab Gulf Moment.”

In his paper, Abdulkhaleq raises a number of points related to the GCC states in general, and the UAE in particular, but generally fails to support his arguments. For example, he constantly mentions the middle class and its demands for greater democratization, but not surprisingly, fails to present any evidence for an identifiable social entity like a middle-class, not to mention any polling data or significant anecdotal experience to tell us what they (as a class) are actually demanding. In another example, the professor presents a comparison between the UAE and Kuwait, and questions how the UAE, a “political dwarf”, could be far more economically dynamic than  “politically liberal” Kuwait; in fact, he describes it as “strange.” But as this example clearly goes against his (mis)understanding of social development theory, he just admits that it is surprising and moves on.

In an effort to counter the argument for the status quo in the UAE, based on the obvious reasons why the people prefer the current situation to that of Kuwait, one might expect Abdulkhaleq to make an argument for the advantages of democratization.  But he never actually does this.  One might also wonder why Abdulkhaleq endorses the view that turning from tribalism was essential to the modernization of the Arab Gulf States, somehow missing its importance as part of the bedrock of UAE society and culture, happily integrated into our modern state. 

In these and a number of other cases, the professor not only puts forward weak or outright false claims, but also consistently fails to provide the reader any evidence for them. This is very poor scholarship indeed.  It would not matter so much if the stakes weren’t so high, but what the professor is arguing for ultimately represents fundamental changes to the very nature of our political system and historical culture.  Dr. Abdulkhaleq Abdulla should be reminded that while he is free to express his opinions, “I just know,” is not going to be good enough to guide the debate on political change in the UAE.

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(In case you’re interested, I went ahead and commented directly on the paper the doctor asked me to “read and comment” on.  The link is below; my comments in red.)

Click here to download: Comments on Dr. Abdulkhaleq's Article       

The Discourse on the Discourse: A Critique

            In the Gulf News, on June 22, 2011, Dr. Abdulkhaleq Abdullah discussed the “discourse” on democracy in the UAE among Emiratis. In his article, Dr. Abdulkhaleq categorizes UAE society into three segments: against democracy, pro-democracy, and, as he calls them, the “silent segment of society.” He does correctly assert, however, that the absence of credible polls makes it difficult to determine where Emarati society as a whole stands on this issue; this is to say nothing of which Emaratis fall into each of those three categories. With all due respect to Dr. Abdulkhaleq Abdullah, it is surprising that these categories are based on little-to-no scientific evidence, or even a logical leap from what anyone who knows the UAE can readily observe.  The specifics of his argument bear closer examination: the devil is in the details.

            As Dr. Abdulkhaleq’s analysis segments Emarati society into the three categories mentioned above, the first question that comes to mind is: On what basis does he claim that each segment represents one-third of the Emirati population? Since Abdulkhaleq admits that there aren’t any polls that one can rely on, the numbers are clearly guesswork. This could perhaps be an accurate reflection of Emirati popular opinion had Dr. Abdulkhaleq done his own scientific polling research on the question; this seems highly unlikely at best. A student myself, I am sure that Dr. Abdulkhaleq, an active university professor, has always told his students that logical conclusions, as opposed to baseless opinions, must be supported by fact or rational argument; as I noted above: in this case, neither are found.  To be sure, an opinion may be defined as a belief or judgement that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty, and each one of us is entitled to his own opinion.  Nonetheless, there is a significant difference between the value of a baseless opinion, and one informed by fact. That said, the one-third per segment theory, as presented by Dr. Abdulkhaleq Abdullah, stands on fragile grounds.

            It is also interesting that Dr. Abdulkhaleq has monopolized the “educated elite” of Emarati society to his “pro-democracy” segment. However, he fails not only to define what he means by the educated elite, but his guesses as to their political inclinations entirely ignores the significant ties that such academically successful professionals have in the present social system, through personal interests, tribal interest, or their gratitude to, and thus support and confidence for, the UAE government. That said, for him to tag the entire educated elite to the “pro-democracy” segment is yet another highly questionable claim.  Rather, it may be more accurate to note that a limited number of university scholars, monopolizing the public discussion, are committed to radical political change toward a foreign competitive electoral political model.  As these scholars are active professors with students, their views may well have an effect on those students, but this hardly constitutes a unified “educated elite” who are pro-democracy. This leaves us with the other two-thirds: his “anti-democracy segment” and his “silent segment.”

Clearly, Dr. Abdulkhaleq goes to great lengths to draw a distinction between these “anti-democracy” and “silent” segments; however, a closer look would prove otherwise. First of all, we must establish that Emaratis who are happy and back the government are not “anti-democracy”, but simply do not see the need or the grounds for a competitive electoral democratic system in the UAE.  And they have great reason for concluding such: the level of dialogue between the Emirati people and their government, and their opportunity for direct influence and aid, are greater than those enjoyed by many classically “democratic” societies.  Additionally, Dr. Abdulkhaleq’s argument that this silent segment sways from one extreme to the other is, yet again, entirely unsupported by evidence. The very name of the segment, their trademark “silence,” gives the lie to this characterization of their political preferences: they, like their “anti-democracy” compatriots, are largely satisfied with the political and social rights and privileges they enjoy as citizens of this nation.  Even if we were to accept the “thirds” that Dr. Abdulkhaleq presents, this still places the vast majority of Emiratis squarely on the side of their government and its policies.

              In conclusion, as the democratic process in the UAE steadily progresses, and as studies by independent organizations such as the Gallup Center reaffirm that UAE nationals are amongst the most satisfied and optimistic in the world, what I cannot understand is why an educated, respectable, intelligent, and, most importantly, Emarati scholar such as Dr. Abdulkhaleq Abdullah would be disappointed, or feel it to be unfortunate, that the UAE has not wholesale imported an external democratic model to govern the relations between our citizens and the state. Is this what we should expect from Dr. Abdulkhaleq Abdullah: baseless editorials? At one point, I thought Dr. Abdulkhaleq would be my go-to person to educate myself on politics in the region, however, after this baseless and irrational op-ed that is aggressively advocating instant political change; I have been inclined to rethink my opinion on his work.  It is one thing to make an informed judgment based on all the facts available, and provide one’s best advice; we have all been grateful to our doctor for this service.  But I am reticent to believe my doctor’s recommendation that I need expensive drugs, when he owns the pharmacy that sells them to me!

This is not an attack on Abdulkhaleq, but rather a concern from one Emarati to another Emarati.  If one was to be slightly more irrational in drawing conclusions than the author, it might seem reasonable to conclude that Dr. Abdulkhaleq simply has a personal issue with the status quo.  A sorry reflection of the substantial body of scholarship we have come to expect from Dr. Abdulkhaleq to date, one must wonder: Is this the future of his contribution to the national discourse?

@Thabet_UAE