Posts Tagged ‘Emirates’

The Gospel according to Jim Krane: Dubai as savior of the Middle East, Palestinians

Monday, September 7th, 2009

Note: Posting will be more sporadic going forward. Now’s the time, if there ever was one, to hook up Google Reader and add this blog as an RSS feed, so your Reader will magically tell you when I’ve written something new.

Dubai in the 1960s.

Dubai in the 1960s.

Over at Steve Clemons’s The Washington Note, guest poster Jim Krane whipped up a storm last week by claiming that Dubai offers up an ideal model, one that other countries in the region should emulate. Call it the “Arabs need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps” theory. I’m actually having a really difficult time trying to summarize the post, which is just all over the place, but I’ll give it a shot anyway:

  • The U.S. is prolonging the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and otherwise bringing destruction to the region.
  • The U.S. can’t fix the Middle East. The U.S. didn’t help Dubai. Arab countries need to serve their own interests.
  • How?  Follow Dubai’s business-before-politics model. Don’t bother trying to help the Palestinians or complaining about Israel.

Then, watch how Krane parries the straw-man counterargument!

But wait, Dubai is in financial trouble. How could it be a role model?

Dubai’s downturn is temporary. Being one of the world’s most globalized cities, it couldn’t help but be infected by a global recession. The contagion kneecapped each one of its economic pillars: Shipping, logistics, tourism, and its binging real estate sector. Most of these pillars remain sound.

I guess he meant to say temporarily kneecapped? Bit of a strong word for something that remains “sound.”

The whirlwind, logic-free tour continues, with a reminder of the controversy from 2006 when a Dubai-based firm bought the operations of some U.S. ports.

Then we arrive at my favorite part of his incoherent evangelism:

The Dubai model is a mixture of social freedom, unbridled immigration, and raw capitalism. It is overseen by a government that is one of the world’s least democratic. This is no accident. Dubai avoids both elections and the Arab obsession with politics, especially the syndrome of feeling slighted by the West.

The writing is, if you haven’t been able to tell already, a train-wreck. “Unbridled immigration”? I suppose by unbridled he means to say unregulated and prone to coercive practices. Near the end, he concedes that the labor market is “abusive,” the dependence on the real estate market is crippling, and “raw capitalism” and its attendant consumerism also mean unbridled pollution and general deterioration of the environment.

But let’s ignore all that, and focus on the best part of Dubai: it is undemocratic, so it doesn’t have to deal with pesky elections or ideas of citizenship that demand engagement and involvement from the people of the country. Instead, citizenship in Dubai is predicated purely on transfers of wealth and privilege from the government to its citizens.

If Dubai wasn’t autocratic, think of how terrible it would be! Guest workers would (hopefully? eventually?) have a voice, or at least the ability to advocate for themselves without being subject to arrest.

Putting aside arguments about the inherent strengths and weaknesses of democracy, it’s absolutely daft to call Dubai a model that could be replicated elsewhere in the Arab world. I’m sure that if the Palestinians had a booming real estate market and large petroleum/natural gas reserves, the Emirati self-help model would serve them well. But as it stands, I don’t think the Gazans can count on tourism to fix their problems.

If you build it, will they come? Capital investment in the Gulf

Tuesday, September 1st, 2009
Burj Dubai, the tallest man-made structure in the world. Burj means tower in Arabic.

Burj Dubai, the tallest man-made structure in the world. Burj means tower in Arabic.

Brian Stelter wrote yesterday in the business section of the nytimes about the fallow film production studios in Dubai. Check the great lede:

When the heiress Paris Hilton traveled here in June and July to audition female friends for her show “My New BFF,” her producers had access to state-of-the-art studios and a government eager to import a touch of Hollywood glamour to the Middle East.

But to adhere to the region’s Islamic norms, many of the ingredients in reality TV were taboo: there would be no drinking, no cursing, no dramatic displays of affection. The producers thought about filming a scene at a water park, but passed on the option of dressing the contestants in religiously appropriate swimwear.

I do have to fault the article for relying on the simple equation of Hollywood/America = Sex. After all, not all American films revolved around sex–though if they are set in the Middle East, they’re probably about terrorism and oil.

“Syriana” and “The Kingdom” were both filmed in Dubai (though arguably, that was a win/win for both Dubai and the filmmakers, since it let the filmmakers approximate Saudi Arabia–while Dubai could make themselves look better, at the expense of Saudi’s flaws). But to date, they are the only Western films to be partially made in the Emirates.  I have to wonder, why was “Body of Lies,” a similar political thriller about terrorism, turned down in 2007? Maybe Dubai doesn’t want to get typecast …

This month, the government rejected the request from the producers of the sequel of “Sex and the City,” which was to be partially set in Dubai:

Dubai Studio City’s facilities have been used in 26 feature films, mostly from gulf countries and Bollywood. … In rejecting the request from the producers of the “Sex and the City” sequel this summer, Mr. Sharif said, the authorities took into account “the multicultural fabric of the society and its perceptions.”

According to a government official familiar with the script, its plot lines — with the women coming to Dubai, spending money lavishly and cavorting — were perceived to reinforce negative stereotypes about the region.

Good luck with that. When I was in Doha, and told female (khalijeeat) acquaintances that I had lived in New York City, they immediately asked if it was like “Sex and the City.” Some of them wanted nothing more than to move there and live like Carrie Bradshaw and the rest of them. So are the censoring authorities more afraid of stereotypes of the Gulf, or of their women following the Western example?

And so the article goes, assessing the hurdles to film production in Dubai, including failed co-productions (the abysmal “Shorts,” which just opened to pathetic box office returns in America). The articles focuses on Islamic law and censorship as the principal problem for the Gulf’s investments:

Dubai, its rival Abu Dhabi and other Persian Gulf cities face enormous hurdles as they try to diversify their economies by fostering creativity and becoming entertainment capitals. Chief among those hurdles: they operate under Islamic law. Hollywood does not. So far, the oil-rich countries have proved more able to pay for fancy media productions and to build expensive film facilities than to actually lure production to the Middle East, as economic efforts run up against their traditional values and censorship.

The article also ends on this note:

Even more than the staff issues, enduring issues of censorship may be the most stubborn hurdle for the gulf region — even if, as Mr. Hirschorn jokingly said, “our government censor turned out to be a really nice guy.”

Perhaps that’s part of the problem. Perhaps that’s why (DUH) a Paris Hilton reality TV show probably won’t have much to with the Gulf.

But the real problem in my eyes is not the strict moral codes in the Gulf countries, but the failure of their labor markets. The piece briefly touches on this point:

Some of the other hurdles are logistical. For instance, local requirements for full-time work visas mean that the country lacks a robust freelance market to support productions. Jamal al-Sharif, the executive director of Dubai Studio City, which was founded in 2005 to stimulate the regional film industry, acknowledged that “a vital ingredient for building the film industry is access to talent.”

The current business model of Hollywood is dependent on putting together “packaged” deals. Essentially, every film is established as a singular corporate entity, a one-0ff, a model that requires a lot of flexibility–negotiations must occur between every component part in a film production.

This essentially means that the talent–not just actors, writers, directors, but the production assistants, set designers, everyone beyond the camera and behind the scenes–must be brought in to Dubai for one movie. And then, once the production is over,  everyone goes home–because the countries’ visa laws won’t permit unemployed foreigners to remain in the country.

There is no efficiency involve. The Emirates doesn’t have taxes, but that doesn’t negate the expense required to move an entire production–full of all these moving parts, subject to shifting negotiations–to a country far away. And it’s not like someone can stick around after the filmmaking is done, or if something changes in the negotiations and participants need to shift around–visas in the Gulf countries are subject to strict regulations. Lose your current job, and you must leave.

The Gulf’s labor laws are one of the biggest problems in capitalizing on their outsized capital investments. Places like the Media Zone in Abu Dhabi or Education City in Doha won’t flourish on their own. Regardless of their stellar, expensive facilities, these places actually require even more, continuous investments in human capital. Skilled workers, whether engineers or educators or filmmakers or journalists, must be recruited from the West or other Arab countries and brought over on a case-by-case basis. And once again, it’s not terribly easy to change jobs once you’re in country–don’t count on an unemployment period for job hunting, because even as a Westerner or a fellow Arab, you will be deported.

This is to say nothing of the unskilled laborers, working in the Gulf. For more on them, read this lengthy investigative article I wrote while in Doha. It also delves a little deeper into the problems of the labor laws if you’re curious on that count.

In the end, if the Gulf countries want to make the most of their investments, it’s not the morality laws that need to be changed. It’s the labor laws.

The dark side of Dubai

Monday, August 10th, 2009

Migrant construction workers in Dubai, easily identified by their uniform jumpsuits.

Migrant construction workers in Dubai, easily identified by their uniform jumpsuits.

I’ve written about the Gulf before; WaPo published a length piece about the plight of foreign workers, caught between the economic downturn and the legal/political systems of the autocratic Gulf states. These countries’ restrictive labor laws and lax enforcement of labor protections allow abuse to flourish. I wrote about the workers in Qatar here. The working man isn’t really covered here, but I can’t blame WaPo for focusing on the more glamorous side, the glittering towers on the seaside.

Herve Jaubert, a French spy who left espionage to make leisure submarines for the wealthy, was riding high.

Bankrolled by Dubai World, a government-owned conglomerate, he built a submarine workshop on the Persian Gulf, lived rent-free in a villa with a pool and tooled around town in a red Lamborghini. He had two Hummers. He vacationed with local plutocrats.

Jaubert said he heard whispers about Dubai’s darker side — the abuse of desperate laborers from impoverished Asian lands, the jailing of the occasional Westerner who crossed a sheik — but “I brushed it all off. I saw glamour. I saw marble columns, mirrors and money.”

To say nothing of the less fortunate–the non-Westerner working in a Gulf country. But even Western countries are not inclined to criticize the governments of countries that host naval ships or ports or bases (Bahrain, Qatar, Dubai), and the U.S. nearly struck a nuclear deal with Dubai until that unfortunate video of a member of a royal family torturing an Afghani grain merchant.

Today, the former intelligence operative, who fled Dubai last summer in a rubber dinghy, is a wanted man. In June, a Dubai court convicted him in absentia on charges of embezzling $3.8 million and handed down a five-year sentence, plus a big fine. Jaubert, speaking recently at his new home near West Palm Beach, Fla., said he stole nothing and vowed never to set foot in Dubai again. He said he fled because of gruesome threats by interrogators to stick needles up his nose and what he described as constantly shifting, and all bogus, accusations relating to bullets, murder and the finances of Dubai World’s now-defunct luxury submarine subsidiary.

“If I hadn’t escaped, I’d be in the same hell as everyone else,” said Jaubert, one of scores of expatriate business people in this gleaming city-state who have been accused of crimes — and, in some cases, jailed for long periods without being charged.

Jaubert’s troubles began two years ago when Dubai’s then-booming economy was showing the first faint signs of strain. Local stock and property prices have since swooned, and the tempo of arrests for alleged business misdeeds ranging from a dud check — a criminal offense here — to serious fraud has picked up sharply.

Dubai’s government declined to comment on Jaubert’s allegations of mistreatment, but it has targeted what it sees as dodgy dealmakers and deadbeat debtors, and has declared “no tolerance” of “anybody who makes illegal profits.” For many expatriates, however, this smacks of a hunt for foreign culprits to blame for the sheikdom’s sliding economic fortunes.

The last part seems slightly speculative. A massive, widespread boom in wealth hides the drain of corruption, or the flaws of a bad business plan. So perhaps, the crackdown on foreigners is more due to the abating tolerance of the ruling elite for failure. Seriously, the ex-French spy was building luxury submarines … Not the brightest business plan. But also, probably not his idea in the first–more likely an invitation from a more idiosyncratic member of the royal family. And therein lies the scape-goating. It wasn’t the mismanagement of investments by the royalty; it was the corruption brought by foreigners!

More after the jump:

(more…)