Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

July 16, 2009 |  7 comments |  Print  Your Opinion  

Expats Should Not Overlook Social Injustices in Dubai

Eimear O'Casey: Dubai’s growth came at the expense of the human rights of Asian and African workers, and against the fragile environment. Westerners moving to Dubai have a responsibility to end their ignorance toward this unfair society.


Less than 30 years ago, the deserts of the United Arab Emirates transformed themselves into a corporate playground at a staggering pace. Now, as the financial crisis engulfs the old money powerhouses of Europe and North America, the vulgar wealth of the United Arab Emirates attracts more and more. Dubai and its neighbouring Emirate states are touted as havens of care-free sea, sand and kitsch glitz. But the dark undertones, and in many cases, overtones, of these societies have only recently begun to be brought to light.

A damning expose of Dubai's enslaved immigrant workers in The Independent recently laid bare the guilty foundations of the palatial desert. The glistening construction which characterizes the city is the work of abused labourers. Brought over under false pretences, their passports removed and housed in filthy compounds, Bangladeshi, Somali and other workers are forced to work 14 hour days in staggering heat with neither rights nor avenues for escape. The "official temperature" is kept at a maximum of 50 degrees Celsius to circumvent labour law. With no legal recourse to appeal to and imprisonment looming for any objectors, theirs is a hell with no escape.

This is capitalism at its flimsiest and dirtiest: a conglomerate of rash investment, human rights abuses and for those not yet convinced, a horrific toll on the local ecology as a desert is harassed until it can squeeze out water at alarming cost. With no natural source of drinkable water, estimates suggest that the treated sea water that hydrates the city state would last a matter of days in the event of economic collapse.

It is perhaps unfair, and too easy, to characterize the Western presence in this paper-thin civilization as nothing but nauseating self-indulgence. Times are hard and Dubai offers opportunities for financial recovery which few other places around the globe can do currently. In the face of redundancy at home, beneath-the-surface atrocities that Westerners are kept comfortably away from are easily overlooked. But Westerners can find themselves the victims of this system, too: imprisonment is standard procedure for debt and bankruptcy, and there are many stories of people left with nothing when the money runs and it becomes clear that the welfare state has yet to make its way to the desert.

Ignorance can be no excuse. There is a duty on any expat, most of all one who relocates to a playground society which emerged from the desert practically overnight, to educate themselves before settling, at the very least. That aside, any investment in a society teetering so precariously on the edge of anything that resembles basic ethics and humanity, not to mention one founded on untested investment, needs justification.

The presumption that "common sense" laws must apply anywhere where Amex is accepted is a frightening one. It is testimony to the gross complacency of Westerners about their freedoms that so many venture to Dubai and its neighbours only to be devastated when the regressive laws upon which it is founded are exposed to them. Success at the capitalist game does not translate into success at establishing a free and fair society. Those allured by the sand castles would do well to take note.

Eimear O'Casey was an intern at atlantic-community.org from December 2008 until February 2009 and most recently worked for the Scottish government.

  • 7
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
John  Hadjisky

July 19, 2009

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
The fact that Dubai is based on, essentially, a slave economy, cannot be stated often enough, or strongly enough.

I don't think it is accurate to call it capitalist, at least not in the classic sense of the term. It is a monarchy, and the size of the true private sector is hard to measure, but it is probably small, as compared to the wealth retained by the ruling families, or as compared to the overall economy. The economic system has as much in common with feudalism as it does with free-market capitalism. Perhaps it would be accurate to call it crony capitalism, or feudalism with emerging, capitalistic tendencies.
 
John  Hadjisky

July 19, 2009

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
An additional thought:

Countries and cultures making the transition to modernity provide example after example of how truely difficult it is for the modern, progressive liberal Westerner to form meaningful judgements about these transitionary states. There is, as far as I can see, very little rhyme or reason why the injustices of some transitionary states become causes célèbres, while the injustices of other states undergoing transition, do not.

China: Occasional protest, both from the left and the right, mostly acceptence. Under Mao, everyone was a slave except for a tiny, party elite. Today there is still a large slave underclass, although some non-elite Chinese are beginning, slowly, to find a political voice and, now and then, some real power.

South African Apartheid: A generation of college students came of age hating and protesting that regime. Yet apartheid at its worst appears no worse than Dubai, and much better than China under Mao (no mass starvation, nor total economic collapse, for example). Indeed, even under apartheid there was genuine democracy (for the white minority), which made it easier (although still not easy) to form a more universal democracy once aparthied fell. We still don't have meaningful political parties or national voting in places like China, or Dubai.

I am not suggesting that apartheid was acceptable, or justified; I am just puzzled as to why one transition met with so much rancor in the West, while other transitions are met mostly with a shameful shrug (this post being an exception to that general rule).
 
Colette Grace Mazzucelli

July 20, 2009

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
These are very important points, John. I had not realized that the economic system there has a feudal base. That kind of system in inherently fragile, I believe, in the face of the transformations sweeping across Asia, which are likely to extend to the Middle East and the Gulf in time.

I wonder the extent to which the 'culture of hope,' which one can sense even in the slums of India, will be able to rival the 'culture of humiliation' the economic hardships impose on young populations across the Middle East? I read Dominique Moisi's book, 'The Geopolitics of Emotion,' which is a fascinating read in this context. All the best and greetings from New York, Colette
Tags: | Modernization |
 
Donald  Stadler

July 20, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Colette,

I read a magazine piece recently done by an investigative journalist. He went undercover to a city in the Dubai interior which houses menial workers, 300,000 strong. Many are recruited from Bangladesh and other poor Muslim countries, also the Phillipines I think. There are major abuses, passports are consfiscated, etc. These are the service staff in Dubai's hotels and restaurants, Dubai's construction workers. They are perhaps not quite slaves but also are not free.

Even the relatively rich expats are in a more precarious postion than they think. They are utterly dependent on the job, there is no social welfare system. If they incurr debts they cannot pay they may end up in debtors prison. With the real estate crash in 2008, many expats who owned real estate with a mortgage found themselves underwater. If they then lose their jobs - in a horrible labor market.... Well, the wise ones drive to the airport and buy a one-way ticket back home. You don't want to default on debts in Dubai....
 
Donald  Stadler

July 20, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I almost took a job in Dubai in 2003, and again this year when I was out of work. But it's only worth it because of the large salaries which used to be available. One is wise to save one's money to return to a western country with savings. Do not settle there.
 
Joseph Froilan Madrid Liwanag

July 20, 2009

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dubai is a typical example of the modern globalization and its free zones are a full application of the free trade doctrine. With all the investment that the free zones produce, and all the offshore businesses it houses. It is evident that a profit maximizing entity would often lead into the exploitation of its current resources (and often than not, human labor is the easiest to be exploited specially on an urban setting).

And I believe without welfare reforms then there will be further exploitations stemming from the "export poverty" wherein low-skilled people from poverty-stricken areas are pushed to migrate and accept these gruelling conditions inorder to feed their families back at home. These people are typically the live-in domestic helpers, construction workers, and other blue-collar workers who are subject to restrictions and other conditions. Welfare systems should be taken into consideration at this point considering the volatility of markets and employment in this particular area.
 
Donald  Stadler

July 21, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dubai is a highly atypical example of 'globalisation', and slavery is not free-trade at all; it is the antithesis of free trade.

Look around you at Germany. Goermany is as 'typical' as anywhere. No slavery. Not that I particularly admire Germany's adaptation to globalisation but I refuse to vilify it either. All countries have problems with globalisation - it produces a set of pressures which all players adapt or (or maladapt to) in different ways. The German system works well for some, not nearly so well for others. Similar remarks can be made about the UK, US, France, etc. Or even the seeming 'winners' in India and China, because globaliation has created inequality of staggering proportions in those countries....
 

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org


Community

You are in the archive of all articles published on atlantic-community.org from 2007 to 2012. To read the latest articles from our open think tank and network with community members, please go to our new website