U.A.E. Ambassador and Iran: One Insane Speech Too Many?

It's possible that Iran's Ayatollahs have made one insane speech too many.

A Washington Times article yesterday said that the United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States was okay with using military force to stop Iran's nuclear program. And said so in public.

Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba apparently would like to give sanctions a chance - but if that doesn't change Iran's policy, well: "We cannot live with a nuclear Iran" is the way the article says that he put it.

Apparently other Arab diplomats have said essentially the same thing privately: the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ambassador is the first one to go public.

I don't think this is anything to celebrate: any sort of military strike on Iran is likely to be messy. On the other hand, I'm rather relieved that at least one diplomat from the Islamic world seems to have decided that on the whole, he'd rather be alive, than pretend that Iran is okay because they're "Islamic."

It's a sort of victory for common sense.

Related posts:

• "Zimbabwe, Iran, and Uranium: Oh, Jolly"
  (May 4, 2010)
• "Boobquake! I am Not Making This Up"
  (April 23, 2010)
• "Iran's Need(?) for Power, the Natanz Underground Uranium Enrichment Site, and the IAEA"
  (December 5, 2009)
• "Protesting Election Fraud is 'Waging War Against God' - Ayatollah Khatami "
  (June 28, 2009)
• "Nuclear War in the Middle East: Messy, Lethal, and Brief"
  (December 24, 2007)

In the news:

• "U.A.E. diplomat mulls hit on Iran's nukes"
  The Washington Times (July 6, 2010)

Is the War on Terror a War on Islam? Not Quite

Some people in western countries and some Islamists have common ground. They both think that the War on Terror is a war against Islam.

It's easy to see the war that way. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and similar groups claim to be defending Islam. Attacking these groups can be seen as attacking Islam.

At this point, I'm assuming that these terrorist organizations are related to Islam in about the same way that the Westboro Baptist Church and the Ku Klux Klan are related to Christianity.

When all members of a religious group are also members of the same culture, it's easy to get confused over which values are part of the culture, and which are part of the religion. I think that's part of what's happening in parts of the Islamic world.

Events in Turkey may be an example of this confusion of religion and culture.

Last January an Armenian journalist, Hrant Dink, was killed in Turkey. He was one of those people who say that massive die-off of Armenians toward the start of the 20th century was genocide. That didn't make him popular among what other journalists call "hardline nationalists" in Turkey. In April, three Christians were killed in Turkey. They were involved with the printing of Bibles.

Both times, there were allegations that Turkish police were involved in the killings. In the second case, at least, Turkey's national government is investingating ("Turkey investigates alleged ties between police and alleged killers of Christians").

That news article from The Canadian Press concludes:

""Many Turks are convinced that a so-called "deep state" - a network of state agents or ex-officials, possibly with links to organized crime - periodically targets reformists and other perceived enemies in the name of nationalism.

"Christian leaders have said they are worried that nationalists are stoking hostility against non-Turks and non-Muslims by exploiting uncertainty over Turkey's place in the world.

"The uncertainty - and growing suspicion against foreigners - has been driven by Turkey's faltering EU membership bid, a resilient Kurdish separatist movement and by increasingly vocal Islamists who see themselves - and Turkey - as locked in battle with a hostile Christian West."
(The Canadian Press)

Fatal collisions of religion, culture, and politics have happened before.

Northern European leaders in the 16th century had a very good reason for embracing Martin Luther's ideas. Powers in southern Europe had a head start in developing trade with the rest of the world. They were the rich, powerful, and influential countries: and the northern newcomers wanted a bigger piece of the action.

A stumbling block in the northern princes' path was the Roman Catholic Church. Emphasis on Roman, here. A German monk bent on reform was too good an opportunity to ignore. It's no wonder that Europe's northern states eagerly embraced a religion that was Christian, without politically inconvenient ties to an Italian city-state.

That's an oversimplification, of course. Great sea-changes in a subcontinent's culture and religion can't be detailed in 103 words. But I think that political expedience and economic motives go a long way toward explaining why Germany and the Scandinavian states jumped on the Lutheran bandwagon, and Henry VIII of England set up an independent church in his kingdom.

Half a millenium later, I see a very similar scenario playing out. Some people in Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern states are very rich. Some nations, like Kuwait, even have a generally high standard of living. However, many individuals in the Middle East are far from wealthy, and an end of the oil boom is on the horizon.

Investing in the Future

Some leaders in the Middle East are investing today's oil revenue in education and economic projects. An example is the United Arab Emirates' Dubai (or Dubayy). When oil was discovered in Dubai, in the sixties, the U.A.E. leader Sheik Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum built an up-to-date sea port and airport in Dubai.

Sheik Rashid was no fool. He knew that his land's oil was a source of great wealth that would last - a while. Looking at the few decades of prosperity that drilling for petroleum would yield, he said:

"My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel."
("Sheikh Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum," Emiratweet)

The economic projects of Sheik Rashid and his sons, Sheik Maktoum bin Rashid Al Maktoum, who died in January of 2006, and Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, are still putting the United Arab Emirates on the map: Particularly the tourism industry in Dubai.

An Alternative Response to the 21st Century

Other people in the Middle East see the outside world as a threat. Since their version of Islam seems to be a puree of Mohammed's teachings, ancient cultural traditions like honor killings, and ideas cooked up by their imams, a powerful civilization which values individual freedom and tolerance really is a threat to what they believe, and their way of life.

I think that "Islamists" who hate and fear the west, and believe that the War on Terror is a war of Christianity on Islam are telling the truth: as they see it.

I also think that allowing these religious fanatics and their politically-motivated friends to continue controlling territory and speaking for "Islam" will be a disaster for the world's free nations, and for Islam.

---

About Dubai: I admire what Dubai and the U.A.E. is doing, in general. That doesn't mean that I approve of everything that goes on there ("UAE, Censorship, Shari'a Law, Freedom: So What?" (August 14, 2007)). Even so, I'm impressed with leaders who have the vision to use a fleeting source of wealth for projects that may enrich their people for many generations.

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.

UAE, Censorship, Shari'a Law, Freedom: So What?

I learned something about the United Arab Emirates (UAE) today.

An online discussion brought my attention to the UAE, in a roundabout way. A blogger, who apparently lives in the United States, but needs internet connections for the blog, started the discussion with these words:

"anybody noticed today that blogger is down its down for one day and im still waiting any body having the same problem."

Later, after establishing that "blogger" was usable from a couple points in America, Sweden, and the Sultanate of Oman, the blogger wrote this:

"its not opening the website in uae"

Later:

"maybey etisalat blocked it"

Still later, the blogger seemed to have found the problem. "ok guys i knew the probem its all about our damn intenet service provider their name is etisalat they are blocking all the damn websites i dont what the hell is wrong with them my brother computer has a kind of software that can bypass any website but this software does not work in my computer so i asked my brother if i coud use his computer daiy so he said yes i will try to emai this damn etisaat because bogger website has nothing illegal."

I took a look at the website, "Make Money Online with a 12-Year Old Kid." Aside from the rather bright color scheme, I could find nothing objectionable. "Get into the world of making money online with a 12 years old kid that will teach you the best seo tutorials for optimizing your blog or website," is how the blogger describes the site.

Etisalat is the UAE's government-owned Internet provider. Their website shows a professional, family-friendly set of services.

Checking around, I found a GulfNews.com article, "Don't let your child roam the internet aimlessly" (July 27, 2007), quoting a parent with pre-teen children. "At the moment, the Internet connection we have is the Etisalat one and there are processes in place to stop some sites. They filter all the pornographic sites and the sites that could be harmful to children. I have peace of mind here [in the UAE]. In my home country we don't have this filter."

Sounds very nice. I'm the father of four, and I'm concerned about what my children are exposed to, too.

It's been four hours, so far, since that online discussion started. The blogger still doesn't seem able to get past Etilsalat.

Maybe they've got technical difficulties. It happens.

A little more checking about the UAE showed that it's a small country on the Persian Gulf, relatively wealthy, with a president, and what looks like a good, constitutionally-guaranteed set of human rights. The UAE even has a "moderate foreign policy."

Then, there's what the U.S. Department of State wrote about the UAE, regarding their 2006 human rights behavior.

"Authorities do not commonly screen private correspondence; however, there have been reports of censorship of incoming international mail. The government-owned Internet provider, Etisalat, regularly blocks internet sites that censors determine to be "objectionable" (see section 2.c.)."

"Make Money Online with a 12-Year Old Kid" hardly seems "objectionable," unless a 12-year-old talking about search engine optimization and making money is wrong. Of course, there is that rather loud black-and-yellow design.

More excerpts from the same U.S. State Department page about UAE's human rights practices in 2006:

"The constitution prohibits torture, and there were no reports that government officials employed it; however, courts applying Shari'a (Islamic law) sometimes imposed flogging sentences on both Muslims and non-Muslims as punishment for adultery, prostitution, consensual premarital sex, and for pregnancy outside of marriage. On March 13, a R'as al-Khaimah court sentenced a woman to five years and 150 lashes for adultery, and on June 11 a man was sentenced to be stoned to death for adultery with a maid. The law allows for capital punishment, and, unlike in previous years, capital sentences were carried out." (Emphasis mine.)

"The constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press; however, the government restricted these rights in practice. The government drafts all Friday sermons in mosques and censors private association publications (see section 2.c.). The law prohibits criticism of the rulers, and from acts to create [!] or encourage social unrest." (Emphasis mine.)

And, "Internet Freedom

"The government restricted access to some Web sites on the Internet. Internet chat rooms, instant messaging services, and blogs were monitored. Individuals and groups engaged in peaceful expression of views via the Internet, including by email, without reports of government prosecution or punishment, although there was self-censorship apparent in many chat rooms and blogs." (Emphasis mine.)

I'm all for being tolerant and open-minded, but I'm not sure I like what I see in the UAE. They seem to have constitutional guarantees of human rights, and think that under Shari'a (Islamic law) it's okay stone a man to death for fooling around with a maid. I don't approve of adultery myself, but that seems a little harsh.

I know: it's not my country, and (following, for a very brief moment the principle of moral equivalence) if I can tolerate someone being forced to cover a provocative T-shirt, how can I possibly criticize monitoring chat rooms, blocking websites that a censor doesn't like, or stoning a guy for making out with a maid?

I may not have any business, criticizing the UAE's human rights scorecard.

But I do believe that there's something important to think about here. There will be terribly important decisions made in the next year or so, and I'm pretty sure that some people will question whether it is important to stop Islamic fanatics who want to impose their beliefs, and their laws, on us.

Given what's been going on in the United Arab Emirates, a "moderate" Islamic state, which would you rather live under: UAE rules, or USA rules?