David Conn on Abu Dhabi and Human Rights

[MCFC-alan88]

Jewish man writes negative story about Muslim country. Next.

These sort of comments really piss me off. They're moronic and insulting, as well as racist. You might have a case if Conn hadn't written so disparagingly about the Glazers. Who are also Jewish.

I think you mean Xenophobic.

 

[bluethunder]

Garbage absolute garbage.......Sheikh Mansour probably doesn't even have a say in how his country is run nor does he have a say in politics. Not all Sheikhs are politicians some of the most successful ones can be fringe Royal Family members with good business acumen aka AlWaleed bin Talaal in Saudi.

Plus how about we ask if the people in the UAE hate their government last time I heard the Emiratis didn't exactly protest in the streets calling for regime change.

I would say the main motive for Sh. Mansour in buying Man City was to strengthen his countries economy and tourism through branding and recognition .

you don't have to buy a club to do that. you can sponsor stadiums and football shirts. you can buy advertising spots. no need to buy a club at all.

the UAE relies too much on its oil (which is going to run out soon), so what their doing is buying companies with potential, companies that can one day provide an income stream.

these guys in abu dhabi are always looking for business opportunities.

 

[MCFC-alan88]

I would say the main motive for Sh. Mansour in buying Man City was to strengthen his countries economy and tourism through branding and recognition .

you don't have to buy a club to do that. you can sponsor stadiums and football shirts. you can buy advertising spots. no need to buy a club at all.

the UAE relies too much on its oil (which is oing to run out), so what their doing is buying companies with potential, companies that can one day provide an income stream.

Much like Dubai have had to scramble to do. Fortunately AD have had the foresight to invest beforehand.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

sorry for my english,i just registered to tell you guys my point of view considering i"m emarati
first of all ,most of those who were arrested are egyptians ,they wanted many things but mainly they wanted a muslim regime ,just like muslim brotherhood in Egypt."current regime is sunni,liberal"
nobody here agrees with torture ,i think arresting them would do just enough,but we also don't want people from outside our country telling us what to do with our country. no emaratis went out to protest ,it was just egyptians who wanted to end our regime
they have no right whatsoever to try and end the current regime because its not really their country is it?

and may i just say ,im not really proud of uae human rights record ,but at least its by miles better than any other arab country, it is a start right?.

Welcome to the forum.

Of course it's a start. The UAE has come a long way since 1971 and will continue to develop. The UK has been developing politically for more than a thousand years and we still fall short in many ways. We too have Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose their values on the rest of us and if they step out of line, then we deal with them. Some would say that we are too soft but we have a greater tolerance, due to the fact we are a mature democracy and that we are a much more homogenous society, shaped by many immigrants from different countries and cultures. The difference is that in our case, most of those have integrated and absorbed those values, while still retaining their own culture.

 

[MCFCinUSA]

We should all be aware of and concerned about human rights abuses and the fact that we're City supporters shouldn't close our eyes to this. All the owners of the big clubs are dubious in some way or other.

The Glazers and their business practices, hiding behind tax havens and entities that restrict disclosure of their financial affairs.
At Arsenal there is Kroenke, part of the Walmart-owning family, a business which is notorious for its exploitation of its workforce. Then there's Usmanov, a friend of the Russian and Uzbek regimes, whose human rights abuses are worse than anything in Abu Dhabi.
Chelsea - for Abramovich see Usmanov.

Conn has written critical articles about all these. Why should he sacrifice his principles just because of the club he supports? It would be as hypocritical as the Catholic hierarchy protecting paedophile priests.

You could also look at it the other way and say that articles like this are more likely to embarrass the UAE and make them change their ways.

first decent comment I've read in this thread PB, where's Mansour's Tow Ropes?

;o)

(and three pages is probably all I've got to sample to know better than to bother with the next 10 of them)

 

[bluenova]

Garbage absolute garbage.......Sheikh Mansour probably doesn't even have a say in how his country is run nor does he have a say in politics. Not all Sheikhs are politicians some of the most successful ones can be fringe Royal Family members with good business acumen aka AlWaleed bin Talaal in Saudi.

Plus how about we ask if the people in the UAE hate their government last time I heard the Emiratis didn't exactly protest in the streets calling for regime change.

He's deputy prime minister - which makes him one of the most senior cabinet members in the UAE.

I can't comment in much detail on the politics of UAE as I'm not an expert either, but it is a country where almost 90% of the population aren't Emiratis, and therefore have few political rights, where other political parties aren't tolerated, and where there are numerous laws restricting freedom of political expression.

Titles in our part of the world are thrown about lightly, power is probably concentrated to the President of the UAE and other Sheikhs of the various Emirates. 90% of the population are expats as the UAE has a relatively small population. There aren't any countries that I know off that give foreign citizens political power in a foreign nation. The citizens of the UAE are relatively well off and live in a welfare state so they really don't complain.

I would say the main motive for Sh. Mansour in buying Man City was to strengthen his countries economy and tourism through branding and recognition which is what Qatar is doing in buying PSG and putting their name in various football shirts. I wouldn't call the Sh. Mansour as someone who is deliberately buying Man City to cover nefarious human rights abuses in the UAE.

Titles may be thrown about lightly but it looks to me like he's pretty much at the top of the tree politically. Also, many countries will give foreign citizens rights if they work there long enough, and in many places you can vote relatively quickly after arriving - whereas in the UAE it's just about impossible to become a citizen without marrying a current citizen. It's more of an issue when the population is nearly 90% expats, many of who have already lived there for a couple of decades of more. What happens 20-30 years down the line when the majority of kids born in the country will be non-citizens?

I totally agree with your second point though (and said something similar in my first post on this thread). Owning City is more likely to bring human rights abuses to the attention of more people - and it looks like it's Amnesty International who are using the link to raise awareness.

 

[MCFCinUSA]

I've just read some of the stuff on page 10, and it's an embarrassment.

Football supporters.. and I'm one of them...

Shameful.

 

[Q8-Blue]

Titles may be thrown about lightly but it looks to me like he's pretty much at the top of the tree politically. Also, many countries will give foreign citizens rights if they work there long enough, and in many places you can vote relatively quickly after arriving - whereas in the UAE it's just about impossible to become a citizen without marrying a current citizen. It's more of an issue when the population is nearly 90% expats, many of who have already lived there for a couple of decades of more. What happens 20-30 years down the line when the majority of kids born in the country will be non-citizens?

The Gulf states get a lot criticism (sometimes justified) for not granting expats citizenship after x number of years, or not giving those born in Gulf state nations citizenship. But our countries have relatively new fledgling economies. The sizes of our countries are very small compared to the EU or the US and Canada. Also we already have political, religious, ideological divisions already bringing in more people and creating more of those divisions will cause a huge imbalance in demography and can disintegrate any homogeneity that exists already. The last thing I want for any of the Gulf States is to be in the situation that Syria or Egypt are currently in.

 

[bluethunder]

Titles may be thrown about lightly but it looks to me like he's pretty much at the top of the tree politically. Also, many countries will give foreign citizens rights if they work there long enough, and in many places you can vote relatively quickly after arriving - whereas in the UAE it's just about impossible to become a citizen without marrying a current citizen. It's more of an issue when the population is nearly 90% expats, many of who have already lived there for a couple of decades of more. What happens 20-30 years down the line when the majority of kids born in the country will be non-citizens?

The Gulf states get a lot criticism (sometimes justified) for not granting expats citizenship after x number of years,

at the end of the day it is their country, if they want/don't want to grant citizenship to foreigners they will do just that.

 

[SupermanUnderpants]

Six points to make myself:

One: The word regime is used too much. this regime, that regime, Saddam regime, Assad regime, Taliban regime, fucking old, new and Holistic regimes. I'm regimed out, find another word please.

Two: Just because our country or "The West" has certain values and beliefs doesn't mean every other nation on the planet has to adhere to what we see as right and wrong. This in itself would be oppressive of us against others? To force our beliefs onto another isn't how we fix this. In time, people, countries find their own way. We can guide and advise but less meddling and economic assassinations along way would help.

Three: Conn was right to write this article, there'e no shame in someone writing a report exposing certain truths no matter how hurtful or wrong you may think they are, if its happened or is happening thats what journalists do, they report, it's called news.

Four: To put it bluntly, Everyones shit stinks. There isn't one country on the planet who has major issues that are skirted around, brushed under the carpet, denied or concealed.

Five: The major issue here is disparity of wealth. The growing distance between the haves and have nots is what is driving these movements the world over not just with in Islamic countries but look to Brazil, or here in our own country, A country where every tax payer owns the bank yet hasn't a pot to piss in. In our own City where according to official figures Manchester only has 30 people living on the streets homeless.

Six: Oil for all thats been made good from it, is probably the biggest cluster bum fuck the world has seen or will ever see. Its the biggest driver of greed and largest blood spiller we have discovered and covet. Yet it bank rolled our owners and club, what a fucking world we live in right.

I understand people wanting to defend the club but this is bigger than some "muppet journo" trying to make City look bad, this is the real world we live in. I mean this article in comparison to some out right racist and xenophobic articles i have read about City and our owners, this one has some merit.

 

[bluenova]

Titles may be thrown about lightly but it looks to me like he's pretty much at the top of the tree politically. Also, many countries will give foreign citizens rights if they work there long enough, and in many places you can vote relatively quickly after arriving - whereas in the UAE it's just about impossible to become a citizen without marrying a current citizen. It's more of an issue when the population is nearly 90% expats, many of who have already lived there for a couple of decades of more. What happens 20-30 years down the line when the majority of kids born in the country will be non-citizens?

The Gulf states get a lot criticism (sometimes justified) for not granting expats citizenship after x number of years, or not giving those born in Gulf state nations citizenship. But our countries have relatively new fledgling economies. The sizes of our countries are very small compared to the EU or the US and Canada. Also we already have political, religious, ideological divisions already bringing in more people and creating more of those divisions will cause a huge imbalance in demography and can disintegrate any homogeneity that exists already. The last thing I want for any of the Gulf States is to be in the situation that Syria or Egypt are currently in.

Nothing is simple in this world sadly. I've probably taken this off topic with the comment, but I was just curious what might happen in twenty years time. First generation expats might grumble about the situation but to an extent they chose to move. What happens when you have a majority of the younger population who have no rights in the only country they ever lived in? The poster above from the UAE makes some good points, but in a few years there will be hundreds of thousands of 'Egyptions' who were born in the UAE. It's a situation that would be better dealt with gradually, rather than allowed to simmer over in the future.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It's a bit left-field but has anyone considered the possibility that Conn, having been granted unprecendented access by the owners, might just be the conduit for the more progressive elements in the UAE, who might be the ones close to the club?

 

[mcmanus]

Titles may be thrown about lightly but it looks to me like he's pretty much at the top of the tree politically. Also, many countries will give foreign citizens rights if they work there long enough, and in many places you can vote relatively quickly after arriving - whereas in the UAE it's just about impossible to become a citizen without marrying a current citizen. It's more of an issue when the population is nearly 90% expats, many of who have already lived there for a couple of decades of more. What happens 20-30 years down the line when the majority of kids born in the country will be non-citizens?

The Gulf states get a lot criticism (sometimes justified) for not granting expats citizenship after x number of years, or not giving those born in Gulf state nations citizenship. But our countries have relatively new fledgling economies. The sizes of our countries are very small compared to the EU or the US and Canada. Also we already have political, religious, ideological divisions already bringing in more people and creating more of those divisions will cause a huge imbalance in demography and can disintegrate any homogeneity that exists already. The last thing I want for any of the Gulf States is to be in the situation that Syria or Egypt are currently in.

Don't worry pal, we used to brutalise half the known world at the barrel of a gun. We just let the USA torture ours nowadays but you can't beat a story about them bad muslims .

 

[Q8-Blue]

Nothing is simple in this world sadly. I've probably taken this off topic with the comment, but I was just curious what might happen in twenty years time. First generation expats might grumble about the situation but to an extent they chose to move. What happens when you have a majority of the younger population who have no rights in the only country they ever lived in? The poster above from the UAE makes some good points, but in a few years there will be hundreds of thousands of 'Egyptions' who were born in the UAE. It's a situation that would be better dealt with gradually, rather than allowed to simmer over in the future.

I am not sure if the UAE have this law, but in Kuwait expats have to 'retire' and leave the country at 60, if their employers are good enough they'll give them a nice paycheck for services rendered etc. This law though isn't enforced all the time (as with most laws in the country) and you can see expats whose grand parents migrated to Kuwait and had their grand kids in the country. Expats tend to congregate among themselves and in their communities they never really adopt a gulf identity or wear distinctive gulf clothing and speak in a gulf accent. A lot of expats leave to visit their families annually and stay in touch with their home countries. I would say that if you ask any expat on the street what he would want to change about immigration laws they would probably state that they'd want permanent residency over citizenship any day. So to answer your question I don't really foresee any major movement by expats for political rights, labor laws though I can see expats rallying for those though (and with good reason).

 

[Blue Haze]

You mean to tell me, David, that a Middle Eastern country doesn't have full civil rights? You don't say! Next you'll tell me Abramovich is involved with Putin.

David Conn on yet another one of his moral crusades. Anyone who doesn't know that the UAE is an essentially absolute monarchy from the Middle East would learn something from Conn; anyone else already knows this.

 

[Ahmed]

I totally agree with Prestwich_Blue.

 

[moomba]

I'm struggling to work out why we are involved in this. If Conn wants to write about human rights abuses then so be it. But making it about us just stinks of sensationalism to me.

 

[Jumanji]

I'm struggling to work out why we are involved in this. If Conn wants to write about human rights abuses then so be it. But making it about us just stinks of sensationalism to me.

Exactly, it will tarnish our name. People will will just read the headline and assume our good club is associated with human rights violations.

Conn will certainly get the pay-per-clicks he was fishing for...no doubt about that.

 

[Skashion]

Yep, pretty much. Human Rights Watch - often guilty of making excessive claims, state they are using us as a vehicle to escape condemnation about human rights abuses, but that doesn't ring true at all. We are being used as a vehicle to promote their name for tourism purposes. As part of a vision to diversify their economy beyond oil. We are turning attention towards the country with the Premier League's global audience, and in turn towards their human rights record as well. How much do you hear about Yemeni breaches of human rights? Is it more than Emerati or Qatari or Bahrani breaches, I'd say no, despite their breaches of human rights being on a par with the latter two and greater than the Emerati breaches.

Does the mainstream media talk less about human rights abuses in the UAE because we are owned by Sheikh Mansour? I would say no. I'd say quite the opposite, I'd say this story has happened BECAUSE we are owned by Sheikh Mansour.

What about governments? The reason western governments don't talk about human rights abuses in the UAE is because the UAE is an ally. Saudi abuses (far worse than Emerati abuses) are likewise swept under the carpet, and it's not because they own a football club. It's because they are dependable allies who buy billions in British and American military equipment. BAE are more responsible than we are, but I don't blame them either.

So, how does Manchester City's ownership distract from the UAE's human rights record? It doesn't. The best Conn can do is to say that Khaldoon went with Sheikh Mohammed to see our foreign secretary to discuss military cooperation. But what on Earth does that have to do with the human rights record of the UAE? Nothing, it has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The UAE does not use British military cooperation to suppress human rights, it doesn't even use tanks, planes and guns. It uses the police force, its courts and prisons.

I see one motivation behind Manchester City being mentioned both by HRW and by Conn, and it is to use our name to attract attention. Sheikh Mansour isn't using us to distract attention from human rights. The attention isn't there anyway. Rather, it is HRW and Conn who are using our name to attract attention to the issue. Whether out of fine motive or not, I don't know, but that is what they are doing.

 

[Impeccable One]

Lets keep this simple. If you ruled a country that made you immensely wealthy and you knowingly committed human rights violations, do you a) Buy a sports franchise and build it in to something that draws global attention to your situation or b) Keep quiet, enjoy the lifestyle and generally try to keep your head down ?